You cannot be required to take a polygraph and if you are sanctioned for your refusal, the insurance compay is wide open for a hefty lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer but i'm pretty sure that;s right. it would be smart to check with a lawyer on this.

The only thing i could find in my policy declration info was to "submit a statement under oath"  i didn't know if that included a polygraph.  But i also just found outthat there sending a private investigator somtime in the next couple of days, and he may ask me to tak one.  That may be because the City investigator were i live accused me of it and i told him were he ould stick it and walked out of the room.  I don't know if that was a good thing to do or not,  but i had already gave him all the info i could give him anyway.     Thank you guys for responding so fast  this is the first time i have used somthing like this.   If there is anymore advice or someone else who has delt with a simular situation i would greatly apperciate all the help i can get.

The one thing some of the previous posters have correct, is their conclusion that you cannot be forced to take a polygraph examination. Most statutes prevent compelling polygraph and the process requires cooperation. 

Regardless of opinions you will find here against polygraph and rhetoric it generates, peer reviewed published polygraph research as well as the vast majority of anecdotal information from actual cases prove repeatedly that a polygraph examination can effectively discriminate lying from truth-telling. Every year more and more courts at federal and state level are accepting polygraph results as evidence. 

Broad claims like "no scientific basis" and "inherently biased against the truthful" are mere opinions. 

You are certainly better off refusing the examination than trying to use the countermeasures available on this site. There is at least one study that indicates that attempting countermeasures actually increses the possibility of a truthful person failing the examination and there is no peer-reviewed published research that proves countermeasures taught in The Lie Beind the Lie Detector can be effectively implemented in a real life polygraph.

Do all of the research you want. Listen to the advice and negative claims about polygraph you’ll find here. Read the book if you want. Read the massive barrage of responses that will likely follow my post. It’s a free world. I am here fighting against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. 

If you don't want to take the test, refuse it, try to "beat it" at your peril. If you try countermeasures and get caught or try them and fail your test, both of which, in my opinion, are vastly more probable than successfully using countermeasures, you should not expect a sympathetic ear when you try to use excuse your behavior.

It's your decision.

See pugs I told you. 

All I did was encourage you to refuse the test,(agreeing with him on that point by the way) suggest that you should do your own research ( a sound idea concerning any important matter)  and point out an alternative position (allowed and encouraged in this forum) to the overwhelming negative views represented on this site. He responds impuning my integrity, comparing me to a tobacco salesman making some type of false claim. A statement I find at odds with his demand that posts substantively, civilly, and non-argumentatively address the original topic, made yesterday in another thread on this very site. 

While he may disagree with my statements, they are accurate.

As a direct response to his ad hominum attack impugning my personal integrity, I feel justified informing you that the origin of our friend "George Mashke's" hatred of polygraph is derived from his demonstrated inability to pass them.  You will find support for this comment in his own words at: https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml ;   I encourage you to read it for yourself and draw your own conclusion, but you may have to process a certain amount of "spin". 

I believe you should  greet his claims regarding polygraphy with the same skepticism that you would the instruction of a Drivers Ed teacher who has repeatedly been denied his license to drive. 

I am STILL here fighting against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. My personal opinion is that the free advice you might find here on countermeasures is tremendously overpriced. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance here.

Ed Earl wrote on Mar 17^th, 2009 at 7:24pm:

It would be more accurate to write that George's negative opinion of polygraphs was derived from his inability to pass one by answering the questions truthfully.

I think it is reasonable to believe that most intelligent people would have serious misgivings about the polygraph if they were accused of lying after answering all the questions truthfully.

Actually Sergeant, It would be more accurate to write that George's negative opinion of polygraphs was derived from his demonstrated inability to pass them accompanied by his unsubstantiated claim he answered the questions truthfully.

While there is no disagreement, (according to his account,) that he did not pass his polygraphs; there is some disagreement between he and the FBI and LAPD regarding his truthfulness(again according to his OWN account). In any case, I pointed Pugs towards George's story so he could read it and draw his own conclusion. Do you have something against that?    

While I wouldn't have mentioned it at all had he not impugned my integrity, I think it is reasonable to believe that most intelligent people would find it fair to question the veracity of a person who failed to meet  minimum standards for competitive employment regarding why they failed to meet those standards whatever they were, but especially so when the central issue was truthfulness.  However, if you guys will let this issue lay, I will too.

I mean all I really want to do here is fight against those who try to convince people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.

Quote:


Actually Sancho, it would more accurate to write that George's negative opinion of polygraphs was derived from his inability to pass them while telling the truth dispite  YOUR and other industry pundits unsubstatiated claims that the polygraph can measure truthfulness from lies.

An intelligent person might ask if there were any evidence to substantiate that employment polygraphs (which is what GM took) could do what you just claimed it could do (with no citations as usual) why did the NAS review conclude otherwise?

Who should an intelligent person believe, the NAS or a person who makes a living telling people otherwise.  GM's tobacco industry analogy pertains.   

Was any evidence ever found that GM was working for Iran, or is a drug dealer as his FBI polygrapher accused him of?

TC