- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Michelle
- Feb 26, 2003, 05:23 AMQuote from: Marty on Feb 24, 2003, 02:08 AM
You hit on something I have also been unable to find. It would seem intrinsically impossible to give a CQT to another polygrapher. Perhaps they just pass each other as a form of "professional courtesy." Another possibility is that they use a DLT (directed lie test) although it would seem there is little difference between following directions closely (Imagining the feelings of being deceptive) and mental countermeasures.
Let me know if you find out anything, I've asked several times in the past with zero responses.
-Marty
I think the polygraphers here have made it clear that to answer questions like this means they have to admit their farce. IOW, it isn't going to happen. Heh... big surprise.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Feb 24, 2003, 09:55 AMQuote from: Marty on Feb 24, 2003, 02:08 AMDear Marty,
Let me know if you find out anything, I've asked several times in the past with zero responses.
I would like to see the "quality control videotapes" on this subject! Do you think we could count them on one or two hands?
Regards.
Posted by Seeker
- Feb 24, 2003, 02:58 AMQuote from: Marty on Feb 24, 2003, 02:08 AMMarty:
You hit on something I have also been unable to find. It would seem intrinsically impossible to give a CQT to another polygrapher. Perhaps they just pass each other as a form of "professional courtesy." Another possibility is that they use a DLT (directed lie test) although it would seem there is little difference between following directions closely (Imagining the feelings of being deceptive) and mental countermeasures.
Let me know if you find out anything, I've asked several times in the past with zero responses.
-Marty
Not that this is a set in gold response, but I have been told by one agent with a particular agency that their examiners do in fact sit for polygraphs, if I recall correctly, every 5 years. It was suggested to me by that particular person that the exams are more of a "professional courtesy" type deal in that they don't go through the same song and dance as they do with non-examiners.
I too would be interested in knowing the policy and procedures of other agencies.
Regards,
Posted by Marty
- Feb 24, 2003, 02:08 AMQuote from: Michelle on Feb 23, 2003, 03:47 PM
Anonymous...
This raises a question, anyone working for a police department has to go through a polygraph, don't they? If so, if someone is applying to be a polygrapher are they still asked to take the test even knowing what a farce it is?
You hit on something I have also been unable to find. It would seem intrinsically impossible to give a CQT to another polygrapher. Perhaps they just pass each other as a form of "professional courtesy." Another possibility is that they use a DLT (directed lie test) although it would seem there is little difference between following directions closely (Imagining the feelings of being deceptive) and mental countermeasures.
Let me know if you find out anything, I've asked several times in the past with zero responses.
-Marty
Posted by WestCoastGrad
- Feb 23, 2003, 08:18 PMQuote from: Anonymous on Feb 23, 2003, 01:02 PM
West Coast Grad,
In answer to your first, question, you surmise correctly...most law enforcement agencies would want you to go their "approved" courses of instruction. Your arriving on the doorstep with polygraph certification in hand would likely avail you of little. This might well differ though with small and underfunded police departments...
Yes, I would imagine it might even look a little suspect for one to shell out a good four grand to take a class that they don't necessarily need. However, the school I attend is primarily a Public Safety school, and as I said, my professor was considering proposing the idea as part of a co-op/internship.
QuoteShould you choose to go through a polygraph school knowing and believing as you do (a rather expensive exploit I would add--I would suggest ten days of skiing in the Alps as a more meaningful/pleasurable experience), you would most certainly not want to suggest that you were not a believer and simply there to better understand the nature of the foolishness...
I wouldn't be surprised if most polygraph schools require you to pass a polygraph before attending. Naturally I wouldn't want to raise eyebrows by suggesting that I was there for any other reason than to learn to become a skill polygraph examiner.
QuoteWith regard to your professor and his pre(mis)conceptions, I would suggest you offer him Dr. Richardson's one page evaluation of CQT polygraph (can find the link on the home page), suggest or let him think that you can't understand how anyone could have such wrong notions about a valuable law enforcement tool (ha!) and see what is reaction/commentary is. Should be a lot of fun in store...
Believe me, I would very much like to do that. Unfortunetely for me, my instructor believes that he is teaching us to be good detectives, and that in order to be good detectives, we must fully understand each of the many things he is teaching us. The polygraph is just one of them. If I were to walk into class and show him Dr. Richardson's challenge, it would probably hurt my grade, as it would look as though I were not taking something he considers integral to the intorrogation process seriously.
After considering this question further, I've come to several possible conclusions. If one were to notify his pre-employment polygraph examiner that he too, was a certified polygraph examiner, I think there is a chance he might actually face disqualification. Like I said before, it would probably look suspicious if you were to say, "I spent over $4000 getting certified for a career I am not directly pursuing." For many departments, passing the exam is considered a qualification for employment. Being untestable doesn't automatically preclude one from having to pass it.
Other than that, he may simply give you the test anyway and pass/fail you based on his best judgment. The last choice would be to waive the testing requirement for you (something I've never heard of happening outside of TLBTLD).
