winchester wrote on Oct 21^st, 2006 at 10:46pm:


Winchester,

If your first polygrapher were truly confident that you had used countermeasures, you would not have been offered a re-test. The baseless accusation is testimony to the inability of polygraphers to detect countermeasures. Countermeasure "detection" consists largely of guesswork, bluffery, and badgering examinees for admissions. By admitting to some prior knowledge of polygraphy during your first polygraph (which you mentioned in an earlier post), you evidently made your polygrapher nervous.

The first polygraph is likely to color the second one, too. The polygrapher is going to be on his guard against countermeasures, and you're probably at increased risk of being accused of countermeasure use, whether or not you actually choose to employ countermeasures.

The choice to use countermeasures (or not) is one that only you can make. But I recommend that you make an informed choice. If you haven't already done so, see Chapters 3 & 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for detailed information on polygraph procedure and countermeasures.

winchester wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2006 at 1:06am:


Having been falsely accused of using countermeasures by the first department will certainly not help your prospects with the second department. I think it would be wise to say as little as possible about your first polygraph, and not to mention the countermeasures accusation. You can simply say, for example, that you did not pass the first agency's polygraph, even though you told the truth.

Quote:


No, you will not have to explain anything of the sort to the polygrapher. Provided they are answering the relevant questions truthfully, it is perfectly ethical for applicants for employment to deny having researched polygraphy to their polygraphers, and to use countermeasures to protect themelves against the risk of a false positive outcome.

Remember, no matter how honest you are with your polygrapher, your polygrapher is not going to be completely honest with you, but will instead lie to and otherwise attempt to deceive you about the nature of the polygraph procedure. The "test" has no scientific basis, is instead fundamentally dependent on trickery, and is inherently biased against the truthful.

You saw during your first polygraph how the mere mention that you had some prior knowledge about polygraphy led to a false accusation of countermeasure use. Under the circumstances, it is both ethical and wise not to reveal your knowledge of polygraphy to your second polygrapher.

Quote:


Honesty is a two-way street, buddy. If polygraphers want complete honesty, they should try being honest themselves. Polygraphy is based on lies and trickery and includes the not-so-secret-anymore assumption that even those who pass will have answered the "control" questions less than honestly.

When the fox preaches, guard your geese.