- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by gelb disliker
- Nov 30, 2005, 06:31 AMalliebean says "In addition, it seems that quite a few of the stories talk about how people seriously lost their temper with the polygraphers. It's a job. A JOB. "
well, "callin' it your job, ole Hoss, sure don't make it right"
well, "callin' it your job, ole Hoss, sure don't make it right"
Posted by nunyun
- Sep 16, 2004, 04:36 AMNothing to lose? I have a good friend that is clean as a whistle. This kid has (or man) lived a very clean lifestyle but I saw him fail poly's three times then pass two times when he got hired. This was before all the Williams stuff was on the net. He lost out big time and it almost broke him. I would rather not roll the dice with a false positive and know that I am in control of the test than some guy who may be wanting to make a quota or decided he did not like the looks of me when we meet in the lobby. I am glad you passed and had a good expierience but I feel bad for all the false positives that I have read about and know of personally.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 16, 2004, 03:54 AMQuote from: alliebean on Sep 15, 2004, 07:19 PMI have to say that I respectfully disagree regarding having nothing to lose. Perhaps integrity? It seems like the attitude is, since there is no scientifically proven integrity of the test, there is no reason to respond with integrity.
I would agree with you that persons seeking positions of public trust have an ethical obligation to answer relevant questions truthfully. But I don't believe that such truthful persons lose their integrity by using countermeasures to protect themselves against the high risk of a false positive outcome. As we note in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 125 of the 3rd edition):
QuoteWe believe that the ethically preferable choice for those facing polygraphic interrogation is to either refuse to submit or to use the "complete honesty" approach (or both). If everyone who reads this book were to do so, it would force the agencies that are using polygraphy against their employees and prospective employees--as well as the elected representatives who have sanctioned it--to confront the plain truth that the lie behind the lie detector has been exposed. It would quickly spell the end for polygraphy. But we are also aware that these two choices carry with them a high "first-mover disadvantage" and may entail serious adverse consequences for those
with the moral courage to adopt them.
We believe that it is not unethical for truthful persons--faced with a government that routinely lies to and deceives its employees and prospective employees through the polygraph screening process--to employ polygraph countermeasures to protect themselves against a false positive outcome.
I note that your initial objection to polygraph countermeasures was based not on any argument of lost integrity, but rather on your (wrong) suggestion that polygraphers are able to detect countermeasures.
You go on to write:
QuoteI do not claim to be an expert on the polygraph and to be honest, everything posted here about it's inaccuracy may be totally correct. I truly don't know. What I am saying is this: Engaging in a dishonest action to counter another dishonest action is not the way to go.
Again, the minor deception inherent in countermeasure use by otherwise truthful persons is justified by our government's use of deception in the pseudoscientific procedure that is polygraph screening. 'Tis no deceit to deceive the deceiver.
QuoteAfter taking the time to read the majority of the posts on this site, I have to say that the majority of the people who are concerned about counter measures seem to be freaked out about something in their past and are looking for a way to "beat the system". I would be interested, statistically speaking, to know how many people wish to engage in CMs who are not flipped out about something in their past. Whether it be a serious offense or not.
Unfortunately, such statistics are not available. Fewer than 1% of those who download The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (which includes detailed information on polygraph countermeasures) post to this message board. However, I disagree with your characterization that the majority of people who post here seem to be "looking for a way to 'beat the system.'" On the contrary, those who have stated that their objective is to get away with lying are a distinct minority.
QuoteIn addition, it seems that quite a few of the stories talk about how people seriously lost their temper with the polygraphers. It's a job. A JOB.
And a very dishonest and dishonorable job at that. When one falsely accuses another person of deception based on the outcome of an invalid test, one should not be surprised to receive an angry response.
QuoteBefore everyone jumps all over me and starts slinging as I have seen on this list many times, all I am saying is I personally do not think, knowing that in my past I truly have nothing to hide, it would have been worth my while to engage in activity that in and of itself could ruin my chances if I'm caught.
Would your opinion differ had you lost the polygraph crapshoot? Again, choosing not to employ countermeasures provides no protection against being arbitrarily accused of having done so.
QuoteThe fact is, the gov't agency I am going to work for did not require that I take the polygraph, but it is a job requirement.
Indeed, your polygraph examination was "voluntary" in the sense that you were not forced to take it, but compulsory in the sense that if you didn't submit, you wouldn't qualify for the job you sought... So what?
