- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Tron
- Jul 06, 2009, 02:22 AMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Jul 05, 2009, 07:23 PMQuote from: 64425F5E300 on Jul 05, 2009, 07:13 AMIf you follow George's advice then good luck in your NEXT pre employment exam. Tell the truth, sit down with the examiner before had and when they go through your questionaire with you just let them know.What advice do you have for people who follow the counsel you posted above and yet still fail their polygraph?
It's really that simple.
I have taken and passed all of my poly's and my mode of thinking is similar to yours.
My thinking was essentially identical to what you posted and I failed my first three polygraphs even though I was completely honest in all of them.
Don't forget, I did say "tell the truth", this may elude some. I have had many experiences with polygraph examiners, including using them during our investigations and with each and every examination, what do you know- when the person failed it's because they lied. I apologize if my dozens upon dozens of firsthand experience isn't good enough.
Now in you case. It is of course possible that the examiner failed in analyzing the findings. But three times, I don't know what to tell you dude. They look at body language and demeanor as well as the charts so if you get a complete moron they should be able to do just fine.
The only other time in which I've seen a poly questioned is when we had an applicant claim that he had never done marijuana. The examiner claimed he got a hit on that question and asked why (could have been a ploy, I wasn't there) but the applicant explained that everytime he tells anyone that he has never tried any illegal drug including marijuana, no one believes him. He was hired without any problems.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jul 05, 2009, 07:23 PMQuote from: 64425F5E300 on Jul 05, 2009, 07:13 AMIf you follow George's advice then good luck in your NEXT pre employment exam. Tell the truth, sit down with the examiner before had and when they go through your questionaire with you just let them know.What advice do you have for people who follow the counsel you posted above and yet still fail their polygraph?
It's really that simple.
I have taken and passed all of my poly's and my mode of thinking is similar to yours.
My thinking was essentially identical to what you posted and I failed my first three polygraphs even though I was completely honest in all of them.
Posted by Tron
- Jul 05, 2009, 07:13 AMIf you follow George's advice then good luck in your NEXT pre employment exam. Tell the truth, sit down with the examiner before had and when they go through your questionaire with you just let them know.
It's really that simple.
I have taken and passed all of my poly's and my mode of thinking is similar to yours.
It's really that simple.
I have taken and passed all of my poly's and my mode of thinking is similar to yours.
Posted by BettyBoop
- Apr 17, 2009, 06:33 AMThank you, Mr. Maschke! OK, it is quite obvious to me now how honest people could invite trouble by simply trying to be honest. Thank you also to Pailryder, Mr. Cullen, and Liebaby. All of your comments have been helpful, as I really don't see this issue in black and white. 
But there's just one more thing that I'm not convinced of. I know that admitting to even having done marijuana once is inviting more questioning, but if that person did marijuana within the acceptable amount and no other drugs and seriously has nothing to hide and is absolutely confident about that, then isn't it possible that admitting to having done it those few times might actually help the person? I mean, what percentage of people have never tried marijuana? Like 40%? I imagine a great percentage have. I'm sure it's a relevant question, but it seems to harbor on the border of a control.
The way I see it, I feel very confident that I am not going to give a false positive when it comes to drugs other than marijuana. I am much less confident about lying and saying I've never done mj, though. I dunno, this is a tough sell for me. Let them interrogate me. I'd rather be interrogated than lie. (Admittedly, I've never actually been interrogated, so it might be much more frightening than it sounds.)
Being paid to lie by an intelligence organization in the interest of national security? 8-) Sure. Lying to get that job, though? I'd really rather not. Plus it could come back later to bite me in the "boop". Hmm, we'll see.
But there's just one more thing that I'm not convinced of. I know that admitting to even having done marijuana once is inviting more questioning, but if that person did marijuana within the acceptable amount and no other drugs and seriously has nothing to hide and is absolutely confident about that, then isn't it possible that admitting to having done it those few times might actually help the person? I mean, what percentage of people have never tried marijuana? Like 40%? I imagine a great percentage have. I'm sure it's a relevant question, but it seems to harbor on the border of a control.
The way I see it, I feel very confident that I am not going to give a false positive when it comes to drugs other than marijuana. I am much less confident about lying and saying I've never done mj, though. I dunno, this is a tough sell for me. Let them interrogate me. I'd rather be interrogated than lie. (Admittedly, I've never actually been interrogated, so it might be much more frightening than it sounds.)
Being paid to lie by an intelligence organization in the interest of national security? 8-) Sure. Lying to get that job, though? I'd really rather not. Plus it could come back later to bite me in the "boop". Hmm, we'll see.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 17, 2009, 05:12 AMBetty Boop,
Absinthe is not a hallucinogenic and is not illegal in the United States. It would be unwise to suggest to a polygraph operator (who may be uninformed) that you used an illegal drug because you tasted absinthe in Amsterdam. You'll only be inviting suspicion, and the next question asked may well be, "What other drugs did you use in Amsterdam that you haven't told me about?" Given Amsterdam's reputation as a Mecca for drug users, your denial may not be believed.
