- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by California cop
- Oct 10, 2003, 09:28 PMI read the post on RealPolice.net and I am not surprised to hear a comment like that. I don't think it is all that uncommon of an occurence. Throughout 11 years of being a police officer, I have heard of many instances where fellow officers claim to "have a friend" who lied about serious matters on their polygraph exams and passed. To any police officer in the know, this is not a surprise. It would be nice if there were a tried and true means of lie detection, but unfortunately there really isn't.
Posted by Twoblock
- Oct 10, 2003, 12:53 PMAs an interested bystander, I have come to some conclusions and still have some questions.
Apparently this website and Doug Williams' paper has caused great paranoia in the polygraph community. Especially federal job screening. Else, why would the question "have you researched polygraph" become part of the polygraph interrogation. If the poly is so infallible, what the hell difference does it make? If the defense (poly) is penetrated by the offense (anti-poly) for a touchdown, which has apparently happened, why does the poly maintain the same defense (personal attacks, etc.). Is it because they have no structure to plug the holes?
I could go on and on, but I know what "ad hominy" means, so I will stop the observations here.
Apparently this website and Doug Williams' paper has caused great paranoia in the polygraph community. Especially federal job screening. Else, why would the question "have you researched polygraph" become part of the polygraph interrogation. If the poly is so infallible, what the hell difference does it make? If the defense (poly) is penetrated by the offense (anti-poly) for a touchdown, which has apparently happened, why does the poly maintain the same defense (personal attacks, etc.). Is it because they have no structure to plug the holes?
I could go on and on, but I know what "ad hominy" means, so I will stop the observations here.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 10, 2003, 05:52 AMRay,
So you would have us believe that the polygraph community's ability to detect countermeasures only began after the NAS study -- that you've suddenly come up with a reliable countermeasure detection method? But polygraphers have been claiming to be able to detect countermeasures long before then.
Wishful thinking, Ray.
With the above, you have tacitly conceded that any approach you may have for attempting to detect countermeasures depends on deceit. No technique that relies on such gamesmanship is going to remain viable for long.
You (and other polygraphers) discourage the use of countermeasures. You want the public to believe that you have the ability to detect them. But you offer no evidence whatsoever in support of this claimed ability.
Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge offers an excellent avenue for demonstrating such an ability without divulging your "game plan." Sorry, Ray, the claim that countermeasure detection cannot be demonstrated for fear of disclosing secrets of the trade will only be convincing to the most simpleminded of audiences.
I cannot say with certainty that the public statements made by various self-described polygraph victims are 100% accurate. But I have no reason to doubt them.
You went beyond saying that the statements are "one-sided." You attacked the integrity of those making the statements when you earlier wrote, "I guarantee that some of those personal statements leave out info which isn't so flattering to the examinee."
You made a general ad hominem attack against the authors of the personal statements posted on this site. You also attacked me, personally, when you wrote the following:
You also personally attacked Mr. Truth, with the following:
What you have not done is to provide anything resembling a rational argument in support of your claim that if bushido71 employs countermeasures, he has a "very good chance" of being detected.
No, Mr. Truth's status as a convicted sex offender has no bearing whatsoever on the validity anything he says about polygraph matters. Why not address what he has to say with rational arguments, rather than ad hominem attacks? Perhaps because you can't?
There you go again with yet another ad hominem attack instead of rational argument. It appears that you do not understand just what the term ad hominem means. You'll find it explained here:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
My motivation has no bearing on the truth or falsity of what I have to say about polygraph matters. But my motives in helping to create and maintain AntiPolygraph.org are simple: to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. Part of that involves educating the public about polygraphy and helping those who face polygraph "testing" to protect themselves against the very real risk of a false positive outcome. All information on AntiPolygraph.org is free, and no one involved with this website receives any payment either in cash or in kind for their time and effort. I don't know what purer motive you expect.
QuotePrior to the NAS study, C/M's were really not focused on in the polygraph community. All I will tell you is that this has changed.
So you would have us believe that the polygraph community's ability to detect countermeasures only began after the NAS study -- that you've suddenly come up with a reliable countermeasure detection method? But polygraphers have been claiming to be able to detect countermeasures long before then.
QuoteI think the NAS study helped our cause more than it helped yours.
Wishful thinking, Ray.
QuoteLet me use a sports analogy here for you George. I'm on defense, you're on offense. Am I going to tell you what I'm going to do to stop your play? Would that be wise?
