Seems to me most of the sting stuff is to prevent false positives. So what if I know I am going to lie and need to lie? Will it work?
My problem is this. I tried the honesty route and pretty much got screwed for it. I smoked pot as a teenager in high school, but now 14 years later I am being held accountable for actions as a kid. I have already served in the military and been in a respectable public service position since. Both required random drug screening which I always passed due to the fact I have not smoked pot since high school!
Anyway, I tried to get hired with a local PD and was totally honest with them about my past as a teenager. I was auto DQ'd for my honesty. 
So screw it, I want to be a police officer and know I am of good morale character. My problem is I must abandon that very character temporarily just to get a shot to prove I will be a good LEO. It really stinks it has to come to this but I will not let some anal holier than thou DQ policy to cancel out my ambition. 
I do not understand how you can put laws in place for minors due to expecting poor judgement out of them, then persecute an adult for poor judgement as a minor all at the same time!
So again, my question is this. Can I pass this polygraph KNOWING I intend on lieing?

Saidme wrote on Jun 12^th, 2003 at 3:30am:


The kinds of countermeasures recommended in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector are undetectable. True, a polygraph interrogator may simply bluff and accuse and accuse an examinee of using them, but absent an admission they are undetectable.

Saidme wrote on Jun 12^th, 2003 at 3:26pm:


Saidme,
It seems to me there are a number of possible biases creeping into your evidence.

The first could be that you have a large percentage of applicants who know how to get online and have read about countermeasures.  Your "detection" then amounts to taking a random sampling, accusing them of countermeasures, and getting a confession out of a sizeable percentage not because you actually detected them, but rather because you're inadvertently playing the odds.

What happens if they don't admit to anything?

A second possibility is that you have a number of people who are trying countermeasures without having practiced them.

Regardless, it should be noted (again) that no polygrapher has ever demonstrated a consistent ability to detect countermeasures at above chance levels, when put to the test.  You, sir, would be the first, if you can do as claimed.

The above problems are precisely why uncontrolled anecdotal evidence simply won't do when it comes to proving the ability to detect countermeasures.  There are simply too many possible confounds.

Skeptic

Saidme wrote on Jun 12^th, 2003 at 3:26pm:


Saidme,

Trust me when I say you are full of crap! You CAN NOT, with accuracy, detect properly applied cm's. I've used them 3 times, all with seemingly competent examiners, and "passed" every one. Skeptic is right, you play the odds, randomly accuse people of cm's and get admissions. If you can detect them so well, why don't you enlighten your brother and sister examiners? Hold seminars, write a book...something. I'm sure they'd all appreciate the help. Oh PUHHLEASE!

PK

SXE writes, "I would be honest, but also employ countermeasures...."

That is outstanding.  Kind of like I didn't steal it, but I didn't pay for it.  Or, don't lie, but don't tell the truth.

Here I thought this site was about anti-polygraph issues, not how to be a clown!

George,

Any chance we can screen some of these dipwads posts?  They're starting to drag your site down dude! 

BATMAN

Batman wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2003 at 9:35pm:


I recommend you rethink what you just said, because it doesn't make any sense. You are either honest when answering questions or you are not. You cannot be both. The polygraph chart readings do not reflect whether or not an applicant is being honest or deceptive, although many examiners make inferences based on them. Just because an examinee uses countermeasures to ensure that his truthful responses are scored as such does not mean he is "kind of" being dishonest.

Quote:


It looks like you're out of luck here since George has opted to run a censorship-free message board. While this is probably more beneficial in the long wrong, it also means you have to tolerate advice you may not agree with, and the rest of us have to tolerate you popping into threads and making asinine and inflammatory comments to those that hold a different opinion than yours.

honestlier,
Yes you can lie on purpose using the Sting method and pass.
I have done it for three years.
I was put on probation for an indecent exposure charge that resulted from a drunken frat party.
One of my rules of probation was that I don't drink any alchohol and that I be inside by 9pm at night.  I have had a very strict probation officer who doesn't care if my job keeps me late...he wants me in by 9pm anyway.  The drinking I was able to quit, but I have consistently violated my probation by staying out late every week for three years.
And guess what?
One of my questions on the polygraph is always "Have you violated any rules of probation?"
I have always passed that one.

In fact I passed my last polygraph ever recently.  I am going to be off of probation soon and have my record cleared.

Thank God I came across the sting method or my ass would be grass.

Here's my question to the rest of you.  When I get off of probation should I throw it in my therapist's and the polygrapher's face that I lied to them the whole time and that I know that the polygraph is bogus psuedo-scientific crap?  I can prove this by my work records and by the fact that I passed that question on every test.
With that much proof that the polygraph is bogus, couldn't I take them to court for scamming me or something?  Couldn't I sue the justice system that forced me to take polygraphs?

-OkieBoy