- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by nopolycop
- Jan 10, 2008, 09:48 PMQuote from: Areusure on Jan 10, 2008, 08:43 PMQuote from: Areusure on Jan 09, 2008, 04:44 PMThe paradox is unavoidable. Any conscious attempt to remain calm during one part of the polygraph will be viewed as dishonest and unethical behavior, but in another part of the test will be rated highly as a desirable trait for a law enforcement officer to possess. Control your breathing to maintain your heart rate at non-stressful levels during one part of the test and you fail, do it during another part of the test and you pass. Allow your body to react to stress without making any attempt to remain calm during one part of the test and you will be behaving as the examiner wants you to, but do the same thing in another part of the test and he or she will conclude you don't have what it takes to be a law enforcement officer because you can't handle stress.
Sarge:
I sit here laughing, (my wife thinks I am looney) because on my last poly, the examiner after the first run of questions confronted me about trying to control my breathing. I laughed, and told him that he told me to remain calm, and I was simply breathing normally, not trying to artifically create any type of breathing pattern, just to remain calm. You are exactly right in your comments above.
Posted by EJohnson
- Jan 10, 2008, 09:29 PMI take it you have never known any Secret Service special agents. They are highly intelligent, machine-like individuals with a very high threshold for discomfort and fear.
For a lawman, you seem very naive to the rather harsh weeding-out of people from exclusive and critical organizations.
On the civilian side, it is amazing to me that you nor anyone who incessantly complains about the polygraph's error rates, give no mention to the far more nebulous and subjective process called the "job interview." Hundreds of published articles exist within the HR field regarding this secretly high-controversial process. Nevermind the stress interview, a rare bird indeed---but then again the US Postal Service still conducts stress interviews---but rather think about the fact that studies show that HR Personel tend to hire individuals that look like themselves based on "gut feelings" during a casual exchange about former work duties and how many dogs and cats they have at home. God forbid you have a balding hairline or a nervous twitch or a speech impediment. The business world can be a real ass kicker, and polygraph error rates do no help. But harping on and on and on about Polygraph, you'd think there was no global warming, genocide in Africa, and 24,000 people a day dying from hunger in America.
For a lawman, you seem very naive to the rather harsh weeding-out of people from exclusive and critical organizations.
On the civilian side, it is amazing to me that you nor anyone who incessantly complains about the polygraph's error rates, give no mention to the far more nebulous and subjective process called the "job interview." Hundreds of published articles exist within the HR field regarding this secretly high-controversial process. Nevermind the stress interview, a rare bird indeed---but then again the US Postal Service still conducts stress interviews---but rather think about the fact that studies show that HR Personel tend to hire individuals that look like themselves based on "gut feelings" during a casual exchange about former work duties and how many dogs and cats they have at home. God forbid you have a balding hairline or a nervous twitch or a speech impediment. The business world can be a real ass kicker, and polygraph error rates do no help. But harping on and on and on about Polygraph, you'd think there was no global warming, genocide in Africa, and 24,000 people a day dying from hunger in America.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jan 10, 2008, 08:43 PMQuote from: Areusure on Jan 09, 2008, 04:44 PMAfter the polygraph, he performed a "stress interview"-----an ugly form of combative litmus test to see if you have the emotional maturity and discipline to restrain your impulses of anger and righteous indignation.
In my opinion this is yet another untenable aspect of the pseudoscientific polygraph process in pre-employment screening.
It has been repeatedly stated by many examiners on this board that any attempt by the subject to control their breathing or their thinking in order to remain calm during the polygraph test is dishonest and unethical. At best, the subject's actions will be called "purposeful non-compliance" and at worst will be called countermeasures. Either way, the subject will not pass and therefore will not move forward in the application process. Clearly, any conscious attempt to remain calm is proscribed behavior during a polygraph exam.
However, it is obviously accepted (though perhaps not universally utilized) procedure to conduct a stress interview during the post-test phase of the polygraph. During that part of the polygraph process, a subject is expected to remain calm despite the stress, and is unlikely to move forward in the application process if unable to do so. Clearly, failure to control your stress is also proscribed behavior during a polygraph exam.
The paradox is unavoidable. Any conscious attempt to remain calm during one part of the polygraph will be viewed as dishonest and unethical behavior, but in another part of the test will be rated highly as a desirable trait for a law enforcement officer to possess. Control your breathing to maintain your heart rate at non-stressful levels during one part of the test and you fail, do it during another part of the test and you pass. Allow your body to react to stress without making any attempt to remain calm during one part of the test and you will be behaving as the examiner wants you to, but do the same thing in another part of the test and he or she will conclude you don't have what it takes to be a law enforcement officer because you can't handle stress.
