Hello all,

I have been working in the security field for about three years now.  About a year ago, I decided that I wanted to be a Police Officer.  I work with officers on almost a daily basis and decided that that was what I wanted to do with my life.  Through talking with the officers I found out that during the hiring process I would have to take a Lie Detector Test.  Well, I pretty much put up the white flag at that point.  There were certain mistakes that I made when I was 17 that I knew would automatically disqualify me.  I tried some heavy drugs for a very brief period that year and smoked my weight in marijuana ???  That's been years ago now, but I knew that time wasn't a factor when it came to the heavy stuff.  I decided to look a little more into the whole polygraph thing after hearing murmur's from some officers that it was "bullshit" and that's when I came across this site.  That was December of last year.

I studied TLBTLD and read posts on this site for about six months and then finally put my application in in June of this year.  The process was a little drawn out but pretty much stress free until last week when I took my poly.  Well first of all, it was my responsibility to call the polyagrapher to make the appointment.  I called him up on Monday and he asks me how Tuesday morning at 10am sounds.  "That's tommorow!!!!"  I screamed inside my head, but outloud I said "sounds great".  

I get to his office at 9:40 am.  I didn't bring a book like TLBTLD suggests but I was well aware that I might be under surveillance.  I let the secretary know I was there and I sat down.  Literally 30 seconds later a man comes into the waiting room and introduces himself to me and asks me back to his office.  It was Time!!!

I walk into the room and I see a table with a small older looking polygraph machine, a chair on one side and a chair on the other side.  He points to the chair that I assumed was mine and tells me to have a seat.  He seemed like he was in a hurry the whole time.  He pulls out my file and some papers and starts the pre-test almost immediately.  He did seem to be rushing but he was friendly.  He did first give the run down on how the machine works.  Almost word for word the way TLBTLD said he would.  He then tells me that he is going to ask these questions exactly as they will asked on the test.   The two drug questions were, "Have you ever bought or sold any illegal narcotics?"  The truth was yes, I had bought narcotics in my lifetime, but I answered no.
The other one was, "Have you used any illegal drugs in the past 3 years?" The truth was no and I said no.
I flagged both of those as relevant.
The only control question I found was "Have you ever commited a crime that had gone undetected?"  I made him narrow his question by asking about traffic violations and minor things when I was a kid, and he modified it to "Other then what you told me...."  The truth obviously was still yes, I said no...knowing this was a cq.  
So, he then says, I am now going to ask you  questions that I want you to lie to.  On the inside I said "WHAT!!!  This is like a 1/2 and 1/2 directed lie test...This Ain't in the book!!!"  On the outside I said, "OK!"  He says "Are you wearing pants?"  and "Are you wearing a watch?" I did as he instructed abd said no to both.  I said to myself, this is too easy.  He just gave me the questions that I'm going to augment through the roof.
Then he hooks me up to the machine and I feel like I'm going to explode.  My Heart rate had to be 130-140 and my palms started to sweat.  He asked me if I was nervous and I answered yes.  He then goes through his list of questions.  10 total.  4 relevant.  3 irrelevant.  1 control and the 2 directed lie control questions.  I augmented my response to CQ by breathing faster and doing the sphincter tug.  Where I thought I did really well was I didn't aument my response as much on the hidden CQ as I did on the 2 directed lie questions.  
After going through the ten questions once, he leaves the room and comes back in about 5 minutes.  I remained still, as I was still hooked up and just kept my mind clear.  He goes through the questions again and I stay consistant with my augmentations.  This time though, he asks "OTWYTM Have you ever commited a crime that has gone undetected?" a second time.  I answered no and augmented my response again and he waited quite a while before he said, "The test is now over"  He turns off the machine and starts to take everything off of me and says, "The only question that you had a little trouble with was the Undetcted Crime question.  Is there anything that you didn't tell me? "  I said, "As soon as you asked me that question an incident popped up in my head where when I was a teenager I was in Boston and me and a couple of my friends snuck in the back entrance of a movie theater."   He says, "So you saw a movie without paying?"  I said, "Yeah."  So he says, "OK, Now all I do is send the results to the PD and you'll continue on in the process.  I then left.  

It was Over.  I knew by the way he was acting that I passed.  

I went home and smoked a fat joint...Just kidding!!!  Wanted to though.  

Just wanted to let you guys know how much I value this web site.  I wouldn't have even pursued the job if you guys didn't create this site.  Thank you and I truly am Grateful.  

I know this was extremely long and drawn out but after a year of just reading and studying I figured I'd put in my 200 cents.


Grateful  

wrote on Dec 16^th, 2002 at 1:35am:

Hello all, I have been working in the security field for about three years now.  About a year ago, I decided that I wanted to be a Police Officer.  I work with officers on almost a daily basis and decided that that was what I wanted to do with my life.  Through talking with the officers I found out that during the hiring process I would have to take a Lie Detector Test.  Well, I pretty much put up the white flag at that point.  There were certain mistakes that I made when I was 17 that I knew would automatically disqualify me.  I tried some heavy drugs for a very brief period that year and smoked my weight in marijuana ???  That's been years ago now, but I knew that time wasn't a factor when it came to the heavy stuff.  I decided to look a little more into the whole polygraph thing after hearing murmur's from some officers that it was "bullshit" and that's when I came across this site.  That was December of last year. I studied TLBTLD and read posts on this site for about six months and then finally put my application in in June of this year.  The process was a little drawn out but pretty much stress free until last week when I took my poly.  Well first of all, it was my responsibility to call the polyagrapher to make the appointment.  I called him up on Monday and he asks me how Tuesday morning at 10am sounds.  "That's tommorow!!!!"  I screamed inside my head, but outloud I said "sounds great".   I get to his office at 9:40 am.  I didn't bring a book like TLBTLD suggests but I was well aware that I might be under surveillance.  I let the secretary know I was there and I sat down.  Literally 30 seconds later a man comes into the waiting room and introduces himself to me and asks me back to his office.  It was Time!!! I walk into the room and I see a table with a small older looking polygraph machine, a chair on one side and a chair on the other side.  He points to the chair that I assumed was mine and tells me to have a seat.  He seemed like he was in a hurry the whole time.  He pulls out my file and some papers and starts the pre-test almost immediately.  He did seem to be rushing but he was friendly.  He did first give the run down on how the machine works.  Almost word for word the way TLBTLD said he would.  He then tells me that he is going to ask these questions exactly as they will asked on the test.   The two drug questions were, "Have you ever bought or sold any illegal narcotics?"  The truth was yes, I had bought narcotics in my lifetime, but I answered no. The other one was, "Have you used any illegal drugs in the past 3 years?" The truth was no and I said no. I flagged both of those as relevant. The only control question I found was "Have you ever commited a crime that had gone undetected?"  I made him narrow his question by asking about traffic violations and minor things when I was a kid, and he modified it to "Other then what you told me...."  The truth obviously was still yes, I said no...knowing this was a cq.   So, he then says, I am now going to ask you  questions that I want you to lie to.  On the inside I said "WHAT!!!  This is like a 1/2 and 1/2 directed lie test...This Ain't in the book!!!"  On the outside I said, "OK!"  He says "Are you wearing pants?"  and "Are you wearing a watch?" I did as he instructed abd said no to both.  I said to myself, this is too easy.  He just gave me the questions that I'm going to augment through the roof. Then he hooks me up to the machine and I feel like I'm going to explode.  My Heart rate had to be 130-140 and my palms started to sweat.  He asked me if I was nervous and I answered yes.  He then goes through his list of questions.  10 total.  4 relevant.  3 irrelevant.  1 control and the 2 directed lie control questions.  I augmented my response to CQ by breathing faster and doing the sphincter tug.  Where I thought I did really well was I didn't aument my response as much on the hidden CQ as I did on the 2 directed lie questions.   After going through the ten questions once, he leaves the room and comes back in about 5 minutes.  I remained still, as I was still hooked up and just kept my mind clear.  He goes through the questions again and I stay consistant with my augmentations.  This time though, he asks "OTWYTM Have you ever commited a crime that has gone undetected?" a second time.  I answered no and augmented my response again and he waited quite a while before he said, "The test is now over"  He turns off the machine and starts to take everything off of me and says, "The only question that you had a little trouble with was the Undetcted Crime question.  Is there anything that you didn't tell me? "  I said, "As soon as you asked me that question an incident popped up in my head where when I was a teenager I was in Boston and me and a couple of my friends snuck in the back entrance of a movie theater."   He says, "So you saw a movie without paying?"  I said, "Yeah."  So he says, "OK, Now all I do is send the results to the PD and you'll continue on in the process.  I then left.   It was Over.  I knew by the way he was acting that I passed.   I went home and smoked a fat joint...Just kidding!!!  Wanted to though.   Just wanted to let you guys know how much I value this web site.  I wouldn't have even pursued the job if you guys didn't create this site.  Thank you and I truly am Grateful.   I know this was extremely long and drawn out but after a year of just reading and studying I figured I'd put in my 200 cents. Grateful

Dear Grateful,

Did you willfully falsify any applications material regardless of your polygraph results?  If you did not have to take the polygraph, would you have truthfully qualified for the position?

Regards.

Probably not.  The narcotics that I used when I was a teenager probably would have disqualified me.  

Am I qualified???

Absolutely

Quote:

I went home and smoked a fat joint...Just kidding!!!  Wanted to though.

