hi all

I'm applying to be a LEO and have a poly coming up in my near future. Like every other aspect of the recruitment process I've done research to better my chances of passing. What an eye-opener it has been for me now that I've done some research on the poly!

The problem is that I don't want to lie on the poly or use countermeasures. From what I've read though it would seem to me that an informed person taking a poly test stands a good chance of failing.

If I'm truthful during the test but don't reveal my poly knowledge then I'm setting myself up for failure. I know what control questions are and I know what the examiners tactics are and as a result I'm less likely to have a physiological response to control questions and his tactics that will allow me to pass the relevant quetions.

On the other hand if I keep my poly knowledge quiet and use CM I stand a good chance of passing. But if I get caught employing counter measures I'm toast.

The third option is coming clean before the poly and telling my recruitment officer that I did research initially to prepare myself for what to expect and out of curiousity, NOT as a means of beating the poly. How does this affect the test if I come clean and the examiner knows that I understand how the test works? Can the test possibly be valid (not that it's valid anyways) on someone with prior knowledge? Any thoughts on what might happen to me if I come clean? Might they defer my application based on the fact that I have prior knowledge of the poly?

tia
aj

Quote:

n0mad,

I am not so sure about having a good chance of passing after becoming informed and not revealing one is informed. It is unlikely you will respond to the controls the same and he makes a good argument that he is more likely to fail as a result.  OTOH, if the examiner can be persuaded to use a DLCQT (directed lie control question test, used in DoE which has a high degree of "informed" examinees) one might have a better chance. But you are likely right, if an examiner is told initially one has studied the polygraph they are more likely to think one has something to hide rather than just being an inquisitive applicant.  Too bad, I think inquisitiveness is a valuable trait.

As I posted elsewhere, this is an area of interest and I, as well as AngryJerry, would be interested in how these things are handled by both examinees and examiners.

-Marty

Angry Jerry,

I gotta go with nomad on this one.  DO NOT tell the examiner that you researched the polygraph.  IMHO, you are setting yourself up for failure.  The first thing that pops into his mind will be that you are going to employ countermeasures.  He isn't going to care what BS excuse you come up with (your curiousity) to research the polygraph, he is going to think you are trying to beat him and his machine.  Why would you give him this kind of an advantage?   

Be polite, tell the truth, play dumb about your knowledge of the polygraph, practice your CMs, then USE THEM.  Otherwise, use the complete honesty approach, spill your guts about everything, volunteer information that the examiner doesn't have a need to know, and roll the dice.   

Let us know how it goes.  Good luck.

Kona

If any examiners would like to give me their opinions or some advice off list that would be appreciated too.

AngryJerry81@hotmail.com

Angry Jerry,

I'll tell you what they are going to say........

"Thank you Angry Jerry for being so forthcoming and honest in your admission that you researched the polygraph because you were curious.  Now that you have assured us that you have no intention of employing countermeasures, everything will be just fine.  Just tell the truth, and everything will be peachy."   

And then you would be found to be deceptive, or your charts would be inconclusive.  At any rate, your ass would be on the street.   

Care to make a wager?   

Let us know what you decide to do.

Good luck.  You're going to need it, because after admitting what you know to the examiner, it will be the only way you'll get past your poly exam.

Regards,
Kona

I agree completely with Kona.  When an examiner tells you not to listen to the advice on this website, it's because he/she knows damn well that if you decide to employ countermeasures, you stand a very good chance at beating their absurd machine.   That is why they are tuned in to this site in the first place.  If one is not concerned with his opponent,  he probably won't waste his time researching his moves.   I generally don't like to generalize people, but I'll make an exception.  Polygraphers, for the most part, are a bunch of people who have capitalized on a craft that is total nonsense.  If you talk to a cvsa examiner, you will hear that the cvsa is superior to the polygraph.   When you talk to a polygraph examiner, they will tell how they are superior to cvsa.  In reality they are both a bunch of garbage.  My neigbor was released from the FBI hiring process because he was found to be deceptive on questions regarding foreign intelligence.   Give me a goddamn break.  The man has a degree in forensic science and worked for the county for 6 years.  Not to mention he is fluent in Spanish and French.  The chances of the average Joe having contacts with foreign intelligence is slim to none, but the FBI has this egregious belief in the lie detector.  For this reason alone I think the people who make the rules there are morons.

George,

It appears prevarication is not limited to examinees. I especially like this quote from the Penn. Atty Gen's sitehttp://www.attorneygeneral.gov/cld/articles/poly.cfm:

"The polygraphist then proceeds with a thorough explanation of how and why the polygraph works."

Interestingly, it does repeat the tale of the Tail:

"In 1500 B.C. in India, a priest put lampblack on the tail of a donkey and led the donkey into a dark room. Suspects were told to go into the room and pull the "magic" donkey's tail, for the "magic" donkey could determine dishonesty. When the suspects returned from the room their hands were examined. Those with clean hands obviously did not pull the donkey's tail, indicating their fear of being exposed, and, consequently, their dishonesty."

As for early exponents, Larson and Reid, but not Marston were mentioned. Reid's excellent adventure into plant polygraphy wasn't discussed. I've sometimes wondered how to establish the control questions when it comes to plants.

-Marty

I laugh at polygraphers who come to this site and think they have to "convert" us; obviously the truth lies somewhere here. If not, can some of you tell us why you visit here regularly along with countless others?