I just took my Poly today, and I had a few questions. The first thing that happened is that the lady that administered the test was about 20 minutes late. By the way, the test was for a local P.D. It's a small town P.D., so I think they subcontracted out the polygrapher. So then she gives me this "book" with about 275 questions in it and asks me to answer all the questions , and circle the ones that I wanted to discuss with her. So I did. Then she goes over with me the ones that I circled. She then put the machine on me, two wires around my chest, finger sensors on my index and ring fingers of my left hand, and a blood pressure cuff thats on my left arm. She then sums up the whole test by asking me maybe ten questions. She then says just to answer them in my head, not out loud. Im thinking....yeah right, like your gonna read my mind. It was all over pretty quick, but after she unhooked me she didn't say anything. She just said " Okay, your free to go" How do you guys interpret that?? She wasn't overly friendly at all during the test, so I didnt expect her to say anything nice but to just leave me hanging??It seemed to me that if there would have been a problem, she would have at least said, " Let's talk about this question or something. During the test I did swallow a few times, just because my mouth was watering, and I wondered if that would show up. These things seem like such a joke.....they try to sum your life up in 5 minutes on a machine to decide if your worth the job or not!!!!     ???

Goose,

It seems you were not subjected to a post-test interrogation, and this is a good (but not conclusive) sign that you passed your "test." As BUSE1 noted from personal experience, absence of a post-test interrogation does not necessarily mean that you have successfully proven your innocence to your prospective employer.

It would be prudent for you to write for your own record a detailed memorandum about your polygraph experience, as discussed in Chapter 5 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. This will be useful in case you are later compelled to contest your polygrapher's opinion.

I'm interested in the technique your polygrapher used, that is, her telling you to not to reply orally but to answer her questions "in your head." This calls to mind a technique which James Allen Matte refers to as the "Silent Answer Test" and to which he devotes Chapter 19 of his book Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph (J.A.M. Publications, 1996). He explains the rationale for this technique (as opposed to having the subject verbally answer the questions) at pp. 514-15:

Quote:


It's mildly surprising that your polygrapher used this technique as her primary one, and not as a back-up. How many times did she ask you her series of approximately ten questions while the polygraph instrument was attached to you?

By the way, whether you answer the questions out loud or not, polygraphy is exactly what you suggested, an attempt to read your mind. The validity of such attempts at mind-reading is, however, unsupported by peer-reviewed scientific research.

 This "silent answer" type of exam really doesn't seem logical. Let's just say for example that you are asked the following question;
1. Other than what you have told me, have you ever used illegal substances such as ....?
 Now suppose you have (used drugs more than you stated) and you lied on you written answers and stated "NO", but when asked to answer this "in your head" you are truthful to yourself and think "YES". How are they going to know what answer you are thinking to yourself? 
   I find this absolutely the most ridiculous example of Polycrap that I've heard of so far. They really are right up there alongside of Fortune Tellers and Psychics.

Just some comments on Gooses poly

Was the examiners name "Karnac"?

Did she read sealed envelopes?

This is the most horrible experience that I have seen on this site.

Goose, I hope you passed. I would'nt want to be retested by a "mind reader".

Good Luck

Fred F.

"Nate, did you use any counter-measures on any of your tests?( Or at least the ones you passed)"


No, I did not.  I knew full well about counter-measures and did research on the polygraph but I did not want to work for a police department that I had to "trick" in order to get on.  In other words, I want to work for a police department knowing that my honesty and integrity made me get the job.  On my one false positive I was upset but I also didn't want to work for that police department if they didn't hire honest, hard working individuals and only hired less qualified people that just "happened" to pass the polygraph exam by intentionally lying on the control questions.  I guess it just came down to ethics with me.  Although I'm not saying that using counter-measures is unethical, just joining a police department in which you have to "trick" to get on is, (if that makes any sense).  I guess you could say I used the "complete honesty" tactic referred to in the "Lie Behind the Lie Detector".

NATE: "I guess it just came down to ethics with me.  Although I'm not saying that using counter-measures is unethical..."

Nate, what are you saying?  According to your posts, you are a future police officer.  Here is an ethics question for you. Let's assume for a moment that a person has committed a crime. Perhaps it's a serious crime and they agree to take a polygraph exam with either the investigative agency or their attorney. (As a side note, many folks here advise people to get a defense attorney, but how many realize that a large number of attorneys farm out their clients to a polygraph examiner to see if they are telling them the truth.  Funny uh?) Now, they use countermeasures to "beat" or "sting" the polygraph.  Are they being ethical? Concealing their crime(s)?  Are you being ethical...a future police officer advising criminals on how to "beat" or "sting" the polygraph whenever you post commentary about the polygraph.  Sure it's a country where we have free speech, but some would argue that you have (or will have) a duty to uphold the law.  Some would say that by assisting (some) criminals or potential criminals on how to "beat" or "sting" the polygraph, you are indirectly obstructing justice.  Just where are your loyalties? What are your ethics?

FRED F: "This put you on even ground with the "examiner" as he could'nt (sic) employ any "tactics" to extract information to use against you during the "examination".

Fred old boy, give young Nate more credit than that. After all, perhaps the examiner did employ "tactics", but there was no information to extract that could be used against him. After all, Nate said he told the truth and did not use countermeasures. Maybe he had nothing negative to tell that could be used against him.