QuoteDid I like the experience? Not in the least. Would I have been furious if I had failed knowing that I was truthful? Absolutely and I would fight that ruling in any way that I could.
Those wrongly accused of deception have very little avenue of appeal. For instance, you mentioned in another message thread that your polygraph examination was for an FBI intelligence analyst position. While the FBI has no formal process for appealing polygraph results, applicants who are falsely accused of deception may request a "re-test," and in many cases it is granted. But the results of re-tests are almost always the same as the initial one. The FBI polygraph unit cannot afford to be seen reversing very many initial decisions. Were they to do so, it would tend to undermine confidence in their voodoo science.
QuoteThat being said, at least I could walk away from the whole experience knowing, that although a test screwed up, I maintained my honesty and integrity the entire time.
That's true. But you'd have a permanent FBI HQ file falsely branding you as a liar.
QuoteI find it really interesting that some people complain about the trickery used to administer the polygraph while they are engaged in trickery to beat the machine. Doesn't anyone see the pure hypocrisy in that? Oh, but maybe it's okay to trash the gov't about dishonesty if they do it first.
No, it's not hypocrisy for those who have employed polygraph countermeasures (which involve only minor deception that, in the case of truthful persons, harms no one) to complain about the trickery involved in the administration of polygraph examinations (which harm many innocent persons). The deception here is initiated by our government in its wrongful use of a screening "tool" that it knows to be invalid. If there is moral blame to be assigned, it rests squarely on the shoulders of government.
QuoteMy polygrapher was professional and to the point. He even discussed with me in great detail the accuracy of the polygraph and answered every single question I brought to his attention. He explained that that test was only as good as the administrator. Did he play mind games during the test? Absolutely. Did he lie to me or engage in verbal abuse? No.
It is well that your polygrapher conducted himself in a professional manner and did not engage in verbal abuse. But you are mistaken in thinking that your he did not lie to you. The polygraph procedure depends on deception in a very fundamental way. The polygrapher lies to the examinee by exaggerating the accuracy of the procedure (FBI polygraphers, for example, typically claim 98%), by administering a meaningless "stim test" intended to falsely convince the examinee that the polygraph can actually detect deception, and by providing a false explanation of the purpose of the "control" and irrelevant questions. You will find these deceptions explained in detail in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
QuoteI am very glad that I did not engage in research relating to this site before my poly. It would have scared the hell out of me and I would have walked into that experience expecting the absolute worst possible scenario and sometimes we get what we expect.
I find it ironic that an aspiring FBI intelligence analyst would choose the path of willfull ignorance.
Posted by alliebean
- Sep 15, 2004, 07:19 PMI have to say that I respectfully disagree regarding having nothing to lose. Perhaps integrity? It seems like the attitude is, since there is no scientifically proven integrity of the test, there is no reason to respond with integrity.
I do not claim to be an expert on the polygraph and to be honest, everything posted here about it's inaccuracy may be totally correct. I truly don't know. What I am saying is this: Engaging in a dishonest action to counter another dishonest action is not the way to go. After taking the time to read the majority of the posts on this site, I have to say that the majority of the people who are concerned about counter measures seem to be freaked out about something in their past and are looking for a way to "beat the system". I would be interested, statistically speaking, to know how many people wish to engage in CMs who are not flipped out about something in their past. Whether it be a serious offense or not.
In addition, it seems that quite a few of the stories talk about how people seriously lost their temper with the polygraphers. It's a job. A JOB.
Before everyone jumps all over me and starts slinging as I have seen on this list many times, all I am saying is I personally do not think, knowing that in my past I truly have nothing to hide, it would have been worth my while to engage in activity that in and of itself could ruin my chances if I'm caught.
The fact is, the gov't agency I am going to work for did not require that I take the polygraph, but it is a job requirement. Did I like the experience? Not in the least. Would I have been furious if I had failed knowing that I was truthful? Absolutely and I would fight that ruling in any way that I could. That being said, at least I could walk away from the whole experience knowing, that although a test screwed up, I maintained my honesty and integrity the entire time.
I find it really interesting that some people complain about the trickery used to administer the polygraph while they are engaged in trickery to beat the machine. Doesn't anyone see the pure hypocrisy in that? Oh, but maybe it's okay to trash the gov't about dishonesty if they do it first.
