- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 27, 2003, 11:35 PMI intended my question above to be rather rhetorical, in case it wasn't clear to other readers (not directed at you, Marty): I would say one should not admit to anything relevant during any part of the polygraph exam. Despite the assurances of Mr. Ogilvie, I would think most serious issues not brought up before could be considered disqualifying, if for no other reason than you failed to mention them previously.
Counterintelligence types seem to be rather unforgiving of basic human failings (though from what I've seen, they have plenty of their own). Anyone "in the know" is welcome to correct me on that point, but that's the way things seem to me right now.
I'm sure there are exceptions, and if one could plausibly convince the background investigators that one didn't understand the question (e.g. one didn't know something fit the definition of some crime or another) or that the incident in question could have reasonably slipped one's mind previously, it might not be a big deal. Still, I think it's important to remember that the polygraph is an interrogation, designed to convince you of a lie: that you're better off giving the polygrapher material to take and run with than maintaining denials.
Although I've not gone through many of them myself, from what I've experienced and read regarding interrogations in general and polygraphs in particular one is almost universally better off not confessing to anything, no matter what you're told or what they threaten.
Skeptic
Counterintelligence types seem to be rather unforgiving of basic human failings (though from what I've seen, they have plenty of their own). Anyone "in the know" is welcome to correct me on that point, but that's the way things seem to me right now.
I'm sure there are exceptions, and if one could plausibly convince the background investigators that one didn't understand the question (e.g. one didn't know something fit the definition of some crime or another) or that the incident in question could have reasonably slipped one's mind previously, it might not be a big deal. Still, I think it's important to remember that the polygraph is an interrogation, designed to convince you of a lie: that you're better off giving the polygrapher material to take and run with than maintaining denials.
Although I've not gone through many of them myself, from what I've experienced and read regarding interrogations in general and polygraphs in particular one is almost universally better off not confessing to anything, no matter what you're told or what they threaten.
Skeptic
Posted by Marty
- Sep 17, 2003, 04:24 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Sep 17, 2003, 03:41 PMI was also rather intrigued by his pre-test interview description. Given that the main purpose of the interview is selection of controls in a PL CQT, the questions he poses are curious. My take was that polygraphers, much like professional magicians, consider it a violation of professional ethics to disclose the "secret" to the masses and so that portion was an attempt to discuss his concern over high DQ rates in screening exams with colleagues without compromising the "secret" to the unwashed.
So, is the above an actual expression of sentiment, or a ruse intended for public consumption to encourage further admissions? I must admit, I've seen enough anecdotes of invented confessions, words taken out of context and twisted, etc. that I'm more than a bit suspicious.
ot) Just saw Randi's Sin City bash in Jan. Looks entertaining and educational. Would be nice to get a group together to discuss polygraphy there.
-Marty
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Sep 17, 2003, 04:14 PMRule of thumb, broken down by before the test, during the test, after the test:
Tell 'em what you're going to tell them.
Tell 'em what you said you were going to tell them.
Tell 'em what you told them.
Tell 'em what you're going to tell them.
Tell 'em what you said you were going to tell them.
Tell 'em what you told them.
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 17, 2003, 03:41 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 17, 2003, 05:54 AMexo,
Other agencies, such as the FBI and LAPD, also have pre-employment polygraph failure rates of about 50%. Such high rates are apparently not untypical. See, for example, Phoenix P.D. polygrapher Jack L. Ogilvie's article, "Pre-employment testing: Is everyone lying?"
Just read that. And I'm in shock: he sounds like a polygrapher who genuinely has a conscience, and a bit of skeptical thinking ability. On the down side, I wonder how long it will be before he's drummed out of the corps...
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to occur to him that the 50/50 statistic might be due less to failings in the "pre-test interview" and more due to the random nature of the polygraph itself.
Anyway, I was struck by one thing he said:
QuoteWhen people, especially potential recruits, come to us for a PDD est, we stress to them that they must be truthful. They must not hold back any information. They are told that to do so will eliminate them from the hiring process since we don't want liars, cheats, murderers, rapists and thieves working for our department. Then, during the pre-test interview, we ask them a myriad of questions pertaining to their past and force them to remember things they had forgotten years ago. Now, they have a dilemma. Do they tell us the things they remember and sound like they have been holding back or not say anything and chance a
failed test? Some even think that if they tell us something they did not tell their background investigator, they will be automatically eliminated for not revealing the information to the background investigator.
So, is the above an actual expression of sentiment, or a ruse intended for public consumption to encourage further admissions? I must admit, I've seen enough anecdotes of invented confessions, words taken out of context and twisted, etc. that I'm more than a bit suspicious.
If the latter, then it's too bad: what he wrote described a real problem. What the hell are you supposed to do when the intense, specific questioning of the polygraph session dredges up stuff you hadn't thought of before (possibly related, possibly not), yet every adjudication guideline is unanimous in proclaiming omission of relevant facts is a sure-fire ticket to disqualification?
Skeptic
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 17, 2003, 05:54 AMexo,
Other agencies, such as the FBI and LAPD, also have pre-employment polygraph failure rates of about 50%. Such high rates are apparently not untypical. See, for example, Phoenix P.D. polygrapher Jack L. Ogilvie's article, "Pre-employment testing: Is everyone lying?"
Other agencies, such as the FBI and LAPD, also have pre-employment polygraph failure rates of about 50%. Such high rates are apparently not untypical. See, for example, Phoenix P.D. polygrapher Jack L. Ogilvie's article, "Pre-employment testing: Is everyone lying?"
Posted by beech trees
- Sep 17, 2003, 03:37 AMQuote from: exo on Sep 17, 2003, 03:23 AMAs we know the 3rd part of their process is the polygraph exam. I heard that more than 50 percent of their applicants get a dq. Does anyone hear know why this agency has such a high DQ rate on the poly.[?]
Since the polygraph has never been shown to be more accurate than chance in detecting truth from falsehood, chance would dictate a 50% failure rate (out of two possible outcomes). Just like flipping a coin.
Dave
Posted by exo
- Sep 17, 2003, 03:23 AMAs we know the 3rd part of their process is the polygraph exam. I heard that more than 50 percent of their applicants get a dq. Does anyone hear know why this agency has such a high DQ rate on the poly.