With the above, you have tacitly conceded that any approach you may have for attempting to detect countermeasures depends on deceit. No technique that relies on such gamesmanship is going to remain viable for long.
You (and other polygraphers) discourage the use of countermeasures. You want the public to believe that you have the ability to detect them. But you offer no evidence whatsoever in support of this claimed ability.
Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge offers an excellent avenue for demonstrating such an ability without divulging your "game plan." Sorry, Ray, the claim that countermeasure detection cannot be demonstrated for fear of disclosing secrets of the trade will only be convincing to the most simpleminded of audiences.
QuoteNot entirely. I'm saying it's a one sided statement. Are you saying that all of those personal statements are 100% accurate? Is it possible some things were embellished or perhaps left out all together? You seem to present them as fact.
I cannot say with certainty that the public statements made by various self-described polygraph victims are 100% accurate. But I have no reason to doubt them.
You went beyond saying that the statements are "one-sided." You attacked the integrity of those making the statements when you earlier wrote, "I guarantee that some of those personal statements leave out info which isn't so flattering to the examinee."
QuoteWho have I personally attacked? Did I call anyone a bad name? Point it out for me. I'm just stating the facts.
You made a general ad hominem attack against the authors of the personal statements posted on this site. You also attacked me, personally, when you wrote the following:
QuoteLook at who's trying to give you advice on this site. Who are they and what are their motivations? George isn't trying to help you...he wants you to further his crusade. He tells applicants to refuse to take the poly. Why? Because he thinks it's a slap in the face to the polygraph field. How is that going to help you? You have no chance at your dream if you do that. George wants you to "take one for the team."
You also personally attacked Mr. Truth, with the following:
QuoteMr. Truth, a convicted sex offender, is telling you how to get on the job wtih the LAPD. Are you kidding me?? The type of person you are looking to protect this world from is trying to "help" you. I'm sure he's a nice guy but it is what it is.
What you have not done is to provide anything resembling a rational argument in support of your claim that if bushido71 employs countermeasures, he has a "very good chance" of being detected.
QuoteBushido71 has asked for feedback and I'm giving it to him. I think Mr. Truth's status as a convicted sex offender would have some bearing on his credibility and the validity of his statements, especially for someone looking to get into the field of LE.
No, Mr. Truth's status as a convicted sex offender has no bearing whatsoever on the validity anything he says about polygraph matters. Why not address what he has to say with rational arguments, rather than ad hominem attacks? Perhaps because you can't?
QuoteBeing that bushido71 is considering following your advice, I think your motivation for publishing this website should be considered. If your motivation is so genuine, why do you feel as though I've personally attacked you? Perhaps I've struck a cord?
There you go again with yet another ad hominem attack instead of rational argument. It appears that you do not understand just what the term ad hominem means. You'll find it explained here:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
My motivation has no bearing on the truth or falsity of what I have to say about polygraph matters. But my motives in helping to create and maintain AntiPolygraph.org are simple: to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse. Part of that involves educating the public about polygraphy and helping those who face polygraph "testing" to protect themselves against the very real risk of a false positive outcome. All information on AntiPolygraph.org is free, and no one involved with this website receives any payment either in cash or in kind for their time and effort. I don't know what purer motive you expect.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 10, 2003, 05:02 AMQuote from: guest on Oct 10, 2003, 02:58 AMNot to throw darts at Ray, but if he thinks for a second that cops are not getting hired every day that have beaten the polygraph, he is out of his mind. I'll go one step futher and state that the numbers are growing every day. On the flip side, did it ever occur to polygraphists that maybe they are routinely scoring false negatives as well. I know for a fact this happens. I'll leave it at that.
For an illustration of Guest's point, see Friend Lied on Polygraph and Passed on the RealPolice.net. message board.
Posted by Ray
- Oct 10, 2003, 04:09 AMGeorge,
Prior to the NAS study, C/M's were really not focused on in the polygraph community. All I will tell you is that this has changed. I think the NAS study helped our cause more than it helped yours. Let me use a sports analogy here for you George. I'm on defense, you're on offense. Am I going to tell you what I'm going to do to stop your play? Would that be wise?
Not entirely. I'm saying it's a one sided statement. Are you saying that all of those personal statements are 100% accurate? Is it possible some things were embellished or perhaps left out all together? You seem to present them as fact.
