Now I am really confused.  I might be taking a Poly soon and decided to read up about it and fear now that I should not have....control questions...I should lie?

Reading an earlier post it said the question: " Have you ever lied to your supervisor"...the polygrapher will expect you to lie?

I would have answered that question truthfully...I have many times for lots of reasons lied to a supervisor.  SOmetimes just to get him off my back or if he was asking me about my personal life and I thought it wasn't any of his business and sometimes.

I never lied to him about serious work issues though.

I can never answer no to that question becuase I have lied lots of times about irrelvant things and I can never be comfortable answering "no".

Even if I think I have told the examiner about all the times I have lied about irrelevant things to my supervisor, I can never answer "no" becuase I know there are too many times to remember and can never comfortably answer "no", no matter how he rephrases the question.

Should I lie now that I know it is a control question?

Know I am worried that my knowledge of control/relevant questions will taint the test...help!

Would my honest reply of "yes" to this control questions have made me fail the test (assuming I never read about control/relevant questions)?

As a newbie myself, I have to say I share the same question as Confusednow, even after reading TLBTLD.  That is, once a control question has been identified, whether one should lie while employing CM, or whether one should tell the truth and use CM to appear uneasy?   

For example, if the control question is "Have you ever lied to your supervisor" or "Have you ever betrayed the confidence of a loved one", it's obvious that no one could truthfully answer "no".  So I would assume the correct thing to do would be to answer yes and employ CM to make it appear like there was at least some nervous deliberation involved in the answer.   

I'm going back right now to re-read TLBTLD, but if someone could offer some additional perspective to this newbie, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thanks.

Bad advice flowing here.  Countermeasures are detectable.  We polygraph examiners read this site and the government has done years of research on the detection of countermeasures, yes, including mental countermeasures.  I detect them all the time and once they are discovered, the examinee is black listed and will not be tested again, by anyone.  The use of countermeasures is considered a deceptive measure and an automatic disqualifier, even if an honest person is foolish enough to try and "help" themselves along. 

Admitting having researched polygraph and visiting this site will not automatically make you DI, as some here claim.  Get real.  I just had an examinee leave my office after I tested him.  He admitted to researching polygraph and visiting this site.  We discussed what he read at length and I had to calm him down and assure him the big, bad polygraph wasn't going to find him deceptive if he was telling the truth.  He did fine and went merrily upon his way, moving to the next phase in the hiring process.  I expect examinees, especially those of Generation X, who have been raised with the internet, to research polygraph. When they tell me they haven't, I actually become suspicious!

And no, knowledge of how the polygraph works does not affect the results. 

I stated in my first post I wasn't going to get into a lengthy debate as doing so would be a waste of time.  You have your opinion and we have ours.  My purpose of posting here is to give others who may happen upon this site some balanced information.  As an examiner I interview people all of the time who have been here and are concerned about what they read.  Most sane people take the rantings of a few rejected applicants with a grain of salt, but some have concerns.   

My earlier post was just stating what I do on a daily basis.  I work in the field, not behind a lab coat.  I have been to Oz too, but I wasn't kicked out for being the wicked witch of the east.  A lot has changed in the last 5-10 years.  I am doing nothing but presenting the other side.  I am not opposed to this site and actually feel George has done us a favor by pointing out our weaknesses and making us more dilegent.  Countermeasures have always been around.  John Reid wrote about them and developed a countermeasure detection chair 40 years ago.  The internet just made us stand up and take notice.  We can and do regularly detect countermeasures.  For me to fly to the east coast and prove it to you would be pointless.  You would make excuses just like you did when an independant reporter proved that countermeasures don't work.  Besides, if you admitted countermeasures are detectable, what would be the point of this site?   

Unlike most others on this site, I serve and protect the citizens.  Using the polygraph I have had the wrongly accused released from prison; had the guilty confess; and kept a lot of misfits out of uniform.  I am human and I have made mistakes.  Show me one person that hasn't.   

Your on the wrong side. Polygraph usage is increasing and will continue to do so.  Don't you think it is kind of strange:  the more you guys protest and state your case, the more polygraph increases.  Most of you are living proof it works.  Keep up the good work!

Tasercop,

No problem with the spelling, but you can modify your posts if you care to correct typos.  With regard to the substance of your post though...well, that's a different matter.  It is not sufficient for you to simply ignore the substance of the debate and state that I know we can do it, we do it, and that's all there is to it.  Again, nonsense.  I gave you two problem areas for you regarding knowledgeable examinees.  How do you address/handle these problems?  With regard to countermeasures, a reporter proved? Assuming we are speaking of the one recent account with which I am familiar, you must be kidding.  I can speak with you as a cop or as a doctoral student.  If the latter, do you really expect a peer reviewed paper or a doctoral dissertation resulting from such an exercise?  Your reporter appears to be nothing but a confused layperson and one rather clueless as to how the exam works, what a countermeasure is, and how and why such should be applied.  And as regard to this site (I am not responsible for it or its content, but) it would appear that the general theme is that various polygraph applications (particularly screening applications) lack validity IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNTERMEASURES.  Again, that is, in the absence of countermeasures.  The issue of countermeasures arises only as consequence and one of several remedies to the general problem and theme.  And as regard to your various personal successes, I do not question that they have occurred.  However, I have no doubt that if I were simply to flip a coin and use the result as a basis for a determination in a substantial number of important cases, I would have true positives and true negative results in these important cases.  The degree of case importance does not change the fact that we are merely dealing with a binomial determination—DI or NDI.   These correct coin-flip results would in no way justify the false positives and false negatives in equally important cases, represent scientific advancement (merely the expression of the laws of probability), nor represent a valid diagnostic test.  Nothing that you have offered would indicate that your isolated successes are any different.  Regards....

tasercop wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 2:30am:


So what would you tell someone like me who went through multiple polygraphs, told the truth on everything, had never even heard of a countermeasure much less attempted one, and still failed because the examiner decided I was lying?  You can claim I must have been lying anyway, but I know I wasn’t.  Hopefully you can produce a better answer than telling me that there are unprofessional polygraphers out there.

I am less interested in the debate on whether countermeasures are detectable or not than I am in this question:  If polygraphy is a scientifically valid method of testing for deception, how could it be defeated by a change in breathing pattern?  Or by doing math equations in your head?  Or biting the side of your tongue?  I would think that a valid test would not be affected by such things.  I can’t imagine going for my next cholesterol screening and being warned not to think about baseball or tense my buttocks because it might ruin the test.

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. 

tasercop wrote on Jul 8^th, 2005 at 7:56pm:


Sure, every test can be changed if you the variables in the test.  That is a basic scientific principle.  But a valid scientific test must have well-defined variables that can be replicated by anyone else attempting the same test.  If anyone else attempts the same test using the same variables they must get the same results for the test to be valid.

The variables in a polygraph test are far too numerous, ephemeral, and subjective to be based in sound scientific principles.  You cannot have a valid test where what the subject is thinking may affect the accuracy of the test.  If the blood test for diabetes was only accurate if the subject didn’t eat for twelve hours prior, AND didn’t do math problems in his head, didn’t clench certain muscles, didn’t have a tack in his shoe, and didn’t do research on how the diabetes test was conducted, then I would have to conclude the diabetes test was not accurate or scientifically valid.