I do not know whether the behavior you've described would disqualify you from employment as a municipal firefighter, though I strongly doubt it. Either way, I think those seeking positions of public trust have a civic duty to answer relevant questions truthfully.

Be aware that whether or not you choose to be completely honest with your polygrapher, your polygrapher will not be completely honest with you. Polygraphy depends on the operator lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested." You'll find this trickery exposed in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Nov 21^st, 2006 at 11:04pm:

When I read George's post, I saw that he, as always, advised the original poster that people seeking positions of public trust have a duty to answer questions truthfully.

What part did you read that led you to conclude that George suggested that the poster "leave it open as to whether you should lie about those things"?

As I've explained before, George's (and other so-called experts on this website) belief is that countermeasures really work, and that examiner's can't detect them. I don't agree with this, but the point is that George believes it. The "gray" area in which George lives is an area of rationalization because he believes he is doing a service to the world by providing "innocent" examinees with the way to beat a polygraph. It's ok in his mind--or at least justifiable--that criminals and job applicants who should fail a polygraph might use his information to get away with their crimes/lack of integrity as long as a few potential "false positives" can try to ensure that they pass the exam. Again, it's George's belief that makes his world a "gray" world. You can argue, "Well, he does say that those seeking public service jobs should be honest to the relevant questions," but that's a big stretch considering his rationalization regarding the potential misuse of the information he believes can beat the polygraph.

Actually, George, your credibility should be on the line here. If TryingToGetAJob attempts the countermeasures you advocate on this site, that would be a lie, since his/her mistakes probably apply to the relevant issues on the test. By saying whether or not he/she chooses to be honest to the polygraph, he/she should realize that the polygrapher won't be honest to him/her, shows how you rationalize the issue, George. You might as well just say, "Lie to the polygrapher because the polygrapher will lie to you," rather than dodge around the issue with a little sentence about how people in public service should be honest to the relevant issues.

LBCB,

You are assailing George and those that support this site with aiding criminals and those not qualified to obtain a job through readily accessible information about polygraphy.  You have also labeled the majority of users of the site as liars, even by going so far as to discount the claims of those wrongly labeled liars (false positives).

May I ask you this: Why is it not standard procedure for examiners to admit up-front in screening exams whatever accuracy percentage is the accepted number by professional examiners?  Why hide the fact that, yes there is the possibility that I may incorrectly interpret your chart, labeling you a liar and effectively killing your chance of employment within this agency?

I fail to understand how you and your colleagues can speak out of both sides of your mouths, riduculing those you think are lying or withholding information while you are in fact lying and withholding information.  It is simply unethical behavior.

day2day wrote on Nov 25^th, 2006 at 3:57am:


The basic reason is that the responses the polygraph measures assume that the examinee believes or can be encouraged to believe that the polygraph is highly accurate. Otherwise the examinee is presumed at greater risk of fearing the polygraph will be wrong on the relevant questions and that that fear might be sufficient to override the control.  Polygrapher's don't do this because they enjoy lying. They do it because they believe it reduces false positives. Same with setting the control question state of mind.

This also makes it somewhat difficult to have reasonable and open discussions on a public forum.

I think most current polygraphers don't go the infallible or 1 in a million route since such an overstatement may reduce the credibility of the polygrapher and hence be counterproductive.

There's an interesting PhD thesis that is fairly recent that is fairly direct in outlining current practice. While the fellow doesn't support screening polygraphy, he does support specific incident testing as well as the Conceiled Information Test generally considered significantly better. He goes into a great deal of detail on CIT polys in forensic apps and is worth reading.

Here's a segment where he discusses the CQT preliminaries and I think one can see the rationale more clearly from this:

Bruno Verschuere, PhD Thesis, 2005
Ghent University

http://users.ugent.be/~bvschuer/Introduction.pdf

Quote:


More:
http://users.ugent.be/~bvschuer/research.htm

day2day wrote on Nov 25^th, 2006 at 3:57am:


Actually, most examiners whom I know are quite candid about the polygraph during the pre-test interview with examinees. It is quite common for examiners to tell an examinee that, although the polygraph is not perfect, it is highly accurate, and it is the best instrument available. Typically the figures we use are that the polygraph is between 85-90% accurate. This takes into account that inconclusive results are not counted because obviously they are not right or wrong, but simply inconclusive.

Also, for most agencies, Federal, state or local, the polygraph is not the only criterion used to make a hiring decision, nor should it be. Polygraph examiners are not usually in a position to decide whom to hire or not to hire. People who judge all of the criteria make that decision. But let me ask you, if you are that person making the final decision, and there are 100 job applicants who passed the polygraph, background investigation, etc., and there are a few with equal qualifications who failed the polygraph or came up inconclusive--considering how competitive the hiring process can be--whom would you be more inclined to hire?