As of right now, I am leaning toward not pushing for the class. Normally our co-op/internship programs don't require us to pay money, and I would rather take advantage of working side by side with an officer or experienced detective for a couple months, since that would probably be considered experience that is more useful than polygraph certification. I just wanted to get opinions from some of the more experienced posters in the field (anti-polygraph/pro-polygraph) as to how they think an examiner would proceed in a situation that involves them testing one of their own.
Posted by triple x
- Feb 23, 2003, 07:23 PMAnonymous,
Very well stated. If I may say so myself, it would be hilarious to imagine a seasoned polygrapher, administering a polygraph exam "stim-test" to another seasoned polygrapher.
Any seasoned polygrapher would be hard pressed to maintain his/her professional composure, while another seasoned polygrapher administered a "stim-test" to one within his/her very own profession.
As if the polygrapher being administered the stim-test, had no true sense or idea of the intent and meaning behind the stim-test, as demonstrated by the administering polygrapher.
That would be comparable to a magician administering the simplest basic "elementary" card trick known throughout the magician trade, to another equally experienced magician.
Naturally, if one polygrapher administers a polygraph exam to another polygrapher, he/she will be found NDI, or truthful...
However, I would really love to hear the challenge and/or argument a seasoned polygrapher would pose, if found deceptive "DI" by another equally seasoned polygrapher. You would then have two differing professional polygraph examiners opinion as to the interpretation of the same set of polygraph charts.
Interesting thought indeed...
Triple x
Very well stated. If I may say so myself, it would be hilarious to imagine a seasoned polygrapher, administering a polygraph exam "stim-test" to another seasoned polygrapher.
Any seasoned polygrapher would be hard pressed to maintain his/her professional composure, while another seasoned polygrapher administered a "stim-test" to one within his/her very own profession.
As if the polygrapher being administered the stim-test, had no true sense or idea of the intent and meaning behind the stim-test, as demonstrated by the administering polygrapher.
That would be comparable to a magician administering the simplest basic "elementary" card trick known throughout the magician trade, to another equally experienced magician.
Naturally, if one polygrapher administers a polygraph exam to another polygrapher, he/she will be found NDI, or truthful...
However, I would really love to hear the challenge and/or argument a seasoned polygrapher would pose, if found deceptive "DI" by another equally seasoned polygrapher. You would then have two differing professional polygraph examiners opinion as to the interpretation of the same set of polygraph charts.
Interesting thought indeed...
Triple x
Posted by Anonymous
- Feb 23, 2003, 04:26 PMMichelle,
With the prevalence of information now available from many sources, perhaps anyone, including the readers of this site can know what a farce control question test polygraphy is. Only a few years back that was not the case. The typical law enforcement polygrapher-to-be will likely be polygraphed before going to polygraph school. During the aforementioned prior-to-widespread-information-availability years, a polygrapher would only know of the foolishness after going to polygraph school, i.e., not before and at the time he would have likely have taken is pre-schooling polygraph exam. But following that time, not only due to knowing the charade, but due the notion and practice of "the friendly polygraph exam" (few general screening exams of bosses and other polygraph examiners will result in deception indicated (DI) results) he will likely pass as many he/she will be given. No big surprise for Batman to claim that he has passed multiple exams...
With the prevalence of information now available from many sources, perhaps anyone, including the readers of this site can know what a farce control question test polygraphy is. Only a few years back that was not the case. The typical law enforcement polygrapher-to-be will likely be polygraphed before going to polygraph school. During the aforementioned prior-to-widespread-information-availability years, a polygrapher would only know of the foolishness after going to polygraph school, i.e., not before and at the time he would have likely have taken is pre-schooling polygraph exam. But following that time, not only due to knowing the charade, but due the notion and practice of "the friendly polygraph exam" (few general screening exams of bosses and other polygraph examiners will result in deception indicated (DI) results) he will likely pass as many he/she will be given. No big surprise for Batman to claim that he has passed multiple exams...
Posted by Michelle
- Feb 23, 2003, 03:47 PMAnonymous...
This raises a question, anyone working for a police department has to go through a polygraph, don't they? If so, if someone is applying to be a polygrapher are they still asked to take the test even knowing what a farce it is?
This raises a question, anyone working for a police department has to go through a polygraph, don't they? If so, if someone is applying to be a polygrapher are they still asked to take the test even knowing what a farce it is?
Posted by Anonymous
- Feb 23, 2003, 01:02 PMWest Coast Grad,
In answer to your first, question, you surmise correctly...most law enforcement agencies would want you to go their "approved" courses of instruction. Your arriving on the doorstep with polygraph certification in hand would likely avail you of little. This might well differ though with small and underfunded police departments...
Should you choose to go through a polygraph school knowing and believing as you do (a rather expensive exploit I would add--I would suggest ten days of skiing in the Alps as a more meaningful/pleasurable experience), you would most certainly not want to suggest that you were not a believer and simply there to better understand the nature of the foolishness...
