- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by DEPUTY BEAR
- Jun 03, 2002, 01:55 AMdon't hold your breath beech trees.
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 02, 2002, 06:32 PMI'm still waiting for any polygrapher to respond to my repeated queries on this board: How many people have you disqualified during polygraph interrogations for using the type of countermeasures recommended in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector? Anyone?
Posted by DEPUTY BEAR
- Jun 02, 2002, 02:40 PMBatman, you wrote, "Like I said, unless you have a serious felony offense in your past, be honest, and, if qualified, you stand a much better chance of getting the job you want." What about an not so serious felony? I understand you can not be certified if you have been convicted of any felony. And if you do have a felony conviction then that will show on the NCIC or _CIC (depending on the state), and you will be DQ'd anyway. Also, how will someone get caught using countermeasures? They can only be suspected of using them. In any case it is completly up to the polygrapher to make that guess. I don't see how you could put your career in the hands of someone guessing about the truthfulness of your statements. I can't wait for the day you are found deceptive on a polygraph knowing you are telling the truth. By the way this has not happened to me, I am not an angry person who has been the victim of the polygraph. I just do not believe in it, other than for interrogation.
Posted by cheater
- Jun 02, 2002, 11:58 AMthanks for the not so good news of they can still fail me even having a passing chart. So this just tells me that if you fail, then you fail, but if you pass then they can discriminate against you and say "you used countermeasures" you fail. wow what power they must have.
again i do not have a final answer, and yes i would like to contact the person with recent similar interest when the time comes. and yes i will contact mr. zaid.
thanks for the response
again i do not have a final answer, and yes i would like to contact the person with recent similar interest when the time comes. and yes i will contact mr. zaid.
thanks for the response
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 02, 2002, 04:44 AMQuote from: cheater on Jun 02, 2002, 01:59 AM
i was given the polygraph, told everything looked good. later called back and accused of using countermeasures. after about 2 hours of interrogation was told the results would go to quality control for a final answer. this all happened after I was told everything looked good. so in the opinion of the readers could this come back as a failure, and what would they base it on? simple we suspect you of countermeasures?
Yes, federal agencies may disqualify an applicant based merely on the suspicion that the applicant used polygraph countermeasures, as Dr. Gordon H. Barland, formerly of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, made clear in the message thread Countermeasure considerations for the innocent.
If you are disqualified based on the agency's suspicion that you used countermeasures, you may wish to contact Washington attorney Mark Zaid of Lobel, Novins & Lamont, who represents a number of plaintiffs who are suing the U.S. Government over its pre-employment polygraph policy. You can reach him at work at (202) 371-6626 or by e-mail to ZaidMS@aol.com.
I may also be able to put you in touch with someone who has been in a position similar to yours. If you're interested, please send me a private message.
Posted by cheater
- Jun 02, 2002, 01:59 AMi was given the polygraph, told everything looked good. later called back and accused of using countermeasures. after about 2 hours of interrogation was told the results would go to quality control for a final answer. this all happened after I was told everything looked good. so in the opinion of the readers could this come back as a failure, and what would they base it on? simple we suspect you of countermeasures?
Posted by cheater
- Jun 02, 2002, 01:41 AMmake that four responses, i was accused of using countermesures, interrogated for about 2 hours, then was told the results would go to a "quality control". again still to this day no absolute pass or fail
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 02, 2002, 12:36 AMQuote from: cheater on Jun 01, 2002, 11:01 PM
just a question for the readers of this site. Has anyone ever been denied employment for passing, yet being accussed of using countermeasures? I am currently in the process of being hired for fed. law enforcement, but I have been the accussed, called the cheater for passing the "test". the final decision has not been made, but my hopes are fading...
Who accused you of cheating? Generally speaking, a polygraph interrogator can only give one of three opinions: No Deception Indicated, Deception Indicated, or Inconclusive. Which of these did you receive? Please elaborate as best you can,
Dave
Posted by cheater
- Jun 01, 2002, 11:01 PMjust a question for the readers of this site. Has anyone ever been denied employment for passing, yet being accussed of using countermeasures? I am currently in the process of being hired for fed. law enforcement, but I have been the accussed, called the cheater for passing the "test". the final decision has not been made, but my hopes are fading...
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 01, 2002, 09:04 PMBatman,
You wrote in part:
On what basis do you assert that a person who employs polygraph countermeasures stands a good chance of getting caught? Please be specific. (The available peer-reviewed research indicates that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better than chance levels of accuracy.)
I agree with you that applicants for law enforcement positions should be honest. But honesty is a two-way street. The polygraph process itself is fundamentally dishonest and is predicated on the secret assumption that the subject's answers to the so-called "control" questions will be less than truthful. The applicant who attempts to answer the "control" questions truthfully, admitting all past misdeeds that he can remember, actually increases his chances of "failing" this fraudulent "test," while the dishonest applicant who makes one or two minor admissions and then falsely denies all wrongdoing is more likely to be passed through.
Those who demand honesty of others should lead by example. The polygraph community (and those who rely on the pseudoscience of polygraphy in making hiring decisions) are setting a poor example.
You wrote in part:
Quoteb. Attempt to use countermeasures on your polygraph examination. Again, you stand a good chance of getting caught (regardless of what the people on this sight will tell you), and if you do, then the department you are applying to will only assume you have something serious to hide, and they most likely will not hire you.
On what basis do you assert that a person who employs polygraph countermeasures stands a good chance of getting caught? Please be specific. (The available peer-reviewed research indicates that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better than chance levels of accuracy.)