Wow!!  Nice to know a soon to be LE colleague wants to celebrate by lighting up a joint.  Will he be able to resist such temptations when he makes his first seizure of narcotics.   We won't know because we already have the make on the level of integrity here.

If this was a true story, then this might lend credibility to assertions that countermeasures can work.  BUT, it provides even MORE credibility to my arguments about ethical issues here.

Great-ful,

I don't necessarily disagree that your past may not predict whether you are a good person and worthy candidate for law enforcement.  However, your integrity is HUGE in this line of work.  Hope how you started isn't how you conduct yourself throughout your career.  If so you may just become another black eye to the men and women who put in an honest day's work as police officers.

How quick we are to cast the first stone.  I believe he was using this thing called humor when he was referring to lighting up a blunt, however, I do agree that lying is not the best way to start a career in LE, but had he not ommitted the drug use as a teen then he would have no chance for a career in LE anyway.   I don't understand why people can't accept the fact that a person as a teenager and that same person as an adult are two completely different people.  Granted I always kind of knew I wanted to pursue LE as a career and avoided drugs with the exception of Marijuana which I tried as a teen and knew right then and there that drugs were not for me, but many people had no clue what they wanted to be or even who they were as teens.  Some of the best officers I have worked with were not ideal teenagers, but made a change for the better.   Departments that automatically disqualify candidates for using any drug no matter how long ago it was used have got to have the dumbest policy I have ever heard.
Anyway, I wish everyone the best of luck in their pursuits in LE and hope this guy is one of those exceptions and proves people like Public Servant wrong.

Dear dimas,

Once again, your law enforcement experience is showing.  Some of the best enforcers in the nation do their jobs well because they can think similarly to a criminal.  Does this make them a criminal?  Have they done illegal acts in the past?  The same logic that defends the ends justify the means in the use of polygraphs ("We get confessions and that is good enough for me regardless of a few people found deceptive that MIGHT actually be innocent") would certainly defend previous drug users if their experiences help stop criminals from performing their trade (who better to find a stash during a raid than an ex-user who needed to stash things in the past?).

Teenage life and decisions are part of a person's period of trying to find themselves and many mistakes are only tried once and quickly acknowledged as not being something that one wants to continue doing in life.

The absolutely perfect applicant does not exist.

Regards.

Public Servant - can you PLEASE pass me some of that Kool-Aid you and your self-righteous ilk are passing around. Integrity -- don't make me laugh. See my comments in the other section about cops and firemen drinking like fish, and then hopping behind the wheel of their cars. As a fireman, I went to countless accident scene where their "brothers in blue" looked the other way at such transgressions. The best was the case where local cops actually arrested an off-duty NYPD officer for drunk driving – and then received death threats at the station for doing so!

Let me trying phrasing this another way – not one of the men and women in blue (and the firemen) who died in 9-11 – not a single one, ever had to take a polygraph exam to get their position. How can the best police and fire departments in the nation (I’m showing my native NY bias) manage to thrive without using polygraphs to screen recruits?

Some of the best cops I know where the biggest druggies when they were teens. People can change -- and using the polygraph to ferret them out, at the very real risk of disqualifying honest candidates, is stupid and unfair.

Wow!!  Jump all over the guy who stands up for integrity in law enforcement!

I never said, I was perfect in my teen years, nor did I say all persons applying to LE jobs should be such.  I've never advocated a cut off for drug use as being an absolute predictor of future behavior in LE.  However, saying you used "heavy drugs" and your weight in marijuana, seems a bit over the top to me. The tone of this post was that of someone proud of getting away with something, not someone who just wanted to fulfill his dream of an LE job.  What will this person want to get away with next...abusing your rights perhaps.

Don't kid yourself about the value of integrity in this job.  Once you are perceived to have lost it, you can never function effectively in LE again.

I hope I am wrong about Great_ful.  The last thing I want is another criminal dressed in cop's clothing!!

Public Servant and others,

I will gladly listen to your pronouncements and pontifications regarding integrity---THE DAY YOU STOP USING POLYGRAPH FORMATS THAT REQUIRE DECEPTION EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU USE THEM!  Until then, hold your phony claims of outrage at the examinee who will return the favor to you when he deceives you about countermeasures.  The FIRST LIE and greatest LIES and most consistent LIES are not those of any examinee, but come from you the polygrapher.  Don't even think of raising such issues until you clean up your own house.

Hello,

Public Servant, Yes I did some things in my past that I regret, and I did lie on my polygraph, (one of few who will admit that, even anonymously, on this website) but I am much older and wiser now and if it was me who was responding to a call that you were involved in,  you couldn't ask for someone more dedicated.  Qualified, no, not yet, that will come with training, but I take this career very seriously and I am honored to be a part of something much bigger then myself or you or this ridiculous test.  

The main reason why LE has to stop giving pre-employment polygraphs is because with enough dedication, it is beatable.  Now I didn't pursue this career for the wrong reasons, but someone very well could.  The background check my department did was a joke, they basically completly relied on the polygraph.  That scares me as it should you.  

I thought it was amusing that you mentioned the narcotics seizure theory.  Do you think I couldn't get drugs now if I wanted them.  Because I was involved with that scene when I was a teenager I have seen personally what drugs have done to people's lives, and yes I was trying to be funny with my comment about the joint, but if you feel that my integrity was compromised by lying on the test, then we'll just have to agree to disagree, because my integrity as a person and as an officer is and will be impecable.

I am a real person, this is a true story. (Slightly altered for my own protection) I decided to tell the truth about my situation on this board so that real people who might have been a little deliquent when they were juviniles might read this and know that there's a chance.    

Grateful

Grate--ful,

I have no problem conceiving of you being a real person with a true story to include your tale of successful countermeasure application.  Prior to several accounts like yours, I would have thought it highly beneficial if not necessary to at least practice with an instrument, but the weight of the anecdotal evidence is beginning to make me think a careful reading and consideration of the points discussed in the The Lie Behind the Lie Detector may well be sufficient for the needs of an examinee who desires to successfully apply countermeasures.  You are quite correct in your assessment that if you can "do it" so can a considerably less desirable applicant, employee, criminal suspect, etc.  The only way to protect innocent examinees without requiring them to use the same countermeasures that will allow an unscrupulous individual to beat the test and harm the system, is to completely end polygraph screening.  No other solution will do.

I certainly was not jumping all over you for standing up for integrity. Integrity is honorable. But I don’t think “Integrity” is synonymous with Law Enforcement. Too many LEO(s) I know drink heavily, drive drunk, and basically hold themselves above the law because flashing their shield will solve 99% of any trouble they may get into. But that is beside the point. What I don’t understand is where the heck integrity fits into a polygraph examination? How does it accurately predict who has integrity and who doesn’t?

stopnik wrote on Dec 20^th, 2002 at 6:45pm:

What I don’t understand is where the heck integrity fits into a polygraph examination? How does it accurately predict who has integrity and who doesn’t?

Dear stopnik,

You bewilderment is justified because there are not any scientific means to predict future behavior.  The NAS study has confirmed that polygraph screening as used in employment examinations by itself has no better ability to predict future spies or security risk than chance guessing (actually even less than chance when you acknowledge that only a small percentage of applicants would be spies to begin with). The polygraph examination has nothing to do with being able to predict behavior.  The examination has everything to do with trying to elicit confessions concerning past behavior.

Regards.

Once again we are treated to a stern and indignant reply regarding the inherent dishonesty built into polygraph formats.... this has been a consistant theme with the loyal few anti-polygraph folks that linger here.  Lets think about this for a moment: somehow it is justified in the name of self preservation (the abuses one will receive if polygraphed) to give advice to an applicant, that is designed to confuse or obstruct the applicant process. It goes without saying that this good advice could be misused by a criminal.  This does not matter however, because the individual is all important in our current time and we should eliminate the polygraph because it hurt me.  (Or at least the agency made it seem that way, since they did not want you anyway...)
We will not listen to or accept the fact that many thousands of applicants every year, find thier polygraph experience routine and uneventfull.  Like the news programs that focus only on the violent and sensational, this site presents a view that is wholly incorrect and self serving.  I might think the US was on the verge of anarchy if all I paid attention to was Dan Rather, likewise I may think that polygraph was a huge plague on American society if I only visited here. My experience in both areas suggest otherwise.
It always makes me chuckle to have my own sucessful experiences with the polygraph minimized or ridiculed by someone not cut out for LE duty, while such importance and faith is placed in various victims tales that are factually incomplete, or embellished in some cases. Why be threatened by an opposing view? The fact that you feel victimized by a process does not mean your story is typical, or even particularly instructive.
So, in some polygraph formats the pre-test is misleading.  As I understand it, that is to help AN INNOCENT PERSON.
So if countermeasures are justified because the polygrapher is lying to you to get you through a process, how bankrupt is your position that it is ok to lie to the liar, when the lie is given to protect you?
You are innocent after all.....

stopnik wrote on Dec 20^th, 2002 at 6:45pm:

What I don’t understand is where the heck integrity fits into a polygraph examination? How does it accurately predict who has integrity and who doesn’t?

stopnik,
IMHO, it doesn't.

The polygraph is a unique sitation, and one a candidate for a job is unlikely to come across otherwise...unless that candidate is tortured for information.  As such, I suppose it might be a good indicator of who will crack and spill his guts under pressure.  Ironic.

Skeptic

wrote on Dec 20^th, 2002 at 7:06pm:

The polygraph examination has nothing to do with being able to predict behavior.  The examination has everything to do with trying to elicit confessions concerning past behavior.

