anonymous000 wrote on May 4^th, 2008 at 2:36am:


Understand that the examiner is going to try to get you to lie.  While he doesn't absolutely need you to lie, he's like you to do so and will try to get you to do so.  You're going to hear something like the following in the pre-test phase:

Anonymous000, if you've ever lied to get out of trouble or if you've ever broken any traffic law then you're not the sort of person we want in law enforcement.  Who wants a police officer who lies to get out of trouble?  Or who wants a police officer who himself breaks traffic laws?  Of course, no one does.  So, if you have ever done these things, you cannot be a police officer.   

We furthermore have studies that show that people who have ever disappointed a loved one do not make good police officers.  So, if you have ever disappointed a loved one we will conclude that you will not make a good police officer and you will not get a job.

So, tell me, Anonymous000, have you ever broken any traffic law?  Have you ever told any lie to get out of trouble?  Have you ever disappointed a loved one?  If you have, you cannot be a police officer!

This is, of course, all ridiculous.  The purpose is not to find out if you've done the things mentioned, it is assumed that you have because, indeed, if you're human you almost certainly have done these things. The purpose of this spiel is to make you lie or, at least, to make you feel damned anxious about your position when answering those questions.

You have two choices.  You can play along and pretend that you won't get the job if you tell the truth.  That is called "make believe," but may well result in you passing.  But then, you'll have told a lie to get a position of trust.  You need to figure out if you can deal with that and if it's worth it to you.

Your other option is to do what you claim you will do: be 100% honest.  Tell them that you have broken traffic laws, as they may already know if they've reviewed your driving records and you've ever had a ticket. He'll act shocked--shocked!--that you've broken traffic laws (prepare yourself for the bad acting) and will demand all the details.  When and where has every incident of traffic law violation taken place!  You'll mention those that you remember, or a few of them, and the polygrapher will act angry, probably shaking his head at what a horrible human being you are.  He will then ask if there are any other traffic violations to report.

The basic idea behind this is that if they demand to know when and where every traffic violation you ever committed was performed and you can't remember every time you broke a traffic law in all the tens or hundreds of thousands of miles that you've driven (as if anyone could), you will think you can't be a cop.  Your reactions to those questions will therefore be stressed and can be used as a comparison for the relevant questions about drug use and the like.   

Now, you might wonder how you are to lie when you know you're expected to lie, or why you should feel anxious when you know you're supposed to feel anxious and won't really face any consequences for having broken traffic laws.  Why should you take this polygrapher seriously when he is making such ridiculous statements?  Never fear, and don't worry that you know how the polygraph really works.  You see, polygraphers assure me that knowing how it works does not diminish its accuracy at all!   

Some people will try to convince you that the accuracy will suffer if you are informed of how it works.  They will ask you why polygraphers cloak their methods in secrecy if there is no reason for such secrecy.  They will suggest that there is a reason polygraphers tell the ridiculous lies, and that reason is to increase the accuracy of the exam.  Don't listen to those people.  There is, polygraphers assure me, no real reason for the silly lies they tell--they certainly don't increase accuracy at all!   

Anyway, tell the truth on the relevant questions.  Period.   

You can either lie or tell the truth on the comparison questions.  Polygraphers also assure me that it doesn't matter if you lie or tell the truth on the comparison questions, it's all the same to them.

If you pass(ed), good luck with your career!  If you fail(ed) you're either a bad human being or spent too much time listening to people who don't like the polygraph.  Sucks to be you.

NG1

More properly you can only say, from your direct experience, the polygraph you took failed to accurately classify you.  The polygraph industrial complex recognizes the problem with false positive results, but to significantly reduce them, would increase the false negative rate, a trade-off deemed unacceptable to LEA's.

Mr Cullen

It is difficult for any examiner to know exactly his own accuracy rate, as in so many cases ground truth is never resolved to a certainty.   Like you, I would be inclined to view claims in excess of 95% as wishful bs.  And, I have had my share of both confirmed false positives and false negatives.

Quote:


Then there a lot of polygraphers out there spreading BS, starting with Trimarco.  Thank you for being honest.

Our thesis here at AP, is that is more or less a necessity for polygraphers to dupe people into believing the test is so accurate.  And  that it is precisely the innocent, naive, law abiding people who are the most likely to come up FP.

Our goal here is to dispel this accuracy myth.

TC

pailryder wrote on May 8^th, 2008 at 2:46pm:


Yes, I can only directly speak for my own case, however I have read much about people that have experienced the same thing. 
The original respose that I got from people like Sackett was that I must be with holding something!!
So what I hear you saying is the "test" is as good as the odds are that its accurate which can't really be established. 
Leading to the fact that it cannot be relied upon to detect any measure of truth or deception. 
It's best use, as I see it is a tool to get confessions and even that has been shown to be unrealiable in many criminal cases.

NG1

The fact that many LEA's use the techniques mostly as a confession wedge, does not negate legitimate use for detection of deception.  Many agencies with that mindset have changed to some form of voice analysis for a faster wedge.  The PCASS seems to me to be the polygraph industry's answer to the challenge of VS. 

In the private field we are have less interest in confession and thus less need to inflate expected accuracy, though many still do, as old habits are hard to break.   

The fact that many anti's seem unwilling to grasp, is that there is a need for independent credability asscessments in our society.  We can and should argue over who is to do them and how, but the need is there.

If polygragh were banned tomorrow, it would not change what I do, just how I do it.  The credability asscessment that includes a psychophysiological component is more reliable than one which does not.

NG1

I have been a polygraph examiner for more than twenty years and the next polygraph examiner that I meet who introduces himself to me as a scientist will be the first.  We are speaking of interview and interrogation techniques.  People evaluating other people based on an interview that may or may not include the collection of psychophysicological data.  More than ever we are research driven and try to learn from and fit in with other discplines.  The last time I checked the Am Poly Assoc membership I counted members from 43 other countries.  Why did the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute change its name to the Defense Academy for Credibility Asscessment?  New techniques are coming faster than ever, they will not be called polygraph, but all will require some level of person to person interaction that may never be completely scientific in the way a chemistry experiment is.