Who have I personally attacked? Did I call anyone a bad name? Point it out for me. I'm just stating the facts. Bushido71 has asked for feedback and I'm giving it to him. I think Mr. Truth's status as a convicted sex offender would have some bearing on his credibility and the validity of his statements, especially for someone looking to get into the field of LE.
Being that bushido71 is considering following your advice, I think your motivation for publishing this website should be considered. If your motivation is so genuine, why do you feel as though I've personally attacked you? Perhaps I've struck a cord?
By the way, my post was not intended for you George. I was attempting to give Bushido 71 another opinion.
Mr. Truth,
Yes it does. Walk up to a complete stranger and list all of your accomplishments...then explain to them that you're a convicted sex offender. Sorry man, that's life.
QuoteThe National Academy of Sciences didn't believe this claim of the polygraph community, concluding instead that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."
Prior to the NAS study, C/M's were really not focused on in the polygraph community. All I will tell you is that this has changed. I think the NAS study helped our cause more than it helped yours. Let me use a sports analogy here for you George. I'm on defense, you're on offense. Am I going to tell you what I'm going to do to stop your play? Would that be wise?
QuoteAre you insinuating that those who have shared their experiences of falsely being accused of deception are making it up?
Not entirely. I'm saying it's a one sided statement. Are you saying that all of those personal statements are 100% accurate? Is it possible some things were embellished or perhaps left out all together? You seem to present them as fact.
QuoteMoreover, his status as a convicted sex offender has no bearing on the validity of anything he may say about polygraph matters. Ray, your post provides nothing but ad hominem arguments. Rather than personally attacking those who have shared their polygraph experiences, or questioning my motives, or Mr. Truth's character, why don't you provide us with rational arguments?
Who have I personally attacked? Did I call anyone a bad name? Point it out for me. I'm just stating the facts. Bushido71 has asked for feedback and I'm giving it to him. I think Mr. Truth's status as a convicted sex offender would have some bearing on his credibility and the validity of his statements, especially for someone looking to get into the field of LE.
Being that bushido71 is considering following your advice, I think your motivation for publishing this website should be considered. If your motivation is so genuine, why do you feel as though I've personally attacked you? Perhaps I've struck a cord?
By the way, my post was not intended for you George. I was attempting to give Bushido 71 another opinion.
Mr. Truth,
QuoteThe label everyone likes to use (sex offender) negates everything else in life I've accomplished?
Yes it does. Walk up to a complete stranger and list all of your accomplishments...then explain to them that you're a convicted sex offender. Sorry man, that's life.
Posted by guest
- Oct 10, 2003, 02:58 AMNot to throw darts at Ray, but if he thinks for a second that cops are not getting hired every day that have beaten the polygraph, he is out of his mind. I'll go one step futher and state that the numbers are growing every day. On the flip side, did it ever occur to polygraphists that maybe they are routinely scoring false negatives as well. I know for a fact this happens. I'll leave it at that.
Posted by bushido71
- Oct 10, 2003, 01:37 AMRay, thanks for your well wishes. I always appreciate getting as complete a picture as possible, especially with this topic.
I am still not sure of my strategy going into the exam. On the surface, my feelings are that CM's, when employed properly, are likely to be effective in preventing the "false positive" which is important to me. But the same time, I want to be able to take the test knowing I have nothing to hide and can pass without using any techniques other than honesty. I'm also a little wary of trying to keep all the techniques straight in my head and executing them well. Not having access to a polygraph machine, it's a little difficult to judge whether or not I am controlling my breathing and cario responses as necessary. What I may think is passable at home, may in fact raise all kinds of red flags in the test. And that bears some concerns as well.
I suppose the real issue here for me is whether or not I am willing to take the chance that I will not be nervous and the examiner will interpret the charts accurately.
Again, any info or insight is appreciated.
I am still not sure of my strategy going into the exam. On the surface, my feelings are that CM's, when employed properly, are likely to be effective in preventing the "false positive" which is important to me. But the same time, I want to be able to take the test knowing I have nothing to hide and can pass without using any techniques other than honesty. I'm also a little wary of trying to keep all the techniques straight in my head and executing them well. Not having access to a polygraph machine, it's a little difficult to judge whether or not I am controlling my breathing and cario responses as necessary. What I may think is passable at home, may in fact raise all kinds of red flags in the test. And that bears some concerns as well.
