- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by polyfool
- Jul 19, 2005, 01:39 AMDeputy Dog:
I agree with you that building or not building rapport with the examiner during the pre-test affects the examiner's opinion of the examinee, possibly influencing the overall outcome. Humans form opinions of others, even if they've only known them for a short period of time, it's only natural. Some people are just better at connecting with others. On the flip side, some examiners may not allow the examinee to build a rapport, keeping them at a distance, which seems more fair. However, there can be disadvantages to that as well, such as the examiner missing signs and overlooking the obvious.
Confidence is a good thing with the poly, but only as you say, if you know all about the game. Self-confidence can hurt the uninformed examinee because he/she doesn't second guess or question themselves on the controls, which makes them feel easy when answering them.
Polygraph examiners sure can say some stupid things during a poly--it's really quite insulting that they believe examinees are so dumb as to believe their BS. They really need to work on their stories--I mean, if you're going to be a liar, at least be a creative one.
I agree with you that building or not building rapport with the examiner during the pre-test affects the examiner's opinion of the examinee, possibly influencing the overall outcome. Humans form opinions of others, even if they've only known them for a short period of time, it's only natural. Some people are just better at connecting with others. On the flip side, some examiners may not allow the examinee to build a rapport, keeping them at a distance, which seems more fair. However, there can be disadvantages to that as well, such as the examiner missing signs and overlooking the obvious.
Confidence is a good thing with the poly, but only as you say, if you know all about the game. Self-confidence can hurt the uninformed examinee because he/she doesn't second guess or question themselves on the controls, which makes them feel easy when answering them.
Polygraph examiners sure can say some stupid things during a poly--it's really quite insulting that they believe examinees are so dumb as to believe their BS. They really need to work on their stories--I mean, if you're going to be a liar, at least be a creative one.
Posted by Deputydog
- Jul 18, 2005, 08:03 PMThis brings up an interesting point about the "selling yourself " aspect during the pre-test. I'm convinced that this plays a bigger role than most think when it comes to passing/failing.
You have to start selling your self when you go in the door and watch out for the bad body signals. It's easier to do when your informed about the poly and it's operation because it has a direct impact on the confidence level you have when you go in. At least it has for me. Eversince I read the book and became informed, I'm not nervous and can concentrate on the JOB at hand (producing a truthful chart). I feel that I can shoot-the-bull with the examiner and still be on my guard against the "rookie" interrogation techniques.
I remember one session recently when the examiner went into this story about how everyone bends the rules once in a while. I just sat there quietly and listened because I knew what was coming next! He said that he himself had once taken advantage of a mislabeled price tag at a store.
He said he bought several of the items and, wringing his hands, left the store only to have the items stolen out of his vehicle that night. lol..... to which I replied... It served you right!!lol All he could say was... " yea I guess it did"
You have to start selling your self when you go in the door and watch out for the bad body signals. It's easier to do when your informed about the poly and it's operation because it has a direct impact on the confidence level you have when you go in. At least it has for me. Eversince I read the book and became informed, I'm not nervous and can concentrate on the JOB at hand (producing a truthful chart). I feel that I can shoot-the-bull with the examiner and still be on my guard against the "rookie" interrogation techniques.
I remember one session recently when the examiner went into this story about how everyone bends the rules once in a while. I just sat there quietly and listened because I knew what was coming next! He said that he himself had once taken advantage of a mislabeled price tag at a store.
He said he bought several of the items and, wringing his hands, left the store only to have the items stolen out of his vehicle that night. lol..... to which I replied... It served you right!!lol All he could say was... " yea I guess it did"
Posted by polyfool
- Jul 16, 2005, 04:13 PMBiases are present in some fashion in all all hiring processes, that is true. For example, a hiring manager may get a good feeling about a particular candidate because they have great interviewing skills or maybe they're very attractive. Perhaps, they are not the best person for the job, but they land it, anyway. Oh well, that means the other candidates won't get a shot at that particular job--something they can all live with.
