- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 12, 2005, 05:50 PMJeffery, you are absolutely wrong with regard to inconclusive results being enough to keep someone from getting a job, at least in any agency or department I've heard of. As has been pointed out ad nauseum on this forum, the polygraph is only supposed to be one small part of the whole process. Of course, some agency or department out there may weight it more heavily than is warranted.
"I like these guys. They are funny guys. Just kill one of them." -- El Guapo, The Three Amigos
"I like these guys. They are funny guys. Just kill one of them." -- El Guapo, The Three Amigos
Posted by nunyun
- Feb 12, 2005, 04:39 PMQuote from: dimas on Feb 10, 2005, 11:43 PM(granted I have no problem with this if deception is discovered and admitted to by the candidate)[/b]
My point is that the polygraph should only be used as an adjunct to a background investigation and never as the background investigation or the sole disqualifier.
[b]On another note, welcome aboard and I hope you stick around. I feel that an educated and well written pro-polygraph contributor was definitely needed and lacking on this forum.[/i][/b]
Yes, I would never recommend that we stop screening, but you cannot be 100% for something that is not 100% accurate. Therefore the second part of my post although somewhat ambiguous was attempting to point this out.
Very well put, Thanks for speaking my mind
Posted by Jeffery
- Feb 12, 2005, 04:36 PMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 10, 2005, 03:55 PMMy chosen name reflects my humor at people who actually use the butt squeeze to try to beat the polygraph.
Thanks for clarifying the meaing of your name. I was under the impression that you called yourself after the way in which you experience pleasure...
My apoligies for associating you with the way I feel about other polygraphsters <whining off
>Posted by Jeffery
- Feb 12, 2005, 04:01 PMQuote from: AnalSphincter on Feb 10, 2005, 12:47 PMIf you have nothing to hide, the worst you should fear is a possible "inconclusive" result; I don't think many people on this forum realize how much it takes to actually fail a polygraph exam.
An "inconclusive" is enough to not get a job or jeapordize getting a clearance. I'd call that failing.
I didn't even know about this forum until I had to search on "polygraph inconclusive" in google. I was accused of using countermeasures. Had to look that one up too even though the word sounds pretty obvious.
"You're breathing too fast! ... You're breathing too slow! ... Don't think about your breathing!" Uh... see the lack of logic in that?
If a polygraph can get a bad guy to confess, that is fine. But if a polygraph diverts attention to an innocent person who simply "failed" or got an "inconclusive" then that is bad. Does the cost justify the benefit?
Posted by PG111
- Feb 12, 2005, 02:53 PMAnal says: They don't realize that despite all their attempts to keep the action hidden, it spikes on a polygraph chart like a miniature explosion.
Wanna Bet on that issue, I bought a Layette 5 pen conventional off ebay, and I can make a very sweet smooth reaction at will. Just takes a little practice. George's book gives very good advice. If it was so wrong why would the examiners spend so much time on the boards getting to know us, they are full of bull fertilizer.
If you doubt this, ebay is always selling at least one instrument or another. Get one and try for yourself.
I will sell mine after I can get a computerized model, I gave 112.00 + 25 shipping oh I forgot the 10.00 roll of paper and 8 dollar bottle of ink. Total 155.00 Cheap insurance.
Wanna Bet on that issue, I bought a Layette 5 pen conventional off ebay, and I can make a very sweet smooth reaction at will. Just takes a little practice. George's book gives very good advice. If it was so wrong why would the examiners spend so much time on the boards getting to know us, they are full of bull fertilizer.
If you doubt this, ebay is always selling at least one instrument or another. Get one and try for yourself.
I will sell mine after I can get a computerized model, I gave 112.00 + 25 shipping oh I forgot the 10.00 roll of paper and 8 dollar bottle of ink. Total 155.00 Cheap insurance.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 12, 2005, 08:03 AMI'm sorry I wasn't able to reply to your question before your polygraph session. I'm on vacation, and have limited Internet access.
To address your question, the key to passing is to produce larger responses to the "control" questions than to the relevant questions. Such methods as the anal pucker, or thinking frightening thoughts when the "control" questions are asked, are effective as polygraph countermeasures. However, although the polygrapher expects a less-than-truthful answer in response to a probable-lie "control" question, it does not really matter whether one's reaction to the "control" questions is truthful or not.
