- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jan 07, 2009, 08:19 PMI thought you were a polygraph operator given your board moniker. Anyway, doesn't matter.
You are right. They are applying for a position of trust. Therefore, they should COMPLETELY truthful. Questions should be answered honestly. The relevant questions are quite specific and are explained thoroughly. Of course, the applicants can not answer control questions honestly, as they expected by the examiner to LIE, so any reactions can be compared to any on the relevant questions.
If the examiner claims the chart reading indicates the examinee is being deceptive or is "bothered" by their answer to a question, again, they should be totally honest. They should inform the examiner that NO, they are not being deceptive (which is the truth). They be honest and tell the examiner that NO, nothing bothers them about their answer to a question, or the question itself. They understand the question and have answered it truthfully and have no remorse in their answer. This is all about truth and "trust building". We are ALL for that!
They (examinees) must also know that a "reaction" on the machine is not a valid measure of "deception", or that there is anything bothering them about the veracity of their answer. After all, only the examinee knows if they are being truthful or are unsure about the veracity of their answer. Thus, if a consistent "reactions" is still evident, despite their truthfullness, then, logically, the problem is with the machine. Or more specifically, the theory that the machine actually detects deception.
The applicant must also realize, however, that the polygraph operator is working under the assumption that the polygraph DOES IN FACT DETECT DECEPTION. So, if there is a consistent pattern of reactions, the examiner must then ASSume that the applicant is being decpetive (even though they are not) The examiner's goal is NOW not to assess truth (They've already concluded the guy is lying) but to elicit anything whatsoever they can from the examinee to PROVE THEIR FALSE ASSUMPTION. To get some "rope to hang him/her with".
Unfortunately, the applicant has little control over this. Their only hope is to tell them what they want to hear, but NOTHING that can be used against them later. This is interesting, because our military guys/gals who go through SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Evacuation) type training (John McCain) are taught counter-interrogation techniques. They are taught NOT to totally clam up, give up nothing at all. They are taught to hold whenever you can, as long as you can, but give them as little as you can that will do the least amount of damage.
Sorry for the long wind/hot air!
TC, CTI1 USN (ret)
You are right. They are applying for a position of trust. Therefore, they should COMPLETELY truthful. Questions should be answered honestly. The relevant questions are quite specific and are explained thoroughly. Of course, the applicants can not answer control questions honestly, as they expected by the examiner to LIE, so any reactions can be compared to any on the relevant questions.
If the examiner claims the chart reading indicates the examinee is being deceptive or is "bothered" by their answer to a question, again, they should be totally honest. They should inform the examiner that NO, they are not being deceptive (which is the truth). They be honest and tell the examiner that NO, nothing bothers them about their answer to a question, or the question itself. They understand the question and have answered it truthfully and have no remorse in their answer. This is all about truth and "trust building". We are ALL for that!
They (examinees) must also know that a "reaction" on the machine is not a valid measure of "deception", or that there is anything bothering them about the veracity of their answer. After all, only the examinee knows if they are being truthful or are unsure about the veracity of their answer. Thus, if a consistent "reactions" is still evident, despite their truthfullness, then, logically, the problem is with the machine. Or more specifically, the theory that the machine actually detects deception.
The applicant must also realize, however, that the polygraph operator is working under the assumption that the polygraph DOES IN FACT DETECT DECEPTION. So, if there is a consistent pattern of reactions, the examiner must then ASSume that the applicant is being decpetive (even though they are not) The examiner's goal is NOW not to assess truth (They've already concluded the guy is lying) but to elicit anything whatsoever they can from the examinee to PROVE THEIR FALSE ASSUMPTION. To get some "rope to hang him/her with".
Unfortunately, the applicant has little control over this. Their only hope is to tell them what they want to hear, but NOTHING that can be used against them later. This is interesting, because our military guys/gals who go through SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Evacuation) type training (John McCain) are taught counter-interrogation techniques. They are taught NOT to totally clam up, give up nothing at all. They are taught to hold whenever you can, as long as you can, but give them as little as you can that will do the least amount of damage.
Sorry for the long wind/hot air!