I agree with you that applicants for law enforcement positions should be honest. But honesty is a two-way street. The polygraph process itself is fundamentally dishonest and is predicated on the secret assumption that the subject's answers to the so-called "control" questions will be less than truthful. The applicant who attempts to answer the "control" questions truthfully, admitting all past misdeeds that he can remember, actually increases his chances of "failing" this fraudulent "test," while the dishonest applicant who makes one or two minor admissions and then falsely denies all wrongdoing is more likely to be passed through.
Those who demand honesty of others should lead by example. The polygraph community (and those who rely on the pseudoscience of polygraphy in making hiring decisions) are setting a poor example.
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- Jun 01, 2002, 08:47 PMBenny,
If you have not committed any serious felony offenses, do not hinder your application process by doing the following:
a. Lieing about your past. If you do this and get caught it will only call into question your integrity. If this happens there is very little chance you will get the position.
b. Attempt to use countermeasures on your polygraph examination. Again, you stand a good chance of getting caught (regardless of what the people on this sight will tell you), and if you do, then the department you are applying to will only assume you have something serious to hide, and they most likely will not hire you.
The best advice that can be offered is be totally honest during your application process. Some on this sight will say that is an unrealistic viewpoint, however it is not. Departments have no expectation of hiring angles or saints. They are realistic, and expect their applicants will have made mistakes in the past. The certain kiss of death to any application process though is to be caught in a lie, or in an attempt to circumvent that process.
Like I said, unless you have a serious felony offense in your past, be honest, and, if qualified, you stand a much better chance of getting the job you want. If you do have a serious felony offense in your past, I again urge you to just get it out on the table and then let the chips fall where they may. I believe you might be surprised. Many departments work under the belief that if an individual is willing to tell all during the hiring process then they make more trustworthy officers because they have shown a willingness to disclose their past skeletons.
Just some food for thought. You have to make the final decision, but think it over long and hard before you go the route that this sight advocates.
Batman
If you have not committed any serious felony offenses, do not hinder your application process by doing the following:
a. Lieing about your past. If you do this and get caught it will only call into question your integrity. If this happens there is very little chance you will get the position.
b. Attempt to use countermeasures on your polygraph examination. Again, you stand a good chance of getting caught (regardless of what the people on this sight will tell you), and if you do, then the department you are applying to will only assume you have something serious to hide, and they most likely will not hire you.
The best advice that can be offered is be totally honest during your application process. Some on this sight will say that is an unrealistic viewpoint, however it is not. Departments have no expectation of hiring angles or saints. They are realistic, and expect their applicants will have made mistakes in the past. The certain kiss of death to any application process though is to be caught in a lie, or in an attempt to circumvent that process.
Like I said, unless you have a serious felony offense in your past, be honest, and, if qualified, you stand a much better chance of getting the job you want. If you do have a serious felony offense in your past, I again urge you to just get it out on the table and then let the chips fall where they may. I believe you might be surprised. Many departments work under the belief that if an individual is willing to tell all during the hiring process then they make more trustworthy officers because they have shown a willingness to disclose their past skeletons.
Just some food for thought. You have to make the final decision, but think it over long and hard before you go the route that this sight advocates.
Batman
Posted by beech trees
- Jun 01, 2002, 04:49 PMWelcome Benny,
Keep us posted on your adventures seeking a law enforcement position, and best of luck in the hiring process.
Dave
Keep us posted on your adventures seeking a law enforcement position, and best of luck in the hiring process.
Dave
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 01, 2002, 04:33 PMBenny,
Welcome to the AntiPolygraph.org message board; I hope you'll find it to be a useful resource.
Polygraphy is indeed one of the most successful frauds of the 20th century. It thrived thanks to widespread public ignorance of how it actually "works" and shoddy reporting by the mainstream media (who have been loathe to expose the secrets of the polygraphers' black art.) With the advent of the Internet and the availability of detailed and accurate information about polygraphy to anyone with a computer and Internet access who seeks it, the polygraph fraud cannot long endure.
Please consider joining us in spreading the word about polygraphy. A simple way to do so is to mention this non-profit site to your family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances, and, when appropriate, to post a note about it in any other Internet forums in which you participate.
Welcome to the AntiPolygraph.org message board; I hope you'll find it to be a useful resource.
Polygraphy is indeed one of the most successful frauds of the 20th century. It thrived thanks to widespread public ignorance of how it actually "works" and shoddy reporting by the mainstream media (who have been loathe to expose the secrets of the polygraphers' black art.) With the advent of the Internet and the availability of detailed and accurate information about polygraphy to anyone with a computer and Internet access who seeks it, the polygraph fraud cannot long endure.
Please consider joining us in spreading the word about polygraphy. A simple way to do so is to mention this non-profit site to your family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances, and, when appropriate, to post a note about it in any other Internet forums in which you participate.
Posted by BENNY
- Jun 01, 2002, 04:01 PMI'm new to the board and love the website. The internet is truly changing the world. Frauds and phoneys finally get due process when the word can be spread through channels like the web. Its interesting to learn how the "polygraph" truly works, or doesnt work. I'm applying for a LE position and was just curious about the polygraph when I ran across this site.
I look at it this way. This is a job I do not have. This is a job I want, I now know the polygraph is nothing but an interrogation to get me to admit things I normally would not. Even "if", I were to get caught using countermeasures, who cares?, I never had the job to begin with and if I admit the truth that would be a reason for them to disqualify me.
I look at it this way. This is a job I do not have. This is a job I want, I now know the polygraph is nothing but an interrogation to get me to admit things I normally would not. Even "if", I were to get caught using countermeasures, who cares?, I never had the job to begin with and if I admit the truth that would be a reason for them to disqualify me.