To address your question, the key to passing is to produce larger responses to the "control" questions than to the relevant questions. Such methods as the anal pucker, or thinking frightening thoughts when the "control" questions are asked, are effective as polygraph countermeasures. However, although the polygrapher expects a less-than-truthful answer in response to a probable-lie "control" question, it does not really matter whether one's reaction to the "control" questions is truthful or not.
Quote from: puckerup on Feb 08, 2005, 02:26 PMTomorrow morning I am scheduled to take my poly for a large PD.
I have nothing to hide and have been completely honest on my background. I have worked extremely hard to get to this point and when I reviewed this site my heart just sank.
I downloaded the ebook and basically I just want to make sure I have it right:
All I need to do is recognize a control system and then pucker up or imagine falling and lie?
I had to use CM's I have led a clean life and have never done anything that would preclude my being a LEO. I hate this stupid test just for the reason it is so inaccurate. All I can think about is failing this damn thing. I have a friend who went thru the same thing and he failed. He is a freaking choir boy, no drugs, no theft of any kind. He is a model of what we want our officers to be and he failed the poly! He retested and passed but this is driving me nuts! If I knew I could pass using CM's I would have lived it up at least a little, but I wanted to get into this since I was a kid, went through the Marines, college and everything else just to get here.
The fact that I may have a false positive is making me want to take drugs!
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 11, 2005, 01:17 AMWell said. I have no argument with your argument. 
Nice explanation.
Nice explanation.Posted by dimas
- Feb 10, 2005, 11:43 PMI apologize for the apparent ambiguity of my post. It was very late at night/early in the morning when I wrote it and having re-read it I realized that I made a statement that was not clear and seemed to contradict itself.
Let me elaborate further on the polygraph and why It is that I have reservations about it. It basically boils down to a few things. First, the machine while probably more reliable than a the flip of a coin ( I was merely using a phrase to describe its wishy-washy accuracy and not implying that it was a 50/50 chane and also you could flip a coin 100 times and have it come out 70/30, so the statement allowed me some leeway). Anyway, those of us that are educated about the machine know that even if a candidate passes, a field-background investigation must be done and we even require them to take a urinalysis. However, there are masses of idiots out there (mostly at the administrative level of law enforcement) that know nothing about the polygraph, have never even taken a polygraph and this is where the problem begins. They cut back on the time the investigator can gather information for the background, they now start requiring that the investigator mail out a stupid questionairre instead of going out and doing face to face or even phone interviews and ultimately they begin to disqualify candidates on the recommendation of the polygrapher (granted I have no problem with this if deception is discovered and admitted to by the candidate) who tell them he found the applicant to be deceptive. This is of course his opinion that is only backed up by a spike on the screen. Many years ago I was denied employment with an agency that didn't polygraph based on an inconclusive result with an agency that did. I had to keep correcting the members on the oral board that an inconclusive result does not mean failure. They got irritated when I could not tell them what part of the test (subject matter) I failed and felt I was deceiving them. This is of course not entirely the fault of the polygraph, but ignorance based on part from the administrative element found in most agencies. However, the polygrapher for our agency does his part in keeping the administrative element blind as to the reality of the polygraph as well, so technically it is slightly the polygraph communities fault as well.
My point is that the polygraph should only be used as an adjunct to a background investigation and never as the background investigation or the sole disqualifier.
As far as your statement regarding the use of the polygraph in South American countries. The level of corruption there needs something to ensure that at least at the street level the LE community is kept clean. This is only a bandaid on a laceration, because unfortunately, the politicians are not polygraphed and they are ultimately the most corrupt of them all. Heck, even when the threat of being polygraphed was made on some members of the United States congress they all quickly banded together to denounce the machine as inaccurated and unreliable. (between us I think it is just because these guys had so much to hide). How can you blame the street level cop for being corrupt when the Mayor, Governor and President are all stealing millions and accepting millions in bribes.
Either way, I hope I cleared it up, but I must admit that often I will write something and realize that "I" know what I am talking about, but no one else does. Especially when I write something at the wee hours of the morning.
