Mr Maschke

Whether or not polygraph is a psuedoscientific fraud is a seperate question.  Regardless of what the applicant believes about polygraph, if he or she pretends to cooperate while knowingly obstructing or circumventing the departments hiring process he or she is cheating.  And I can't believe that either you or Mr Cullen really believes that is the proper way to began a career in law enforcement.

Quote:


I try asking you.  If an applicant fills out ALL relevant information on their application truthfully and fully, and RUTHFULLY answers all relevant questions on the polygraph, is that "cheating"?

TC

I agree, using countermeasures IS cheating.

Is it honest for a polygraph operator to repeatedly tell the applicant that the polygraph machine "detects decpetion", when is doesn't?

My main advice to people has not really focussed that much on using CMs.  Many formats aren't amenable to their use.   

My advice has been for people to realize that the polygraph IS NOT a test for the truth.  The machine DOES NOT detect lies.  When examiners say that it does, they are actually lying.  The test is based on a lie.  And it is important for the polygrapher to get the applicant to BELIEVE THAT LIE.

The polygraph is a cleverly disguised interrogation.  Disguised as a scientific test people overwhelmingly believe in due to the "pop" culture.  So, when an applicant is told, to their utter amazement that the machine has "indicated" they are lying, when they are actually being truthful, they end up believing THE MACHINE, not themselves.  This is just the OPPOSITE of what they should be doing. 

Of course, judging by the behavior of four different polygraph operators I dealt with at the NSA, and the attitude of polygraphers posting on this board, it would NOT be advisable to question the validity of the polygraph WHEN BEING EXAMINED.  That would be (i,e, telling the examiner what they really think of the process) more calculated to PISS OFF the thin skinned polygrapher who would them be predisposed to FAIL them.  For being honest with them.  So I my advice is:

1.  Answer relevant questions HONESTLY  and forthrightly, and stick to your answer.

2.  Don't let the examiner convince you your are lying, and must be some big time drug dealer working for Al Qaeda, based on a bunch of stupid scratch marks on the chart.  That would be just plain silly! All to common, but silly.

3.  Don't get into an argument, and become confrontative over the validity of the polygraph,  You'll just piss off the examiner. 

4.  Let the examiner "huff and puff", call you a liar, whatever, just don't cave in and start playing their game by speculating about why the "chicken scratches" on the chart are zigging when they should of been "zagging".  The chart is BS anyway.  Just realize that is the interrogative technique they employ.  Don't fall for it.

That has been my advice, is that "cheating"?

TC

P.S.  As for criminal police polygraphs.  Same advice.  Don't even taken them.  The DA/police is just trying to take the opportunity to interrogate you under duress, without legal representation, when they have only a weak case against you.  In these cases, however, you can end up in freaking jail, not just being declined for employment!   

pailryder wrote on Feb 17^th, 2009 at 2:30am:


There is no question but that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. And I think any objective person will readily understand that any ethical consideration of polygraph countermeasures must necessarily involve the (well-settled) question of polygraphy's (lack of) scientific underpinnings.

For relevant discussion of the ethical considerations associated with making countermeasure information publicly available, see the discussion thread, A Response to Paul M. Menges.

Yes.  I think cheating a conman who is trying to chdat you is not unethical, but self protection.

Is it ethical to maintain that the polygraph can detect lies, and is scientifically valid, when it is not, moral and ethical?

Is it ethical for a polygraph operator to tell an examinee that George is working for Iran with no evidence, during a polygraph pretest interview?  George, do you still have that tape?

Polygraphers, or anyone who perpetrates a fraud, are not in a very good position to make moral judgements of others, methinks. 

TC

Mr Cullen

When a person seeks employment with an agency that enforces our laws, that person should comply with all legal requirments for employment with the agency they have chosen.  If they cannot comply they should seek another employer.  You recommended countermeasures to Seahawks, and I don't have a problem with that, you have the right to help him cheat.  Just be honest about it.

BBuxton,

Howse about answering some of my questions for a change.

quid pro quo  Dr. lecter!

TC

TMC  OK youre right fair is fair. I'll try to answer some of them as best I can.

"I try asking you.  If an applicant fills out ALL relevant information on their application truthfully and fully, and RUTHFULLY answers all relevant questions on the polygraph, is that "cheating"? "

answer      Your question seems to say that some of the questions on a lie detector test don't have any bearing on the process. Why ask them if they don't do anything? I thought all the questions were part of the test or relevant and if an examinee answers all questions truthfully to the best of his ability, and follows instructions, and doesn't try to alter the results by countermeasuring, he would not be cheating

"Is it honest for a polygraph operator to repeatedly tell the applicant that the polygraph machine "detects decpetion", when is doesn't?"

answer  If the polygraph machine does not detect deception, then it would not be honest for a polygraph operator to say that it does. 

"Is it ethical to maintain that the polygraph can detect lies, and is scientifically valid, when it is not, moral and ethical?"

answer    If the polygraph cannot detect lies and isn't scientifically valid then I don't think it would be be moral and ethical to maintain that it does. 

"Is it ethical for a polygraph operator to tell an examinee that George is working for Iran with no evidence, during a polygraph pretest interview? "

answer  While I think people are entitled to their beliefs and are entitled to share them with whoever they wish, I think it would be innapropriate for an operator to tell someone that if they didn't have some reason to believe it. 

I tried to answer your questions. The reason I didn't answer them before is that they seemed to depend on me agreeing that polygraph don't detect deception, aren't scientific and that the examinner didn't have any evidence about Iran am I'm not ready to do that yet. 

Is there some problem about the way I worded my question about fudging on a job application?

PS  I think Brian Cox  made the best Dr Lektor