So many comments to respond to, so little time. Drew, First, the reporter is not “my reporter”, but apparently and independent who visited this site and others and attempted to see if countermeasures work. From reading her report, it seems she did what you are advocating. She read the material and attempted to beat the polygraph. She found out what many others have: It is next to impossible to beat the polygraph, operated by an experienced and qualified examiner. A person’s chances are greater if they can actually practice hooked up to the instrument, but that doesn’t happen very often. Your response to her independent experience is exactly why nobody takes you up on your challenge. Even when proven wrong, your ego will not allow you to admit you are wrong. You stated that this one incident with the reporter does not prove you wrong. If I came there and detected countermeasures in front of you, you would say the same thing about me. I could do it 50 times and you would just come up with additional excuses. You are giving people bad information. I don’t care if a liar attempts countermeasures and gets caught, it is just additional evidence he/she is unsuitable. My concern is for the honest person who comes to this site, gets bad information and thinks he/she has to use countermeasures to pass. They get caught and are black listed forever. Bill and Sergeant, What do I say to you? I say what happened to you was wrong. I am very vocal about my feelings toward agencies that use the polygraph as a pass/fail, weeding tool. Polygraph was never intended for this usage. If you were telling the truth, a series of specific examinations would probably have proven just that. I do it all the time. At least 50% of the applicants who I test that have a significant response to a screening question are subsequently found to be truthful. The other 50% have either admitted to withholding information or the subsequent DI results are supported by other negative information in the background. When an agency dumps an applicant because of a negative screening polygraph test, they run a 50/50 chance of losing a good employee. I know it is hard not to take it personally, but I wouldn’t. It’s no difference than being a 15-year police veteran with an outstanding work history and being turned down after an oral board because the raters didn’t like you. Makes no sense, but that’s the way the system operates. As far as being able to manipulate test results, that has nothing to do with the validity of a test. Virtually any test in any setting can be manipulated and produce false results. Sergeant’s argument would mean that every test used for any reason should be considered invalid. If you don’t fast before having an Hemoglobin A1C blood test for diabetes, the tests results are invalid, but the test itself is not. The results were just skewed. The same goes for the polygraph, just because results can be manipulated if undetected countermeasures are employed, doesn’t make the test invalid. Here’s another angle, sometimes the departments use the polygraph as a way to exclude an applicant they just don’t like. Its wrong, but some do it and I believe, well I know, the FBI does it. It’s an easy out for them. Again, it’s an abuse and not why the polygraph was developed. In cases like these, even if the polygraph weren’t used, they wouldn’t hire you anyway. They would just find another excuse. A good department with a good examiner will get you through the examination, if you are telling the truth and they want you. If they don’t want you or don’t want you bad enough to spend the time, then you are out of luck. Sorry everyone, but IT IS HERE TO STAY.
|