- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by MR.SMITH
- Aug 10, 2006, 02:36 PMNONOMBRE,
I disagree with your "this is just a test" theory, unlike every other test that is done for LEO jobs, this one you cannot study for, and like it or not you can get false positved, as I proved to myself when I did mine! I was completly honest and was still deemed "lying" I just wish I had of tried countermeasures! At least if I had tried them and failed I would have felt better, and not ripped off! As for the "box of chocolates" thing, yes you never know what you will get, and even officers who have passed the poly can still do wrong things, so I do not see this as a good judge of character! If a proper background check is done, then there should be no need for a poly, and the funds wasted to do a poly could be spent on more training, or more officers!
I disagree with your "this is just a test" theory, unlike every other test that is done for LEO jobs, this one you cannot study for, and like it or not you can get false positved, as I proved to myself when I did mine! I was completly honest and was still deemed "lying" I just wish I had of tried countermeasures! At least if I had tried them and failed I would have felt better, and not ripped off! As for the "box of chocolates" thing, yes you never know what you will get, and even officers who have passed the poly can still do wrong things, so I do not see this as a good judge of character! If a proper background check is done, then there should be no need for a poly, and the funds wasted to do a poly could be spent on more training, or more officers!
Posted by retcopper
- Aug 10, 2006, 12:15 PMFair chance:
Some peope have bigger and scarier skeletons than others. These are the ones that we have to deal with and sort out.
I am not very familiar with Fed's BIs and hiring processes, et. but I posted before that we do evaluate the "big picture" and I am in favor of audio/video taping of exams. Many times we resolve disputed issues by post tesa interviews, BI, and other means. I said this before but George and others accued me of being too arbitrary and discriminatory. Geroge can correct me if I'm wrong but I think that was what he wrote.
Have a great day.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Aug 10, 2006, 01:41 AMQuote from: nonombre on Aug 10, 2006, 12:43 AM
However, 50% or more of the folks walking into a pre-employment polygraph exam have issues they do not wish to share. Morever, there are times that the applicant pool is positively HORRIBLE!
Dear nonombre,
I would dare say that 90% or better of most of America have "issues they do not wish to share." I have worked in the military and Department of Justice and it seems as if everyone has a few buried bones in the closet. I thought that the clearance process was suppose to evaluate the "big picture" on this issue and not heavily depend on polygraph pre-screening results without additional verification (it is a repetitive theme of mine that many federal agencies rely on polygraph results alone without any type of verification process of the interpreted results, i.e., if I use drugs, there are no positive urinalysis results or any witness statements that I have used drugs, no police records or any type of admissions, etc.) The process just seems to appear shallow.
My goodness, just go to "Court TV" and it seems that the worst of offenders gets more of a second opinion compared to rejected federal employees based on polygraph results.
Regards.
Posted by DippityShurff
- Aug 10, 2006, 12:49 AMQuote from: Onesimus on Aug 07, 2006, 07:01 PMIn the past month or so, nonombre has been describing the applicants to his police force. Here are some of the terms he has used to describe them lately:
teeth wrapped in aluminum foil
good candidates for a job at Pizza Hut, or the local donut shop
Subjects taking 2-4 breaths per second in an effort to affect the outcome of their polygraph examinations
take no more than 2 breaths in the next 20 to 25 second period
highly recommended for employment in the fast food or house cleaning industries
I haven't seen him say anything positive about the applicants. Is anyone deeply concerned about the quality of applicants wherever he works, or are people just assuming he is making these stories up or greatly exaggerating them?
without commenting at all on the polygraph, I can say that nonombre's comments about the type of applicants that are weeded from the pool pretty accurately reflects some of the same ones that we weed out. Who knows, they may be the same folks LOL
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 10, 2006, 12:43 AMQuote from: Onesimus on Aug 09, 2006, 02:53 PM
Nonombre, do you want to clarify what you're trying to say here? I still have no idea if you agree or disagree with my original post.
Sure,
No problem:
The vast majority of applicants I test are dedicated, cooperative, people who only wish to serve. However, 50% or more of the folks walking into a pre-employment polygraph exam have issues they do not wish to share. Morever, there are times that the applicant pool is positively HORRIBLE! There are days it seems that everyone walking in the door is a felon.
Gee, I thought I was being fairly clear... Now, please remind me. What was your original question???
Posted by Onesimus
- Aug 09, 2006, 02:53 PMQuoteThe vast majority of applicants I test are dedicated, cooperative, people who only wish to serve.
