Pillpopper,

What you are describing makes perfect sense.  I have read through some polygraph literature (can't direct to exactly which publications, don't remember) that describe the machine as recording reactions to questions not based on truth vs deception but rather the level of THREAT the question poses to you.

Assuming you don't know the difference between relevant and control questions and you are not lying on the relevant questions, the examiner expects you to be more threatened by the controls.

Once you know the difference, however, the relevant questions will always be more of a threat to you simply because you know these are the questions you should not respond to.  This is really true by default - whether you are lying or not doesn't seem to matter too much at this point.  Worrying about not responding only causes you to respond... and fail.

This is my theory - this is also why the polygraph is lame.  Sorry to hear about everyone's trouble - I've experienced the same things for the same reasons.  Good luck.

well, i can understand that I suppose. The idea of answering yes on a polygraph when you are "supposed" to answer no would definitely cause a reaction in a normal person. But thats a far different issue than asking a control question of someone when they know its bunk no matter what the answer. here are some of the ones they asked me.

Bill Crider wrote on May 31^st, 2004 at 9:39pm:

I don't think it is complete bunk so much as marginal science. What most bugs me is that polygraphers largely use the CQT, which they seem quite wedded to, which requires polygraphers to successfully mislead examinees AND make questionable assumptions that the examinee can be persuaded to lie/worry about the control questions. This will not be the case when the examinee is informed and actually understands the true nature of the polygraph.

Another serious problem is that screening polys, except where actual confessions ensue, are not able to be measured for accuracy. Absent that, it is very natural and human for examiners to assume that virtually every examinee that fails is in fact deceptive on the relevant Qs. Everyone rationalizes what they do and thinks of themselves as "good" - something polygraphers with any training in interrogation will recognize. It is hard to look inward though.

An alternative, the DLCQT (Directed Lie Control Question Test), appears to be used in the DoE in spite of widely believed high false negative rates. Still, it can be given to examinees that are informed and I suspect the large majority in the DoE that are subject to these are informed. One problem is that, in it's formulation, it pretty much invites countermeasures - at least mental countermeasures.

-Marty

Sharif,

There is no meaningful polygaph appeal process for U.S. citizens who are wrongly branded as liars by their government's polygraph operators. I think the situation can only be worse for non-citizens such as yourself.

I think it would be best to forget about ever working for the U.S. government again. You will have been blacklisted.

Our book The Lie Behind the Lie Detector may be of interest to you to the extent that it will help you understand how you could fail the polygraph despite telling the truth:

https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

You may wish to share this information with any friends, family, or colleagues who might consider seeking employment with the U.S. government.