Posted by Donna.Taylor
- Jan 09, 2008, 09:19 PMQuote from: Areusure on Jan 09, 2008, 07:10 PMI understand the whole "Bank Robbery" of drugs thing but my question is why not end it and say thank you on day one of my statement? Why waste their money and time along with mine? It came up again in the panel interview. Why not say thanks and send me on my way? As for a snowy number...well the process involves listing this info on the millions of pages of forms that are submitted. Its a simple LSD 1x. As for conversations with the agents, I explained that a friend asked me to try it. I did. It did absolutely nothing. I stuck to beer at college parties from then on. Truth is the truth. I figured there would be no need in lying as they would ask on forms and in poly.
As for arguing, maybe that wasn.t the best of chosen words. We had an intense discussion. This did not take place just at the end but from the get go.
No counter measures, lying, or any type of cheating was done. Why do it? I'm tyring to get a job with a difficult agency. Last thing I needed was to be dq'd for goofing off. I'd made it that far and didn't want to take chances.
I think Sancho said it best. Find out what the requirements are and if you meet their guidelines before applying. We don't make up the guidelines as polygraph examiners; we just run the examinations and report our findings. I do believe that if an applicant makes an initial admission that disqualifies them they should be told immediately (that is how I operate with the one exception* I list below). If it is iffy, the exam should be run to see if there are any other issues and the BI and or Chief can determine hire at a later time. Like Eric said, if we as examiners set the guidelines they may be different. What you can control is choosing to apply or to find a different agency.
*The other day I had an applicant I knew was going to use CM's (I will not tell you why) and he made an admission that was a MAJOR disqualifier and I ran the exam anyway. I wanted to see if he used CM's and my prediction was right!
In Utah POST sets the rules and the departments must follow or the officers CANNOT be certified. If a state or federal agency states 'no more than 10 times'.....is the guy that did it 11 times worse? Probably not, but as polygraph examiners we don't make that decision. APA states NO decision to hire should be based solely on the polygraph. I believe most agencies follow these guidelines.
I work for one agency that has a disqualifier of 'no selling of drugs' EVER. If you have a DUI you can be hired 5 years after it is cleared up. So if someone sold marijuana as a teenager and they are 30 years of age now – they CANNOT be hired. If a 24 year old gets a DUI and is convicted of the crime...after 5 years they CAN be hired. Again, we don't make the guidelines but we have to follow them.
Areusure: from what you have said 'YES' they wasted their time as well as yours and that is too bad they put you through that.
Posted by Areusure
- Jan 09, 2008, 07:10 PMI understand the whole "Bank Robbery" of drugs thing but my question is why not end it and say thank you on day one of my statement? Why waste their money and time along with mine? It came up again in the panel interview. Why not say thanks and send me on my way? As for a snowy number...well the process involves listing this info on the millions of pages of forms that are submitted. Its a simple LSD 1x. As for conversations with the agents, I explained that a friend asked me to try it. I did. It did absolutely nothing. I stuck to beer at college parties from then on. Truth is the truth. I figured there would be no need in lying as they would ask on forms and in poly.
As for arguing, maybe that wasn.t the best of chosen words. We had an intense discussion. This did not take place just at the end but from the get go.
No counter measures, lying, or any type of cheating was done. Why do it? I'm tyring to get a job with a difficult agency. Last thing I needed was to be dq'd for goofing off. I'd made it that far and didn't want to take chances.
As for arguing, maybe that wasn.t the best of chosen words. We had an intense discussion. This did not take place just at the end but from the get go.
No counter measures, lying, or any type of cheating was done. Why do it? I'm tyring to get a job with a difficult agency. Last thing I needed was to be dq'd for goofing off. I'd made it that far and didn't want to take chances.
Posted by Donna.Taylor
- Jan 09, 2008, 06:20 PMQuote from: Areusure on Jan 09, 2008, 04:23 PMI am anxiously waiting for a response from Sancho and Donna...although they will probably scold you for lying on all of the questions and call you an immoral person.
Chris
I have NEVER tried to convince someone the 'machine' is a lie detector. A polygraph instrument is capable of 'recording physiological changes' that occur during a polygraph. BTW, before the butt pads, we knew when the old AS was being used....now we have proof.