My polygrapher was professional and to the point. He even discussed with me in great detail the accuracy of the polygraph and answered every single question I brought to his attention. He explained that that test was only as good as the administrator. Did he play mind games during the test? Absolutely. Did he lie to me or engage in verbal abuse? No.
I am very glad that I did not engage in research relating to this site before my poly. It would have scared the hell out of me and I would have walked into that experience expecting the absolute worst possible scenario and sometimes we get what we expect.
I do not claim to be an expert on the polygraph and to be honest, everything posted here about it's inaccuracy may be totally correct. I truly don't know. What I am saying is this: Engaging in a dishonest action to counter another dishonest action is not the way to go. After taking the time to read the majority of the posts on this site, I have to say that the majority of the people who are concerned about counter measures seem to be freaked out about something in their past and are looking for a way to "beat the system". I would be interested, statistically speaking, to know how many people wish to engage in CMs who are not flipped out about something in their past. Whether it be a serious offense or not.
In addition, it seems that quite a few of the stories talk about how people seriously lost their temper with the polygraphers. It's a job. A JOB.
Before everyone jumps all over me and starts slinging as I have seen on this list many times, all I am saying is I personally do not think, knowing that in my past I truly have nothing to hide, it would have been worth my while to engage in activity that in and of itself could ruin my chances if I'm caught.
The fact is, the gov't agency I am going to work for did not require that I take the polygraph, but it is a job requirement. Did I like the experience? Not in the least. Would I have been furious if I had failed knowing that I was truthful? Absolutely and I would fight that ruling in any way that I could. That being said, at least I could walk away from the whole experience knowing, that although a test screwed up, I maintained my honesty and integrity the entire time.
I find it really interesting that some people complain about the trickery used to administer the polygraph while they are engaged in trickery to beat the machine. Doesn't anyone see the pure hypocrisy in that? Oh, but maybe it's okay to trash the gov't about dishonesty if they do it first.
My polygrapher was professional and to the point. He even discussed with me in great detail the accuracy of the polygraph and answered every single question I brought to his attention. He explained that that test was only as good as the administrator. Did he play mind games during the test? Absolutely. Did he lie to me or engage in verbal abuse? No.
I am very glad that I did not engage in research relating to this site before my poly. It would have scared the hell out of me and I would have walked into that experience expecting the absolute worst possible scenario and sometimes we get what we expect.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 15, 2004, 08:35 AMAlliebean,
While it is true that if a polygrapher opines that an examinee has employed countermeasures, he/she will will not "pass," there is no evidence that such opinions have any correlation with actual countermeasures use. Indeed, the only available peer-reviewed research on this subject showed no such correlation. Thus, choosing not to employ countermeasures offers no protection against being arbitrarily (and wrongly) accused of countermeasure use.
Considering that polygraph screening itself has no more scientific basis than astrology or tea leaf reading and that polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect countermeasures, anyone facing a polygraph screening "test" has little to lose (and potentially much to gain) by using countermeasures rather than leaving the results to chance alone.
While it is true that if a polygrapher opines that an examinee has employed countermeasures, he/she will will not "pass," there is no evidence that such opinions have any correlation with actual countermeasures use. Indeed, the only available peer-reviewed research on this subject showed no such correlation. Thus, choosing not to employ countermeasures offers no protection against being arbitrarily (and wrongly) accused of countermeasure use.
Considering that polygraph screening itself has no more scientific basis than astrology or tea leaf reading and that polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect countermeasures, anyone facing a polygraph screening "test" has little to lose (and potentially much to gain) by using countermeasures rather than leaving the results to chance alone.
Posted by alliebean
- Sep 14, 2004, 06:50 PMI have to add that although my experience was highly mentally stressful, the polygrapher treated me with an immense amount of respect. He did his job. There was no post poly interview with exception to a brief conversation about the "probable lie" question asked (which he did not tell me about, but I learned about later). The question was whether I had ever stolen anything from friends or family and while I was certain I had (I imagine everyone has), I could not think of one instance. I voiced my reservations to the question and then I answered no during the actual test (I felt that since I couldn't think of examples, I should answer no). My polygrapher asked me what I was thinking about during that question and I explained that it was the theft of my car by one of my brother's friends. End of discussion, polygraph passed. The whole experience took over three hours.