Quote50% or more of the folks walking into a pre-employment polygraph exam have issues they do not wish to share
QuoteIn truth, there are times that the applicant pool is positively HORRIBLE! There are days it seems that everyone walking in the door is a felon
Nonombre, do you want to clarify what you're trying to say here? I still have no idea if you agree or disagree with my original post.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Aug 08, 2006, 02:20 AMDear Nonombre,
You are as fiesty as Twoblock and that is saying something. I agree that all federal agencies are in for a shock as the qualified applicant pool starts to dry up. Nothing to do with polygraph usage, just with the starting pool. Under the age of thirty-seven, no previous drug history, no previous police involvement, little or no tickets, and qualifications that meet the minimum requirement; does not leave many candidates after that filter. Pity the pool soul that does not pay his/her bills withinh thirty days (Congress can have a negative balance but taxpayers cannot!).
Now add the pre-screening polygraph without a videotape or recording (which I know you are on record against) and there is little or nothing to choose from.
Regards.
You are as fiesty as Twoblock and that is saying something. I agree that all federal agencies are in for a shock as the qualified applicant pool starts to dry up. Nothing to do with polygraph usage, just with the starting pool. Under the age of thirty-seven, no previous drug history, no previous police involvement, little or no tickets, and qualifications that meet the minimum requirement; does not leave many candidates after that filter. Pity the pool soul that does not pay his/her bills withinh thirty days (Congress can have a negative balance but taxpayers cannot!).
Now add the pre-screening polygraph without a videotape or recording (which I know you are on record against) and there is little or nothing to choose from.
Regards.
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 08, 2006, 12:30 AMQuote from: Onesimus on Aug 07, 2006, 11:12 PM
This is actually a subtle indictment of your applicant pool as well (assuming that by explanation you mean that they are giving relevant information previously withheld). Generally speaking, as the level of corruption in a pool of applicants increases, the lower the percentage of false positives among those accused of deception. If we assume the polygraph is 85% accurate, then, based on calculations from this thread, 60 - 80% of your applicants are liars.
Onesimus,
If I may make one more point here. In a way, you have no idea how right you actually are regarding police applicant pools. In truth, there are times that the applicant pool is positively HORRIBLE! There are days it seems that everyone walking in the door is a felon. Other times, it is not bad and we can hire some good people. In times like this we must remember the words of Forest Gump: "Life is like a box of chocoletes (sp). You never know what your gonna get."
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 08, 2006, 12:16 AMQuote from: Onesimus on Aug 07, 2006, 11:12 PMOnesimus ,
This is actually a subtle indictment of your applicant pool as well (assuming that by explanation you mean that they are giving relevant information previously withheld). Generally speaking, as the level of corruption in a pool of applicants increases, the lower the percentage of false positives among those accused of deception. If we assume the polygraph is 85% accurate, then, based on calculations from this thread, 60 - 80% of your applicants are liars.
You are not entirely inaccurate. I have learned that 50% or more of the folks walking into a pre-employment polygraph exam have issues they do not wish to share, or feel they should have to. Some of the issues are disqualifying. Many times they are not. In the end, the polygraph is as much a process, as it is a "test." Once I have gained the trust of the examinee to the point I can help him/her open up and resolve whatever is causing them problems on the exam, then those with non-disqualifying issues continue on. Those who have sold dope, raped a school mate, molested a child, repeatedly driven drunk, or committed major thefts, do not get to be police officers (and yes, I have referred cases generated during pre-employment polygraphs to the general investigations unit.)
Now I have a question...
What have YOU done for your community today?
Nonombre
Posted by Onesimus
- Aug 07, 2006, 11:12 PMQuote from: nonombre on Jul 31, 2006, 08:23 PM
On average, 90-95% of the people who "fail" my polygraph examination, provide information that explains the reason for their failure.
This is actually a subtle indictment of your applicant pool as well (assuming that by explanation you mean that they are giving relevant information previously withheld). Generally speaking, as the level of corruption in a pool of applicants increases, the lower the percentage of false positives among those accused of deception. If we assume the polygraph is 85% accurate, then, based on calculations from this thread, 60 - 80% of your applicants are liars.
Posted by Onesimus
- Aug 07, 2006, 10:32 PMNonombre,
I've realized after my seven polygraph sessions that polygraphers use the English language very differently than I do.
Nevertheless, I don't think there is any reasonable interpretation of this quote other than that it is your opinion that the only thing that separates the average cop from a Pizza Hut employee is their performance on a polygraph exam.
None of the people I know who fail polygraph tests have had to settle for work at Pizza Hut. They have either gone on to pass later polygraph tests (even I have passed some polygraph tests and portions thereof) or continue whatever successful career they already had going. I can't think of any person I know of who has failed a polygraph test and has done any worse than say, taking a promotion within HR where they already worked rather than continuing to fight with polygraphers. And I'm quite sure many of my poly-reject friends have 6 figure salaries.