TC, CTI1 USN (ret)
Posted by experienced poly guy
- Jan 07, 2009, 08:41 AMI understand what you are saying completely, but as I see it, you are seeking access to their classified or "Top Secret" information.. its not like they are forcing you to have access to that information.
Therefore, trust has to be built in the individual seeking that access FIRST. Then, they will trust you with that information.
I'm not a polygraph examiner, but I'm very good at reading people and discerning situations. I've taken a number of polys and I can tell you the entire point of the polygraph in my experience is to build trust in someone so they can in turn trust you. Pre-employment ones are typically the most difficult polys people will face.
But to address your main point, if they feel that you are lying to them, why shouldn't they lie to you? If they feel you are withholding detail, why shouldn't they withhold detail? That will make anyone wonder... "well what else could he be hiding?" You see no one knows who is telling the truth when you two walk into those rooms. It's all a guessing game. But honestly, I've found that being as honest and thorough in your response is the best way. Even telling them things they may not care about hearing. Let them know that you have nothing to hide and no details to withhold.
I mean some of you people are seeking access to the most classified information in the world... what do you expect? Of course they want to know every little detail about you. As you will in turn know a lot of new things about them.
Therefore, trust has to be built in the individual seeking that access FIRST. Then, they will trust you with that information.
I'm not a polygraph examiner, but I'm very good at reading people and discerning situations. I've taken a number of polys and I can tell you the entire point of the polygraph in my experience is to build trust in someone so they can in turn trust you. Pre-employment ones are typically the most difficult polys people will face.
But to address your main point, if they feel that you are lying to them, why shouldn't they lie to you? If they feel you are withholding detail, why shouldn't they withhold detail? That will make anyone wonder... "well what else could he be hiding?" You see no one knows who is telling the truth when you two walk into those rooms. It's all a guessing game. But honestly, I've found that being as honest and thorough in your response is the best way. Even telling them things they may not care about hearing. Let them know that you have nothing to hide and no details to withhold.
I mean some of you people are seeking access to the most classified information in the world... what do you expect? Of course they want to know every little detail about you. As you will in turn know a lot of new things about them.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jan 06, 2009, 05:10 PMIn each and every polygraph I took, the polygraph operator made bogus claims of 98% accuracy in a vain attempt at intimidation. Examiners routinely do this. Is that a very good basis for building trust?
You have to realize that with the internet, people are now able to research the polygraph. People can actually see if there is any scientific basis for such claims. You guys/gals need to come up with some new "schtick".
During one of the tests, the examiner left the room, then came back after 15 minutes or so looking all excited saying she had just spoken with the head of the hiring committee, and that they told her I was one of their top candidates, and that, therefore, I should allow her to "help me" by (as you say) tell her "everything".
I later found out she lied, and that nobody from the hiring committee had spoken to her. Again, not a very good basis for trusting building. In retrospect though, it was a pretty clever interrogation technique.
So do you consider trust building to be a "two way street"? Is it okay for a polygraph operator to purposely lie during a polygraph interrogation?
TC
You have to realize that with the internet, people are now able to research the polygraph. People can actually see if there is any scientific basis for such claims. You guys/gals need to come up with some new "schtick".
During one of the tests, the examiner left the room, then came back after 15 minutes or so looking all excited saying she had just spoken with the head of the hiring committee, and that they told her I was one of their top candidates, and that, therefore, I should allow her to "help me" by (as you say) tell her "everything".
I later found out she lied, and that nobody from the hiring committee had spoken to her. Again, not a very good basis for trusting building. In retrospect though, it was a pretty clever interrogation technique.
So do you consider trust building to be a "two way street"? Is it okay for a polygraph operator to purposely lie during a polygraph interrogation?
TC
Posted by experienced poly guy
- Jan 06, 2009, 09:07 AMThese positions are all about TRUST. My best recommendation is to be prepared to confess something about you so they feel you trust them, so they can in turn trust you.
Would you trust a guy with secrets if he isn't willing to share his secrets with you?
I consider the experience a trust building experience. Guys here who failed feel like these agencies owe them something or as if they don't have to meet their demands. Their arrogance it what makes them fail. I wouldn't trust half these guys on here either.
