- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by xenonman
- Apr 18, 2016, 11:18 AMQuote from: GeraldoGibbons on Jan 14, 2008, 09:17 AMBoy this sure got off topic...
That appears always to be inevitable, whether in "live" conversations or on-line threads!! lol
Posted by Disco Stu
- Apr 14, 2016, 05:32 PMTo get hired, you have to pass all steps of the process. This could include any or all of the following depending on the job: the initial application and resume review, interview, aptitude testing, medical exams, drug testing, physical fitness test for positions like being a federal agent, security clearance background check, psychological exams, the suitability review, and yes....the polygraph.
An unfavorable result in any of the hiring steps will cause the applicant to get that thin rejection letter in the mail. No matter how "innocent" the applicant claims to be.
The polygrapher doesn't make the final call during the polygraph phase. The applicant's polygraph charts and session are reviewed by someone else who says yay or nay. But these people have about as much power as the other hiring officials who review the applicant's results during the other steps.
An unfavorable result in any of the hiring steps will cause the applicant to get that thin rejection letter in the mail. No matter how "innocent" the applicant claims to be.
The polygrapher doesn't make the final call during the polygraph phase. The applicant's polygraph charts and session are reviewed by someone else who says yay or nay. But these people have about as much power as the other hiring officials who review the applicant's results during the other steps.
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 13, 2016, 01:34 PMThanks for that input Stu. That is encouraging news for some applicants. My question though, was more focused on the same hiring agency.
I've heard many times the mantra that the polygraph is just "one tool in the selection process." But, I'm curious to know if this has proven true in any case.
Has anyone failed a polygraph only to be hired since all other "tools" resulted in favorable outcomes?--or does the polygraph examiner hold the staff in his hand?
I've heard many times the mantra that the polygraph is just "one tool in the selection process." But, I'm curious to know if this has proven true in any case.
Has anyone failed a polygraph only to be hired since all other "tools" resulted in favorable outcomes?--or does the polygraph examiner hold the staff in his hand?
Posted by Disco Stu
- Apr 13, 2016, 06:40 AMYes, I have, but I was hired by a different agency rather than the one whose polygraph I failed. Still got my TS clearance with other additional special access, without the stupid polygraph.
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 12, 2016, 07:12 PMQuoteHas anyone ever failed poly at LVMPD and still got hired??Randal,
Allow me to augment your question and ask if anyone has ever been hired anywhere after failing a polygraph exam.
Posted by Randal Olson
- Apr 11, 2016, 11:08 PMHas anyone ever failed poly at LVMPD and still got hired??
Posted by candy
- Jan 21, 2008, 07:38 AMEJ, I think you meant to say, "Can you walk the talk". Anyhow, your opinion of me means a big fat '0' in my life.
You verbal fertilizer has been spread thickly all over this forum. You contradict yourself so much that I for one cannot take you seriously even when you are trying to be funny.
I read the Trolling / Rat posts with interest and a big dollop of glee. I also noted your great consternation about who the rat may have been.
Interesting that you now ask me to rat on some of your fraternity.
You exhibit double standards, you talk double dutch, and you are apparently a double-crosser.
Please dont patronise me. I am not anyone's 'girlie'.
You verbal fertilizer has been spread thickly all over this forum. You contradict yourself so much that I for one cannot take you seriously even when you are trying to be funny.
I read the Trolling / Rat posts with interest and a big dollop of glee. I also noted your great consternation about who the rat may have been.
Interesting that you now ask me to rat on some of your fraternity.
You exhibit double standards, you talk double dutch, and you are apparently a double-crosser.
Please dont patronise me. I am not anyone's 'girlie'.
Posted by EJohnson
- Jan 18, 2008, 10:11 AMQuote from: 30323D372A530 on Jan 16, 2008, 09:02 AMNot so stupid as you may think EJ. I have been speaking to numerous polygraph vets in the past few weeks. The overwhelming feedback is that the stim test is part of the con job and examiners will take a bullet to the brain before they ever admt to the fact that for the most part, the examination per se is a con job deluxe.