If you tell a polygrapher that you used countermeasures, you don't just "risk" flunking the polygraph right then and there. You will not pass it and in all likelihood you will be permanently disqualified from employment with the agency with which you applied (and any other agencies with which that agency has an information-sharing arrangement).
You ask "which risk is greater: the risk of being caught using them or the risk of having a false positive?" The latter risk is greater. There is no evidence that polygraph operators can detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at greater than chance levels of accuracy. But there is considerable evidence that false positives are common in polygraph screening.
Absinthe is not a hallucinogenic and is not illegal in the United States. It would be unwise to suggest to a polygraph operator (who may be uninformed) that you used an illegal drug because you tasted absinthe in Amsterdam. You'll only be inviting suspicion, and the next question asked may well be, "What other drugs did you use in Amsterdam that you haven't told me about?" Given Amsterdam's reputation as a Mecca for drug users, your denial may not be believed.
If you tell a polygrapher that you used countermeasures, you don't just "risk" flunking the polygraph right then and there. You will not pass it and in all likelihood you will be permanently disqualified from employment with the agency with which you applied (and any other agencies with which that agency has an information-sharing arrangement).
You ask "which risk is greater: the risk of being caught using them or the risk of having a false positive?" The latter risk is greater. There is no evidence that polygraph operators can detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at greater than chance levels of accuracy. But there is considerable evidence that false positives are common in polygraph screening.
Posted by BettyBoop
- Apr 17, 2009, 04:16 AMHmmm. Well, I guess it's especially true in this case that worrying won't do any good! Hehe. It's a pre-employment test. I'm not taking it anytime soon. I was just doing a little research on federal agencies, where I hope to work someday, and I began to wonder about what the polygraph actually entails.
I don't have a criminal history, but I worry that I'll be disqualified because of some technicality like having tasted Absynth once in Amsterdam (completely disgusting, btw), which is legal in many European countries but I believe is illegal in the U.S. It's basically some nasty green drink that supposedly makes you hallucinate if you drink a lot. I personally couldn't get past three sips, it was so gross.
Anyway, I imagine that yelling at the polygrapher, outright refusing to comply, or crying hysterically is not going to help one get hired, regardless of the polygraph results. On the other hand, seeming too confident might be suspicious too.
If I have to walk in there all wide-eyed, pretending to be afraid of the machine, and stroke the polygrapher's ego a bit: "Your polygraph machine... it's so... BIG!" Well, I guess I can do that. And then I can try and remain calm during the actual test. If that works to my benefit, I don't see any moral dilemma there.
I've been giving a lot of thought to these countermeasures. At first, the idea of them really bothered me. If you don't lie, why do you need to use them? But after reading about false positives and with knowing how strong my fight or flight response is, it might be wise to employ them. My reasoning is this: If I am completely honest in answering all of the questions and I don't hold anything back, then how is it wrong to purposefully control the way in which my body responds to questioning? If you have a strong fight or flight response, like myself, wouldn't you be foolish not to try and prevent your body from sending signals to the machine that might imply you are lying when you actually are not?
The only "bad" thing I can see about it is that it could be risky if the examiner suspected I was employing such techniques and then point-blank asked me, "Have you been using countermeasures?" to which I would answer honestly, "Yes". (Since I refuse to lie.) But if I confess to actually using them, God only knows what the examiner will do then. I might risk flunking the polygraph right then and there.
So with all those things in mind, I don't really see using countermeasures as an inherently bad thing, but I can see why it could be risky. The question is, which risk is greater: the risk of being caught using them or the risk of having a false positive? :-?
I don't have a criminal history, but I worry that I'll be disqualified because of some technicality like having tasted Absynth once in Amsterdam (completely disgusting, btw), which is legal in many European countries but I believe is illegal in the U.S. It's basically some nasty green drink that supposedly makes you hallucinate if you drink a lot. I personally couldn't get past three sips, it was so gross.
Anyway, I imagine that yelling at the polygrapher, outright refusing to comply, or crying hysterically is not going to help one get hired, regardless of the polygraph results. On the other hand, seeming too confident might be suspicious too.
If I have to walk in there all wide-eyed, pretending to be afraid of the machine, and stroke the polygrapher's ego a bit: "Your polygraph machine... it's so... BIG!" Well, I guess I can do that. And then I can try and remain calm during the actual test. If that works to my benefit, I don't see any moral dilemma there.
I've been giving a lot of thought to these countermeasures. At first, the idea of them really bothered me. If you don't lie, why do you need to use them? But after reading about false positives and with knowing how strong my fight or flight response is, it might be wise to employ them. My reasoning is this: If I am completely honest in answering all of the questions and I don't hold anything back, then how is it wrong to purposefully control the way in which my body responds to questioning? If you have a strong fight or flight response, like myself, wouldn't you be foolish not to try and prevent your body from sending signals to the machine that might imply you are lying when you actually are not?
The only "bad" thing I can see about it is that it could be risky if the examiner suspected I was employing such techniques and then point-blank asked me, "Have you been using countermeasures?" to which I would answer honestly, "Yes". (Since I refuse to lie.) But if I confess to actually using them, God only knows what the examiner will do then. I might risk flunking the polygraph right then and there.