A common thread you will find with guys who passed vs guys who failed:
1.) Guys who passed told EVERYTHING about themselves, all their white lies and confessed everything.
2) Guys who failed probably did tell the truth, but didn't feel the polygrapher was entitled to some information and therefore withheld information.
Again, you can see therein lies the trust issue. Which person would you trust?
This is just my opinion.
Would you trust a guy with secrets if he isn't willing to share his secrets with you?
I consider the experience a trust building experience. Guys here who failed feel like these agencies owe them something or as if they don't have to meet their demands. Their arrogance it what makes them fail. I wouldn't trust half these guys on here either.
A common thread you will find with guys who passed vs guys who failed:
1.) Guys who passed told EVERYTHING about themselves, all their white lies and confessed everything.
2) Guys who failed probably did tell the truth, but didn't feel the polygrapher was entitled to some information and therefore withheld information.
Again, you can see therein lies the trust issue. Which person would you trust?
This is just my opinion.
Posted by DK
- Jan 05, 2009, 03:38 PMI too, have never used illegal drugs however, each time I have taken a poly the operator works hard to break me down because I grew up in the hippy days and still now most people have at least done some marijuana. So be prepared for that because you tell them "no" to the drug questions they aren't going to believe you so yes they will keep on you about that.
And as far as your question how can they go home to their families knowing what they did.... Well the thing is most believe themselves to be gods and they believe they have accurately weeded out the liars. They truly believe in what they are doing and that they have the skills to get to the truth.
And as far as your question how can they go home to their families knowing what they did.... Well the thing is most believe themselves to be gods and they believe they have accurately weeded out the liars. They truly believe in what they are doing and that they have the skills to get to the truth.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jan 05, 2009, 02:12 PMQuoteWhen the poly turns confrontational, as they so often do, I am to continuously deny everything, correct? But...if they almost always turn confrontational with the polygrapher (falsely or truly) detecting a response from the nervous system, then why do they even probe further? If you're screwed for "racking your brain and admitting ANYTHING you may think of that has cause the 'deceptive reading'," then why doesn't the polygrapher terminate the poly immediately and dismiss the individual as deceptive and not suitable for employment the moment a "deceptive" response is registered? Why the game? A "fail" is still a "fail," and the polygrapher still gets a gold star next to their name.
There are some fundamental facts about the polygraph you have yet to grasp:
1. It is NOT a test for truth. It is an interrogation DISGUISED as a test for truth. The nervous responses the machine measures do not unequivocally equate to "deception". Even though they will try to convince you they do.
2. The whole purpose of a preemployment polygraph (and terminal objective of the examiner) is to see what they can get you to say and admit to! Then see if you say anything they can use against you. The purpose of any interrogation is to get information from the interrogated.
3. They want you to believe the machine detects deception, and to therefore rack your brain to come up with why you would possibly "react" to the test questions. But if you answered these unambiguous questions truthfully, yet the machine has labeled you "deceptive", then logically, it the machine that is problematic, NOT YOU! Yet people (myself included) have fallen for this parlor trick! Partly because people tend to believe the popular myth that the polygraph machine can detect lies. They've see it in the movies, on Oprah, from Dr, Phil...etc. They exploit that fact fully. You don't have to.
You sound like the nervous type (like me). Don't be. Just play along with them, but knowing full well what they are up to. Don't think for a minute they are there to help you, or care whether you get th job or not. Just let them "fluster" you a bit, but don't give them anything useful. Your only obligation is to answer the relevant questions TRUTHFULLY!
Think of it terms of you walking on to their used car lot. Except you, unlike most, now know something about their sales tactics. But you don't want to "let on" that you know. Just focus on the facts. The car you want, what you know it is worth, and how much you're willing to pay, or should pay.
With the polygraph this equates to the relevant questions. Have you committed serious crimes? Have you met with foreign agents? Have you? Pretty unambiguous, no? Consider their machine and their bogus claims what it is "saying" as "sales hype". Listen politely, do NOT be confrontational, but re-focus on the facts. Namely, that there is simply nothing bothering you about whatever relevant question they claim you're reacting to.
If the polygraph operator has consistent "reactions" on your chart with a relevant question, they will probe and probe until they get something they can use from you to back up the chart and fail you.