I chose to read absolutely nothing on the poly before I took it so as not to influence my perceptions. Did it make me easier to manipulate? Probably, but it was my chosen route. The one thing I do say about CMs is this...if they catch you, you fail. Period. Whether there is testing or not regarding the fallibility of CMs or whatever, the fact is, don't forget that polygraphers read the same info that we read and know all the tricks of the trade.
Just decide, for yourself, if it's worth it either way.
I chose to read absolutely nothing on the poly before I took it so as not to influence my perceptions. Did it make me easier to manipulate? Probably, but it was my chosen route. The one thing I do say about CMs is this...if they catch you, you fail. Period. Whether there is testing or not regarding the fallibility of CMs or whatever, the fact is, don't forget that polygraphers read the same info that we read and know all the tricks of the trade.
Just decide, for yourself, if it's worth it either way.
Posted by The_Breeze
- Sep 16, 2002, 04:10 PMJet
We give our applicants every benefit of the doubt possible. If something comes forth from a polygraph it is independently verified, not mindlessly accepted. We as an agency would not rely on any one single part of a background (of which a polygraph may be a part) unless it clearly shows documentable evidence of felony behavior. I am gratified that your illustration shows a more balanced picture of those that serve the public than is sometimes presented here. Good luck to you-
Jay
We give our applicants every benefit of the doubt possible. If something comes forth from a polygraph it is independently verified, not mindlessly accepted. We as an agency would not rely on any one single part of a background (of which a polygraph may be a part) unless it clearly shows documentable evidence of felony behavior. I am gratified that your illustration shows a more balanced picture of those that serve the public than is sometimes presented here. Good luck to you-
Jay
Posted by Public Servant
- Sep 14, 2002, 09:54 AMJet Journalist,
Your post was not addressed specifically to me, however, I do fit the basic prerequisites. I would first caution that I conduct no screening examinations, but the overall process for resolving inconclusive or DI results are similar.
I would say it is very common for examiners to "dig" for a reason causing the result as opposed to just sticking to accusatory interview. During a criminal examination, this would possibly occur shortly into the post test interview, if the results were inconclusive. Also, most experienced interviewers can sense by a subject's response to the interview when the interview is not "on the right track." Even with a DI, the examiner may be likely to believe some lesser issue might be the cause of the deception indicated result. I would imagine, due to the nature of their work (the broadness of the issues tested), screening examiners could be quick to go this route. However, in the case of a criminal examination, only subsequent NDI examination could allow the examiner to say that the small admission was indeed all that caused the DI exam.
I would like to think that examiners would not run friends or loved ones. To avoid the appearance of bias, another examiner should handle the exam. However, if a friend of a friend was to be examined, the examiner would have to treat the examinee in the same objective manner. I would try to resolve all issues (and continue to offer subsequent examination after small admissions) just as I would with any other examinee.
It seems you are complimenting your examiner for being impartial and open minded enough to understand your situation. This provides me an excellent opportunity to underscore that the vast majority of examiners, and investigators in general (I believe it is the defininition of investigator) are objective seekers of the truth.
Thanks,
Public Servant
Your post was not addressed specifically to me, however, I do fit the basic prerequisites. I would first caution that I conduct no screening examinations, but the overall process for resolving inconclusive or DI results are similar.
I would say it is very common for examiners to "dig" for a reason causing the result as opposed to just sticking to accusatory interview. During a criminal examination, this would possibly occur shortly into the post test interview, if the results were inconclusive. Also, most experienced interviewers can sense by a subject's response to the interview when the interview is not "on the right track." Even with a DI, the examiner may be likely to believe some lesser issue might be the cause of the deception indicated result. I would imagine, due to the nature of their work (the broadness of the issues tested), screening examiners could be quick to go this route. However, in the case of a criminal examination, only subsequent NDI examination could allow the examiner to say that the small admission was indeed all that caused the DI exam.
I would like to think that examiners would not run friends or loved ones. To avoid the appearance of bias, another examiner should handle the exam. However, if a friend of a friend was to be examined, the examiner would have to treat the examinee in the same objective manner. I would try to resolve all issues (and continue to offer subsequent examination after small admissions) just as I would with any other examinee.
It seems you are complimenting your examiner for being impartial and open minded enough to understand your situation. This provides me an excellent opportunity to underscore that the vast majority of examiners, and investigators in general (I believe it is the defininition of investigator) are objective seekers of the truth.
