Dear Academic Discourse,

After reading your post many times, I am going to focus on "I'm looking for one main question."

Is the following your main question, "What should I do if asked questions like have you studied polygraphs Internet sites, George's book, etc.?"

You have visited this website.  You are very aware of the situation that you are placing yourself into. Without rancor or emotion, you are gambling with your career and your future. It is not worth the anxiety or personal turmoil to deal with accusations from a person who does not know you from the next person they meet in a crowd.  Politely decline the position or application.  At what price do you sell your soul?  How much crap are you willing to take just to get a job?  How much abuse are you willing to stomach knowing for every future day in your employment that you had to "kiss" the examiner's ego and "pass" the test according to his rules?

There is no rhyme or reason to "passing" a polygraph exam.  It is unscientific, requires a master polygraph examiner to really differentiate between a truthful or deceptive applicant, and an unlimited budget to pursue an appeal of a failure (or inconclusive).

The situation is pathetic in that those that do "pass" perpetuate the practice by saying, "I passed so it must be a good system." Those that "fail"  the exam "deserve" the failure and are only whiners and complainers.

If everyone declined the test, there would be no successful applicants and the system would cave in on itself.  Mark my words, between the pay freeze, presumption that all federal workers are slugs, changing of pension plans, retirements, five year investigations, yearly financial disclosures, and five year continuous polygraph re-examinations, the quality of federal employees recruits will run dry.

An examiner is only interested in furthering in what he believes to be a legitimate calling. You are not going to sway or reason with them.

I would take my ball and go home.  You are playing against them in their home field and they have EVERY advantage including the umpires.  Find a job in the private sector.  Employment in the federal government is a losing proposition in just about every way you can analyze the situation. Congress is looking to privatize every possible position they can.

Regards,

Fair Chance

Quote:

Not me! I'm a harmless little fur ball.

stefano

I assumed nothing of the sort.  I simply stated the fact that examiners know  everyone googles and to lie about that will tip your hand.  I neither said nor assumed anything about detecting cm.

Wow, it must be presumptively assumed that everyone is performing web searches.  I am not looking upon pailryder's statement in a negative fashion in as much as it must severely complicate the parameters in the testing room. We have one poster stating that a controlled mindset of fear is necessary to have a successful test.  Knowledge tends to lessen fear of the unknown.

If you Google polygraph, this site comes up as one of the top hits. It must really add a wildcard to the situation. Passing a polygraph is even tougher because countermeasures are the wildcard. Examiners say that they can detect them so why all of the fuss unless they cannot detect them and need to pretend they can.

Judging from all of the responses on this website, it is better for them to err on the side of rejecting applicants. The only problem is that the continuing rejections are taking a toll on the agencies using them.  Exams cost money and failed applicants cost money. There is no proof that the cost of these test are justified considering the results.

Just an opinion.

Regards. 

Fair Chance wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 1:31am:


I mentioned Fear of Detection and also mentioned Cognitive Conflict. These are theory's regarding reactions on polygraph.  Please don't read too much into one post on this board.   

You do contribute, in many different ways, to the debates, and I am one that listens and attempts to investigate why reactions occur, I don't have a scientific answer.   

Thanks

stefano

Poluted-ticians will pay no attention to this website or letters about the polygraph. I have tried and got nary a responce and in a class action lawsuit, only lawyers come out smelling like a rose. Sueing the federal government is analogous to milking a bull.

pailryder wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 12:05pm:


I was simply pointing out the irony of a polygraph operator, supposedly an expert in the detection of deception, simply assuming the existance of facts not in evidence when they should be able to simply ask each subject, "Have you researched the polygraph?" and then be able to determine from the subject's responses if they are responding truthfully or not.  The danger, of course, is that you very well may encounter a person who has not researched the polygraph and you will certainly (and incorrectly) label them, at least in your mind, as a liar when they tell you the truth at that point in the interview.

In one of my own negative polygraph experiences, the polygraph operator (incorrectly) assumed that anyone who had leftover rifle magazines from their army days had stolen them with the intention of selling them in the civilian market.  That examiner failed me solely on that basis - that, after asserting I had not stolen anything from the army, I had admitted to having a few old rifle mags in a box that was shipped home from the army.  It wasn't until I went back to that same examiner during the application process for another agency that I was told why I had "failed" my prior polygraph - because I had "lied" about stealing army equipment.

If that examiner had not made completely incorrect assumptions on a topic about which it was clear they were completely ignorant, they wouldn't have failed a truthful person on the polygraph.  This examiner had no idea that things like tent pegs and M16 magazines are not accountable items, and apparently couldn't care less about my state of mind in this matter, which certainly lacked anything resembling mens rea and therefore should have alerted any reasonable person to the fact that no crime and no deception took place.

It is not that hard to imagine a police applicant going to one of the many forums for police applicants and police hopefuls and finding many, many posts that strongly suggest no research whatsoever be done on the polygraph, and go just "go in and tell the truth."  I have seen a lot of posts that also urge people not to research the polygraph because they will be asked during the examination if they have done so and if they answer in the affirmative they will be disqualified (because "research" equals "cheating").  Now this applicant goes to the polygaph and truthfully answers that he has not researched the polygraph.  Since the examiner is clearly unable to tell if the subject is lying or not, it seems likely he will simply assume that the subject is lying, since "everyone" researches the polygraph.  Even if that doesn't cause the examinee to fail by itself, it seems logical that an examiner who (incorrectly) believes the subject is lying to him in the first few minutes of the interview will carry that bias through the rest of the "test" process, which will certainly have a negative effect on the subject's chances to pass.