FYI, my brother caused a big stink over his 'failed' polygraph. The CEO agreed to retests of the 5 suspects, this time using a different examiner and a different approach. Well, well. A CVS examiner not only cleared my brother but secured a signed confession from a previously 'cleared' suspect AND money and merchandise was subsequently recovered.
The stim test; the silent answer test; the con verbiage. It was all bullshit. I simply wish that my brother had not signed confidentiality
agreement and legal waiver. A good stiff kick in the wallet is what's needed to put some of these people in their places.
My point is proven even before my crusade got a head of steam.
Candy, you are simply lying about being told by "vet examiners" regarding the reasons for using the stim test. I and other examiners are implicitly taught what the stim test is used for (there are listed reasons, and I stated those precise reasons on my post.) Care to reveal the indentities of those examiners which allegedly told you that the stim test is only used to convince the examinee of the accuracy of the test? Can you walk the walk Candy?
Girlie, I am calling your bluff.
p.s. I will look for my DOD description of the reasons for the stim/acq test. Regardless of what George's bootleg paper says, my manual from 2000 (?) is very much to the contrary.
Posted by WJ
- Jan 18, 2008, 09:28 AMQuote from: EJohnson on Jan 16, 2008, 04:41 PMEric,
The U.S. Government's official how-to manual on polygraphy, formally titled the Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook, avers that the key aim of the stim test (alternatively called an "acquaintance test") is to convince the examinee that polygraphy "works," stating in its glossary at p. xii:QuoteAcquaintance Test (ACQT): A questioning format that is a form of the known solution peak of tension test. It is utilized to demonstrate and acquaint the examinee with the basic concepts of the PDD examination. The primary purpose of this test is to assure the examinee that the PDD process is effective. (emphasis added)
I love it. George did not try to lie or deceive. He used facts to prove that the STIM test or ACQT is in fact part of the scam. EJ tried to use a large paragraph in an effort to continue the lie that polygraphs are not a scam. Just more smoke and mirrors. Good job candy on your research.
Posted by candy
- Jan 18, 2008, 07:34 AMQuote from: EJohnson on Jan 16, 2008, 10:24 AMCandy
I think that piece of paper your brother had to sign is worthless. Apparently this was a criminal case and a person cannot be forced to sign away his constitutional right to sue. Some might say the signing was voluntary, but it was coersed. If he had not signed, the polygrapher would not have given him the poly, same as refusing to take, and he would have gotten much more attention as a guilty party even though a poly can't be required.
Check with a federal lawyer in your area. Federal is the venue here because of a possible constitutional right violation.
I have tried to motivate exactly that. He's just so relieved that the problem is solved. He really likes his job and his boss is genuinely traumatised as well by the bungle. He has made up for it in spades. They all learned something from the nightmare.
I would like to crush the examiners....., but have to let it go.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 18, 2008, 01:51 AMJ.B.,
Thank you for the links to Verschure's articles. It appears that I was mistaken in my belief that the term "orienting response" is used exclusively with reference to responses to novel stimuli.
With regard to your following statement:
note that this at variance with the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, which reports (at p. 214), "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods."
Thank you for the links to Verschure's articles. It appears that I was mistaken in my belief that the term "orienting response" is used exclusively with reference to responses to novel stimuli.
With regard to your following statement:
QuoteWhat I have seen in the research is that a polygraph examination, at the least, provides the greater boost in incremental validity than any other method in its given application (e.g. eyewitness accuracy at discerning suspects, raw human ability to ascertain veracity).
note that this at variance with the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, which reports (at p. 214), "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods."
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Jan 18, 2008, 01:18 AMAlthough this is not related to the original topic, the following does address some issues that have been raised within it.
First off, I would highly suggest that those commenting on polygraph and the CIT read some of the more recent published research.
http://users.ugent.be/~bvschuer/research.htm
A startle response, as what is George described, is not necessarily that which is seen, and quite possibly is not.