That, and providing "feel-good" political cover for those tasked with improving security.

Skeptic

Breeze,

Go back and read the last several posts on this subject.  The rationale for the ethics of teaching, using, and lying about the use of countermeasures does not have to do with the pandemic lies of polygraphers (which, by the way, are not of benefit to examinees) but because polygraph screening is INVALID, untrustworthy, and likely to victimize innocent examinees who do not employ countermeasures.  Again, let me repeat, the repugnant lies of polygraph screening are simply that--repugnant and reprehensible, but neither the cause nor the foundation for polygraph countermeasures--polygraph error is.

wrote on Dec 20^th, 2002 at 7:06pm:

Dear stopnik, You bewilderment is justified because there are not any scientific means to predict future behavior.  The NAS study has confirmed that polygraph screening as used in employment examinations by itself has no better ability to predict future spies or security risk than chance guessing (actually even less than chance when you acknowledge that only a small percentage of applicants would be spies to begin with).

Actually, IIRC it's even worse:  NAS concluded that the polygraph adds no incremental value to the hiring process.  IOW, there's no reason to use it, and a lot of reasons not to.

Skeptic

The Breeze:

You do raise some valid points. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Many people do pass polygraphs – and consider it a relatively uneventful experience. Quite true. But many of those people who pass are also liars, drug users, etc. Because the polygraph is not a reliable tool. So the fact that people do pass means nothing – because the essential method is flawed. Just because you got lucky and had a positive experience – does not mean others faired as well.

wrote on Dec 20^th, 2002 at 11:10pm:

Once again we are treated to a stern and indignant reply regarding the inherent dishonesty built into polygraph formats.... this has been a consistant theme with the loyal few anti-polygraph folks that linger here.

The inherent dishonesty of polygraph interrogators certainly seems to have been raised often recently. Hooray. Apparently *you* weren't indignant when your polygraph interrogator lied to you in prepping you for your exam-- pardon those of us who are.


Quote:

Lets think about this for a moment: somehow it is justified in the name of self preservation (the abuses one will receive if polygraphed) to give advice to an applicant, that is designed to confuse or obstruct the applicant process.

How is it confusing or obstructing the applicant process to know beforehand that the polygraph as a scientific means of determining truth from falsehood in the screening setting is worthless? Also, why is it acceptable for 'The State' (in this case the polygraph interrogator) to lie to the citizen (in this case the applicant)? Why is it acceptable one way, but not the other?


Quote:

It goes without saying that this good advice could be misused by a criminal.

So? This scenario been mentioned numerous times beforehand in previous discussions on this board. Are the makers of lockpicking manuals and tools to blame for burglaries? Are Chrysler and Ford to blame when a master key is used in a vehicle theft? Is the US Army responsible when one of their manuals is used to construct an explosive device? More dear to your heart The Breeze, are the makers of firearms responsible when someone (other than a defenseless deer) is murdered by gun?


Quote:

This does not matter however, because the individual is all important in our current time and we should eliminate the polygraph because it hurt me.  (Or at least the agency made it seem that way, since they did not want you anyway...)

Wasn't it you who just recently argued that employment should not be witheld based soley upon polygraph results? Didn't you JUST READ ont his board numerous accounts of exactly that happening? You weren't denied your dream job, breeze-- many others here were. So why don't you show some courtesy and respect when those people show a variety of emotions concerning having their dream destroyed by a worthless screening device? By the way, did you ever stop to think that the reason you passed your polygraphs is because you lied during your control questions? How about that, the breeze lied on his polygraph exam!


Quote:

We will not listen to or accept the fact that many thousands of applicants every year, find thier polygraph experience routine and uneventfull.

Yes, about half of them according to recent news reports-- what you would expect according to the NAS report.


Quote:

Like the news programs that focus only on the violent and sensational, this site presents a view that is wholly incorrect and self serving.

'Wholey incorrect and self-serving'. Nice. Wrong, but nice. If you would like balance in your polygraph stories, feel free to visit polygraphplace.com.


Quote:

I might think the US was on the verge of anarchy if all I paid attention to was Dan Rather, likewise I may think that polygraph was a huge plague on American society if I only visited here.

If you visit pro-second amendment websites, all you will read about are infringements on our inalienable right to keep and bear arms, personal accounts of such infringements, news accounts of such infringements, and political work aimed at curtailing such infringments. What do you expect to see at a website titled 'antipolygraph.org'? What would you like to see different here, breeze? You're our token 'I-passed-my-polygraphs-polygraphers-are-super-terrific-guys-you-bunch-of-sore-l
osers' contributor. What more do you want?


Quote:

It always makes me chuckle to have my own sucessful experiences with the polygraph minimized or ridiculed by someone not cut out for LE duty...

Um, hold the phone here. I thought you were one of those sly pro-polygraph types-- you know, the ones who say it's ok to ruin a person's career as long as the polygraph is not the sole determinant of fact?  Since most of the people posting here with negative stories about their polygraph experience were stopped dead in their tracks by the lying polygraph interrogator, with no recourse and no means of appealing his capricious decision, how can we know those people were or were not 'cut out' for law enforcement? So, your nasty little jibe above there seems to be in conflict with what you espoused previously. You weren't engaging in belittling insults just to make yourself feel more important, were you?


Quote:

My experience in both areas suggest otherwise.

I see. So YOUR personal experiences are deemed valid, while OUR personal experiences are not. Let's see, how many polygraphs have you taken over the course of your career? I can't recall if it was 3 or 4, but let's say 4. Now, how many polygraphs are administered in the US yearly? I have no way of knowing that number, but let's say 200,000. You also mentioned your polygraphs spanned the course of your career (as I recall it's coming to a close in the near future) so let's say 15 years. Remember, we can rework these numbers if you'd care to correct me. 15 times 200,000 equals 3,000,000 polygraphs administered. Let's see, your personal polygraph experiences equals an earth-shattering



Wow, you're REALLY an expert on the subject.

Have a nice day officer,

Wow. You not only have a lot of time on your hands you seem as bitter as george. What happened did you also smoke to much pot as a kid and aren't good enough for the job you are applying? Stop crying and deal with it.
Polygraph is here to say.

Polylawman,

In your above quip, you seem to imply that I "smoked pot." This is not the case. I have never smoked pot, nor have I ever used any illegal drug.

While all points of view regarding polygraph matters are welcome here, please do not abuse the anonymity this message board offers by libeling individuals.

wrote on Dec 21^st, 2002 at 5:12am:

Wow. You not only have a lot of time on your hands you seem as bitter as george. What happened did you also smoke to much pot as a kid and aren't good enough for the job you are applying? Stop crying and deal with it. Polygraph is here to say.

Polylawman,
We're still waiting for you to back up your statements regarding recidivism rates.  Until you do so, I would humbly submit that you have exactly zero credibility here -- it's obvious you care nothing for truth or integrity, and are merely here as a troll.

Skeptic

wrote on Dec 21^st, 2002 at 5:12am:

Wow. You not only have a lot of time on your hands you seem as bitter as george.

I'm certain I wrote my previous post faster than you were capable of reading it.


Quote:

What happened did you also smoke to much pot as a kid and aren't good enough for the job you are applying?

Ummmmmmmmmmmm no. I take it that's your version of a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess?


Quote:

Stop crying and deal with it. Polygraph is here to say.

Crying: To sob or shed tears because of grief, sorrow, or pain; weep. That's not it... hmmm.... To demand or require immediate action or remedy: grievances crying out for redress. Ah, that's it!

I decline your request. Here's hoping Santa puts a copy of Webster's New Collegiate and Little, Brown's Handbook of English Grammar 'neath "polylawman's" Christmas tree.

And we were all thinking that Beech Trees had found productive employment, and his donkey was travelling down another more productive path (faster than anyone can write about it).....but no, he's back- and just in time to spread holiday cheer!
I for one welcome you back, who else can be so condescending, arrogant, superficial or inexperienced?  Others had to pull double duty in your absence to pick up the slack you created.
It would help your calculations to include the dozens upon dozens of polygraphs, screening and criminal, that I have been apart of, but you are no doubt feeling witty just including my own personal polygraphs.  You asked what I should expect here, good question.  Let me sum up:
I expect a few inexperienced people such as yourself, with no practical experience other than thier recent "victimization" to dispense faulty advice to those who visit here that may actually want to learn about polygraph.  I expect hysteria, absurd inferences as to other writers intelligence, and superficial fiegned indignation to further your cause.  
I remember reading somewhere where you described your polygraph experiences as a mere formality as you applied sophisticated countermeasures.  I have a challenge of my own ( since its in vogue here ) so you few can advance your cause to the next level:
I propose that you, skeptic, anonymous, stein, Gino, or whomever (george is probably compromised) find agencies that polygraph before a background (your cherished 40%ers) and apply to that agency.  During your polygraph, apply what ever countermeasures are appropriate and then furnish proof on these pages (suitably censored) by posting your notices of passing or appointment letters. Drew or Mark can set up the procedure.
Now I realize what I am proposing amounts to real work on your parts, but why not put your actions where your assertions are? you are fond of telling each other how simple polygraphers are, and how a 10 year old can be taught countermeasures, why not furnish proof?  Think of it, with your actions alone, properly documented and maybe furnished to news organizations- you could advance your languishing cause in a very real way people could understand.
I doubt very seriously if any of you will leave the warmth of this site and become one of George's foot soldiers, its much safer to sound knowledgeable without the threat of continued failure.  When I hear someone like skeptic talk about what a burden it would be to be polygraphed every 5 (!) years as a reason not to seek employment with an agency, cries of BS can be heard!
With your knowledge of the process, and your belief of how polygraph is conducted, a test for employment or periodic screening should be the last thing you are concerned with.
That is unless, you are just not quite sure what your talking about. You will make the random error disappear.
So, until you prove how easy it is to manipulate the process by your own selfless efforts, few will believe you.  We will call this "the anti-polygrapher's dilemma".
Do have a good holiday, and let us know how you intend to proceed.