Thanks,
Public Servant
Posted by jet-journalist
- Sep 06, 2002, 09:02 PMwoops, sorry, thats for the other message though!
Brain
Brain
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 06, 2002, 07:09 PMQuote from: jet-journalist on Sep 06, 2002, 06:47 PM
Skeptic, Batman, Polycop, and The_Breeze,
Please all of you respond, I only would like a polygraphers suggestion, so unless you have been a polygrapher, or are a polygrapher please do not reply, you may send me a private message though. Thank you.
Brian "Orange County" Knox
Brian,
I am not a polygrapher.
Skeptic
Posted by jet-journalist
- Sep 06, 2002, 06:47 PMSkeptic, Batman, Polycop, and The_Breeze,
I would like to ask you a couple questions in regards to myself and to your last post.
I took a polygraph and failed the drug question. The polygrapher during a post interogation stated to me that I showed a very high "deception reading" on his charts, and then he began his interogation. Not knowing about his true job as an interogator, I spoke with him for 45mins until he asked, "when i ask you about these drugs tell me what you think about." When i was in the service my ex-wife was observed by the DST task force buying drugs from a dealer being watched by DST. I recieved a phone call from DST and went home to catch my ex-wife snorking coke. The polygrapher at that point realized at that point that this was the reason I showed deception and passed me. How often do polygrapher's take the time to dig vs interogate to find the facts rather the confession? When an admission such as this comes out what steps do you take to "clear the applicants." after this occurs. My second question is: If your close friends daughter or son applied with your agency and you have met her/him a couple of times and had to give them there polygraph, and it came up as deceptive in any area, but everyone tells you that they are clean, What would you or what could you do? Please all of you respond, I only would like a polygraphers suggestion, so unless you have been a polygrapher, or are a polygrapher please do not reply, you may send me a private message though. Thank you.
Brian "Orange County" Knox
I would like to ask you a couple questions in regards to myself and to your last post.
I took a polygraph and failed the drug question. The polygrapher during a post interogation stated to me that I showed a very high "deception reading" on his charts, and then he began his interogation. Not knowing about his true job as an interogator, I spoke with him for 45mins until he asked, "when i ask you about these drugs tell me what you think about." When i was in the service my ex-wife was observed by the DST task force buying drugs from a dealer being watched by DST. I recieved a phone call from DST and went home to catch my ex-wife snorking coke. The polygrapher at that point realized at that point that this was the reason I showed deception and passed me. How often do polygrapher's take the time to dig vs interogate to find the facts rather the confession? When an admission such as this comes out what steps do you take to "clear the applicants." after this occurs. My second question is: If your close friends daughter or son applied with your agency and you have met her/him a couple of times and had to give them there polygraph, and it came up as deceptive in any area, but everyone tells you that they are clean, What would you or what could you do? Please all of you respond, I only would like a polygraphers suggestion, so unless you have been a polygrapher, or are a polygrapher please do not reply, you may send me a private message though. Thank you.
Brian "Orange County" Knox
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 06, 2002, 06:26 PMQuote from: PROAc on Sep 06, 2002, 05:09 PM
I read the personal statements by the military, CIA, police guys. Seemed all failed because of "drug use" or "another drug situation". Whatever happened to alcohol, financial, security violations, etc? I may be wrong.
First of all, the polygraph session might not break down into specific questions regarding alcohol or financial situations -- it might simply cover these with general questions regarding truthfulness on security forms.
Otherwise, it's just a guess, but drug use might seem "closer to home", especially for new applicants (those who have most likely never had any contact with security situations or classified documents, but who may, for example, have smoked or drank underage, known people who did drugs, etc.). Also, possible contact with drugs tends to cover entire lifetimes of behavior (as compared with more "counterintelligence-oriented" questions), and thus questions regarding it may seem more vague to the examinee.
Additionally, it's possible that the average person has frequently been admonished throughout his or her life about the badness of drugs. It's unlikely that he or she has had the same message drilled in regarding not disclosing classified information.
Finally, it might be that we're just looking at random chance. There are many reasons why someone might react to a given question or subject area.
Skeptic
Posted by PROAc
- Sep 06, 2002, 05:09 PMI read the personal statements by the military, CIA, police guys. Seemed all failed because of "drug use" or "another drug situation". Whatever happened to alcohol, financial, security violations, etc? I may be wrong.