"Wannabe"

You first stated "about 7 times", then stated during the post-test that was it definitely 7.  The problem with trying to give a number to improper behaviour is that human nature leads most to minimize rather than maximize.  If you recalled 7 times BUT the number could be as high as 10 or 15 (for example), you will experience problems on the test concernng withholding information on drugs because you would be questioning your answer and know that it COULD be more than what you reported; therefore, withholding information.

During the examinations I conduct, I have the examinee give me a NTE estimate, even if it is too high.  That way, residual thought or concern over the number is discounted and no reaction would be expected.

Whether the statement and reaction by the examiner is normal, I would expect that since you had problems with the test at that topic and provided no answer to the inquiry, you will be considered DI without explanation and DQ'd.

If you really want to work there, you may want to call them back now and ask for a re-test or specific issue test concerning drugs and explain that upon reconsideraion your estimate during the test was low and advise them what the NTE number could be.  It might help.   

Good luck.
 
Sackett

P.S.  Lethe, I'll respond to you later.

I never said that 7 was the definite number either time.  Each time I said it was an estimate.  I don't know how she would expect me to remember an exact number when it was so long ago.

sackett wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 4:17pm:


Sackett, I can see how if wannabe was unsure of the # and felt he was admitting to the low side of the uses that it might cause him to react. 
However I submit to you that it may also be that the examinee, since he already claims it was in excess of 15 yrs may have some strong feeling about his drug use, and feels not only guilty but also fearfull that he will be viewed as a irresponsible person. Not to metion he must also be fearing that his chances of this job are considerably diminished by his past history. This MUST account for at least some of the "reaction" that cannot be linked to the "control" questions.

Twoblock wrote on May 4^th, 2008 at 5:31pm:


twoblock,

I must say it has never been my intention to "annoy" anyone.  Enlighten, educate, contradict or clarify maybe, but never annoy.

As for writing much and (reportedly) saying little, I submit, the quality of any post is only as good as the comprehension and understanding ability of the reader.   

Sorry, I am not Ted K.  and I am certainly not nombre.  I post under my true name and give my statements as an accurate testimony of by beliefs.

As for my ego, I assure you it is large enough. As I did note your agreement the other day, I went back to re-read, since I thought I mistyped something...

Have a good one and enjoy the great white north...

Sackett

Want2BPO wrote on May 4^th, 2008 at 6:45pm:


I never suggested you purposefully over-estimate to a ridiculous number.  I said estimate your use, then go beyond that to a number you know it can not be.  Meaning, a number which while higher than probable is a number you know it can not be but close (just over) to the actual number of times.  This relieves the anxiety of the answer and removes the threat associated with the answer.  

If you guess a thousand times and know it was about 3, you're right, it would be a lie.  But then again, why would anyone do that?

I hope this clears it up.

Sackett

Quote:


What proof is there that a "reaction" on a polygraph machine unequivocally indicates "deception".  Polygraphers, ironically, are lying when they say it does.  Polygraphers on this board have admitted that the machine doesn't necessarily indicate deception.  Yet examiners make undocumented claims all the time (even on national TV).  So what does that tell you?   

If you were being sincerely honest, yet were accused of being "deceptive", a more LOGICAL conclusion would be that the problem is WITH THE POLYGRAPH, and not you.

You're playing right into their game by being so pensive about the test.

You estimated 7 times, and stuck to your guns despite repeatedly being asked the same question (which is typical of them).  GOOD FOR YOU!

It's ridiculous that smoking marijuana even matters--unless you do it in excess. But that's what we get in our overly conservative and narrow-minded nation.