- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 31, 2008, 02:30 PMQuoteOr would you have assumed that maybe you were lying but you didn't know it....../quote]
Sarge,
That is EXACTLY what examiners try to get people to believe during the test. That they just THINK they are telling the truth, but since the machine is showing deception, there must be something in the deep recesses of their mind bothering them. So they must talk and talk and talk until it is purged.
It's called a "fishing expedition", and applicants take the bait everyday.
TC
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 31, 2008, 03:41 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 30, 2008, 08:59 PMSarge,
Or it could be you're lying. Or, it could be your examiner was deficient and missed movements or improperly applied countermeasures. Or, it could be you did something else and caused reaction at that question enough to fail. There are a lot of possibilities and I certainly can not answer your question as to where it went wrong. But to throw it all out after one problem test and subsequent to passing others, well, anyway...
More informative for me, where did you apply? I have been doing pre-employment testing for a while and have never seen a relevant question concerning illegal drugs, specific to any particular drug.
Sackett
So, all those things it "could be" but you cannot accept or acknowledge the possibility that maybe the polygraph simply cannot accurately detect deception? Does that seem reasonable to you?
It wasn't one problem test, it was three. Then I gave all the same answers on my fourth test and passed. It's easy to be consistent in your answers when you are telling the truth.
If you went to a fortune teller and they tried to guess the year you were born, would you be impressed if they got it on the fourth try? Or would you very reasonably conclude that they are in fact simply guessing and not actually reading your mind or telling your fortune?
I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and fail to conclude that the polygraph is incapable of anything resembling consistent accuracy. If you went through four polygraphs, told the truth on all of them and didn't withold any information, and failed the first three do you really think you would have concluded that the polygraph is useful and accurate in pre-employment screening? Or would you have assumed that maybe you were lying but you didn't know it, and somehow you worked out that lie (that you didn't know about) sometime between the third and the fourth polygraph?
BTW, all four polygraphs were pre-employment exams for municipal police agencies in Connecticut.
Posted by sackett
- May 30, 2008, 08:59 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 30, 2008, 05:30 PMSackett,
When I failed my first polygraph it was because I supposedly showed deception regarding the use of cocaine. At that point in my life I had never even seen cocaine except in movies and on television, and I had certainly never used it. That is exactly what I told the examiner during the pre-test, and that is exactly how I answered during the exam. I still failed because the examiner said it was as clear as day that I was being deceptive about my answers regarding the use of cocaine.
What part of that do you believe I might have rationalized or intrepreted, rather than simply answering honestly? The examiner might as well have asked me if I shot JFK from the grassy knoll - I had no anxiety about the question whatsoever because it was something completely out of the realm of my experience. But I still failed...
This is not a situation where I tried cocaine once and decided to interpret his question or rationalize my behavior. I specifically told the examiner that I had never even seen cocaine and had certainly never used it, tried it, touched it, etc...
One would think that if I had some sort of a reaction to questions about cocaine that I would have had similar trouble in the same area on subsequent polygraph exams. Yet I never again had any "issues" with any drug-related questions at all.
The simplest solution is often the best. It is most reasonable to simply conclude that neither the polygraph nor the examiner is capable of accurately detecting deception.
Sarge,
Or it could be you're lying. Or, it could be your examiner was deficient and missed movements or improperly applied countermeasures. Or, it could be you did something else and caused reaction at that question enough to fail. There are a lot of possibilities and I certainly can not answer your question as to where it went wrong. But to throw it all out after one problem test and subsequent to passing others, well, anyway...
More informative for me, where did you apply? I have been doing pre-employment testing for a while and have never seen a relevant question concerning illegal drugs, specific to any particular drug.
Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 30, 2008, 08:25 PMQuoteThe simplest solution is often the best. It is most reasonable to simply conclude that neither the polygraph nor the examiner is capable of accurately detecting deception
BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!!!!
You shall never enter the kingdom of Sackett!
Your torment shall be eternal!
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 30, 2008, 05:30 PMSackett,
When I failed my first polygraph it was because I supposedly showed deception regarding the use of cocaine. At that point in my life I had never even seen cocaine except in movies and on television, and I had certainly never used it. That is exactly what I told the examiner during the pre-test, and that is exactly how I answered during the exam. I still failed because the examiner said it was as clear as day that I was being deceptive about my answers regarding the use of cocaine.
What part of that do you believe I might have rationalized or intrepreted, rather than simply answering honestly? The examiner might as well have asked me if I shot JFK from the grassy knoll - I had no anxiety about the question whatsoever because it was something completely out of the realm of my experience. But I still failed...
This is not a situation where I tried cocaine once and decided to interpret his question or rationalize my behavior. I specifically told the examiner that I had never even seen cocaine and had certainly never used it, tried it, touched it, etc...
One would think that if I had some sort of a reaction to questions about cocaine that I would have had similar trouble in the same area on subsequent polygraph exams. Yet I never again had any "issues" with any drug-related questions at all.
The simplest solution is often the best. It is most reasonable to simply conclude that neither the polygraph nor the examiner is capable of accurately detecting deception.
When I failed my first polygraph it was because I supposedly showed deception regarding the use of cocaine. At that point in my life I had never even seen cocaine except in movies and on television, and I had certainly never used it. That is exactly what I told the examiner during the pre-test, and that is exactly how I answered during the exam. I still failed because the examiner said it was as clear as day that I was being deceptive about my answers regarding the use of cocaine.