Then again, you may not "react" much at all, and be able to satisfy their curiosity without making a damning admission. So be forewarned, but don't go in there assuming you will do badly.
TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 05, 2009, 01:44 PMQuote from: 0319530 on Jan 05, 2009, 11:53 AMThe pre-poly interview: I've gathered that this is where they give you all the questions they are going to ask you once hooked up to the truth-box. Is this where the interviewee should qualify as much as possible about each question in an attempt to remove any sort of ambiguity fromt he questions? For example: Have you ever stolen from an employer? And qualify with questions like, "do ink pens count, does a paper clip count, etc?" To the point that when they attach you to that box, you can make a "no" statement without a shadow of a doubt in your head?
Or is it better to just gloss over the question list without qualifying/clarifying any question? Is the clarification of a question during the pre-poly interview considered an "admission?"
If you've applied with a federal law enforcement agency, you're likely to be subjected to a polygraph technique called the "probable-lie control question test." With this technique, the examinee is secretly expected to lie (or at least have considerable doubt) when answering certain questions. Such questions are called "control" or comparison questions, and they are typically about behavior that few people could truthfully deny. For example, commonly used control questions include, "Did you ever take anything from a past employer?" and "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" Reactions to these probable-lie control questions are compared to reactions to the relevant questions (the ones that are really of concern, typically involving espionage, serious crimes, and use or sale of illegal drugs).
If you have applied with the Department of Defense, you'll likely be subjected to what is called a "directed-lie control question test." For more on this technique, see my article, "The Lying Game: National Security and the Test for Espionage and Sabotage."
And if you have applied with the CIA or NSA, you'll likely be subjected to what is known as the relevant/irrelevant technique. It's completely invalid and even most polygraphers seem to know deep down that it's bullshit. (That's why they generally prefer variants of the more plausible but still invalid control question test.) But CIA and NSA adopted these techniques early in their histories, and old habits die hard, especially in bureaucracies. It's very common -- perhaps the norm -- for applicants, even those ultimately hired, to initially be accused of "having problems," to be badgered for admissions, and then to be brought back for one or more follow-up sessions.
QuoteWhen the poly turns confrontational, as they so often do, I am to continuously deny everything, correct? But...if they almost always turn confrontational with the polygrapher (falsely or truly) detecting a response from the nervous system, then why do they even probe further? If you're screwed for "racking your brain and admitting ANYTHING you may think of that has cause the 'deceptive reading'," then why doesn't the polygrapher terminate the poly immediately and dismiss the individual as deceptive and not suitable for employment the moment a "deceptive" response is registered? Why the game? A "fail" is still a "fail," and the polygrapher still gets a gold star next to their name.
Polygraphers need admissions to justify their jobs. In the CIA and FBI, and perhaps other agencies, polygraphers have been (and likely still are) evaluated based on the confession rates they obtain following "deception indicated" chart readings.
QuoteLastly, and slightly off the topic, I'm quite interested in the psychology of these guys. How on earth do they go home to any family (spouse, kids, etc) knowing that they've been jerks (keeping the language clean for the board) in their job. Knowing that they've turned down honest, truthful people who are top notch academics in a manner that is confrontational and belligerent? This blows my mind.
Mine too.
QuoteSorry for the rant, but if I could get any answers to any of the above questions (particularly from George or TM), that'd be great!
See The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for much more on polygraph procedure.
Posted by PJ
- Jan 05, 2009, 11:53 AMI've been recruited by a certain agency for an analyst position. When this first happened, I was ecstatic. I busted my butt taking their exams, preparing my writing samples, writing a separate cover letter, etc. I've scheduled my ploygraph and am currently counting the days till I sit in the hot seat.
Being inquisitive in nature, the moment I had my interview for the position and realized that even intern positions require the poly, I began searching the web for information on it. I didn't want to know how to "cheat" it, I just want to know what it was all about.
Then I found this site. And proceded to flip out.
Let me first say that I have never done any illegal drugs (a fact that I am quite proud of), have never stolen more than a paperclip from any employer, have no 'foreign interests,' have never taken files from a computer that wasn't mine or otherwise attempted to hack a computer system, have no debt, etc.