On another note, welcome aboard and I hope you stick around. I feel that an educated and well written pro-polygraph contributor was definitely needed and lacking on this forum.
Yes, you and I know this, but it needs to be mentioned because there are so many people out there that don't.
Yes, I would never recommend that we stop screening, but you cannot be 100% for something that is not 100% accurate. Therefore the second part of my post although somewhat ambiguous was attempting to point this out.
Let me elaborate further on the polygraph and why It is that I have reservations about it. It basically boils down to a few things. First, the machine while probably more reliable than a the flip of a coin ( I was merely using a phrase to describe its wishy-washy accuracy and not implying that it was a 50/50 chane and also you could flip a coin 100 times and have it come out 70/30, so the statement allowed me some leeway). Anyway, those of us that are educated about the machine know that even if a candidate passes, a field-background investigation must be done and we even require them to take a urinalysis. However, there are masses of idiots out there (mostly at the administrative level of law enforcement) that know nothing about the polygraph, have never even taken a polygraph and this is where the problem begins. They cut back on the time the investigator can gather information for the background, they now start requiring that the investigator mail out a stupid questionairre instead of going out and doing face to face or even phone interviews and ultimately they begin to disqualify candidates on the recommendation of the polygrapher (granted I have no problem with this if deception is discovered and admitted to by the candidate) who tell them he found the applicant to be deceptive. This is of course his opinion that is only backed up by a spike on the screen. Many years ago I was denied employment with an agency that didn't polygraph based on an inconclusive result with an agency that did. I had to keep correcting the members on the oral board that an inconclusive result does not mean failure. They got irritated when I could not tell them what part of the test (subject matter) I failed and felt I was deceiving them. This is of course not entirely the fault of the polygraph, but ignorance based on part from the administrative element found in most agencies. However, the polygrapher for our agency does his part in keeping the administrative element blind as to the reality of the polygraph as well, so technically it is slightly the polygraph communities fault as well.
My point is that the polygraph should only be used as an adjunct to a background investigation and never as the background investigation or the sole disqualifier.
As far as your statement regarding the use of the polygraph in South American countries. The level of corruption there needs something to ensure that at least at the street level the LE community is kept clean. This is only a bandaid on a laceration, because unfortunately, the politicians are not polygraphed and they are ultimately the most corrupt of them all. Heck, even when the threat of being polygraphed was made on some members of the United States congress they all quickly banded together to denounce the machine as inaccurated and unreliable. (between us I think it is just because these guys had so much to hide). How can you blame the street level cop for being corrupt when the Mayor, Governor and President are all stealing millions and accepting millions in bribes.
Either way, I hope I cleared it up, but I must admit that often I will write something and realize that "I" know what I am talking about, but no one else does. Especially when I write something at the wee hours of the morning.
On another note, welcome aboard and I hope you stick around. I feel that an educated and well written pro-polygraph contributor was definitely needed and lacking on this forum.
QuoteI certainly agree with your comment that polygraph not be used as the sole evidence in adjudication; that's so obvious that you needn't have even said it.
Yes, you and I know this, but it needs to be mentioned because there are so many people out there that don't.
QuoteI, for one, opt for continued screening, and the first part of your post expresses that opinion. However, the second part of your post is so contradictory to the first, that it is almost laughable. I think as a supervisor you probably expect more clarity of thought and decisiveness in your subordinates than you exhibit in your post.
Yes, I would never recommend that we stop screening, but you cannot be 100% for something that is not 100% accurate. Therefore the second part of my post although somewhat ambiguous was attempting to point this out.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 10, 2005, 03:55 PMMy chosen name reflects my humor at people who actually use the butt squeeze to try to beat the polygraph. They don't realize that despite all their attempts to keep the action hidden, it spikes on a polygraph chart like a miniature explosion.
I certainly agree with your comment that polygraph not be used as the sole evidence in adjudication; that's so obvious that you needn't have even said it.