With regard to your professor and his pre(mis)conceptions, I would suggest you offer him Dr. Richardson's one page evaluation of CQT polygraph (can find the link on the home page), suggest or let him think that you can't understand how anyone could have such wrong notions about a valuable law enforcement tool (ha!) and see what is reaction/commentary is. Should be a lot of fun in store...
In answer to your first, question, you surmise correctly...most law enforcement agencies would want you to go their "approved" courses of instruction. Your arriving on the doorstep with polygraph certification in hand would likely avail you of little. This might well differ though with small and underfunded police departments...
Should you choose to go through a polygraph school knowing and believing as you do (a rather expensive exploit I would add--I would suggest ten days of skiing in the Alps as a more meaningful/pleasurable experience), you would most certainly not want to suggest that you were not a believer and simply there to better understand the nature of the foolishness...
With regard to your professor and his pre(mis)conceptions, I would suggest you offer him Dr. Richardson's one page evaluation of CQT polygraph (can find the link on the home page), suggest or let him think that you can't understand how anyone could have such wrong notions about a valuable law enforcement tool (ha!) and see what is reaction/commentary is. Should be a lot of fun in store...
Posted by WestCoastGrad
- Feb 23, 2003, 09:48 AMI am currently a student pursuing a degree in Criminal Justice Administration. My concentrations are Forensic Science and Investigative Techniques.
Recently in one of my classes on advanced investigative techniques (where we cover the polygraph as an interrogation tool), the recommendation was made by a professor (former police detective) that those of us who wish to be competitive during our application process get as much relevent training under our belts as possible. He suggested basic medical courses, firearms training, co-op/internship programs, and volunteer work with police agencies that allow it. He also suggested attending an accredited polygraph school in order to get certification, since it's an extreme rarity for an applicant to have experience of this nature. Although he mentioned this is probably the most expensive choice of all, and that many PDs prefer to sponsor your training themselves, he did seem convinced he could get on of our CJ organizations to sponsor a number of students in attending (although I don't see how).
Anyway, what kind of role would such certification play in an application process? (I am not convinced that the polygraph has any place in the pre-screening of applicants or the interrogation of suspects, so if I were to attend one of these schools, it would be purely to get an inside look at polygraphy). If you sat down during the polygraph portion of the application process with any agency, and told the person testing you that you had, in fact, completed the required training and were certified to administer polygraphs, could they feasibly test you?
Assuming for a moment that countermeasures are playing no role in this scenario, wouldn't the advanced knowledge of how the test is administered be reasonable cause to deem the applicant untestable? It would appear that control questions would become completely useless, and such "inside knowledge" would prevent the examiner from even coming close to obtaining a scorable chart from the examinee. To me, it seems as if it's almost the same as one magician attempting to dazzle another with the same tricks.
I believe many polygraphers would probably scoff if you told them up front, "I know how polygraphy works," and would test you anyway (probably failing you at some point out of suspicion that you were using countermeasures). However, could one reasonable scoff and test you knowing that you carry certification in the field?
I just thought I'd throw this out there. Unfortunetely, I have to nod my head and go along with this topic in class as if I believe in it fully, so I can't pose questions like this. Any input would be appreciated.
Recently in one of my classes on advanced investigative techniques (where we cover the polygraph as an interrogation tool), the recommendation was made by a professor (former police detective) that those of us who wish to be competitive during our application process get as much relevent training under our belts as possible. He suggested basic medical courses, firearms training, co-op/internship programs, and volunteer work with police agencies that allow it. He also suggested attending an accredited polygraph school in order to get certification, since it's an extreme rarity for an applicant to have experience of this nature. Although he mentioned this is probably the most expensive choice of all, and that many PDs prefer to sponsor your training themselves, he did seem convinced he could get on of our CJ organizations to sponsor a number of students in attending (although I don't see how).
Anyway, what kind of role would such certification play in an application process? (I am not convinced that the polygraph has any place in the pre-screening of applicants or the interrogation of suspects, so if I were to attend one of these schools, it would be purely to get an inside look at polygraphy). If you sat down during the polygraph portion of the application process with any agency, and told the person testing you that you had, in fact, completed the required training and were certified to administer polygraphs, could they feasibly test you?
Assuming for a moment that countermeasures are playing no role in this scenario, wouldn't the advanced knowledge of how the test is administered be reasonable cause to deem the applicant untestable? It would appear that control questions would become completely useless, and such "inside knowledge" would prevent the examiner from even coming close to obtaining a scorable chart from the examinee. To me, it seems as if it's almost the same as one magician attempting to dazzle another with the same tricks.
I believe many polygraphers would probably scoff if you told them up front, "I know how polygraphy works," and would test you anyway (probably failing you at some point out of suspicion that you were using countermeasures). However, could one reasonable scoff and test you knowing that you carry certification in the field?
I just thought I'd throw this out there. Unfortunetely, I have to nod my head and go along with this topic in class as if I believe in it fully, so I can't pose questions like this. Any input would be appreciated.