In other words, I'm so clean I squeak. To the point that my more 'rebellious' (/normal) grad school colleagues derive pleasure from poking fun at me.
I am, however, very nervous about this. Despite being squeaky clean, I have the guilt of a Catholic about the tiniest of things.
On to my questions:
The pre-poly interview: I've gathered that this is where they give you all the questions they are going to ask you once hooked up to the truth-box. Is this where the interviewee should qualify as much as possible about each question in an attempt to remove any sort of ambiguity fromt he questions? For example: Have you ever stolen from an employer? And qualify with questions like, "do ink pens count, does a paper clip count, etc?" To the point that when they attach you to that box, you can make a "no" statement without a shadow of a doubt in your head?
Or is it better to just gloss over the question list without qualifying/clarifying any question? Is the clarification of a question during the pre-poly interview considered an "admission?"
When the poly turns confrontational, as they so often do, I am to continuously deny everything, correct? But...if they almost always turn confrontational with the polygrapher (falsely or truly) detecting a response from the nervous system, then why do they even probe further? If you're screwed for "racking your brain and admitting ANYTHING you may think of that has cause the 'deceptive reading'," then why doesn't the polygrapher terminate the poly immediately and dismiss the individual as deceptive and not suitable for employment the moment a "deceptive" response is registered? Why the game? A "fail" is still a "fail," and the polygrapher still gets a gold star next to their name.
Lastly, and slightly off the topic, I'm quite interested in the psychology of these guys. How on earth do they go home to any family (spouse, kids, etc) knowing that they've been jerks (keeping the language clean for the board) in their job. Knowing that they've turned down honest, truthful people who are top notch academics in a manner that is confrontational and belligerent? This blows my mind.
Sorry for the rant, but if I could get any answers to any of the above questions (particularly from George or TM), that'd be great!
Being inquisitive in nature, the moment I had my interview for the position and realized that even intern positions require the poly, I began searching the web for information on it. I didn't want to know how to "cheat" it, I just want to know what it was all about.
Then I found this site. And proceded to flip out.
Let me first say that I have never done any illegal drugs (a fact that I am quite proud of), have never stolen more than a paperclip from any employer, have no 'foreign interests,' have never taken files from a computer that wasn't mine or otherwise attempted to hack a computer system, have no debt, etc.
In other words, I'm so clean I squeak. To the point that my more 'rebellious' (/normal) grad school colleagues derive pleasure from poking fun at me.
I am, however, very nervous about this. Despite being squeaky clean, I have the guilt of a Catholic about the tiniest of things.
On to my questions:
The pre-poly interview: I've gathered that this is where they give you all the questions they are going to ask you once hooked up to the truth-box. Is this where the interviewee should qualify as much as possible about each question in an attempt to remove any sort of ambiguity fromt he questions? For example: Have you ever stolen from an employer? And qualify with questions like, "do ink pens count, does a paper clip count, etc?" To the point that when they attach you to that box, you can make a "no" statement without a shadow of a doubt in your head?
Or is it better to just gloss over the question list without qualifying/clarifying any question? Is the clarification of a question during the pre-poly interview considered an "admission?"
When the poly turns confrontational, as they so often do, I am to continuously deny everything, correct? But...if they almost always turn confrontational with the polygrapher (falsely or truly) detecting a response from the nervous system, then why do they even probe further? If you're screwed for "racking your brain and admitting ANYTHING you may think of that has cause the 'deceptive reading'," then why doesn't the polygrapher terminate the poly immediately and dismiss the individual as deceptive and not suitable for employment the moment a "deceptive" response is registered? Why the game? A "fail" is still a "fail," and the polygrapher still gets a gold star next to their name.
Lastly, and slightly off the topic, I'm quite interested in the psychology of these guys. How on earth do they go home to any family (spouse, kids, etc) knowing that they've been jerks (keeping the language clean for the board) in their job. Knowing that they've turned down honest, truthful people who are top notch academics in a manner that is confrontational and belligerent? This blows my mind.
Sorry for the rant, but if I could get any answers to any of the above questions (particularly from George or TM), that'd be great!