Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
How many states are in the United States? (numeral):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Aug 02, 2005, 12:29 PM
Quote from: opp on Aug 01, 2005, 09:57 PMSergeant1107,

Let's assume that I tell the examiner three or four instances of lies before I am connected, then while I am connected to the machine he asks me - other than what you have told me, have you ever told a lied? I wonder what I should response since ofcourse I lied many times before. If I say yes, will he view it as an admission since I didn't discussed this other lie that I just happen to remember while connected. If I said no he will assume I am liying but of course it will work to my benefit since it's a control question. In other words, if the examinee is asked that question what is the appropriate response?

Opp  
From what I understand, if you continue to make new admissions during the pre-test interview, the examiner will do his best to cut you off.  If you are supplying a string of admissions about such things as when you were a child you lied to your mother about a cookie, and you lied to your father about getting in trouble at school, and you lied to your teacher about the dog eating your homework, then the examiner will attempt to move things along by asking something like, "Have you ever lied about something serious?"

Of course, the ambiguity of that question provides the examiner with all the rationale he needs for assuming you will lie once you are hooked up to the machine.  What is "serious" to one person may or may not be "serious" to another person.  Once he asks that question it will quickly wrap up that portion of the pre-test interview in one of two ways.  Either you will make an admission so damaging that you disqualify yourself ("Yes, when I was fifteen I burned my neighbor's house down and lied to the police when they asked me about it.") Or you will make one or two admissions to "serious" things that aren't all that serious and then answer "no" when asked, "Other than what you've told me, have you ever lied about anything serious?"

Bear in mind that for every lie you admitted to, the examiner did his best to convince you it was a horrible act of deception that hints at such a deeply flawed morality that you may not be suitable for a job in law enforcement.  If you tell him that you lied to the teacher in 8th grade about the dog eating your homework, he will tell you how lying to a supervisor about work that you were supposed to have done is a very serious matter, and the agency you are applying to takes a very grave view of such matters.  After a few such admonitions, most applicants are hardly eager to admit to any further lies.

I'd like to add that I believe the information on this web site is intended to assist truthful people in protecting themselves from a false positive.  If you are planning to lie about anything during any part of your background investigation (including the polygraph) then in my opinion you should be looking for a job in a field other than law enforcement.  
Posted by opp
 - Aug 01, 2005, 09:57 PM
Sergeant1107,

Let's assume that I tell the examiner three or four instances of lies before I am connected, then while I am connected to the machine he asks me - other than what you have told me, have you ever told a lied? I wonder what I should response since ofcourse I lied many times before. If I say yes, will he view it as an admission since I didn't discussed this other lie that I just happen to remember while connected. If I said no he will assume I am liying but of course it will work to my benefit since it's a control question. In other words, if the examinee is asked that question what is the appropriate response?

Opp  
Posted by nonombre
 - Jul 31, 2005, 06:24 PM
Quote from: dimas on Jul 31, 2005, 06:02 PM

I have to completely agree with you on this one.  The polygraph is an excellent tool in getting applicants to admit to things that BI's normally would never find out.  That being said, I also feel that simply disqualifying someone for a job based solely on the determination or "gut feeling"  that he is lying by a polygraph examiner is also very wrong.  

Dimas,

You and I completely agree on this point.  Evan though I am a polygraph examiner, I do not believe that ANY single part of the process should immediately disqualify an applicant.  No part of the pre-employment process is perfect.

Nonombre  
 :-/
Posted by dimas
 - Jul 31, 2005, 06:02 PM
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 31, 2005, 05:26 PM

Opp,

Sorry to bust your bubble, but background investigations have a notoriously high "false negative" rate.  In fact, among the police departments that administer the polygraph examination AFTER the background investigation is complete, many report that polygraph testing has revealed significant amounts of derogatory information never disclosed by ANY previous background investigations.

Nonombre
 
:-/

I have to completely agree with you on this one.  The polygraph is an excellent tool in getting applicants to admit to things that BI's normally would never find out.  That being said, I also feel that simply disqualifying someone for a job based solely on the determination or "gut feeling"  that he is lying by a polygraph examiner is also very wrong.  
Posted by nonombre
 - Jul 31, 2005, 06:00 PM
Quote from: opp on Jul 31, 2005, 05:39 PMNonombre,

What about the false possitive? Those who are telling the truth and still fail the polygraph. We all read a lot about innocent people failing the polygraph examination on this website. I assume you know the consequences of failing? I am sure some would admit to wrong doings during the polygraph not uncovered by the background investigation but the question still remains - what about the false positive results, is it fair?