I suppose the real issue here for me is whether or not I am willing to take the chance that I will not be nervous and the examiner will interpret the charts accurately.
Again, any info or insight is appreciated.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 10, 2003, 01:04 AMRay,
You write:
The National Academy of Sciences didn't believe this claim of the polygraph community, concluding instead that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."
And in peer-reviewed research by Dr. Charles R. Honts and collaborators, experienced polygraphers' determinations that a subject had employed countermeasures had no correlation with actual countermeasure use. That is, using or not using countermeasures had no effect on the likelihood that one would be accused of having used countermeasures.
How about credibility? After all, your standby technique, the "Control Question Test," has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Dr. Drew C. Richardson has made a formal challenge to the polygraph community to demonstrate its professed ability to detect countermeasures. This challenge does not require that those accepting it divulge the methodology used to detect countermeasures: all that is required is to detect them. That no polygrapher has had the courage to accept this challenge (619 days and counting) is strong circumstantial evidence that the polygraph community lacks confidence in its ability to detect countermeasures.
Are you insinuating that those who have shared their experiences of falsely being accused of deception are making it up? Because the polygraph is valid technique for lie detection and truth verification? Get real, Ray. Polygraph testing is a pseudoscientific fraud.
AntiPolygraph.org offers much more than "emotional personal statements" about polygraphy. Our free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, includes compelling arguments based on facts. In writing it, we have relied on numerous pro-polygraph sources such as Department of Defense Polygraph Institute studies, articles published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, and books written by polygraphers.
Moreover, on this uncensored message board, we have provided polygraphers ample opportunity to rebut any claims made here and to correct anything that you believe to be untrue.
Ray, the applicants I have suggested refuse the polygraph are those seeking employment with the FBI ("Just Say 'No' to FBI Polygraphs," 9 May 2003). I base that recommendation on the Bureau's high polygraph failure rate (~50%) and the especially serious consequences of having a failed FBI polygraph on one's record.
I did not tell bushido71 to refuse the polygraph. But he wise to research it, and to seriously consider the option of using countermeasures to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome. The LAPD's pre-employment polygraph failure rate is also on the order of 50%.
Mr. Truth did not tell bushido71 how to get a job with the LAPD. Moreover, his status as a convicted sex offender has no bearing on the validity of anything he may say about polygraph matters.
Ray, your post provides nothing but ad hominem arguments. Rather than personally attacking those who have shared their polygraph experiences, or questioning my motives, or Mr. Truth's character, why don't you provide us with rational arguments?
You write:
QuoteRegardless of what you read on this site, if you do attempt C/M's, there is a very good chance you will be detected.
The National Academy of Sciences didn't believe this claim of the polygraph community, concluding instead that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."
And in peer-reviewed research by Dr. Charles R. Honts and collaborators, experienced polygraphers' determinations that a subject had employed countermeasures had no correlation with actual countermeasure use. That is, using or not using countermeasures had no effect on the likelihood that one would be accused of having used countermeasures.
QuoteGeorge has asked examiners to prove the ability to detect C/M's...why the hell would we do that? So George can try to eliminate the dead giveaways his "techniques" display?
How about credibility? After all, your standby technique, the "Control Question Test," has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Dr. Drew C. Richardson has made a formal challenge to the polygraph community to demonstrate its professed ability to detect countermeasures. This challenge does not require that those accepting it divulge the methodology used to detect countermeasures: all that is required is to detect them. That no polygrapher has had the courage to accept this challenge (619 days and counting) is strong circumstantial evidence that the polygraph community lacks confidence in its ability to detect countermeasures.
QuoteThis site tries to sway people with emotional "personal statements". Keep in mind that in those statements you're only getting one side (anti-poly.org) of the story. They don't ask the examiner for his/her side. This site presents those statements as fact (I guarantee that some of those personal statements leave out info which isn't so flattering to the examinee). If you can't tell, many of the individuals associated with this site have a major ax to grind.
Are you insinuating that those who have shared their experiences of falsely being accused of deception are making it up? Because the polygraph is valid technique for lie detection and truth verification? Get real, Ray. Polygraph testing is a pseudoscientific fraud.
AntiPolygraph.org offers much more than "emotional personal statements" about polygraphy. Our free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, includes compelling arguments based on facts. In writing it, we have relied on numerous pro-polygraph sources such as Department of Defense Polygraph Institute studies, articles published in the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, and books written by polygraphers.
