This message has been removed at the poster's request.

--AntiPolygraph.org Administrator

Batman wrote on Apr 18^th, 2003 at 6:16pm:

Guest,

I would have to agree with Batman regarding the driving under the influence issue. This must have bothered you more than you thought, as shown by the fact that you apparently responded to #11 and immediately brought it up when the examiner questioned you about the response.
I do share your concerns about the examiner's qualifications. Seems pretty slim to me. I can say one thing; she's not a member of the American Polygraph Association. She doesn't qualify.
I have tried to separate the questions you were asked, and am having a hard time discerning the relevant and irrelevant ones. What type of job are you applying for? And I assume that the "application" is a different document than the "Personal History Questionnaire"?

George,

According to Guest, there was no question specific to driving under the influence.  This was his comback to the examiner when she asked about the question pertaining to falsifying information on his application.

Guest,

I'm the head Goofball!   

You stated:

"I was no more concerned with the specific question about driving under the influence then, than I am now sitting in front of my PC. What did concern me however was the uneducated  (she professed she had no college education) and inexperienced (after I asked about the "science" of polygraphy, she mentioned her three weeks of "intense" training) examiner who's personal bias and individual interpretation of the semantics "under the influence" would serve to render a decision about me. I wanted to clarify whether she defined "under the influence" as ever having a drink and then driving or if she was suggesting the denotation of the illegal state of being intoxicated while driving. If it were the latter, my answer was a resounding "No." I just wanted to close the gap so to speak and diminish any possible differentiation in definition that may have existed between myself and the way she defined the question."

So what you're saying is, the qualifications of the examiner, or lack there of as you saw them, were what concerned you, not your DUI activity, even though when she asked you about the falsification question you brought up the DUI concerns.  Interesting.  Why didn't you simply explain to her that the reason you responded to that  particular question was because you were concerned about her poor qualifications?   

Maybe because it sounds like so much bullshit?

You say you wanted to clarify how your examiner defined under the influence.  Interesting.  Did you want this clarification before or after the exam was administered?  Was that before or after the examiner asked you about your responses to the question pertaining to falsifying your application?   

In your original post you stated you were the one to bring up your concerns about DUI.  Now you state you wanted to "clarify whether she defined 'under the influence' as ever having a drink and then driving or if she was suggesting the denotation of the illegal state of being intoxicated while driving."  Your original post did not indicate the examiner said anything specific to DUI activity.  She simply was suggesting the question about falsifying your application caused you concern.  You then brought up DUI. 

Finally you stated,
"I welcome and appreciate any other intelligent and reasonable comments regarding the original post - thank you! "

No you don't.  All you want is someone to get on and agree with your perception that you got potentially screwed, that is was the examiners fault, etc, etc, etc.  Well, you've come to the right place, however you just won't hear it from me!

Batman

George,

Maybe not.   

I think you know that examinee must be applying for a position at some level of government service since he is taking a polygraph.  Therefore, if he was asked a question about falsifying his application then it was relevant, which I'm also quite sure you know.

That "quack who administers the test" remark really hurt.  You know I'm an examiner, how could you say something like that?  You don't think I'm a "quack" do you?

Batman

Let me see if I can respond to all that have been kind enough to provide me with their insight...

Batman: "No," the examiner's lack of qualifications (as she herself expressed) is not what I was questioning - those were facts offered  by her. What I was clarifying was her definition of the phrase "under the influence" and what it meant to her as opposed to what I believed it to mean. Her understanding and interpretation of any given word, phrase, or line of question does not necessarily bear any correlation to her professional qualifications any more than it does mine. 

*After reviewing my original post I realize that one thing I failed to mention was that during the pre-interview, we did review a question on the PHQ regarding driving while under the influence. Specifically, when was the last time that you operated a motor vehicle while under the influence? I answered "N/A and Never" on the paper application and she quickly jumped on it as if in complete disbelief. So, when she reviewed it during the pre-test and continued to question me, I inquired as to her definition at that point. Her response was stand-offish and vague as I'm sure she wanted me to incriminate myself or was suspecting that I was hiding behind the definition. Unfortunately, I was simply being honest and wanted to understand whether she defined "a" drink as having driven while under the influence. After more questioning and (very lttle) further clarification, I answered with a final "N/A" to the question. The questioning continued for another moment or two almost in a "c'mon, you had to have been drunk once or twice before while driving" manner, but I stuck with my final response. That is why this is the ONLY question that came to mind during the test at all - not b/c I had a personal problem with my answer, but b/c of the difficult time I had attempting to clarify the question with her.

And, "no", I don't want anybody to simply agree with my perceptions but I'm glad to see that you are so adept at assuming what they are (MY perceptions) and categorizing them for me. Obviously, I have a few individuals who have already suggested that I may have made some mistakes - THAT is what I wanted to hear - insight. Not sniveling banter and assumptions, nor avoidance of the questions proposed. Which brings me back to the question I ended with....wouldn't the perception of deception and an answer defined as a lie be the same regardless of what type of "test" I was taking? or do you highly qualified polygraphists also have the ability to discern the difference between a criminal lie and a civil lie???

George: Looking back, the only reason I believe #9 to represent a control is that the examiner at the time of questioning actually asked this...

Have you ever falsified (forged) an official document, you know, like a tardy slip or something of that nature?

Now to me, I would have again said a resounding "No" to the base question; however, when she mentioned the example (i.e. tardy slip) I suspect that she was deliberately creating far too wide of a category for me to answer honestly without hesitation or having some difficulties....I don't know???

After I get my results (good or bad) I will question as to whether these proceedings are audio or video taped as I would love to obtain a copy if possible. 

Orolan: After assembling my own understanding and reviewing these questions once more myself....I also have a pretty darn difficult time discerning the difference between the relevant and control questions. And throw in her nonchalant commentary during the question formulation process and I'm lost!!!

Yes, you are correct that the application and PHQ are separate pieces of information, however, when she used the word application, I assumed she was referring to the PHQ (as she had not previously seen my initial application). The initial application is a small form with a handful of questions (5, I believe) that is sent directly to HR and is designed to weed out candidates with obvious disqualifying backgrounds. The real meat and potatoes is the two PHQs that you complete throughout the application process. By the way, I am applying to a local township police department.

Triple X: Although I was honest throughout the entire process, my comment regarding CMs was somewhat of a spoof directed at BatMan. I understand their advantages/disadvantages but my personal choice was not to employ them (even if it meant being labeled a false positive). Thank you for the comments however.

I apologize for the disconnect regarding my initial post. I obviously failed to mention an important material fact regarding our pre-test interview relating to DUI. I'm not as experienced with the pros and cons of polygraphy as some of you and didn't initially realize its significance. In all honesty, I remember every detail of the day including the brand name of the examiner's shoes, but for the sake of brevity, I left a lot of the info out - unfortunately, that was a key piece I now see. 

Your continued responses and insight are appreciated!

Guest,

Your reasoning for Question #9 having been a "control" question seems sound, in light of the way your polygrapher explained it to you.