Breeze,

I respectfully decline your challenge.  I do not believe in countermeasures.  They only promote the "game" of the polygraph - the testee matching wits with the tester.  I don't believe that there should be any game involved.

Unfortunately, the polygraph is nothing more than a mind game, forcing unknowing subjects into the twisted realm of the "truth."  That's why I don't believe in the polygraph.  If the machine itself can't do the job with an acceptable rate of accuracy, then it needs to go.  A point recently proven by the NAS report . . .

Unfortunately, our government is too stubborn to remove the polygraph (at least for screening, where for incident testing the polygraph makes an excellent intimidation tool).  So in order to ensure passing a session with the poly, countermeasures have become a viable option for determinted individuals.  This is wrong for both the person using the countermeasures and the agency who relies on the test results to be accurate.  It is for these reasons I am against the polygraph, and why I will not participate in your challenge.

On another note, Breeze, have you even thought about how we are suypposed to get through the application process of another agency?  In case you haven't read  my personal statement, my FBI polygraph failure has stonewalled me at Treasury, so Customs, DEA, ATF, and USSS are all out of the question.  I don't think there's an agency out there that would let me get that far in the process.  I would if I could -- anything to clear my name.

Chris

I have posted this scenario before and here it is again.

I am too old to ever have to take an employment poly for the fods. I mean feds. However, if I was young enough, wanted to work for them, had to take poly, told the complete truth and failed, I couldn't get to my computer fast enough to start a lawsuit. To hell with that statement (not holding them liable) that they coerced me to sign. They have "charged" me with being a liar, doper, destroyed my credibility,etc., etc. That felonious charge, also, destroyed my chance of employment in my chosen profession. Any time a LE officer, or anyone working in consert with them makes a charge of this magitude and with this kind of distruction should be made to PROVE the charge[s] or pay dearly for said distruction.

A lawsuit, pro se, is not that hard to do. And only $150 filing fee. You can get into any law library you want to on the net. I guess it's easy for me to say because I have studied federal law for years and can file a suit as good as any lawyer. So I have been told by a couple of courts. In my business, mining,
I have to know federal law.

I will also say "if I was guilty of lying and being a doper, I would walk out with my tail between my legs and dig ditches, clean outhouses or something else".

If you told the truth and failed SUE SUE SUE.

Dear Twoblock...does your name have any connection whatsoever with your probable "sterling" career in the Army.  A few friends have asked me about this site and when I just happened to mention that there was a guy named "twoblock" on line, they said I should ask about your OER?  I am not Army, what could they be talking about?  

wrote on Dec 24^th, 2002 at 5:49am:

Dear Twoblock...does your name have any connection whatsoever with your probable "sterling" career in the Army.  A few friends have asked me about this site and when I just happened to mention that there was a guy named "twoblock" on line, they said I should ask about your OER?  I am not Army, what could they be talking about?

Little late in the year for a fishing expedition, isn't it son? Also, could you please rework your lame 'I just happen to mentoin there's this guy named 'twoblock' statement into something even remotely believable? You just pegged the needle on my analog Crap Detector!

Guest

"Twoblock" is a mining term. Don't know what your "friend" is talking about. If you want to continue your research, ask a miner in Alaska what it means.

Thanks for the clarification...but apparently "two block" also has some special connotation when discussing officer evaluation reports

wrote on Dec 24^th, 2002 at 7:36pm:

...but apparently "two block" also has some special connotation when discussing officer evaluation reports

I'm not an Alaskan miner, but I can ellaborate on the Army side of this discussion.  

On the old Officer Evaluation Report (OER), there used to be numbers next to the senior rater evaluation boxes.  The senior rater would mark the box (or block) next to what type of officer he thought you were -- 1 being the best, and 4 meaning you ought to be kicked out of the army.

Over time, the evaluation system became so overinflated that every officer was receiving a top rating, referred to as a "top block" or a "one block."  Any officer who received a "two block" was considered sub-par.  A 3 or 4 was certain death to a career.

5-6 years ago, the Army changed their evaluation system.  The new OER did away with the numbers next to the blocks.  Words accompany the blocks (Above Center of Mass, Center of Mass, Below Center of Mass -- Retain, and Below Center of Mass -- Do Not Retain.  The new system limits a senior rater to  giving out up to 50% of his rating pool in the top block, the rest have to be Center of Mass, or they are automatically downgraded to Center of Mass if the senoir rater gives out too many "top blocks."

People still refer to the Center of Mass rating as a "two block," but with the current evaluation system, it is no longer the kiss of death it once was.  

I, too, wondered why someone would use "two block" as a screen name.  I just assumed it had a different meaning than the Army one I knew.  And I was too embarassed to ask.  

Chris

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2002 at 6:52pm:

...I have a challenge of my own ( since its in vogue here ) so you few can advance your cause to the next level: I propose that you, skeptic, anonymous, stein, Gino, or whomever (george is probably compromised) find agencies that polygraph before a background (your cherished 40%ers) and apply to that agency.  During your polygraph, apply what ever countermeasures are appropriate and then furnish proof on these pages (suitably censored) by posting your notices of passing or appointment letters. Drew or Mark can set up the procedure. Now I realize what I am proposing amounts to real work on your parts, but why not put your actions where your assertions are? you are fond of telling each other how simple polygraphers are, and how a 10 year old can be taught countermeasures, why not furnish proof?  Think of it, with your actions alone, properly documented and maybe furnished to news organizations- you could advance your languishing cause in a very real way people could understand. I doubt very seriously if any of you will leave the warmth of this site and become one of George's foot soldiers, its much safer to sound knowledgeable without the threat of continued failure.  When I hear someone like skeptic talk about what a burden it would be to be polygraphed every 5 (!) years as a reason not to seek employment with an agency, cries of BS can be heard! With your knowledge of the process, and your belief of how polygraph is conducted, a test for employment or periodic screening should be the last thing you are concerned with. That is unless, you are just not quite sure what your talking about. You will make the random error disappear. So, until you prove how easy it is to manipulate the process by your own selfless efforts, few will believe you.  We will call this "the anti-polygrapher's dilemma". Do have a good holiday, and let us know how you intend to proceed.

The public challenges that I have posted here have simply been to polygraphers to publicly document or otherwise support misleading statements that they have publicly made. Those I've challenged include:

Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr. (President, American Polygraph Association)

Frank Horvath (Past President, American Polygraph Association)

Harry Reed (President, Illinois Polygraph Society)

George Slattery (Past President, Florida Polygraph Association)

None have responded.

The Breeze asserts "until you prove how easy it is to manipulate the process by your own selfless efforts, few will believe you." But the information about polygraph countermeasures provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is already well-documented, with references (including peer-reviewed research) that skeptical readers may check for themselves. For any who doubt that the polygraph can be beaten, we have the real-world examples of spies Aldrich Hazen Ames, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Karel Frantisek Koecher, and Ana Belen Montes, all of whom beat the polygraph while commiting espionage against the United States.

By contrast, the claims of polygraphers that they can detect countermeasures are unsupported. The American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, hasn't published a single article setting forth a methodology for the detection of countermeasures. And in peer-reviewed analog studies conducted by Professor Charles R. Honts and collaborators, even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. So Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge calling on the polygraph community to demonstrate its claimed ability to detect countermeasures remains quite apropos.

The unanswered questions posed to breeze... if any other pro-polygraph types would care to respond I'd be happy to read what you have to say.

1. How is it confusing or obstructing the applicant process to know beforehand that the polygraph as a scientific means of determining truth from falsehood in the screening setting is worthless?

2. Why is it acceptable for 'The State' (in this case the polygraph interrogator) to lie to the citizen (in this case the applicant)? Why is it acceptable one way, but not the other?

3. If George is responsible for criminals defeating a polygraph interrogation, are the makers of lockpicking manuals and tools to blame for burglaries? Are Chrysler and Ford to blame when a master key is used in a vehicle theft? Is the US Army responsible when one of their manuals is used to construct an illegal explosive device? More dear to your heart The Breeze, are the makers of firearms responsible when someone (other than a defenseless deer) is murdered by gun?

4. Wasn't it you who just recently argued that employment should not be witheld based soley upon polygraph results? Didn't you JUST READ ont his board numerous accounts of exactly that happening?

5. Did you ever stop to think that the reason you passed your polygraphs is because you lied during your control questions?


6. Since most of the people posting here with negative stories about their polygraph experience were stopped dead in their tracks by the lying polygraph interrogator, with no recourse and no means of appealing his capricious decision, how can we know those people were or were not 'cut out' for law enforcement?

On another note, 'Twoblock' is also a naval term, meaning a safe way to rig a raised object above the deck. It is blocked (block and tackle, i.e. a pulley) both above and below to keep it from smashing into other gear owing to the ship's motion.

