Sancho Panza

There have been many, many posters that have said they told the truth and failed their poly. Are you calling all of them liars?? You have berated the good Sargent's posts and I believe his honesty and integrity are beyound reproach. You and the other polygraphers continually berate George and say that he advocates lying on the poly test. I have never read one of his posts where he says that. He has always has said "tell the truth on the relevant questions". 

I and, I think, the majority of people holds honesty and integrity in the highest regard. Is the stim test honest and honorable? Is the polygrapher honest and truthful while preparing a subject for the test? I am asking because all I know is what I read.

As I have posted before, I am far beyond the age of taking a poly for a job, but if a polygrapher ever branded me a liar (when I KNOW that I have told the truth) he would have to prove it before a judge and a jury of my peers. I will never understand how a person, who is honest, can be called a liar, just go on down the road and not fight back. That's just not part of my make-up.

Twoblock/ CP33 
If you will carefully reread my post you will discover that I said absolutely nothing about polygraphers and I said nothing about anyone who had failed a polygraph test. I also never said that if I had failed a polygraph test after telling the truth that I would just go on down the road and not fight back. What I said was” Had I failed a polygraph test, I would not build a website or co-write a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity in order to cheat the testing process, nor would I appear on such a website trying to tell people that cheating on a polygraph test is OK because I didn’t get a job I thought I deserved.”

I did talk about me and my disgust for people who apply for positions of trust saying that it is an acceptable behavior to lie and cheat in order to achieve a position of trust. 

As to what Mr. Maschke has said about lying, I would refer you to his oft quoted book the lie behind the lie detector. To wit:

But don’t tell your polygrapher that you’ve read this book or that you’ve done research on the Internet and visited such websites as
AntiPolygraph.org! Page 140 Concealing Information

Instead, provide a general answer to his question about what you know about polygraphy, such as: Page 140 suggesting lies to tell the examiner

I heard on T.V. that they’re almost always accurate when
used by a skilled examiner. Is that right?
• A friend of mine in law enforcement said not to worry, just
go in and tell the truth, and you’ll have no problem!
• I understand that polygraphs are a lot more accurate than
those voice stress analyzers. (Polygraphers generally hold the competing
voodoo science of Computerized Voice Stress Analysis
[CVSA] in utter contempt.)
• I read in the paper that the polygraph has been constantly
improving with time and that the latest computerized polygraphs
are very reliable.
• When I was in grade school, a polygraph examiner came
and gave a demonstration to my class and showed us how the test
is done using my teacher as a volunteer. She lied about a card she
had picked from a deck, and the polygraph examiner caught her
lie and was even able to figure out exactly which card she had
picked!
• I heard it caught O.J. in a lie! (Virtually no one in the polygraph
community believes O.J. Simpson to be innocent of the
murder of his ex-wife, Nicole.)

Whatever answer you give, don’t memorize and repeat the above
examples word-for-word. Page 140 suggesting which lies to use and offering advice on how to deliver them.

If you do choose to submit to a polygraph for some other
reason (most likely as a pre-requisite for an employment process),
the most important step you can take to minimize the potential
for a negative outcome is to make no admissions. Page 197 concealing information Note  this statement does not differentiate between what it is or isn't permissable to lie about

Make no admissions is also the rule if and when a polygrapher accuses you of using countermeasures.  Page 197 in other words if the examiner accuses you of useing the techniques taught on antipolygraph.org to manufacture false reactions, lie  

BTW thankyou for giving me the opportunity to use thise quotes again I think that they should stay near the top so everyone will know that the books attempts to justify dishonesty. 

BTW again NO!!! I don't think that because someone might have  been dishonest with me that I would be automatically justified in being dishonest with them. I do not see that type of behavior as ethical or honorable. Obviously you disagree. 

CP33 Based on the content of your posts, I think it is reasonable for me to conclude that you think that dishonesty is jusified just because you think someone might be dishonest with you and I find that concept completely illogical and frankly somewhat disgusting.

As for the rest of it don't try to twist my words to try and bait me. If you can't understand the meaning of my words, simply ask and I will try to explain them n a manner you can better understand. 

Sancho Panza

There's a hole in the moral ozone and it's getting bigger.

Let's say that there is a test that 8 times out of 10 4+4=8.  However, since the test is not perfect those 2 other times the answer 8 is considered wrong and you fail.  This is basically what polygraphs are.  LE pre-employment polygraphs require applicants to take a test where there is a chance that when answering correctly you will fail.  How ignorant is this?

CP33 The biggest problem I have with you is your misconception that unethical behavior is justifiable or that cheating is an appropriate way to enter the law enforcement profession. 

Intentionally using countermeasures is dishonest and therefore immoral.  Under your logic, should a Navy Fighter Pilot decide that the vision requirements or testing procedures aren't fair then he would be perfectly justified in attempting to manipulate the testing procedure so he could maintain flight status. Perhaps, lets say, by educating himself as to the order of letters he would have to recite from a chart during the exam so he can try to manufacture the response the doctor is expecting during the exam. 

You've indicated that you have been practicing with a BP monitor, That is not using a mental counter measure that is a physical countermeasure you are practicing.  It is not "allowing yourself to react" it is attempting to manufacture reaction and it is as surely a cheating strategy as taping a crib sheet inside your shirt for a calculus final.