So with all those things in mind, I don't really see using countermeasures as an inherently bad thing, but I can see why it could be risky. The question is, which risk is greater: the risk of being caught using them or the risk of having a false positive? :-?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 16, 2009, 08:48 PMQuoteThe more honest you are, the less likely that you've committed any of the serious issues on the exam,
The more honest a person is about answering a control question, and consequently, the more comfortable and confident they are with the veracity of their answer, the lower will be their "reaction". The lower that reaction is versus reactions to "relevant' questions, the greater their chances of failing.
Also if honesty is the issue, why to polygraph operators want the person tested to LIE on control questions? Why to they knowingly lie about the accuracy of the polygraph?
Also, if a person is totally HONEST, and tells you he/she thinks polygraphy is bogus pseudo-science, will that help or hinder their results?
TC
P.S. I might well add that the more UNINFORMED and GULLIBLE a person is about the polygraph, like anything else, the greater their chances of doing poorly.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Apr 16, 2009, 07:59 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Apr 16, 2009, 03:11 PMAlso, the test is actually biased against honest people like yourself who want to bend over backwards to cooperate?
Actually, Boop, the test is NOT biased against honest people. The more honest you are, the less likely that you've committed any of the serious issues on the exam, and the more likely you will react strongly to other questions on the test regarding less serious indescretions that you and almost anyone else have committed.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 16, 2009, 03:11 PMI suggest you read "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector""
http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the polygraph is a test in which a so-called examiner can actually detect deception. It's not. The person administrating the test will in all likelihood be a trained interrogator, and the so-called 'test" is actually an interrogation. Are you taking a criminal polygraph, or a pre-employment polygraph?
Did you know that examiners actually want you to LIE on certain questions? Also, the test is actually biased against honest people like yourself who want to bend over backwards to cooperate?
It's all explained in the above reference.
TC
http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the polygraph is a test in which a so-called examiner can actually detect deception. It's not. The person administrating the test will in all likelihood be a trained interrogator, and the so-called 'test" is actually an interrogation. Are you taking a criminal polygraph, or a pre-employment polygraph?
Did you know that examiners actually want you to LIE on certain questions? Also, the test is actually biased against honest people like yourself who want to bend over backwards to cooperate?
It's all explained in the above reference.
TC
Posted by pailryder
- Apr 16, 2009, 07:16 AMBetty
I have administered and passed polys. During the pretest, you and your examiner will discuss the exact wording of all questions and your responses. Express your concerns about any gray areas at that time.
I have administered and passed polys. During the pretest, you and your examiner will discuss the exact wording of all questions and your responses. Express your concerns about any gray areas at that time.
Posted by BettyBoop
- Apr 16, 2009, 04:28 AMAs a person who tends to overanalyze things, I'm concerned about how to respond to questions that are sort of in the "gray" area for me.
For example, if I were to be asked during a polygraph, "Have you ever driven under the influence of alcohol," I wouldn't be sure how to respond. I mean, I suppose I have, but it was certainly nothing like weaving all over the road or anything. If I answer "no," I might suddenly remember a time when I may have. If I pause and try to think back into the past, it might be seen as deceptive. But if I just say "yes", it could in fact show that I'm lying, if I'm not confident that I have in fact driven under the influence of alcohol. If I say "yes" and that is deemed as truthful, it could be a disqualifier. :-?
I guess my question is, if you answer "yes" to having done something "bad", will they give you time to explain the situation?
I really don't want to learn how to "cheat" the polygraph. I just want to be honest and pass. I think I can stay calm, but the difficulty for me is in answering "yes" or "no" when the honest answer is "I don't know." I'm concerned that in an effort to be honest, pausing to think will make me appear deceptive, when in reality I would only be trying to find a way to rationalize putting a "yes" or "no" answer on something that can't honestly be answered that way. :-/
Does anyone have any advice? I would especially appreciate a response from someone who has actually administered and/or passed a polygraph. Thank you.
For example, if I were to be asked during a polygraph, "Have you ever driven under the influence of alcohol," I wouldn't be sure how to respond. I mean, I suppose I have, but it was certainly nothing like weaving all over the road or anything. If I answer "no," I might suddenly remember a time when I may have. If I pause and try to think back into the past, it might be seen as deceptive. But if I just say "yes", it could in fact show that I'm lying, if I'm not confident that I have in fact driven under the influence of alcohol. If I say "yes" and that is deemed as truthful, it could be a disqualifier. :-?
I guess my question is, if you answer "yes" to having done something "bad", will they give you time to explain the situation?
I really don't want to learn how to "cheat" the polygraph. I just want to be honest and pass. I think I can stay calm, but the difficulty for me is in answering "yes" or "no" when the honest answer is "I don't know." I'm concerned that in an effort to be honest, pausing to think will make me appear deceptive, when in reality I would only be trying to find a way to rationalize putting a "yes" or "no" answer on something that can't honestly be answered that way. :-/
Does anyone have any advice? I would especially appreciate a response from someone who has actually administered and/or passed a polygraph. Thank you.