As for Areusure: Eric addressed his post. I may need to re-read his post but I didn't see anywhere in his post that he said he was lying, trying to conceal behaviors or utilizing CM's. If he is telling the truth, IF he is up for it, he should ask for the examination to be quality control checked. I am also not a hard core in your face examiner unless you put me there. I believe the more personal you keep ANY interview the more someone would be more comfortable to talk to about any issue.
BTW, you can submit your opinion at any time. It doesn't mean you are right – it is just 'your' opinion.
Posted by EJohnson
- Jan 09, 2008, 04:44 PMOuch! The Secret Service are infamous for being HARD CORE mofos. Last I heard, they will not hire anyone who has tripped acid---regardless of how you were taking a "mediocre" try of the drug. I happen to believe that the USSS has that policy not because they have some data regarding one time LSD usage, but because they simply don't need to hire people who have taken the substance---their numbers are fine.
I gotta say, it's hard to tell the most clean cut, tough, hard-on agency that you did acid---and not have them think you are a degenerate in their eyes. You must have done a snowy number of explaining just why you did LSD. I personally wouldn't judge you and If I had a business---I wouldn't even need to know such, but remember, LSD to the Feds is the "Bank Robbery" of drugs----and nobody robs banks "just because of friends or a weird growth phase."
Also,
an interview with a hard core, nail chewing USSS agent should not include an argument. After the polygraph, he performed a "stress interview"-----an ugly form of combative litmus test to see if you have the emotional maturity and discipline to restrain your impulses of anger and righteous indignation. Google "Stress Interview." Sounds like you were rattled---as I would have been also---but I am not the USSS "type."
You will find something better----who needs to work for such rigidness except for rigid people!
I gotta say, it's hard to tell the most clean cut, tough, hard-on agency that you did acid---and not have them think you are a degenerate in their eyes. You must have done a snowy number of explaining just why you did LSD. I personally wouldn't judge you and If I had a business---I wouldn't even need to know such, but remember, LSD to the Feds is the "Bank Robbery" of drugs----and nobody robs banks "just because of friends or a weird growth phase."
Also,
QuoteWe argued more.
an interview with a hard core, nail chewing USSS agent should not include an argument. After the polygraph, he performed a "stress interview"-----an ugly form of combative litmus test to see if you have the emotional maturity and discipline to restrain your impulses of anger and righteous indignation. Google "Stress Interview." Sounds like you were rattled---as I would have been also---but I am not the USSS "type."
You will find something better----who needs to work for such rigidness except for rigid people!
Posted by chrismcphee33
- Jan 09, 2008, 04:23 PMI am anxiously waiting for a response from Sancho and Donna...although they will probably scold you for lying on all of the questions and call you an immoral person.
Posted by Areusure
- Jan 09, 2008, 04:03 PMI've been dying to post about my poly experience with the USSS in early 2007. A bit of background: crim/law undergrad, MBA, yrs of finance-accounting work, not even a speeding ticket, straight up 100% American guy next door.
The bad part: pot use 10 or less times, 1 and I mean 1 mediocre try of lsd with no results all more than 11 years prior-nothing more than a drink in 11 years. I chose the field as I was seeing what drugs and the lifesyle did to my friends. I know this is no excuse.
Made it through the TEA exam, interview, panel interview, and the poly came around. The examiner went through the typical pre-test questions. He asked me if I'd ever cheated. I said yes. He sternly (he seemed pissed)asked what I had cheated on. I stated that I cheated on tests before (think grade school), homework (who hasn't), video games (kill your friends player when they step away), golf, breaking in line to get in venues quicker, etc. He said, no you're not listening to me, have you EVER CHEATED on anything "BIG". I thought no as in like on my wife, taxes, etc. I said NO. He said good, that is what he was looking for. In my mind, cheating is cheating regardless of what was cheated on so I would be lying if I said no-thus failure.
Before attaching the pads to my palms, he told me to "wipe my hands on the arm rests of the exam chair". What a controlled experiment I thought. I hope others had nothing on their hands that would throw off results. You'd think I'd get alcohol swabbed or at least a hand cleaning. What if I'd placed something on my palms? I'm sure others didn't "wipe their hands on the chair" as a cleaning method.
Long story short, at the end of the test I was told that I failed EVERY question. I asked "every question?". He said yes.
"Every" question includes:
are you sitting down? yes
are you in...(insert city here)? yes
Is your name? yes
I was told that I showed deception about lying on my app. I didn't. I was even coerced into admitting that I failed to list a college that I attended for 2 quarters on my app and that was where I was lying. After I got home, I reviewed my app. I HAD LISTED the college on it.