Moreover, on this uncensored message board, we have provided polygraphers ample opportunity to rebut any claims made here and to correct anything that you believe to be untrue.
QuoteLook at who's trying to give you advice on this site. Who are they and what are their motivations? George isn't trying to help you...he wants you to further his crusade. He tells applicants to refuse to take the poly. Why? Because he thinks it's a slap in the face to the polygraph field. How is that going to help you? You have no chance at your dream if you do that. George wants you to "take one for the team."
Ray, the applicants I have suggested refuse the polygraph are those seeking employment with the FBI ("Just Say 'No' to FBI Polygraphs," 9 May 2003). I base that recommendation on the Bureau's high polygraph failure rate (~50%) and the especially serious consequences of having a failed FBI polygraph on one's record.
I did not tell bushido71 to refuse the polygraph. But he wise to research it, and to seriously consider the option of using countermeasures to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome. The LAPD's pre-employment polygraph failure rate is also on the order of 50%.
QuoteMr. Truth, a convicted sex offender, is telling you how to get on the job wtih the LAPD. Are you kidding me?? The type of person you are looking to protect this world from is trying to "help" you. I'm sure he's a nice guy but it is what it is.
Mr. Truth did not tell bushido71 how to get a job with the LAPD. Moreover, his status as a convicted sex offender has no bearing on the validity of anything he may say about polygraph matters.
Ray, your post provides nothing but ad hominem arguments. Rather than personally attacking those who have shared their polygraph experiences, or questioning my motives, or Mr. Truth's character, why don't you provide us with rational arguments?
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Oct 09, 2003, 11:01 PMQuoteLet me throw in my two cents here...Do not use countermeasures! Regardless of what you read on this site, if you do attempt C/M's, there is a very good chance you will be detected. George has asked examiners to prove the ability to detect C/M's...why the hell would we do that? So George can try to eliminate the dead giveaways his "techniques" display?
The two greatest secrets in our society are this: who shot JFK, and what takes place at Groom Lake/Area 51. Polygraphers would claim there are three: the two I mentioned, and the secrets behind their ability to detect countermeasures. The JFK one is going strong. Area 51 we know quite a bit about, not everything, but enough has leaked out over the years to paint a fairly clear picture of what takes place behind closed doors.
As far the ability to detect countermeasures - really, after all these years of polygraph use, and the thousands of current and former polygraphers, not a single one has spilled the beans about the secret behind countermeasure detection? Mafioso have spilled the beans, despite their code of omerta. CIA officers have written books, despite being sworn to secrecy. The "brotherhood" of polygraphers has an ethic that has yet to be breached by a "traitor?" Do we look that dumb? The only people that we-can-detect-countermeasures sells to is the naive and gullible and uninformed. Education, knowledge,and exposure of the fraud behind the polygraph will cure that in time.
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Oct 09, 2003, 10:47 PMQuoteMr. Truth, a convicted sex offender, is telling you how to get on the job wtih the LAPD. Are you kidding me?? The type of person you are looking to protect this world from is trying to "help" you. I'm sure he's a nice guy but it is what it is.
So that invalidates anything I have to say on the matter? And protect the world from what? Some threat I pose? To whom? The label everyone likes to use negates everything else in life I've accomplished? FYI, it includes being a service academy graduate, military officer, and a lot of other very positive things. And who are you? Is your major function in life that as a polygrapher?
What you say about less than flattering details being omitted is true. Undergoing a sex history type of polygraph is humiliating, to say the least. That would be true for anyone. The monitoring ones are more straightforward, nothing embarassing about those, but they are just as flawed as any other polygraph "test." Aside from my humungous mistake, I am a scenario one type of examinee. I've eaten enough false positives to be bitter about the process. Was it me, or was it the polygraph? Guess what? It's the polygraph.
There is no way you can differentiate between a reaction-producing thought countermeasure and any other thought or feeling that you would claim is associated with deception, control question or otherwise. What the polygraph can do, through software and "expert opinions of the examiner," is detect differences between a baseline reading and readings that are not on the baseline. The measurement of those differences is accurate. The interpretation of those differences is where the voodoo of polygraphy comes into play.
Posted by Ray
- Oct 09, 2003, 09:58 PMbushido71,
First of all, good luck in your pursuit of a career with the LAPD. It's a top notch department.