I'm actually a bit confused by your post. All of your points are well-taken; however, being "all for" polygraph testing and applauding how well it works, while at the same time apparently decrying its use because it might occasionally keep an "honest" person out of his or her chosen career, is no position on the matter one way or the other. Perhaps if you had prefaced your second point by saying "On the other hand, I can understand how . . . yada yada yada," your reply wouldn't seem so contradictory and wishy-washy. I understand that you may have been supporting polygraph in your first point because of its effectiveness as an interrogatory aide. However, polygraphers don't normally engage in strong interrogation of a defendant if the defendant actually passed the polygraph, so the fact that it gets confessions, as you have experienced, just further illustrates that the machine worked and its findings were corroborated by a good interrogator.
As I said in another post, with all the corruption problems that plague law enforcement--admittedly moreso in countries like Mexico and Colombia than here in the U.S.--isn't it preferable to continue screening people despite the possibility that an innocent job-seeker be forced to seek a less dangerous, better-paying, more appreciated career? I, for one, opt for continued screening, and the first part of your post expresses that opinion. However, the second part of your post is so contradictory to the first, that it is almost laughable. I think as a supervisor you probably expect more clarity of thought and decisiveness in your subordinates than you exhibit in your post.
Also, with what credentials or personal experience do you make the claim that polygraph is only as accurate as flipping a coin? Sounds like you are simply rehashing some of the moronic rhetoric I've become assustomed to reading on this forum.
I certainly agree with your comment that polygraph not be used as the sole evidence in adjudication; that's so obvious that you needn't have even said it.
I'm actually a bit confused by your post. All of your points are well-taken; however, being "all for" polygraph testing and applauding how well it works, while at the same time apparently decrying its use because it might occasionally keep an "honest" person out of his or her chosen career, is no position on the matter one way or the other. Perhaps if you had prefaced your second point by saying "On the other hand, I can understand how . . . yada yada yada," your reply wouldn't seem so contradictory and wishy-washy. I understand that you may have been supporting polygraph in your first point because of its effectiveness as an interrogatory aide. However, polygraphers don't normally engage in strong interrogation of a defendant if the defendant actually passed the polygraph, so the fact that it gets confessions, as you have experienced, just further illustrates that the machine worked and its findings were corroborated by a good interrogator.
As I said in another post, with all the corruption problems that plague law enforcement--admittedly moreso in countries like Mexico and Colombia than here in the U.S.--isn't it preferable to continue screening people despite the possibility that an innocent job-seeker be forced to seek a less dangerous, better-paying, more appreciated career? I, for one, opt for continued screening, and the first part of your post expresses that opinion. However, the second part of your post is so contradictory to the first, that it is almost laughable. I think as a supervisor you probably expect more clarity of thought and decisiveness in your subordinates than you exhibit in your post.
Also, with what credentials or personal experience do you make the claim that polygraph is only as accurate as flipping a coin? Sounds like you are simply rehashing some of the moronic rhetoric I've become assustomed to reading on this forum.
Posted by dimas
- Feb 10, 2005, 02:54 PMAnalSphincter,
It is really kind of hard to take you seriously with a name like that, but I digress and will address your point.
As a supervisor of supervisors in a LE agency I am all for the use of the polygraph on hiring new applicants. It has always amazed me how someone will stare me straight in the eye during the Oral Board and lie to me about a question only to fall to pieces and admit all kinds of things a week later during the pre-polygraph interview. It is actually quite funny and I feel much more confident about the recruits and their integrity with the use of the polygraph.
I also think the polygraph is a great tool at investigating crimes and it also saves us a lot of time and resources because people confess due to the machine.
The simple fact is that the machine is just as accurate as flipping a coin. It cannot be the sole determining factor (absent a confession) in adjudicating a person or ascertaining their suitability for employment.
If it was such a great machine, then why does every agency that uses it still drug test all applicants? You would figure that if they passed the polygraph then they obviously haven't used drugs. I appreciate that in another post you actually admit that it is not perfect. That is a great first step in coming to terms that it is not the panacea to all our problems.
Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that the polygraph also keeps people that were honest out of their desired career. One that pays very poorly, puts you at risk on a daily basis, opens you up to all sorts of unfounded tort claims, and also shortens your natural life span. Yet people have a calling in them that makes them want to put up with this. But some man and his machine decide that he is unfit or lying and that can often piss people off. Having your integrity questioned when you are actually a man of integrity is very irritating.