Opp,

I have addressed my concerns about the possibility of false positives in earlier posts.  I know they do occur (although not in the numbers that some on the site would like you to believe)  So to best answer your question, please allow me to repeat part of an earlier posting I made on this topic:

"Police pre-employment polygraph screening is only one of several steps most police applicants must successfully navagate to get to the final point of being hired.  For most departments, the post-application steps are:
 
1.  Written test
2.  Psychological testing
3.  Physical test
4.  Polygraph Exam
5.  Interview/panel
6.  Background investigation.
 
The order might be different, but these are the basic steps.  (some departments add-subtract various things, but these are the usual basics).
 
Okay, here is what I propose.  How about we weigh the various steps according to what a particular department feels are important, then numerically score each step with an eye torwards understanding that if an applicant "bombs" one particular area (including the Polygraph), he can still get the job.
 
You see, if you look at all the steps closely, you will see that most are actually quite subjective in nature:
 
1.  Written test - Some people just don't "test" well.
2.  Psychological testing - Oh please, psychology is the
     "softest" of the sciences.
3.  Physical test - Okay, pretty objective, but once the
     average cop has a couple years on the force, the
     donuts do tend to take over.  
4.  Polygraph Exam - Arguementively Subjective, with a
     documented error rate.
5.  Interview/panel - NOTHING is more subject than this.
6.  Background investigation.  High false negative rate.
 
As I see it, we provide a numerical value to each of the steps and come up with a minimum "pass" number.  Additionally, we design the scoring system to specifically allow an applicant to to do badly in any one area and still get the job (Yes, that includes the polygraph).
 
Now, if the applicant does sufficiently poorly in more than one area, he is out of the running.  That will allow someone who is otherwise excellently qualified but fails the polygraph (or some other area) to still get the job.
 
However, if anywhere during this process, information develops that specifically disqualifies the applicant (e.g., he admits during the polygraph/psychological interview he has several bodies buried in the backyard), he is likewise out of the running.
 
This way, we have gone a long way to protecting against the "false positive."  
 
Now you can still argue against all the weaknesses of the polygraph, but as I have indicated, virtually all the steps towards employment  have distinct drawbacks.
 
The beauty of a weighted point system the that the unfairness in one or more of the stages can be mitigated by shifting points earned in those areas the applicant did much better in.
 
I mean, look at it this way.  How would you like it, if you aced every bit of the process to include the polygraph exam, and was then "disqualified" by a couple of panel members who happened to disagree with your feelings about something you were asked, or worse harbored some concealed prejudice against you?
 
In most applicant systems you would be dead in the water.  With a properly weighted numerically scored applicant system, your excellent results in the other areas would qualify you for a rightfully earned position."
 
Nonombre  
Posted by opp
 - Jul 31, 2005, 05:39 PM
Nonombre,

What about the false possitive? Those who are telling the truth and still fail the polygraph. We all read a lot about innocent people failing the polygraph examination on this website. I assume you know the consequences of failing? I am sure some would admit to wrong doings during the polygraph not uncovered by the background investigation but the question still remains - what about the false positive results, is it fair?
Posted by nonombre
 - Jul 31, 2005, 05:26 PM
Quote from: opp on Jul 31, 2005, 03:17 PMSergeant1107,

I think a background investigation is sufficient enough for the government to determine if an indivudual is fit to serve.

Opp,

Sorry to bust your bubble, but background investigations have a notoriously high "false negative" rate.  In fact, among the police departments that administer the polygraph examination AFTER the background investigation is complete, many report that polygraph testing has revealed significant amounts of derogatory information never disclosed by ANY previous background investigations.

Nonombre
  
 :-/
Posted by polyfool
 - Jul 31, 2005, 03:53 PM
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 31, 2005, 01:35 PM

Confusing, isn't it?

No think about the prospect of trying to engage in a whole myrad of physical and psychological gymnastics, the whole time being closely watched by a man or woman who job it is to catch you doing just the the things your are trying to do and not get caught.

Now add to that the prospect that your entire future rests on your ability to "spin all those plates."

You feel lucky?

Or would it not be better to just walk into the polygraph facility, cooperate, and tell the truth?