Let me throw in my two cents here...Do not use countermeasures! Regardless of what you read on this site, if you do attempt C/M's, there is a very good chance you will be detected. George has asked examiners to prove the ability to detect C/M's...why the hell would we do that? So George can try to eliminate the dead giveaways his "techniques" display?
This site tries to sway people with emotional "personal statements". Keep in mind that in those statements you're only getting one side (anti-poly.org) of the story. They don't ask the examiner for his/her side. This site presents those statements as fact (I guarantee that some of those personal statements leave out info which isn't so flattering to the examinee). If you can't tell, many of the individuals associated with this site have a major ax to grind.
Look at who's trying to give you advice on this site. Who are they and what are their motivations? George isn't trying to help you...he wants you to further his crusade. He tells applicants to refuse to take the poly. Why? Because he thinks it's a slap in the face to the polygraph field. How is that going to help you? You have no chance at your dream if you do that. George wants you to "take one for the team."
Mr. Truth, a convicted sex offender, is telling you how to get on the job wtih the LAPD. Are you kidding me?? The type of person you are looking to protect this world from is trying to "help" you. I'm sure he's a nice guy but it is what it is.
Again, good luck and I hope you do the right thing.
First of all, good luck in your pursuit of a career with the LAPD. It's a top notch department.
Let me throw in my two cents here...Do not use countermeasures! Regardless of what you read on this site, if you do attempt C/M's, there is a very good chance you will be detected. George has asked examiners to prove the ability to detect C/M's...why the hell would we do that? So George can try to eliminate the dead giveaways his "techniques" display?
This site tries to sway people with emotional "personal statements". Keep in mind that in those statements you're only getting one side (anti-poly.org) of the story. They don't ask the examiner for his/her side. This site presents those statements as fact (I guarantee that some of those personal statements leave out info which isn't so flattering to the examinee). If you can't tell, many of the individuals associated with this site have a major ax to grind.
Look at who's trying to give you advice on this site. Who are they and what are their motivations? George isn't trying to help you...he wants you to further his crusade. He tells applicants to refuse to take the poly. Why? Because he thinks it's a slap in the face to the polygraph field. How is that going to help you? You have no chance at your dream if you do that. George wants you to "take one for the team."
Mr. Truth, a convicted sex offender, is telling you how to get on the job wtih the LAPD. Are you kidding me?? The type of person you are looking to protect this world from is trying to "help" you. I'm sure he's a nice guy but it is what it is.
Again, good luck and I hope you do the right thing.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 09, 2003, 03:33 AMMr. Truth,
You write in part:
Note that in the context of pre-employment polygraph screening, a question about sex with animals is not relevant. Instead, it is used (notably by the U.S. Secret Service) as a kind of "shock control" question.
You write in part:
QuoteHowever, depending on the nature of the relevant questions (have you had sex with animals?), candidate may show enough of a repsonse and be scored DI.
Note that in the context of pre-employment polygraph screening, a question about sex with animals is not relevant. Instead, it is used (notably by the U.S. Secret Service) as a kind of "shock control" question.
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Oct 08, 2003, 09:29 PMHere is another topic related to all of this: of the three types of question posters I've seen in here that have one thing in common, namely, the desire to be in law enforcement (local, federal, three-letter acronym, whatever), here are your basic test scenarios.
Scenario 1: candidate is an honest person, your regular stand-up take the lumps for his mistakes kind of guy, no dirty laundry in his past. What's likely to happen: false positive or inconclusive results because accusations (the relevant questions) about past misdeeds won't bother him, he's as pure as driven snow. However, depending on the nature of the relevant questions (have you had sex with animals?), candidate may show enough of a repsonse and be scored DI. Control questions won't bother him. To pass: use CM's, you're not doing anything wrong, you're not lying or trying to deceive anyone about your past. If you're here reading this, you must have come across all the false positve horror stories. Do you feel lucky?
Scenario 2: candidate has been around the block, did some drugs in his younger days, but is a decent, otherwise honest person. Knows he has to go into the polygraph lying like a MF about his past drug use (or other disqualifying misdeeds). What's likely to happen: Response to control questions won't bother him, but response to relevant questions will be off the chart, so to speak, because of the pressure/guilt of lying. To pass: CM's all the way, baby, and don't look back once you're in. But do us all a favor and don't be a hypocrite and "force" a suspect to clear himself via use of the polygraph.