It is really kind of hard to take you seriously with a name like that, but I digress and will address your point.
As a supervisor of supervisors in a LE agency I am all for the use of the polygraph on hiring new applicants. It has always amazed me how someone will stare me straight in the eye during the Oral Board and lie to me about a question only to fall to pieces and admit all kinds of things a week later during the pre-polygraph interview. It is actually quite funny and I feel much more confident about the recruits and their integrity with the use of the polygraph.
I also think the polygraph is a great tool at investigating crimes and it also saves us a lot of time and resources because people confess due to the machine.
The simple fact is that the machine is just as accurate as flipping a coin. It cannot be the sole determining factor (absent a confession) in adjudicating a person or ascertaining their suitability for employment.
If it was such a great machine, then why does every agency that uses it still drug test all applicants? You would figure that if they passed the polygraph then they obviously haven't used drugs. I appreciate that in another post you actually admit that it is not perfect. That is a great first step in coming to terms that it is not the panacea to all our problems.
Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that the polygraph also keeps people that were honest out of their desired career. One that pays very poorly, puts you at risk on a daily basis, opens you up to all sorts of unfounded tort claims, and also shortens your natural life span. Yet people have a calling in them that makes them want to put up with this. But some man and his machine decide that he is unfit or lying and that can often piss people off. Having your integrity questioned when you are actually a man of integrity is very irritating.
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 10, 2005, 12:47 PMI'm pleased with your amusement, and I enjoy any amused reaction I can arouse in this inexplicably terrified crowd of whiners and worriers. I myself am very amused at how so many of you are fretting over "false positives." If you have nothing to hide, the worst you should fear is a possible "inconclusive" result; I don't think many people on this forum realize how much it takes to actually fail a polygraph exam. My only worry is that all the worriers will actually try some of the advice offered on this site, mess with their heads, and end up with inconclusive exams when they would otherwise have passed their polygraph with flying colors.
Posted by nunyun
- Feb 10, 2005, 12:33 AMor reality is that you educated yourself and were not a victim of a false +.
Anal, you can try all you want to throw smoke screen but more and more people are learning the reality and the truth I am laughing at your last several post......
Anal, you can try all you want to throw smoke screen but more and more people are learning the reality and the truth I am laughing at your last several post......
Posted by anythingformoney
- Feb 09, 2005, 07:39 PMSo, how did it go? Hopefully your relying on this site to help you pass the polygraph didn't totally screw you up.
Posted by puckerup
- Feb 08, 2005, 02:26 PMTomorrow morning I am scheduled to take my poly for a large PD.
I have nothing to hide and have been completely honest on my background. I have worked extremely hard to get to this point and when I reviewed this site my heart just sank.
I downloaded the ebook and basically I just want to make sure I have it right:
All I need to do is recognize a control system and then pucker up or imagine falling and lie?
I had to use CM's I have led a clean life and have never done anything that would preclude my being a LEO. I hate this stupid test just for the reason it is so inaccurate. All I can think about is failing this damn thing. I have a friend who went thru the same thing and he failed. He is a freaking choir boy, no drugs, no theft of any kind. He is a model of what we want our officers to be and he failed the poly! He retested and passed but this is driving me nuts! If I knew I could pass using CM's I would have lived it up at least a little, but I wanted to get into this since I was a kid, went through the Marines, college and everything else just to get here.
The fact that I may have a false positive is making me want to take drugs!
I have nothing to hide and have been completely honest on my background. I have worked extremely hard to get to this point and when I reviewed this site my heart just sank.
I downloaded the ebook and basically I just want to make sure I have it right:
All I need to do is recognize a control system and then pucker up or imagine falling and lie?
I had to use CM's I have led a clean life and have never done anything that would preclude my being a LEO. I hate this stupid test just for the reason it is so inaccurate. All I can think about is failing this damn thing. I have a friend who went thru the same thing and he failed. He is a freaking choir boy, no drugs, no theft of any kind. He is a model of what we want our officers to be and he failed the poly! He retested and passed but this is driving me nuts! If I knew I could pass using CM's I would have lived it up at least a little, but I wanted to get into this since I was a kid, went through the Marines, college and everything else just to get here.
The fact that I may have a false positive is making me want to take drugs!