George
Your evading.
I do not care that others have not accepted your sites challenge, that is a personal decision.  I do not care that you believe your and Gino's document is the final authoritative word on the matter either.
I have asked why your collection of anti polygraph freedom fighters will not put action to words (endlessly rehashed, check BT's re-warmed response to me) It is a simple proposition.  By your own actions, stop talking about what a ridiculously flawed procedure polygraph screening is and do something about it. Why are you waiting for someone to prove your point by participating in a staged event, or publishing available information for your use?
After you have manipulated the hiring process, post the results to the world, and prove your point with something tangible. (rather than footnotes)
Stein is the only one who had the balls to specifically address the point, while incidently reinforcing one of mine-even though Im sure he did not mean to.
There seems to be a small group of people keeping this site alive with reasonable intelligence and vast amounts of energy (at the keyboard), why is this not translated into something joe average applicant can understand and use to his benefit?
If polygraphers are cowards for not participating in your countermeasure challenge, what label should we apply to someone who lacks the fortitude to back up thier convictions?

Breeze,

Don't even waste your time (let alone ours) with such meaningless posts.  When you decide (if ever) to address George's and BT's last well articulated posts to you, please do respond.  For your easy referral I have included both for you.

Posted by Mr. Maschke:


Quote:

The public challenges that I have posted here have simply been to polygraphers to publicly document or otherwise support misleading statements that they have publicly made. Those I've challenged include: Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr. (President, American Polygraph Association) Frank Horvath (Past President, American Polygraph Association) Harry Reed (President, Illinois Polygraph Society) George Slattery (Past President, Florida Polygraph Association) None have responded. The Breeze asserts "until you prove how easy it is to manipulate the process by your own selfless efforts, few will believe you." But the information about polygraph countermeasures provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is already well-documented, with references (including peer-reviewed research) that skeptical readers may check for themselves. For any who doubt that the polygraph can be beaten, we have the real-world examples of spies Aldrich Hazen Ames, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Karel Frantisek Koecher, and Ana Belen Montes, all of whom beat the polygraph while commiting espionage against the United States. By contrast, the claims of polygraphers that they can detect countermeasures are unsupported. The American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, hasn't published a single article setting forth a methodology for the detection of countermeasures. And in peer-reviewed analog studies conducted by Professor Charles R. Honts and collaborators, even experienced polygraphers were unable to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. So Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge calling on the polygraph community to demonstrate its claimed ability to detect countermeasures remains quite apropos.

Posted by Beech Trees:


Quote:

The unanswered questions posed to breeze... if any other pro-polygraph types would care to respond I'd be happy to read what you have to say. 1. How is it confusing or obstructing the applicant process to know beforehand that the polygraph as a scientific means of determining truth from falsehood in the screening setting is worthless? 2. Why is it acceptable for 'The State' (in this case the polygraph interrogator) to lie to the citizen (in this case the applicant)? Why is it acceptable one way, but not the other? 3. If George is responsible for criminals defeating a polygraph interrogation, are the makers of lockpicking manuals and tools to blame for burglaries? Are Chrysler and Ford to blame when a master key is used in a vehicle theft? Is the US Army responsible when one of their manuals is used to construct an illegal explosive device? More dear to your heart The Breeze, are the makers of firearms responsible when someone (other than a defenseless deer) is murdered by gun? 4. Wasn't it you who just recently argued that employment should not be witheld based soley upon polygraph results? Didn't you JUST READ ont his board numerous accounts of exactly that happening? 5. Did you ever stop to think that the reason you passed your polygraphs is because you lied during your control questions? 6. Since most of the people posting here with negative stories about their polygraph experience were stopped dead in their tracks by the lying polygraph interrogator, with no recourse and no means of appealing his capricious decision, how can we know those people were or were not 'cut out' for law enforcement? On another note, 'Twoblock' is also a naval term, meaning a safe way to rig a raised object above the deck. It is blocked (block and tackle, i.e. a pulley) both above and below to keep it from smashing into other gear owing to the ship's motion.

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 26^th, 2002 at 6:16pm:

George Your [sic] evading. I do not care that others have not accepted your sites [sic] challenge, that is a personal decision.  I do not care that you believe your and Gino's document is the final authoritative word on the matter either.

I did not state or mean to imply that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is the "final authoritative word" on any matter. However, it is, as I mentioned previously, well-documented with ample references that skeptical readers may check for themselves. Moreover, I am confident that most intelligent readers will find our arguments regarding polygraph procedure, policy, and countermeasures to be compelling.


Quote:

I have asked why your collection of anti polygraph freedom fighters will not put action to words (endlessly rehashed, check BT's re-warmed response to me) It is a simple proposition.  By your own actions, stop talking about what a ridiculously flawed procedure polygraph screening is and do something about it. Why are you waiting for someone to prove your point by participating in a staged event, or publishing available information for your use?

I think that what you have suggested would be an imprudent diversion of AntiPolygraph.org's limited resources. That the polygraph can be (and has been) beaten through countermeasures is readily apparent, supported by empirical evidence, and acknowledged by the polygraph community itself.

In my opinion, our time and effort is better spent on improving public awareness of polygraph issues and political outreach.

As for Beech Trees's "re-warmed response" to you, I note that you have dodged the very cogent questions he has put to you.


Quote:

After you have manipulated the hiring process, post the results to the world, and prove your point with something tangible. (rather than footnotes)

Karel F. Koecher, Larry Wu-tai Chin, and Ana Belen Montes were all double-agents for foreign powers before they successfully "manipulated the hiring process" by beating the polygraph. If that is not tangible enough for you, I don't know what the hell would be.


Quote:

Stein is the only one who had the balls to specifically address the point, while incidently reinforcing one of mine-even though Im sure he did not mean to. There seems to be a small group of people keeping this site alive with reasonable intelligence and vast amounts of energy (at the keyboard), why is this not translated into something joe average applicant can understand and use to his benefit?

We have produced something that "Joe Average applicant" can understand and use to his benefit. It's called The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and it has been downloaded over 50,000 times. It is quite possibly the most widely read book on polygraphy ever. Watch for the 3rd edition in 2003.


Quote:

If polygraphers are cowards for not participating in your countermeasure challenge, what label should we apply to someone who lacks the fortitude to back up thier convictions?

What convictions have we failed to back up? Again, that which is found in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is backed up by ample references that skeptical readers can check. If those references are beyond you reading level (or perhaps your attention span) that is a problem with which I cannot help.

Breeze,


The_Breeze wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2002 at 6:52pm:

I propose that you, skeptic, anonymous, stein, Gino, or whomever (george is probably compromised) find agencies that polygraph before a background (your cherished 40%ers) and apply to that agency.  During your polygraph, apply what ever countermeasures are appropriate and then furnish proof on these pages (suitably censored) by posting your notices of passing or appointment letters.

I am shocked and outraged. This sort of thing is clearly unethical and quite possibly illegal. And from a pro-polygrapher!!! It borders on fraud since the agency involved would have to spend significant time and monies just to reach the point scheduling a polygraph. Drew's challenge has no similar ethical quandry though there is little incentive for a polygrapher to take him up. No upside for the polygraphers since the general public takes their validity as an article of faith.

-Marty

Quote:

I propose that you, skeptic, anonymous, stein, Gino, or whomever (george is probably compromised) find agencies that polygraph before a background (your cherished 40%ers) and apply to that agency.  During your polygraph, apply what ever countermeasures are appropriate and then furnish proof on these pages (suitably censored) by posting your notices of passing or appointment letters. Drew or Mark can set up the procedure.

How would this prove anything? There would be no way to prove that the applicant actually used countermeasures. Pro-polygraph types like you will likely attempt to explain the "passed" test (and subsequent offer of employment) in a number of ways.

Perhaps you will claim:
(1) The applicant did not use countermeasures and passed only because he actually told the truth. You guys must have had a bad examiner the first time around.
(2) The examiner was incompetent. A more skilled examiner would have easily detected the countermeasures.

The list could go on and on.

Drew's challenge would be a much more effective test of the efficacy of polygraph countermeasures. Using a luminary in the polygraph community as the examiner and a list of deceptive responses sealed in an envelope would allow the winner of the challenge a lot less wiggle room than the one you suggested.

332 days and counting, 'graphers.

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 26^th, 2002 at 6:16pm:

George Your evading.

Oh, please.  Breeze, your glass house is in bad need of replacement panes.

When you acknowledge and apologize for the fallacious and libelous nature of statements you've made here in this public forum, when you deign to answer even a few of the multitude of appropriate questions put to you by George, Beech Trees and others, come back and accuse someone of "evading".  Until that distant day, statements such as yours aren't even laughable -- they're self-evidently pathetic.


Quote:

I do not care that others have not accepted your sites challenge, that is a personal decision.

Do you even know what the issue is, here?

This is a matter of a profession making claims that it fails to back up.  The polygraph community has repeatedly stated it can detect countermeasures.  The burden is on their shoulders to back up that claim.  They have failed to do so, despite specific challenge -- and their silence is deafening and damning.  Have you even thought about considering both sides of this issue?  Or are you really just here for attention and to "stir things up"?


Quote:

I do not care that you believe your and Gino's document is the final authoritative word on the matter either.

No one has claimed it is.  But then, it's always easier to win an argument if you're the only one arguing, isn't it?


Quote:

I have asked why your collection of anti polygraph freedom fighters will not put action to words (endlessly rehashed, check BT's re-warmed response to me) It is a simple proposition.  By your own actions, stop talking about what a ridiculously flawed procedure polygraph screening is and do something about it.