Unless of course in your case, there is a small "problem" with the truth

Nonombre.    
8)
Nonombre:

You're exactly right. There is a problem with telling the complete truth during a polygraph exam--the examinee will either be deemed inconclusive or failed. Haven't we been through this before about problems with telling the complete truth during a polygraph or was that DarkCobra? It's so frustrating to hear polygraph examiners dole out the same advice about being honest when they know it causes problems with the invalid test, resulting in an inconclusive result or failure. They believe that they are so adept at what they do, they'll be able to handle that situation and change the test format. The problem is the examiner can't possibly know when an examinee is being completely honest. I suppose fooling themselves into thinking they'll be able to tell and adapt to the situation is how they justify ruining careers and reputations.    
Posted by opp
 - Jul 31, 2005, 03:17 PM
Sergeant1107,

Thank you for your reply. Now I get it. So, I guess the key if to (1). recognize the control questions and (2). make sure you create a reaction on these questions. I suppose the examine has to do everything he/she can not to be relaxed during a control question and not be honest either about them.

Nonombre (No Name),

Why are you so concern about decent people trying to pass the polygraph to serve their nation? I think a background investigation is sufficient enough for the government to determine if an indivudual is fit to serve.
Posted by Sergeant1107
 - Jul 31, 2005, 02:30 PM
Quote from: opp on Jul 31, 2005, 12:18 PMI was wondering if the examinee has to explain the questions while connected to the polygraph apparatus. For instance, if they ask you – have you ever lied? Do you simply answer yes since it is a control question or you have you to give the examiner an explanation of the instances when you have lied while connected? So, I guess my question is - are details given before they connect you or while you are connected?

Opp
You will first be interviewed without being hooked up to the machine.  That is when you will be asked such questions as, "Have you ever lied?"  

If you say something like, "Yes, when I was seven I ate a cookie and lied when my mom asked me about it," the examiner will pause and tell you how serious it is to lie.  He will stress how the agency you are applying to views all prevarication in a most serious manner.  After doing his best to convince you that is will be virtual suicide, career-wise, for you to admit to any further incidents of lying, he will then ask, "Other than what you've told me, have you ever lied?"

If you respond with another admission, something like, "Yes, when I was fifteen I told my teacher the dog ate my homework when I had actually forgotten to do it," the examiner will sigh heavily, doing his best to convey that you are a hopelessly dishonest person and the lies you are telling put you in the same class as Hitler and Stalin.  He will once again tell you how serious it is to lie and warn you how high the standards are in the agency for which you are applying.  

What the examiner is trying to do is maneuver you into telling a lie when you are hooked up to the machine.  He will then use that "presumed lie" as a comparison when he asks relevant questions.  The examiner fully expects that even if, during the pre-test interview, you tell him about all the little and large lies you've told in your life, you will inevitably think of at least one more in the interval between the pre-test interview and the actual polygraph examination.  Since he's also done his level best to convince you that if you admit to telling any more lies you will be disqualified, he feels free to presume that you are lying when he asks you, "Other than what you've told me, have you ever told a lie?"

Of course, the irony is that if you are truly honest in all your answers it actually increases your chances of "failing" the test, since your reaction to the relevant questions will almost certainly be greater than your (lack of any) reaction to the control/comparison questions in which you are telling the complete truth.

PS - Haven't seen you post in a while, Nonombre.  Always glad to see a reasonable polygraph examiner adding their opinion to the discussion.

Posted by nonombre
 - Jul 31, 2005, 01:35 PM
Quote from: opp on Jul 31, 2005, 12:18 PMI was wondering if the examinee has to explain the questions while connected to the polygraph apparatus. For instance, if they ask you – have you ever lied? Do you simply answer yes since it is a control question or you have you to give the examiner an explanation of the instances when you have lied while connected? So, I guess my question is - are details given before they connect you or while you are connected?

Opp

Confusing, isn't it?

No think about the prospect of trying to engage in a whole myrad of physical and psychological gymnastics, the whole time being closely watched by a man or woman who job it is to catch you doing just the the things your are trying to do and not get caught.

Now add to that the prospect that your entire future rests on your ability to "spin all those plates."

You feel lucky?

Or would it not be better to just walk into the polygraph facility, cooperate, and tell the truth?

Unless of course in your case, there is a small "problem" with the truth

Nonombre.    
 8)
Posted by opp
 - Jul 31, 2005, 12:18 PM
I was wondering if the examinee has to explain the questions while connected to the polygraph apparatus. For instance, if they ask you – have you ever lied? Do you simply answer yes since it is a control question or you have you to give the examiner an explanation of the instances when you have lied while connected? So, I guess my question is - are details given before they connect you or while you are connected?

Opp