However, bias in the polygraph room takes on a whole new meaning because that one person (the examiner) has the ability to end an entire career based on a guess while administering a subjective test. That's totally unacceptable and wrong.
Nonombre:
If you say that you don't have any biases, you are just kidding yourself because as fair and impartial as you may try to be, you are after all, still human. All humans have some degree of bias, however subtle. Although I suppose, one could argue that polygraph examiners are not really human and hence, incapable of emotion.
The FBI thinks it has the answer to examiner bias: The Polygraph Unit's Quality Control Department. I was assured that my test would be given a fair shot because someone besides the examiner would make the final decision. What a joke.
However, bias in the polygraph room takes on a whole new meaning because that one person (the examiner) has the ability to end an entire career based on a guess while administering a subjective test. That's totally unacceptable and wrong.
Nonombre:
If you say that you don't have any biases, you are just kidding yourself because as fair and impartial as you may try to be, you are after all, still human. All humans have some degree of bias, however subtle. Although I suppose, one could argue that polygraph examiners are not really human and hence, incapable of emotion.
The FBI thinks it has the answer to examiner bias: The Polygraph Unit's Quality Control Department. I was assured that my test would be given a fair shot because someone besides the examiner would make the final decision. What a joke.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jul 16, 2005, 01:28 PMQuote from: nonombre on Jul 16, 2005, 12:21 AMSergeant1107 ,Nonombre,
I understand your point. I truly do. However, what if I had studied and planned my whole life to go to work for the local police department, and was denied employment, because two of the members of the panel decided they did not like my accent, perhaps the way I part my hair?
I understand your point as well, I think. You are implying that none of the subjective aspects of the hiring process are perfect. I agree.
The oral boards I've gone to consisted of between five and nine people. The more people are in the room, the lower the chance is of some sort of arbitrary prejudice affecting the outcome. If I have five people on my oral board, and one or two of them don't like my hair, their prejudice should be balanced out by the other people. At the very least they might recognize their prejudice as stupid and be reluctant to voice it. (I cannot imagine telling the other officers I've sat with on oral boards that the last candidate shouldn't be hired because I thought his tie was ugly, or his hair was too long. Saying those things would make me look stupid, not the candidate.)
Such is not the case in a polygraph exam. You are dealing with a single person's prejudices and opinions. If you happen to have a hairstyle the examiner doesn't like you may fail before you start. If you happen to remind the examiner of his favorite nephew, you may pass before you start.
I don't know of any police agencies that conduct oral boards with only a single person on the board. I also don't know of any polygraph examiners who have multiple examiners in the room conducting the exam.
Getting back to the question you so adroitly sidestepped... Let's change it around a bit, and suppose that your agency has decided to send every sworn officer to a private polygrapher as a routine check to make sure no one is on the take. You go through your exam, tell the complete truth about never having taken a single favor or a single dime, and you fail. Your chief calls you in and tells you that you will be terminated. Was that to happen, do you think you'd still be writing on these boards in support of the polygraph?
Posted by Matty
- Jul 16, 2005, 12:57 AMNonombre...
I didn't mean to suggest that you, have done that, but you must know some who have....it happens every day.
I didn't mean to suggest that you, have done that, but you must know some who have....it happens every day.
Posted by nonombre
- Jul 16, 2005, 12:41 AMQuote from: Matty on Jul 16, 2005, 12:32 AMNonombre,
As you well know, many times an applicant is failed by the examiner before the test begins, simply because the examiner may already have a bias or doesn't like the way the person looks...yada, yada, yada.
Matty,
I for one have never "failed" an applicant before the test...never. Please don't say, "As you well know." That is an incorrect assumption.
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by Matty
- Jul 16, 2005, 12:32 AMNonombre,
As you well know, many times an applicant is failed by the examiner before the test begins, simply because the examiner may already have a bias or doesn't like the way the person looks...yada, yada, yada.
