Quote:


Confusing, isn't it?

No think about the prospect of trying to engage in a whole myrad of physical and psychological gymnastics, the whole time being closely watched by a man or woman who job it is to catch you doing just the the things your are trying to do and not get caught.

Now add to that the prospect that your entire future rests on your ability to "spin all those plates."

You feel lucky?

Or would it not be better to just walk into the polygraph facility, cooperate, and tell the truth?

Unless of course in your case, there is a small "problem" with the truth

Nonombre.      
8)

Sergeant1107,

Thank you for your reply. Now I get it. So, I guess the key if to (1). recognize the control questions and (2). make sure you create a reaction on these questions. I suppose the examine has to do everything he/she can not to be relaxed during a control question and not be honest either about them. 

Nonombre (No Name),

Why are you so concern about decent people trying to pass the polygraph to serve their nation? I think a background investigation is sufficient enough for the government to determine if an indivudual is fit to serve.

Quote:


Opp,

Sorry to bust your bubble, but background investigations have a notoriously high "false negative" rate.  In fact, among the police departments that administer the polygraph examination AFTER the background investigation is complete, many report that polygraph testing has revealed significant amounts of derogatory information never disclosed by ANY previous background investigations.

Nonombre
   

Quote:



Opp,

I have addressed my concerns about the possibility of false positives in earlier posts.  I know they do occur (although not in the numbers that some on the site would like you to believe)  So to best answer your question, please allow me to repeat part of an earlier posting I made on this topic:

"Police pre-employment polygraph screening is only one of several steps most police applicants must successfully navagate to get to the final point of being hired.  For most departments, the post-application steps are:
 
1.  Written test
2.  Psychological testing
3.  Physical test
4.  Polygraph Exam
5.  Interview/panel
6.  Background investigation.
 
The order might be different, but these are the basic steps.  (some departments add-subtract various things, but these are the usual basics).
 
Okay, here is what I propose.  How about we weigh the various steps according to what a particular department feels are important, then numerically score each step with an eye torwards understanding that if an applicant "bombs" one particular area (including the Polygraph), he can still get the job.
 
You see, if you look at all the steps closely, you will see that most are actually quite subjective in nature:
 
1.  Written test - Some people just don't "test" well.
2.  Psychological testing - Oh please, psychology is the
     "softest" of the sciences.
3.  Physical test - Okay, pretty objective, but once the
     average cop has a couple years on the force, the
     donuts do tend to take over.   
4.  Polygraph Exam - Arguementively Subjective, with a
     documented error rate.
5.  Interview/panel - NOTHING is more subject than this.
6.  Background investigation.  High false negative rate.
 
As I see it, we provide a numerical value to each of the steps and come up with a minimum "pass" number.  Additionally, we design the scoring system to specifically allow an applicant to to do badly in any one area and still get the job (Yes, that includes the polygraph).
 
Now, if the applicant does sufficiently poorly in more than one area, he is out of the running.  That will allow someone who is otherwise excellently qualified but fails the polygraph (or some other area) to still get the job.
 
However, if anywhere during this process, information develops that specifically disqualifies the applicant (e.g., he admits during the polygraph/psychological interview he has several bodies buried in the backyard), he is likewise out of the running.
 
This way, we have gone a long way to protecting against the "false positive."   
 
Now you can still argue against all the weaknesses of the polygraph, but as I have indicated, virtually all the steps towards employment  have distinct drawbacks.
 
The beauty of a weighted point system the that the unfairness in one or more of the stages can be mitigated by shifting points earned in those areas the applicant did much better in.
 
I mean, look at it this way.  How would you like it, if you aced every bit of the process to include the polygraph exam, and was then "disqualified" by a couple of panel members who happened to disagree with your feelings about something you were asked, or worse harbored some concealed prejudice against you?
 
In most applicant systems you would be dead in the water.  With a properly weighted numerically scored applicant system, your excellent results in the other areas would qualify you for a rightfully earned position."
 
Nonombre

dimas wrote on Jul 31^st, 2005 at 10:02pm:


Dimas,

You and I completely agree on this point.  Evan though I am a polygraph examiner, I do not believe that ANY single part of the process should immediately disqualify an applicant.  No part of the pre-employment process is perfect.

Nonombre   

Quote:

From what I understand, if you continue to make new admissions during the pre-test interview, the examiner will do his best to cut you off.  If you are supplying a string of admissions about such things as when you were a child you lied to your mother about a cookie, and you lied to your father about getting in trouble at school, and you lied to your teacher about the dog eating your homework, then the examiner will attempt to move things along by asking something like, “Have you ever lied about something serious?”

Of course, the ambiguity of that question provides the examiner with all the rationale he needs for assuming you will lie once you are hooked up to the machine.  What is “serious” to one person may or may not be “serious” to another person.  Once he asks that question it will quickly wrap up that portion of the pre-test interview in one of two ways.  Either you will make an admission so damaging that you disqualify yourself (“Yes, when I was fifteen I burned my neighbor’s house down and lied to the police when they asked me about it.”) Or you will make one or two admissions to “serious” things that aren’t all that serious and then answer “no” when asked, “Other than what you’ve told me, have you ever lied about anything serious?”

Bear in mind that for every lie you admitted to, the examiner did his best to convince you it was a horrible act of deception that hints at such a deeply flawed morality that you may not be suitable for a job in law enforcement.  If you tell him that you lied to the teacher in 8th grade about the dog eating your homework, he will tell you how lying to a supervisor about work that you were supposed to have done is a very serious matter, and the agency you are applying to takes a very grave view of such matters.  After a few such admonitions, most applicants are hardly eager to admit to any further lies.

I’d like to add that I believe the information on this web site is intended to assist truthful people in protecting themselves from a false positive.  If you are planning to lie about anything during any part of your background investigation (including the polygraph) then in my opinion you should be looking for a job in a field other than law enforcement.