Most of us already have, bud -- we've done the polygraph thing.  As have several spies who have beaten the polygraph.  Your choice of evidence on this entire issue is tremendously selective and one-sided.

I know you don't like it that people here (such as myself) believe your honesty and integrity are questionable.  Unfortunately, you don't give us much reason to conclude otherwise.

Skeptic

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 26^th, 2002 at 6:16pm:

Stein is the only one who had the balls to specifically address the point, while incidently reinforcing one of mine-even though Im sure he did not mean to.

Actually Breeze, I did mean to reinforce your point.  I don't believe in Countermeasures, as I have said many times on this site.  

I also don't belive in the polygraph as an effective screening tool.

I do believe in using the polygraph for specific incident testing, because there is focus for the polygrapher.  The test results shoulds only be used for narrowing a suspect pool as to whom the investigators should begin work with.  But the polygraph should never exonerate anyone from the suspect pool.

Moreover, the polygraph can be an effective intimidation tool.  Again, test results are worthless, but information garnered by investigators viewing the polygraph proceedings can sometimes be effective.

That is what is known as specific incident testing.

In screening, whether it is employee or pre-employment screening, there is no incident.  The polygraph is used in an extremely broad range of questioning.  Polygraphers decide truth v. deception based on pre-determined assumptions to answers of  inherently "unanswerable" questions.  This type of testing is seriously flawed (opinions I share with the NAS).

Because of the flaws in the system, countermeasures have evolved (mostly for employee and applican use) to correct the inaccuracy of the polygraph.  Too many honest individuals have received "false positive" results, forcing a employees and applicants to counter the possibility of the "false positive."  THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN!!!  The system is completely flawed.  The polygraph must go.

What truly baffles me is the LE professional who defends the polygraph.  No LE pro would ever denounce the investigator on the street as the best tool for conducting investigations.  Their error rate is minimal, and their sucess rate is high.  Why then is the investigator replaced by a machine?  Money.  Agencies are too cheap to put extra people on the street to investigate.  The polygraph, with its high error rate, has replaced the investigator.  

I think I'd be pretty damn mad if I were an LE pro who was replaced by an inaccurate machine.

Chris

wrote on Dec 27^th, 2002 at 10:18pm:

What truly baffles me is the LE professional who defends the polygraph.  No LE pro would ever denounce the investigator on the street as the best tool for conducting investigations.  Their error rate is minimal, and their sucess rate is high.  Why then is the investigator replaced by a machine?  Money.  Agencies are too cheap to put extra people on the street to investigate.  The polygraph, with its high error rate, has replaced the investigator.

Dear Chris,

I too have stated in earlier threads that I think the polygraph is being used in order to save money on investigations.  The money saved has real cost in the damage to reputations and careers which are only based on polygraph results with no investigation to confirm any allegations.

Regards.

Of all the silly, "let me prove Im smarter than you" replies I received, I may of liked Marty's the best. Is any anti-polygraph person here shocked and outraged giving the questionably legal advice they give? why would it be different if you yourselves applied the advice? You might hasten the demise of polygraph, something you do want.  Guess its easier to just talk about it, Im not surprised by this.
I enjoy having my posts called meaningless, while yours are obviously stimulating and overflowing with goodness.  Has it occurred to you anonymous that the questions posed by your soul mates have induced boredom, and I am not here to scramble around and try to respond to every rehashed notion you folks cough up?
Ok George, If you would rather do campus fliers and compete for telephone pole space with rock bands, thats your decision.  My suggestion is based on the simple belief that I have that your crew is better at dispensing faulty advice, than serving as an example.  Your little book is certainly within my reading level, but as someone who does not have a victim's mindset I refuse to embrace your vanity work.  And you should not be so quick to dismiss someones attention span if it differs from your own.  My own experiences in this area are far more extensive than yours, and your research is selective to your viewpoint. I will in the future not take you to task for being inexperienced.
Gino, it would prove that you could defeat an applicant process at will and send agencies utilizing screening exams into confusion.  Having looked at a few applications in my time, applicants are not generally asked if they intend to take a job if sucessful, and there is no consequence if an applicant withdraws.  Your "foot soldiers" would be specially trained, since it only takes a few minutes, and the results documented.  It is my belief that you folks are just as liable for advocating a behavior as performing it.
Skeptic, my good, stout hearted friend.  Turned away from your choice of profession by the overwhelming prospect of a polygraph every 5 years? wont you guys have killed it off by then? why so little confidence?  Thanks for bringing up my point, even if you tried to turn it around.  I maintain that the anti polygraph assertions have not been backed up, and are hysterical and pathetic. The way to prove me wrong is to just do so, and document it here.  Stating that sophisticated  countermeasures were sucessfully employed (among other things) in vague terms, sounds like BS.  You declined employment with NSA, why dont you get the ball rolling and specifically post what happened?  Certainly it could not impact on whatever it is that you do now.  Set an example.
Its curious to me that you are so concerned with things Ive said to George when he seems to have recovered nicely on his own.  Is it just deflecting, while trying to fill a post with something, anything?  How could you of all people question anyones honesty and integrity when you have recently admitted to employing countermeasures on a screening test for a high level government agency? If your examiner would of looked you in the eye and asked if you were manipulating the test, you would of answered "NO". Conclude again, oh pillar of truth!
Ok, Ill answer one of Beech Tree's lame questions: I passed my CQ tests (one was RI) because I must of been unsure during the asking of such questions.  While I certainly made admissions, no one will put every juvenile indiscretion on paper.  The relevant questions did not bother me, so there you go.  An example: If I gave a cat a well deserved kick, would I want to go into an applicant process stating that I abused animals? You get the idea, Im sure.
Stein, good post. You've joined the very small group of posters here that may in time command respect.  Plus you served with my brother.
Have a prosperous new year my anti polygraph friends.  Make it your resolution to spend less time here, and shoot your rifles more often!  Watch the "wind and the lion" at least once, and let your keyboards rest.

Breeze,

Kicked the cat?  Lol, well that's over the line for me though I do admit to setting firecrackers off in anthills (no, no mailboxes).

Anyway, such fun aside, both your challenge and Drew's can not prove anything. They are inadequate from a statistical point of view and whatever their results, it would be the equivalent of spitting in the wind.

So let me suggest that conducting an appropriate, peer reviewed set of experiments on a sufficient population would further this far more. I also believe the study of countermeasures could be more fruitful since establishing base line "truth" is not at issue. Unfortunately, but understandably, federal research in this area has largely been classified for the last 10 years.  Any non-profits that might provide grant money for this endeavor?

-Marty

Breeze, you addressed the following words to me:


Quote:

Ok George, If you would rather do campus fliers and compete for telephone pole space with rock bands, thats your decision.  My suggestion is based on the simple belief that I have that your crew is better at dispensing faulty advice, than serving as an example.

You have yet to demonstrate that any advice given here is "faulty." Wasn't it your central thesis that our making countermeasure information public is unethical, because it could help criminals to beat the polygraph? Evidently, you do believe that polygraph outcomes may be influened by countermeasure use. So what advice given here is "faulty?"


Quote:

...Your little book is certainly within my reading level, but as someone who does not have a victim's mindset I refuse to embrace your vanity work. ?And you should not be so quick to dismiss someones attention span if it differs from your own.

Nonetheless, I am not convinced by the content of your posts to this message board that you have 1) read and 2) understood The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

You further boast:


Quote:

My own experiences in this area are far more extensive than yours, and your research is selective to your viewpoint....

Your accusation that "[my] research is selective to [my] viewpoint" is patently untrue. Had you bothered reading what you dismissively term "my vanity work," you would know better. My personal library on polygraphy includes writings by authors whose viewpoints are very different from my own, including the American Polygraph Association's CD-ROM archive of all issues of its quarterly Polygraph from 1972-2001, John E. Reid and Fred E. Inbau's Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie-Detector") Technique, James Allan Matte's Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, and Leonard H. Harrelson's Lie Test: Deception, Truth and the Polygraph. In researching polygraphy, I've also relied on Department of Defense Polygraph Institute documentation, some of which AntiPolygraph.org has sought and obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Scalabrini and I relied on all of these sources in writing The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Perhaps it is you, Breeze, whose "research" (if any) "is selective to your viewpoint."

Marty wrote on Jan 1^st, 2003 at 1:44am:

Anyway, such fun aside, both your challenge and Drew's can not prove anything. They are inadequate from a statistical point of view and whatever their results, it would be the equivalent of spitting in the wind. So let me suggest that conducting an appropriate, peer reviewed set of experiments on a sufficient population would further this far more. I also believe the study of countermeasures could be more fruitful since establishing base line "truth" is not at issue.

Dear Marty,

Studies by Polygraph Organizations are attacked by opponents using the "Fox watching the henhouse" analogy.

Studies by the scientific community within accepted statistical practices are almost non-existent and attacked by proponents of polygraphs as not reflecting the "reality of the test room" and their utility as a tool.

Currently, the government agencies using the polygraph have no internal reason to question the status quo and will not move unless a political cattle prod forces them to do so. The federal government does not want to spend any money on this subject in today's fiscal climate.

The NAS report was a huge watershed document to start serious discussion on polygraph accuracy and validity. I definitely agree that further studies are necessary to document actual percentage of predicted accuracy of the "polygraph tool."  

My personal experience in the pre-screening use is that it is easily manipulated by test administrator bias. In my case, it was not videotaped.  I believe my experience would not have occurred if my examiner knew his actions could be easily subjected to review for possible disciplinary action.