Scenario 3: candidate has no significant misdeeds in his past, but is of poor moral character. Lies at the drop of a dime to get out of trouble, places the blame on others more often than the Chargers' placekicker places the football on the tee, which is quite often. What's likely to happen: Lack of compunction about lying results in indifference to the relevant questions, may feel a tinge of guilt about lying on the control questions, resulting in a passing score. To pass: Just be yourself. May want to use CM's to be on the safe side in case 1) the polygrapher pulls a Jimmy Swaggart on you and has you kneel down and pray with him, dear God, let the truth come out today (helps if you shed a little tear at the end of that drama scene), or 2) you develop a sense of guilt about your character because the polygrapher adopts the Father Confessor persona, and all of a sudden, you feel like coughing up what a bad person you are, not "bad" bad, but you know you could be treating others around you a lot better than you do.
Scenario 1: candidate is an honest person, your regular stand-up take the lumps for his mistakes kind of guy, no dirty laundry in his past. What's likely to happen: false positive or inconclusive results because accusations (the relevant questions) about past misdeeds won't bother him, he's as pure as driven snow. However, depending on the nature of the relevant questions (have you had sex with animals?), candidate may show enough of a repsonse and be scored DI. Control questions won't bother him. To pass: use CM's, you're not doing anything wrong, you're not lying or trying to deceive anyone about your past. If you're here reading this, you must have come across all the false positve horror stories. Do you feel lucky?
Scenario 2: candidate has been around the block, did some drugs in his younger days, but is a decent, otherwise honest person. Knows he has to go into the polygraph lying like a MF about his past drug use (or other disqualifying misdeeds). What's likely to happen: Response to control questions won't bother him, but response to relevant questions will be off the chart, so to speak, because of the pressure/guilt of lying. To pass: CM's all the way, baby, and don't look back once you're in. But do us all a favor and don't be a hypocrite and "force" a suspect to clear himself via use of the polygraph.
Scenario 3: candidate has no significant misdeeds in his past, but is of poor moral character. Lies at the drop of a dime to get out of trouble, places the blame on others more often than the Chargers' placekicker places the football on the tee, which is quite often. What's likely to happen: Lack of compunction about lying results in indifference to the relevant questions, may feel a tinge of guilt about lying on the control questions, resulting in a passing score. To pass: Just be yourself. May want to use CM's to be on the safe side in case 1) the polygrapher pulls a Jimmy Swaggart on you and has you kneel down and pray with him, dear God, let the truth come out today (helps if you shed a little tear at the end of that drama scene), or 2) you develop a sense of guilt about your character because the polygrapher adopts the Father Confessor persona, and all of a sudden, you feel like coughing up what a bad person you are, not "bad" bad, but you know you could be treating others around you a lot better than you do.
Posted by Mr. Truth
- Oct 08, 2003, 08:59 PMTelling the truth isn't good enough. I know I reacted more to the relevant questions than to the control questions. The control questions were like character assessment type of questions (have you lied to avoid gettng into serious trouble, would you try to blame someone else for a mistake you made, etc.). I am and was a stand-up kind of guy - if I make a mistake, I admit it and don't blame others, so the CQ's didn't bother me enough. I was more sensitive to the relevant questions, not because I was lying on my answers to them, but because of the pressure of wanting to pass, the consequences of not passing, and the nature of the questions (sensitive about being asked if I've done something else bad; I readily admitted to what I did and did all I could to make the situation better and take responsibility for what I did; what I did is what I did, nothing more, nothing less, and to no one else, ever, period).
So, if you are ashamed about, say, having smoked a few joints in your younger days, and are basically an honest person, you are ripe for being a false positive (being scored deception indicated about your prior drug use). If you really want to be in law enforcement, can you afford NOT to use countermeasures?
So, if you are ashamed about, say, having smoked a few joints in your younger days, and are basically an honest person, you are ripe for being a false positive (being scored deception indicated about your prior drug use). If you really want to be in law enforcement, can you afford NOT to use countermeasures?
Posted by bushido71
- Oct 08, 2003, 08:27 PMI appreciate all of the insight and certainly did not intend to stir yet another debate about the validity (or lack thereof) of the polygraph. I am still not certain how I will approach the polygraph exam, and whether or not I will use CMs or not. But I appreciate the information nonetheless.
I will definitely be doing more research into the matter as the days go by.
I will definitely be doing more research into the matter as the days go by.