You seem to be driven to denigrate those that fail polygraph tests.
Of course, there are many fine people who start out at Pizza Hut anyway...
And I'm sure the people applying to your department really are more skilled than to only have Pizza Hut as a back up plan, despite what you're telling us.
I've realized after my seven polygraph sessions that polygraphers use the English language very differently than I do.
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 30, 2006, 12:48 PM
Approximately 95% of them will then drop their attempts to manipulate the test and we will then get along just fine. The remainder are considered good candidates for a job at Pizza Hut, or the local donut shop. Not my police department....
Nevertheless, I don't think there is any reasonable interpretation of this quote other than that it is your opinion that the only thing that separates the average cop from a Pizza Hut employee is their performance on a polygraph exam.
None of the people I know who fail polygraph tests have had to settle for work at Pizza Hut. They have either gone on to pass later polygraph tests (even I have passed some polygraph tests and portions thereof) or continue whatever successful career they already had going. I can't think of any person I know of who has failed a polygraph test and has done any worse than say, taking a promotion within HR where they already worked rather than continuing to fight with polygraphers. And I'm quite sure many of my poly-reject friends have 6 figure salaries.
You seem to be driven to denigrate those that fail polygraph tests.
Of course, there are many fine people who start out at Pizza Hut anyway...
And I'm sure the people applying to your department really are more skilled than to only have Pizza Hut as a back up plan, despite what you're telling us.
Posted by nonombre
- Aug 07, 2006, 09:29 PMQuote from: Onesimus on Aug 07, 2006, 07:01 PMIn the past month or so, nonombre has been describing the applicants to his police force. Here are some of the terms he has used to describe them lately:
teeth wrapped in aluminum foil
good candidates for a job at Pizza Hut, or the local donut shop
Subjects taking 2-4 breaths per second in an effort to affect the outcome of their polygraph examinations
take no more than 2 breaths in the next 20 to 25 second period
highly recommended for employment in the fast food or house cleaning industries
I haven't seen him say anything positive about the applicants. Is anyone deeply concerned about the quality of applicants wherever he works, or are people just assuming he is making these stories up or greatly exaggerating them?
Nice unprovoked attack, Onesimus. I must be really getting to you...
Please allow me to remind readers what each of my descriptions referred to:
1. "teeth wrapped in aluminum foil." This referred to an idiot (much like I envision you) who thought this foolish endevour would enble him to "beat" the polygraph test.
2. "...good candidates for a job at Pizza Hut, or the local donut shop." This referred to idiots (much like you) who insisted on continuing to engage in ridiculas countermeasures even after being caught red handed.
3. "...Subjects taking 2-4 breaths per second in an effort to affect the outcome of their polygraph examinations." Refer to #2, above.
4. "...take no more than 2 breaths in the next 20 to 25 second period." Ditto...
5. "...highly recommended for employment in the fast food or house cleaning industries." Refer to #2 once again.
6. "I haven't seen him say anything positive about the applicants." If I have not stressed this enough, allow me to do so now. The vast majority of applicants I test are dedicated, cooperative, people who only wish to serve. For those, I do everything in my power to get them on board and I am proud to call them my peers. For the others who treat the polygraph process like the "game" most all of you do on this website, I poudly say again: "They are highly recommended for employment in the fast food or house cleaning industries."
Regards,
Nonombre
Posted by Onesimus
- Aug 07, 2006, 07:01 PMIn the past month or so, nonombre has been describing the applicants to his police force. Here are some of the terms he has used to describe them lately:
teeth wrapped in aluminum foil
good candidates for a job at Pizza Hut, or the local donut shop
Subjects taking 2-4 breaths per second in an effort to affect the outcome of their polygraph examinations
take no more than 2 breaths in the next 20 to 25 second period
highly recommended for employment in the fast food or house cleaning industries
I haven't seen him say anything positive about the applicants. Is anyone deeply concerned about the quality of applicants wherever he works, or are people just assuming he is making these stories up or greatly exaggerating them?
teeth wrapped in aluminum foil
good candidates for a job at Pizza Hut, or the local donut shop
Subjects taking 2-4 breaths per second in an effort to affect the outcome of their polygraph examinations
take no more than 2 breaths in the next 20 to 25 second period
highly recommended for employment in the fast food or house cleaning industries
I haven't seen him say anything positive about the applicants. Is anyone deeply concerned about the quality of applicants wherever he works, or are people just assuming he is making these stories up or greatly exaggerating them?