I was told that I showed deception about being ashamed of something. I told him that of course I had, was, and will be ashamed about things in life but I can't remember them all. Thus when he asked "besides what you have told me here, have you done anything that you are ashamed of". I had to say yes because if I said no, then I would be lying as technically, I had not told him of every SINGLE thing I was ashamed of. We argued more. It was the same story as the cheating questions above. He was looking for BIG things I guess.
He told me that I was lying about drug usage. I told him that I had admitted all usage. He told me that I was lying. I asked him why I would lie when I had admitted LSD usage which I figured would be a deal killer. I admitted this usage the very first day of the tea exam. He told me that I was probably lying about that as well. Why would I waste time and money? Geez.
1 month later I received the "thin-letter". I was told that I could reapply 1 year from the letter's receipt. I doubt I will.
I believe that the examiner pegged me from the beginning and there was no way to avoid failing. When I walked in, I remember the agent looking surprised and then scowling as if he recognized an old school house enemy. I remember being stunned a bit when he froze and looked at me. Every more strange was after yelling and ranting during the exam, he shook my hand and wished me luck in an odd Jekyl and Hide way. I honestly don't get it. I'm even perplexed about how the agent could master such an art and be close to my age-I'm in my lower lower 30s. He was clearly ex-military as well (not knocking).
Enough rambling, this was my experience.
The bad part: pot use 10 or less times, 1 and I mean 1 mediocre try of lsd with no results all more than 11 years prior-nothing more than a drink in 11 years. I chose the field as I was seeing what drugs and the lifesyle did to my friends. I know this is no excuse.
Made it through the TEA exam, interview, panel interview, and the poly came around. The examiner went through the typical pre-test questions. He asked me if I'd ever cheated. I said yes. He sternly (he seemed pissed)asked what I had cheated on. I stated that I cheated on tests before (think grade school), homework (who hasn't), video games (kill your friends player when they step away), golf, breaking in line to get in venues quicker, etc. He said, no you're not listening to me, have you EVER CHEATED on anything "BIG". I thought no as in like on my wife, taxes, etc. I said NO. He said good, that is what he was looking for. In my mind, cheating is cheating regardless of what was cheated on so I would be lying if I said no-thus failure.
Before attaching the pads to my palms, he told me to "wipe my hands on the arm rests of the exam chair". What a controlled experiment I thought. I hope others had nothing on their hands that would throw off results. You'd think I'd get alcohol swabbed or at least a hand cleaning. What if I'd placed something on my palms? I'm sure others didn't "wipe their hands on the chair" as a cleaning method.
Long story short, at the end of the test I was told that I failed EVERY question. I asked "every question?". He said yes.
"Every" question includes:
are you sitting down? yes
are you in...(insert city here)? yes
Is your name? yes
I was told that I showed deception about lying on my app. I didn't. I was even coerced into admitting that I failed to list a college that I attended for 2 quarters on my app and that was where I was lying. After I got home, I reviewed my app. I HAD LISTED the college on it.
I was told that I showed deception about being ashamed of something. I told him that of course I had, was, and will be ashamed about things in life but I can't remember them all. Thus when he asked "besides what you have told me here, have you done anything that you are ashamed of". I had to say yes because if I said no, then I would be lying as technically, I had not told him of every SINGLE thing I was ashamed of. We argued more. It was the same story as the cheating questions above. He was looking for BIG things I guess.
He told me that I was lying about drug usage. I told him that I had admitted all usage. He told me that I was lying. I asked him why I would lie when I had admitted LSD usage which I figured would be a deal killer. I admitted this usage the very first day of the tea exam. He told me that I was probably lying about that as well. Why would I waste time and money? Geez.
1 month later I received the "thin-letter". I was told that I could reapply 1 year from the letter's receipt. I doubt I will.
I believe that the examiner pegged me from the beginning and there was no way to avoid failing. When I walked in, I remember the agent looking surprised and then scowling as if he recognized an old school house enemy. I remember being stunned a bit when he froze and looked at me. Every more strange was after yelling and ranting during the exam, he shook my hand and wished me luck in an odd Jekyl and Hide way. I honestly don't get it. I'm even perplexed about how the agent could master such an art and be close to my age-I'm in my lower lower 30s. He was clearly ex-military as well (not knocking).
Enough rambling, this was my experience.