I'm not sure what your point is.
The bottom line is that polygraphs have no valid scientific data to back up their validity, if they did, they would be admissable in court and as we all know, they are not for that very reason
Also, if they were so valid, then why have trials at all? Why not just give suspects polygraphs and send them to jail or set them free based on if they pass or fail?? How safe would society be then??
As you well know, many times an applicant is failed by the examiner before the test begins, simply because the examiner may already have a bias or doesn't like the way the person looks...yada, yada, yada.
I'm not sure what your point is.
The bottom line is that polygraphs have no valid scientific data to back up their validity, if they did, they would be admissable in court and as we all know, they are not for that very reason
Also, if they were so valid, then why have trials at all? Why not just give suspects polygraphs and send them to jail or set them free based on if they pass or fail?? How safe would society be then??
Posted by nonombre
- Jul 16, 2005, 12:21 AMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Jul 15, 2005, 11:44 AM
Nonombre,
Do you think your opinion would be any different if you had been completely honest and failed? Or would you have been willing to forego your career, knowing that even though you were being unfairly denied employment at least there will be some criminals caught at some point in the future? Would you have been willing to take one for the team?
Sergeant1107 ,
I understand your point. I truly do. However, what if I had studied and planned my whole life to go to work for the local police department, and was denied employment, because two of the members of the panel decided they did not like my accent, perhaps the way I part my hair?
By the way, I part it down the middle. According to some that means I must be a "doper."
Nonombre
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jul 15, 2005, 11:44 AMQuote from: nonombre on Jul 14, 2005, 11:33 PMNonombre,
I was completely honest on my own pre-employment polygraph examination.
There were no "controls" asked during my test.
I was administered (and passed) an R/I examination
Nonombre
Do you think your opinion would be any different if you had been completely honest and failed? Or would you have been willing to forego your career, knowing that even though you were being unfairly denied employment at least there will be some criminals caught at some point in the future? Would you have been willing to take one for the team?
Posted by nonombre
- Jul 14, 2005, 11:33 PMQuote from: Jeffery on Jul 14, 2005, 10:25 PM
Had you been completely honest on your own pre-emply poly, including controls, you may be thinking differently here.
I was completely honest on my own pre-employment polygraph examination.
There were no "controls" asked during my test.
I was administered (and passed) an R/I examination
Nonombre
Posted by Jeffery
- Jul 14, 2005, 10:25 PMQuote from: nonombre on Jul 14, 2005, 09:47 PMI still believe it to be a good compromise.Had you been completely honest on your own pre-emply poly, including controls, you may be thinking differently here.
Posted by nonombre
- Jul 14, 2005, 09:47 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Jul 14, 2005, 10:55 AM
1. It is not only possible, but likely that a truthful person with no disqualifying incidents in his past will go through a polygraph exam without being deceptive and still fail....
2. You have been forthright (which I appreciate) in your acknowledgement of false-positives being a problem, yet your solution is less than practical. It almost sounds like your plan concedes that polygraph testing is flawed therefore it should only be assigned a place on a point scale. I believe that if we know the test is flawed then it shouldn't be used at all. At least it shouldn't be used for pre-employment screening (I have read it is more accurate on specific issue testing, but I have no experience in such matters.)
Sergeant1107 ,
Concerning statement #1. I must disagree with you. While I feel there is a possibility that a truthful person could indeed fail a polygraph examination. I disagree that it is "likely."
Concerning statement #2. If you are implying that any of a number of subjective pre-employment tests, or evaluations that happen to be less than 100% accurate are "flawed," then indeed polygraph is "flawed."
But to say, " (if) the test is flawed then it shouldn't be used at all," well, you have just doomed to the trash bin, the pre-employment interview, the psychological test, the MMPI, the oral board, various forms of psychological stress tests, and a good part of the background investigation (You know they ask people's subjective opinion as to whether or not you are suitable for a career in law enforcement).