I don’t think that you understand that you will never convince me that what you intend to do is anything but immoral, dishonest, and unethical.

I find nothing in Mr. Maschkes book that says anything at all about anyone being able to suppress reactions to relevant questions.


Twoblock

Mr. Mascke has already responded to my quoting of his text. He is aware that I consider his occasional disclaimer and careful choice of words just a simple way to provide an escape argument or plausible deniability for his "lie coaching behavior'.    Why don't you go back and read his whole book and calculate how much space he devotes to encouraging the reader to tell the truth versus how much space he devotes to  telling the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity in order to cheat the testing process.  FYI countermeasures and lying gets a whole chapter.


Sanch Panza

Sergeant you wrote "  I don’t see how a person doing such a thing is behaving the least bit unethically"  

That's an issue. You don't see manufacturing false responses as unethical.         I do.

We have not been discussing someone who chooses "not to go over their responses in their heads for several more minutes in order to create a physiological response."  

What we are discussing is the application of countermeasures as described in Mr. Masckes book. You cannot follow his instructions without being dishonest. Mr. Mascke attempts to remedy this with statements that this dishonesty is justified. I disagree. 

CMcphee33 has retreated from "Hi, I have a blood pressure machine at home that measures bp and pulse as well. When I practice using CM's I am able to increase my systolic (top number) by between 7-10, and increase my pulse by about 15 bpm. Is this enough of a change?" and "I have been doing some practice at home with my heart rate monitor. Below are my results....can someone give their opinion on whether these results are good, too obvious, or not good enough?" and "I know that answering the questions while using mental counter measures is the smartest thing I can do to get past a process that is far from perfect. " To "Educating yourself and going into the test with knowledge and confidence is the best thing a person can do...even if they don't do cm's. I think having knowledge and confidence are a sort of countermeasure" and "If you know what the polygrapher is expecting and what they want you to lie to (ie control questions), it would be natural to allow yourself to react to these questions, and it would be natural to use mental countermeasures to calm yourslef during relevant questions. Like I said before, having knowledge and confidence is kind of like a countermeasre in itself.

I believe he is altering his position in an attempt to minimize the dishonorable and unethical nature of what he plans to do. Don't forget that the reason he thinks he needs to cheat and lie is not because he is concerned that he will be falsley accused of some behavior based on an error in the examination process. He plans to use countermeasures in an attempt to conceal behavior he considers emabarrassing even though he maintains it isn't illegal. In his original post he said "Hi all, the only part of the RCMP poly I am worried about is the sexual activity part. I am a bit a of a exibitionist/voyeur at times....just minor..."

How do you think he should respond if he is asked if he intends to try to control, alter or interfere the results of his test? Or if he is asked if he intends to tamper with testing process in any way?

Sancho Panza

Allow me to clarify I don't really think you are changing your position at all. I think your position is exactly the same as it was when you started. You are changing the way you describe your position, in my opinion to minimize the unethical nature of the behavior you have said you plan to use. 

Every test has an error rate and I am not talking just about polygraph. Every test has an error rate. If you find the risk of being victimized by whatever error rate exists unacceptable, don't take the test. If you think the RCMP is out to get you by using the polygraph, just apply somewhere where they don't use polygraph and retain whatever integrity you now possess. Try to cheat the test and you compromise whatever integrity you now possess. 

Attempting countermeasures as you have described and that have been described in Mr. Maschkes book is unethical and dishonest. 

You have no right to work for the RCMP just a desire and they have a right to establish whatever criteria they want, within the law,  to qualify and disqualify applicants. Right now they desire  to include polygraph and it really doesn't matter what you, me, or anyone else thinks about polygraph. It doesn’t matter that  truthful people may have been falsely accused of lying. It doesn’t matter  that someone has convinced you that polygraphers lie and mislead as part of their job. It doesn’t even matter that you think a polygraph really can't tell you if someone is lying. It doesn't change your situation one bit.

You have the right to try and change their policy if you think it is a bad policy, but you don't have the right to attempt to cheat the test because you are unable to get them to change their policy. 

From what I have read, agencies engaged in polygraph screening do not generally use polygraph as a sole qualifying/disqualifying factor. I doubt very seriously that some of the people who think they were disqualified by polygraph actually were disqualified, just because of polygraph results. I think that they may have inferred that as the reason for disqualification because their polygrapher questioned them about the results of their test and when the agency to which they applied rejects them they think it must have been because of polygraph. I think that some agency heads might use polygraph as an excuse when they make a decision not to hire someone because they just don't like the way a guy looks. I have never heard of a rejection letter that cites polygraph as the reason for rejection. I'm not saying that one doesn't exist, I'm just saying I have never heard of one and if someone has one, I would love to see it.

I see the probability that you will be busted for attempting countermeasures as significantly greater than you being disqualified for any legal but embarrassing act you may have in your past. I would be willing to wager that they don't have to prove you used them, the mere suspicion that you use them will drop you on the eligibility list.

Sancho Panza

Also Sancho, I was wondering if you can back up your statements like "CM's don't work" and "You will get caught" with an example. Let's assume someone just uses some mental cm's...how can you know they are using cm's?