- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Seeds
- May 30, 2012, 12:19 AMSeryty, I as well lament that any agency that stands behind a facade of justice would encourage and depend on people to lie. As it has been said before, in any polygraph examination, you can be sure that at least one person in the room is lying. I was administered a CQT, which you, if you've done any investigating, know depends on people to lie in order to pass. I lament that such agencies depend on machines that a circus monkey could fool in order to separate good from bad. I'll ask you to consider that "Tis no deceit to deceive the deceiver."
If George were a liar and polygraphy was based on scientific principles, I would have failed my polygraph test, and my only hope would be that I would be allowed to test again and tell the truth. However, I found the theories expressed in his book to be eerily true TO THE LETTER. This gave me confidence to lie, and convinced me that I would be successful in deploying countermeasures. The situation being as it is, I was offered an opportunity to go into business for myself, and will be pursuing that end. I used my orientation day to decline the job offer since it follows that any organization so dependent on unsound actions and ideas would not be an ideal place. My would be supervisor conceded that she believed polygraphy to be "more art than science", but this being government work, I get the idea that her hands were firmly tied.
If George were a liar and polygraphy was based on scientific principles, I would have failed my polygraph test, and my only hope would be that I would be allowed to test again and tell the truth. However, I found the theories expressed in his book to be eerily true TO THE LETTER. This gave me confidence to lie, and convinced me that I would be successful in deploying countermeasures. The situation being as it is, I was offered an opportunity to go into business for myself, and will be pursuing that end. I used my orientation day to decline the job offer since it follows that any organization so dependent on unsound actions and ideas would not be an ideal place. My would be supervisor conceded that she believed polygraphy to be "more art than science", but this being government work, I get the idea that her hands were firmly tied.
Posted by Bill_Brown
- May 29, 2012, 05:29 PMjmo,
Polygraph is not banned in some jurisdictions. And most police applicants that "fail" the polygraph make admissions that verify the findings of deception. (this is from personal experience) Polygraph is not 100% accurate in screening applications, it is by last studies in the 80% range. I have done many background investigations and not uncovered all the information that was brought forward by a good polygraph examination. I have also conducted polygraph examinations and found a candidate untruthful to things such as drug usage, sexual indiscretions, burglary (undetected) and other serious crimes. The background does not find this things because there is no record of it. I have also missed candidates that have been untruthful during the polygraph as latter discovered by the background investigator.
Polygraph is not the total answer to a background investigation it is only a tool that can be of assistance to a good background investigation. Polygraph, in my humble opinion, should not be used as the sole reason to disqualify a candidate, however it should not be ignored, a good background investigator should take the results and follow up on anything that showed untruthful.
Polygraph is not banned in some jurisdictions. And most police applicants that "fail" the polygraph make admissions that verify the findings of deception. (this is from personal experience) Polygraph is not 100% accurate in screening applications, it is by last studies in the 80% range. I have done many background investigations and not uncovered all the information that was brought forward by a good polygraph examination. I have also conducted polygraph examinations and found a candidate untruthful to things such as drug usage, sexual indiscretions, burglary (undetected) and other serious crimes. The background does not find this things because there is no record of it. I have also missed candidates that have been untruthful during the polygraph as latter discovered by the background investigator.
Polygraph is not the total answer to a background investigation it is only a tool that can be of assistance to a good background investigation. Polygraph, in my humble opinion, should not be used as the sole reason to disqualify a candidate, however it should not be ignored, a good background investigator should take the results and follow up on anything that showed untruthful.
Posted by jmo
- May 29, 2012, 04:18 PMWhile I do agree with the above statement, I also believe a through backgrond investigation into an applicant's past going back 10 to 15 years as is the case with most police departments should more than validate someone's life history. What is ridiculous to me is to see perfectly good candidates pass the long and grueling background process just to be disqualified and branded a liar by a machine so unreliable as to be banned from court proceedings.
Posted by stefano
- May 29, 2012, 02:48 PMQuote from: seryty on May 28, 2012, 08:07 PMHonesty and Integrity is not just a one time test while taking a polygraph exam.I couldn't agree with you more.
Posted by seryty
- May 28, 2012, 08:07 PM@ Seeds
POlygraph examiners have to use investigative/interview skills when questioning anyone. Seeds shows that as "I was deliberately dishonest on my polygraph test, but passed thanks to reading The Lie Behind The Lie Detector." Polygraph works but the process is not infallible. SEEDS may get his job but the job will soon be lost. Honesty and Integrity is not just a one time test while taking a polygraph exam. It is a life long virtue that SEEDS does not have.
POlygraph examiners have to use investigative/interview skills when questioning anyone. Seeds shows that as "I was deliberately dishonest on my polygraph test, but passed thanks to reading The Lie Behind The Lie Detector." Polygraph works but the process is not infallible. SEEDS may get his job but the job will soon be lost. Honesty and Integrity is not just a one time test while taking a polygraph exam. It is a life long virtue that SEEDS does not have.
Posted by stefano
- May 23, 2012, 04:18 PMQuoteI was told by my examiner that if I failed or attempted to use countermeasures, it would be logged in my "record" for any polygrapher to see.You have to keep in mind that you are under an interrogation and you cannot be certain of anything they tell you. Anything said to you is for the purpose of controlling you and extracting admissions. They are not your friend, they will not "help" you or "go to bat" for you. Also, polygraphists are able to discern crude attempts at sabotage, but they CANNOT detect properly executed countermeasures. They will tell you they can, but it's simply not true.
Posted by Seeds
- May 23, 2012, 03:51 PMWhile completing a polygraph for a job interview (I'm going to be intentionally vague here so that my identity has the best shot at remaining private), I was told by my examiner that if I failed or attempted to use countermeasures, it would be logged in my "record" for any polygrapher to see. Has anyone had success in attaining their own record? Has anyone had success in having this record legally sealed? Or was the examiner just lying (again)?
As a point of interest, I was deliberately dishonest on my polygraph test, but passed thanks to reading The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. I have other job offers and am still considering them.
As a point of interest, I was deliberately dishonest on my polygraph test, but passed thanks to reading The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. I have other job offers and am still considering them.