Regards

wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2003 at 2:56pm:

Studies by Polygraph Organizations are attacked by opponents using the "Fox watching the henhouse" analogy. Studies by the scientific community within accepted statistical practices are almost non-existent and attacked by proponents of polygraphs as not reflecting the "reality of the test room" and their utility as a tool.

And both are valid objections. Further, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to accurately evaluate CQT's due to baseline issues.


Quote:

The NAS report was a huge watershed document to start serious discussion on polygraph accuracy and validity.

I think in large part due to the dissonance between the report and the broader public belief that the polygraph is near perfect. A belief promulgated by the polygraph trade groups not only out of self interest, but also because belief that the polygraph works actually increases the likelihood that it will.

Quote:

I definitely agree that further studies are necessary to document actual percentage of predicted accuracy of the "polygraph tool."

While I certainly would like to see better research, it appears to be quite difficult, esp re the CQT polygraph. However, I think research into CM's would be far cheaper and more easily controlled. Research into detecting them, not their effectiveness, since that involves quantification of the polygraph CQT itself. Further, I think some forms of CM's are more detectable than others. Physically distinct CM's such as tongue biting or tightening ones sphincter are likely to provide identifiable assymetric signatures - though not perhaps on the limited channels recorded by a polygraph. As I had said some time earlier, I am an EE with considerable experience in signal processing and modeling techniques. There are things more sophisticated than strain gauges.....

-Marty

Dear Marty,

I agree that there are much more sophisticated means of measuring physiological reactions instead of the current polygraph sensors.  The problem has always been trying to interpret this information.

Looking for "signatures" of countermeasures is an interesting idea but I would argue that many autonomic nervous system traits would give consistant signatures which many polygraph experts associate with "truthful" reactions.  This argument being similar to which directions someone moves there eyes after a question indicating truthfulness or deception.

Autonomic nerve "imprinting" is not consistant within cultures.  A child who is farsighted cannot read their own writing.  They imprint their writing through muscular motion differently than one who gets feed back with their eyes and this will affect their writing until they "retrain" their muscle imprinting. There muscle reaction will be repeatable and consistant but incorrect.  The same can be created for emotional reactions which will be interpreted as "countermeasures" instead of truth.

This is a discussion better for another thread.  Start one and I will answer more there.

Regards.

George
You still seem angry.
Faulty: "having a fault or faults, defective".  Like all who post here, I am stating an opinion. Posting here can never be mistaken for actual proof, although you evidently believe your words meet that standard.  Yes, I do believe that your and others advice could hinder, confuse or delay fact finding in a criminal or screening exam.  So, I find that faulty in the sense that it is counterproductive and potentially dangerous.  It is defective in my view because our culture is filled with selfish examples, and the over riding importance of the one.
You claim I am boasting when I simply point out that my experience base on this topic is much greater than yours- then you immediately throw up a few texts that you have skimmed as an example of your detailed research.  I have read all but the Reid text (although I have others by this author team) I would not consider this extensive, and it is clear from reading your work (yes I have) that you needed to provide authoritative descriptions and test sequences.  You were not looking for a discussion on possible efficacy, just detail to reinforce your pre-existing view.
Let me ask you a serious question now that we have defined faulty in my opinion:
Do you believe there is a chance that the high failure rate in Federal LE screeing is intentional, possibly as a result of no other means of reducing a largly talented but unremarkable applicant pool?  I ask because this failure rate of half, is way out of line with my experiences.  Perhaps this is more of a desirability issue than a polygraph issue.
In other words, I am an administrator at the FBI and am faced with hundreds of applicants who are qualified, and sucessfull through the process.  How then do I legally weed out such numbers for my limited openings?  I suggest that now minor admissions become significant (absent same in others) and the trimming process begins.  The failure is placed at the polygraph for simplicity sake (no video, no background check, no proof) and an applicant is told they are not within parameters.  Your thoughts?

wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 2:53pm:

Dear Marty, I agree that there are much more sophisticated means of measuring physiological reactions instead of the current polygraph sensors.  The problem has always been trying to interpret this information. Looking for "signatures" of countermeasures is an interesting idea but I would argue that many autonomic nervous system traits would give consistant signatures which many polygraph experts associate with "truthful" reactions.  This argument being similar to which directions someone moves there eyes after a question indicating truthfulness or deception. Autonomic nerve "imprinting" is not consistant within cultures.  A child who is farsighted cannot read their own writing.  They imprint their writing through muscular motion differently than one who gets feed back with their eyes and this will affect their writing until they "retrain" their muscle imprinting. There muscle reaction will be repeatable and consistant but incorrect.  The same can be created for emotional reactions which will be interpreted as "countermeasures" instead of truth. This is a discussion better for another thread.  Start one and I will answer more there. Regards.

Indeed, the human nervous system is a wonderfully complex and flexible thing.

One thing that does seem remarkably consistent, though, are certain reactions to recognition.  Combined with the fact that tests may be designed such that the likelihood of false positive "recognition" reactions are almost nil, "recognition testing" could be a truly valuable tool for law enforcement.  Not useful for screening, though.  Unfortunately, there appears no substitute for good old fashioned background investigations.

Give Dr. Richardson the chance, and he'll talk at length about recognition testing. :)

Skeptic

wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 2:53pm:

Dear Marty, Looking for "signatures" of countermeasures is an interesting idea but I would argue that many autonomic nervous system traits would give consistant signatures which many polygraph experts associate with "truthful" reactions. Regards.

I believe some of these signatures are differential, in that they are distinct from CNS controlled autonomic responses. I think this is dependent on the type of countermeasure.  Drew's challenge, and other comments in the literature, aludes to this. This is one reason I believe research here would be more productive and cheaper.

Also, Drew has stated he had at one time believed that more channels would provide higher polygraph reliability but has concluded the additional information is redundant and of little value. The same may not be the case re some types of CM detection.

Agreed. If anyone wants to discuss detection of CM's specifically we should start a thread specifically on this. Just wanted to clarify I was not talking about general polygraph measurements and DI which I think are close to impossibly complex.

-Marty

The_Breeze wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 5:48pm:

. Let me ask you a serious question now that we have defined faulty in my opinion: Do you believe there is a chance that the high failure rate in Federal LE screeing is intentional, possibly as a result of no other means of reducing a largly talented but unremarkable applicant pool?  I ask because this failure rate of half, is way out of line with my experiences.  Perhaps this is more of a desirability issue than a polygraph issue. In other words, I am an administrator at the FBI and am faced with hundreds of applicants who are qualified, and sucessfull through the process.  How then do I legally weed out such numbers for my limited openings?  I suggest that now minor admissions become significant (absent same in others) and the trimming process begins.  The failure is placed at the polygraph for simplicity sake (no video, no background check, no proof) and an applicant is told they are not within parameters.  Your thoughts?

Dear Breeze,

Without getting into any polygraph validity discussion, your statement could be a good supposition.

I would add "no other cheaper alternative" and it would be a hard argument to fight considering my three experiences and the whole FBI procedure of hiring applicants.

Regards.

The_Breeze wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 5:48pm:

George You still seem angry.

I take umbrage at your unfounded accusation that "[my] research is selective to [my] viewpoint."


Quote:

Faulty: "having a fault or faults, defective".  Like all who post here, I am stating an opinion. Posting here can never be mistaken for actual proof, although you evidently believe your words meet that standard.  Yes, I do believe that your and others advice could hinder, confuse or delay fact finding in a criminal or screening exam.  So, I find that faulty in the sense that it is counterproductive and potentially dangerous.  It is defective in my view because our culture is filled with selfish examples, and the over riding importance of the one.

So when you earlier spoke of "[my] crew...disepensing faulty advice," you didn't mean to say that anything we are saying here is untrue?


Quote:

You claim I am boasting when I simply point out that my experience base on this topic is much greater than yours- then you immediately throw up a few texts that you have skimmed as an example of your detailed research.  I have read all but the Reid text (although I have others by this author team) I would not consider this extensive, and it is clear from reading your work (yes I have) that you needed to provide authoritative descriptions and test sequences.  You were not looking for a discussion on possible efficacy, just detail to reinforce your pre-existing view.

Your assumption that I have merely "skimmed" the works referenced above is erroneous, as is your assumption that I was just looking for "detail to reinforce [my] pre-existing view." I approach the subject of polygraphy with an open mind, and am willing to change my views in light of new evidence. But at this point, I find that the case against CQT polygraphy (and especially, polygraph screening) is compelling.

You say you've read the Polygraph archive, Matte's Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, Harrelson's Lie Test, and the DoDPI documentation referenced in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (as well as The Lie Behind the Lie Detector itself). I invite you then to please point out any factual error(s) you believe you may have found in the latter.


Quote:

Let me ask you a serious question now that we have defined faulty in my opinion: Do you believe there is a chance that the high failure rate in Federal LE screeing is intentional, possibly as a result of no other means of reducing a largly talented but unremarkable applicant pool?  I ask because this failure rate of half, is way out of line with my experiences.  Perhaps this is more of a desirability issue than a polygraph issue. In other words, I am an administrator at the FBI and am faced with hundreds of applicants who are qualified, and sucessfull through the process.  How then do I legally weed out such numbers for my limited openings?  I suggest that now minor admissions become significant (absent same in others) and the trimming process begins.  The failure is placed at the polygraph for simplicity sake (no video, no background check, no proof) and an applicant is told they are not within parameters.  Your thoughts?