Yes, like most of the other parts of the process, polygraph testing is not "perfect." That is why I suggest putting most of these stages on an equal footing, and deciding on an overall "score."
I still believe it to be a good compromise.
Nonombre
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jul 14, 2005, 11:40 AMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Jul 14, 2005, 11:31 AMSergeant1107,Drew,
You write in part to nonombre:
As I have said before, the malpractice added to the process by any non-compliant (to industry standards) and willfully unethical polygraph examiner does not stand alone or even foremost in the analysis of the foolishness that we know as "lie detection." It is merely that which is added to the QUACKERY that is practiced by each and every practitioner of "lie detection." There is no theoretical basis for said practice and there exists no validity in the day to day use of said practice as a diagnostic instrument.
I don't disagree with you. I was merely trying to forestall what has become the standard response from many polygraph supporters when asked about the problem of false positives.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jul 14, 2005, 11:31 AMSergeant1107,
You write in part to nonombre:
As I have said before, the malpractice added to the process by any non-compliant (to industry standards) and willfully unethical polygraph examiner does not stand alone or even foremost in the analysis of the foolishness that we know as "lie detection." It is merely that which is added to the QUACKERY that is practiced by each and every practitioner of "lie detection." There is no theoretical basis for said practice and there exists no validity in the day-to-day use of said practice as a diagnostic instrument.
You write in part to nonombre:
Quote
Please don't use the tired old "there are bad examiners out there" excuse to explain away the false-positives. Even though I can believe there are bad examiners in your profession I find it hard to believe that every single incident of a truthful person being labeled "deceptive" was due to an unskilled or unethical examiner....
As I have said before, the malpractice added to the process by any non-compliant (to industry standards) and willfully unethical polygraph examiner does not stand alone or even foremost in the analysis of the foolishness that we know as "lie detection." It is merely that which is added to the QUACKERY that is practiced by each and every practitioner of "lie detection." There is no theoretical basis for said practice and there exists no validity in the day-to-day use of said practice as a diagnostic instrument.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jul 14, 2005, 10:55 AMQuote from: nonombre on Jul 13, 2005, 09:15 PMBut who I am truly concerned about are the truthful people, who based on what they have been told on this site, have practiced countermeasures, have gotten caught, and whether they ultimately owned up to them or not, have found themselves immediately disqualified from a job they otherwise would have gotten (or worse).Nonombre,
Now I know you or someone else will immediately counter with "What about all those people who went into the polygraph, told the truth, and were called "deceptive."
It does seem a bit disingenuous of you to express concern about someone who uses countermeasures (even though they are not intending to be deceptive) and as a result get disqualified from a job they could have otherwise obtained.
You hit the nail on the head when you predicted my response. I am far more concerned with the people who were not deceptive, did not attempt countermeasures, and still "failed" their polygraph, and you should be, too. Their cases tend to support the conclusion that the polygraph is too wildly inconsistent to be used in any kind of pre-employment screening.
Forget about the whole issue of countermeasures for a moment. It's an interesting tangent to wander down but it diverts our attention from the heart of the matter. It is not only possible, but likely that a truthful person with no disqualifying incidents in his past will go through a polygraph exam without being deceptive and still fail. It has happened to me on more than one occasion, and it has happened to many other people who post on this message board. In my opinion such incidents point to a basic problem with the polygraph.
You have been forthright (which I appreciate) in your acknowledgement of false-positives being a problem, yet your solution is less than practical. It almost sounds like your plan concedes that polygraph testing is flawed therefore it should only be assigned a place on a point scale. I believe that if we know the test is flawed then it shouldn't be used at all. At least it shouldn't be used for pre-employment screening (I have read it is more accurate on specific issue testing, but I have no experience in such matters.)
Please don't use the tired old "there are bad examiners out there" excuse to explain away the false-positives. Even though I can believe there are bad examiners in your profession I find it hard to believe that every single incident of a truthful person being labeled "deceptive" was due to an unskilled or unethical examiner.