The orienting reflex is more plausible, but there still needs to be further research and independent replication (which I have found to be a common cliché of researchers and should be, as no theory is ever absolute). This, simply put, is that stimuli with relevance (e.g. memory based) create greater orienting responses than stimuli that have no relevance (e.g. novel, non-memory based).
There would also appear to be initial evidence that habituation and dishabituation might play a role.
Although deceptive and knowledge based polygraph examinations do have differences, there are inherent similarities in both when compared to the aforementioned.
Also, I have yet to see any research that definitively proves that "jeopardy" need be present.
What I have seen in the research is that a polygraph examination, at the least, provides the greater boost in incremental validity than any other method in its given application (e.g. eyewitness accuracy at discerning suspects, raw human ability to ascertain veracity).
First off, I would highly suggest that those commenting on polygraph and the CIT read some of the more recent published research.
http://users.ugent.be/~bvschuer/research.htm
A startle response, as what is George described, is not necessarily that which is seen, and quite possibly is not.
The orienting reflex is more plausible, but there still needs to be further research and independent replication (which I have found to be a common cliché of researchers and should be, as no theory is ever absolute). This, simply put, is that stimuli with relevance (e.g. memory based) create greater orienting responses than stimuli that have no relevance (e.g. novel, non-memory based).
There would also appear to be initial evidence that habituation and dishabituation might play a role.
Although deceptive and knowledge based polygraph examinations do have differences, there are inherent similarities in both when compared to the aforementioned.
Also, I have yet to see any research that definitively proves that "jeopardy" need be present.
What I have seen in the research is that a polygraph examination, at the least, provides the greater boost in incremental validity than any other method in its given application (e.g. eyewitness accuracy at discerning suspects, raw human ability to ascertain veracity).
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 16, 2008, 04:41 PMEric,
The U.S. Government's official how-to manual on polygraphy, formally titled the Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook, avers that the key aim of the stim test (alternatively called an "acquaintance test") is to convince the examinee that polygraphy "works," stating in its glossary at p. xii:
The U.S. Government's official how-to manual on polygraphy, formally titled the Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook, avers that the key aim of the stim test (alternatively called an "acquaintance test") is to convince the examinee that polygraphy "works," stating in its glossary at p. xii:
QuoteAcquaintance Test (ACQT): A questioning format that is a form of the known solution peak of tension test. It is utilized to demonstrate and acquaint the examinee with the basic concepts of the PDD examination. The primary purpose of this test is to assure the examinee that the PDD process is effective. (emphasis added)
Posted by Bill Crider
- Jan 16, 2008, 01:08 PMQuoteEven in the pre-interview, he didn't seem to believe that was possible.
for those of us who have made this conscious decision to avoid drugs in our lives, this sort of condescending assumption is very insulting and maddening. any cop who says this is just projecting the fact that he used to rock the ganja hard, or still is.
it is quite possible and very easy to not take illegal drugs.
Posted by Twoblock
- Jan 16, 2008, 10:24 AMCandy
I think that piece of paper your brother had to sign is worthless. Apparently this was a criminal case and a person cannot be forced to sign away his constitutional right to sue. Some might say the signing was voluntary, but it was coersed. If he had not signed, the polygrapher would not have given him the poly, same as refusing to take, and he would have gotten much more attention as a guilty party even though a poly can't be required.
Check with a federal lawyer in your area. Federal is the venue here because of a possible constitutional right violation.
I think that piece of paper your brother had to sign is worthless. Apparently this was a criminal case and a person cannot be forced to sign away his constitutional right to sue. Some might say the signing was voluntary, but it was coersed. If he had not signed, the polygrapher would not have given him the poly, same as refusing to take, and he would have gotten much more attention as a guilty party even though a poly can't be required.
Check with a federal lawyer in your area. Federal is the venue here because of a possible constitutional right violation.