Yes. I think it's likely that the high FBI special agent pre-employment polygraph failure rate (currently over 50%) is the result of a deliberate decision made by FBI management suddenly faced with a surfeit of qualified applicants following the tragic events of 11 September 2001. At some time prior to that date, the polygraph failure rate had "only" been about 20%. Note, however, that no admission(s) is/are necessary for an applicant to be accused of deception and/or countermeasures by the polygrapher, rejected for FBI hire, and blacklisted from employment with other federal agencies.

Breeze and George,


wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 9:43pm:

Yes. I think it's likely that the high FBI special agent pre-employment polygraph failure rate (currently over 50%) is the result of a deliberate decision made by FBI management suddenly faced with a surfeit of qualified applicants following the tragic events of 11 September 2001. At some time prior to that date, the polygraph failure rate had "only" been about 20%.

A remarkable point of agreement. This apparently expedient mechansim has extremely adverse consequences. It is not a simple thing as where one isn't hired due to nebulous chemistry or instinct. If I interview 2 people and hire the one that I think best fits the needs of the dept., the emotional hurt to the one not hired is far less than if I polygraph the applicants and say the one not hired failed the polygraph.  There is little that causes more pain than having one's integrity questioned.  There is little that does more damage than promulgating that to other potential employment opportunities.

-Marty

The_Breeze wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 5:48pm:

In other words, I am an administrator at the FBI and am faced with hundreds of applicants who are qualified, and sucessfull through the process.  How then do I legally weed out such numbers for my limited openings?

What's illegal about hiring the number you need on a first-come, first-serve basis?  Whatever happened to sending the time-honored "we had many more qualified applicants than positions, and at this time we cannot hire everyone.  Thank you for applying and we invite you to return in the future" letter?

Either this is a shining example of bureaucratic stupidity or there's more than a little attempt to score extra political points involved, as well.  "Look! we have polygraphs in our building!  We're one security conscious organization (and they smell nice, too)!"

Skeptic

The_Breeze wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 5:48pm:

In other words, I am an administrator at the FBI and am faced with hundreds of applicants who are qualified, and sucessfull through the process.  How then do I legally weed out such numbers for my limited openings?  I suggest that now minor admissions become significant (absent same in others) and the trimming process begins.  The failure is placed at the polygraph for simplicity sake (no video, no background check, no proof) and an applicant is told they are not within parameters.  Your thoughts?

Breeze,
Simple fix.  Raise the cut off scores at Phase II.  Let less people get to the polygraph.

Three Agents do the interview in Phase II.  They are well trained in fairness.  Their scores can be trusted.

An applicant who fails to achieve a passing score in Phase II has no further career ramifications.  An apllicant who fails a polygraph, however . . .

Using a polygraph to intentionally thin the applicant pool is morally wrong.  Labelling epople as spies and druggies and liars when there may or may not be SUFFIECIENT proof is wrong.  And posting these results as fact on the FBI public record, preventing other career opportunities is also wrong.

Chris

I have a sneaking suspicion that the counterintelligence right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.  They know they like polygraphs (both because of appearances and likely because at least some of the decisionmakers believe they work).  They know that they have more applicants than positions, and a limited budget.  So I think someone said "get rid of some of the applicants as cheaply as possible", and someone else translated this into "let's use the polygraph to thin the population".  

Skeptic

If in fact the number of failed polygraphs has increased to 50% from 20% then one would expect the polygrapher workload to have increased nearly 70%. Since a failed polygraph would normally also include an elongated post test interrogation, the workload increase would even be higher. And then if hiring itself increases.....

Does this imply there are a lot of new, inexperienced polygraphers or just the same number of very tired people.

;)

-Marty

wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 10:48pm:

Using a polygraph to intentionally thin the applicant pool is morally wrong.

Dear Chris,

To anyone who has been wrongfully accused, your quote hits the core of the argument.  Look me in the eye and tell me that you do not want to hire me and justify your decision, do not hide behind some bogus "scientific" exam.

Regards.

OK people, Let me introduce myself. I am now a person who obey's the law.(yeah, I know we're all innocent right?) But let me finish. I have had a childhood that was not the Mother's dream. In other words, I was not the perfect child! I had my run in with stealing, Lying, and some minor drug use. My opinion on drugs is anything you put in your body that is not acceptable by Christ, police, and anything you have to buy on the corner in secret... IE: Marijuana, all the crystals, alchohol, and pharmacuticals if not prescribed to you!
Now, I am not going to preach, But let me say this. I too have quit my ways. I stopped all the bullshit that was destroying my life. I found a better way. I have 3 wonderful children, A VERY beautiful wife of 14 yrs. And sometimes I look back on myself and ask how can this be true? All these good things in my life. Finding my wife was what did it. when I found her she taught me to be a better person. I no longer needed the fullfilment of the buzz, Thats what she gave me!!! a killer buzz! Then I had kids. Even more BUZZ!!!  I receive respect from people when I Introduce myself and I have something to offer them, " WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET"! I don't have to lie For the respect. I am not faking a personality! I have learned from my mistakes and will learn more everyday. And to be honest with you, I have always known you can't trust everyone. And for the past couple of days I've learned that even though you tell the truth on polygraphs it can make you out to be a liar. Even when your not.
Now, I know that most of the people on this site are peace officers. And the honest ones who risk their lives everyday for our well being and to keep illegal acts to a minimum are under a blanket of GRATITUDE from me. THANK YOU!
If you have had some problems in the past. and worked your way through it and found some peace in your life and no longer need the bullshit. Congratulations!
Now, there have been times when I said,"I'd love to be a cop".
But let me say this. In my opinion, It's commendable to want to make something of yourself, and that you quit the drugs or alchohol and made a better life for yourself.
I just read a thread stating,"who better to find the stash than someone who used to hide it". I believe that... But I also believe that a cop that lied about it or deceived an examiner to get the position is just as bad. If you want to be a cop for respect, then you just lost it! the respect that is... My theory is. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." And if you have a strong feeling against  polygraphs then you have the right to refuse to take it. I know the examiner is there to make you out to be a liar! but if you lie to pass it then your still a liar! And I don't believe that is what I want for a peace officer! And About that stash, be it money or drugs if you found it and turned it in, How much did you really find???

wrote on Jan 16^th, 2003 at 7:49am:

...My theory is. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." And if you have a strong feeling against  polygraphs then you have the right to refuse to take it. I know the examiner is there to make you out to be a liar! but if you lie to pass it then your still a liar!....

You might want to read the literature on polygraphs. The most common test (CQT) expects you to lie (to the controle question, not the relevant question) in order to pass. There are tests "that" don't expect you to lie, but they are less common.  The reason is that if they can get you to lie about something they make you believe is important but isn't, it is easier to calibrate the relevant questions and the more likely a deceptive response to a relevant question will produce larger responses.

I just don't like the "small detail" that the polygraphs works best on people who lie about the smaller things.

Liars are liars. Sadly, many polygraphers are as well. If you are not one, you are at a disadvantage.

-Marty

Marty, I agree with you, And I'm not here to get into a pissing contest with anyone. I have found that the polygraph examiners are the most common liar in the room! But I have also found that there is not an equal ground. I came to this site in search of answers (having never been through this before). Aside from all the technical jargon, I was screwed for telling the truth... And it seems that everyone here wants to prove how smart they are. Or Contest anothers wits... Screw all that! it's not worth my time. I didnt come to learn to pass the test. or to learn all the tech BS that goes along with it or to learn that so-in-so is smarter than XYZ... LEt's get to the point guys. LIE DETECTORS ARE A LIE! in my opinion. If a person has to lie to pass, and an examiner has to lie to get you to lie then what good are they??? Next the thing that dissapoints me the most is hearing about potential police officers lying to pass. If you feel you have something to lie about dont take the test... And if you do lie, you dont need to be in that capacity! thank you Marty for your input, but I really just wanted to know why I told the truth and was told I was lying...Thanks Again.
1 last thing,  I WILL NEVER TAKE ANOTHER ONE!!!

Marty, I'm sorry for not knowing all there is to know about this subject, But I never really found a need to know it before... But what I do know is, "I should never have to lie to prove i'm telling the ttruth!"

wrote on Jan 16^th, 2003 at 8:37am:

Marty, I'm sorry for not knowing all there is to know about this subject, But I never really found a need to know it before... But what I do know is, "I should never have to lie to prove i'm telling the ttruth!"

Man! I can relate to that!  First, don't feel bad for the polygraphers. For the most part they do the best they can. The problem here is that there is so much variability in the way people respond to questions that what the polygraphers have come up with is an odd sort of compromise.

They basically try to get you to not only lie about something unimportant, but feel bad about it. The presumption is that your response to this lie will give them an idea about whether you are lying about what they are really testing for. That may be whether a person has murdered a girl, or it may be whether someone has smoked more pot than they think reasonable. (kinda hard to believe the response would be similar!)

So what it comes down to is that polygraphers utilize a certain amount of deception in order to elicit and determine the truth of what an examinee says.  It's imperfect. error prone, sometimes degrading, but it actually seems to work to some degree.  However, in working, it sometimes is the most inaccurate with a trully honest persons such as you appear to be.

Don't feel bad. For some bizarre reasons this has captured my attention. I am an EE with some interest in the technologies involved and also some desire to see the polygraph used resposnisbly - or not at all.  I really hate to see the innocent pilloried and the polygraph has a certain propensity to do so even though I believe it has some value for specific incident testing.

-Marty