Diesel...don't do it.....I can guarantee you if you attempt ANY of the drivel printed in George and Gino's book...when you are discovered...and you will be.....you will be disqualified for attempting to interfere with the selection process.  I would advise you to ensure that you make the admissions that you need to and to be truthful.  No one is perfect and the examiner understands this.  It is people who make a conscious decision NOT to disclose things (for whatever reason) that they begin to whine and cry that they did not get a "fair chance".  Remember, there are thousands of people from all walks of life who CHOSE to be honest and successfully passed their polygraph examinations and each one of them are doingthe job that they wanted to do.  Try not to be influenced by certain "wanna be's on this site.  At this point in time, I would even tell the examiner that you went to this site because you had questions and was looking for answers.  Not disclosing your visit to the site MIGHT cause you problems..and my gut tells me that you are an honest person and genuinely wants the job to which youa re applying.  Best of luck....keep us advised....yes, even those anti-polygraph guys!  If you have questions, ask your examiner.

Thank you Skeptic.....cooler heads DO prevail....I noticed, as you apparently did that Diesel was making an inquiry and he was sort of lost in the mud-slinging....I'll try to avoid that in the future.

Quote:


Guest, on what ground do you characterize the contents of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector as drivel? Please be specific. Note that the National Academy of Sciences concluded (at p. 8-2 of The Polygraph and Lie Detection) that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures." (emphasis added)

You also claim that any countermeasure use will be discovered ("when you are discovered...and you will be"). On what basis do you make this claim? Again, please be specific. The American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, in its more than 30-year history has not published a single article setting forth any methodology by which polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures. In peer-reviewed analog studies by Charles R. Honts and collaborators, even experienced polygraphers were not able to detect countermeasures use at better-than-chance levels. And Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge remains untaken after nearly a year.

So please back up your claim that countermeasure use will be detected. Otherwise, thinking readers might conclude that you are bluffing.

Quote:


I would agree with you that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical obligation to truthfully answer the relevant questions. But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the "control" question "test" used by agencies such as the U.S. Secret Service is predicated on the assumption that even applicants whom the agency would hire will be less than truthful in answering the "control" questions. In fact, the more candidly an applicant answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely the applicant is to fail! Don't you see the perversity in this? How can you defend such an unethical (and indeed, un-American) practice?

The reason that those of us who have been the victims of polygraph screening "whine and cry" (as you put it) is that we find it intolerable that we have been wrongly branded as liars (in most cases, by our own government), all on the basis of a fraudulent technique (polygraph screening) that has no theoretical foundation and is without validity.

Quote:


Similarly, there are thousands of people from all walks of life who chose to be honest, were wrongly accused of deception by their polygraphers, wrongly denied employment with the agency in question, and in many cases blacklisted from employment with other agencies (as Diesel will probably be if he/she fails to pass the USSS polygraph).

Quote:


What assurance can you provide Diesel that if he/she uses the "complete honesty" approach described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and tells his/her polygrapher that he/she has visited AntiPolygraph.org and read the polygraph documentation available here that he/she will not be arbitrarily accused of deception and/or countermeasures?

In 2000, I asked American Polygraph Association president Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr., how polygraphers should handle those who know "the lie behind the lie detector." His response was not encouraging. Our brief e-mail exchange may be read here:
 
http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#informed-subjects
 
Until the polygraph community publicly articulates a standardized policy on how to handle those who admit to understanding the trickery on which the "test" depends, many will undoubtedly conclude that it is in their interest not to tell their polygrapher just how much they know about polygraphy.