What part of that do you believe I might have rationalized or intrepreted, rather than simply answering honestly? The examiner might as well have asked me if I shot JFK from the grassy knoll - I had no anxiety about the question whatsoever because it was something completely out of the realm of my experience. But I still failed...
This is not a situation where I tried cocaine once and decided to interpret his question or rationalize my behavior. I specifically told the examiner that I had never even seen cocaine and had certainly never used it, tried it, touched it, etc...
One would think that if I had some sort of a reaction to questions about cocaine that I would have had similar trouble in the same area on subsequent polygraph exams. Yet I never again had any "issues" with any drug-related questions at all.
The simplest solution is often the best. It is most reasonable to simply conclude that neither the polygraph nor the examiner is capable of accurately detecting deception.
Posted by sackett
- May 30, 2008, 11:02 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 29, 2008, 04:18 PMJim,
What I meant to point out to Princessmoe is that the matter she mentioned could be considered to fall within the scope of the question about "police involvement," though I can understand how a reasonable person could in good faith interpret the question differently.
Whether or not to disclose this incident is a judgment that Princessmoe will ultimately have to make for herself. But disclosing this incident does not necessarily increase her chances of passing the polygraph (assuming it's required). In fact, such a disclosure could well decrease her chances of passing because doing so will indicate to the LVMPD polygraph section that she has posted on this forum, and could result in an arbitrary accusation of attempted countermeasures.
Well George, not surprisingly I disagree. If I asked you (or anyone) have you ever had sexual contact with anyone other than your wife? Does that mean only when married, have you cheated? Or, does that mean, the way a normal person would interpret it as, anyone other than your wife, ever?
By somehow allowing for "interpretation" you put aside the primary principle of polygraph success; not to lie, minimize, rationalize or withhold. I would suggest that is primary problem with many of your minions. They "interpreted" what they wanted and found themselves unable to get through a test and now condemn the process for catching them, althewhile, they didn't "lie." Perhaps not, but I suggest they in fact withheld, minimized, avoided, rationalized, etc.
You are correct in stating she/he will have to decide whether or not to disclose this information. You are also correct in stating that by revealing this information does not increase her/his chance of passing the exmaination. There may very well be other issues and I would never rest anyone passing a pre-employment examination on a single issue of contention presented here.
As for assumptions of an applicant coming on your site; that is assumed in today's age of information. No need to boost your ego on that one. As for arbitrary assumptions of CM's. Unless she/he decides to employ them, just because an applicant has been on this site, does not mean they're trying to beat the examiner and no "arbitrary" accusations should be made unless they do.
Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 29, 2008, 08:46 PMQuoteI know you do not hold much credibility in the pre-employment processing, but I happen to know the people at LVMPD and they take this process seriously and hold it very credible.
Mrs. Winchester took the advise of spirits who talked to her at midnight in her bizarre mansion quite seriously and held it to be credible also.
TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 29, 2008, 04:18 PMJim,
What I meant to point out to Princessmoe is that the matter she mentioned could be considered to fall within the scope of the question about "police involvement," though I can understand how a reasonable person could in good faith interpret the question differently.
Whether or not to disclose this incident is a judgment that Princessmoe will ultimately have to make for herself. But disclosing this incident does not necessarily increase her chances of passing the polygraph (assuming it's required). In fact, such a disclosure could well decrease her chances of passing because doing so will indicate to the LVMPD polygraph section that she has posted on this forum, and could result in an arbitrary accusation of attempted countermeasures.
What I meant to point out to Princessmoe is that the matter she mentioned could be considered to fall within the scope of the question about "police involvement," though I can understand how a reasonable person could in good faith interpret the question differently.
Whether or not to disclose this incident is a judgment that Princessmoe will ultimately have to make for herself. But disclosing this incident does not necessarily increase her chances of passing the polygraph (assuming it's required). In fact, such a disclosure could well decrease her chances of passing because doing so will indicate to the LVMPD polygraph section that she has posted on this forum, and could result in an arbitrary accusation of attempted countermeasures.
Posted by sackett
- May 29, 2008, 03:46 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 29, 2008, 12:42 PM"Police involvement" is a pretty vague term. One would think that what the questionnaire is getting at is having been arrested, cited, or detained by police, none of which seem to apply to your situation. But interpreted very broadly, it could include having reported a crime to police, having gone on a ride-along, or having been escorted to a mental health facility based on a false report.
George,
your statement of interpreting "very broadly" is EXACTLY the type of rationalizing I'm talking about that gets these applicants in trouble. ANY police involvement means exactly that, ANY! Not, just what you think they mean or how you can mean it without divulding information.
This type of thinking is what keeps getting these applicants in trouble then wondering what they did wrong. Did you ever smoke dope, does not mean do you now smoke dope, did you smoke dope in the last 24 hours, it means DID YOU EVER!
I know you do not hold much credibility in the pre-employment processing, but I happen to know the people at LVMPD and they take this process seriously and hold it very credible.
"P'Moe", release all information related to any police involvement, else you risk failing the test and coming back here trying to rationalize why you failed the test after supposedly telling the truth... like the few posters here.
Sackett
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 29, 2008, 12:42 PM"Police involvement" is a pretty vague term. One would think that what the questionnaire is getting at is having been arrested, cited, or detained by police, none of which seem to apply to your situation. But interpreted very broadly, it could include having reported a crime to police, having gone on a ride-along, or having been escorted to a mental health facility based on a false report.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 29, 2008, 12:21 PMWhat questions have you been asked about such matters?