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:
What is the last name of the first U.S. president?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by cesium_133
 - Jun 19, 2006, 12:35 AM
I bet they do.  I also think they pass people on purpose, if for no other reason than saying "he's fine, he's telling the truth" and collecting their money (if a private polygrapher) is easier than making a detailed reading of the entrails.

I once took a test where the polygrapher supposedly used a CQT method.  However, she only hooked up 3 of the 4 channels, asked no R/I's and only one control, and basically just said, "ok, I can pass you through" or words to that effect.

If the polygrapher is dismissive about the whole meeting, one way or the other, I'll bet good money that he'll score you (without even doing the scoring) as pass or fail based on his own preconceptions...
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Jun 16, 2006, 04:43 AM
In reply to the question in the title of your post, "Do they fail people on purpose?" the answer is yes, sometimes. However, I don't believe it is normal or routine practice.

QuoteI understand that they bluff on occasion, but how far do they usually take the bluff?

I don't know. But there's a poker maxim about bluffing that might be of relevance here: play 'em like you've got 'em.

QuoteWill I have to come back for another one if it was just a bluff, or might they pass it through even though I was basically told that I failed?

If your charts were scored as "inconclusive," you might be asked back for a "re-test." If they were in fact scored as "passing," then you would presumably pass. But usually, when a polygrapher tells an examinee he has "failed," he means it.

QuoteDo they have anything to gain by failing someone who didn't really show signs of deception?

It would be a great way of disqualifying someone arbitrarily perceived as "not fitting the mold."

QuoteAre they just trying to get me to crack because they think my drug history was not believable because it doesn't fit the norm?

Possibly. But who knows?
Posted by theydeceivedme1
 - Jun 16, 2006, 04:04 AM
I recently took a polygraph and was told that I failed (pending a decision from higher up) because I showed physical signs from a question about drug use (although I was completely honest).  I was shocked at the end when I was told that I had a problem with the question because I didn't feel anything or think twice about the question before or during the test.  I was sort of skeptical that the test really showed that result, and the interrogator was acting a little too weird for me to really believe them.

I was interrogated for a long period of time during post-test about this question and I'm not sure if the interrogator truly believed that I was hiding something.  I understand that they bluff on occasion, but how far do they usually take the bluff?

Will I have to come back for another one if it was just a bluff, or might they pass it through even though I was basically told that I failed?

Do they have anything to gain by failing someone who didn't really show signs of deception?  Are they just trying to get me to crack because they think my drug history was not believable because it doesn't fit the norm?