- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 26, 2003, 12:08 PMGuest,
Your reasoning for Question #9 having been a "control" question seems sound, in light of the way your polygrapher explained it to you.
Your reasoning for Question #9 having been a "control" question seems sound, in light of the way your polygrapher explained it to you.
Posted by Guest
- Apr 24, 2003, 12:48 AMBatman???
I'm curious as to what you think now in light of the information I failed to mention in the original post?
And, as I mentioned, I'd like to get a professional's insight as to what the closing comments the polygraphist made might have meant...
George???
Any additional thoughts in light of the additional comments?
I'm curious as to what you think now in light of the information I failed to mention in the original post?
And, as I mentioned, I'd like to get a professional's insight as to what the closing comments the polygraphist made might have meant...
George???
Any additional thoughts in light of the additional comments?
Posted by Guest
- Apr 21, 2003, 06:29 PMLet me see if I can respond to all that have been kind enough to provide me with their insight...
Batman: "No," the examiner's lack of qualifications (as she herself expressed) is not what I was questioning - those were facts offered by her. What I was clarifying was her definition of the phrase "under the influence" and what it meant to her as opposed to what I believed it to mean. Her understanding and interpretation of any given word, phrase, or line of question does not necessarily bear any correlation to her professional qualifications any more than it does mine.
*After reviewing my original post I realize that one thing I failed to mention was that during the pre-interview, we did review a question on the PHQ regarding driving while under the influence. Specifically, when was the last time that you operated a motor vehicle while under the influence? I answered "N/A and Never" on the paper application and she quickly jumped on it as if in complete disbelief. So, when she reviewed it during the pre-test and continued to question me, I inquired as to her definition at that point. Her response was stand-offish and vague as I'm sure she wanted me to incriminate myself or was suspecting that I was hiding behind the definition. Unfortunately, I was simply being honest and wanted to understand whether she defined "a" drink as having driven while under the influence. After more questioning and (very lttle) further clarification, I answered with a final "N/A" to the question. The questioning continued for another moment or two almost in a "c'mon, you had to have been drunk once or twice before while driving" manner, but I stuck with my final response. That is why this is the ONLY question that came to mind during the test at all - not b/c I had a personal problem with my answer, but b/c of the difficult time I had attempting to clarify the question with her.
And, "no", I don't want anybody to simply agree with my perceptions but I'm glad to see that you are so adept at assuming what they are (MY perceptions) and categorizing them for me. Obviously, I have a few individuals who have already suggested that I may have made some mistakes - THAT is what I wanted to hear - insight. Not sniveling banter and assumptions, nor avoidance of the questions proposed. Which brings me back to the question I ended with....wouldn't the perception of deception and an answer defined as a lie be the same regardless of what type of "test" I was taking? or do you highly qualified polygraphists also have the ability to discern the difference between a criminal lie and a civil lie???
George: Looking back, the only reason I believe #9 to represent a control is that the examiner at the time of questioning actually asked this...
Have you ever falsified (forged) an official document, you know, like a tardy slip or something of that nature?
Now to me, I would have again said a resounding "No" to the base question; however, when she mentioned the example (i.e. tardy slip) I suspect that she was deliberately creating far too wide of a category for me to answer honestly without hesitation or having some difficulties....I don't know???
After I get my results (good or bad) I will question as to whether these proceedings are audio or video taped as I would love to obtain a copy if possible.
Orolan: After assembling my own understanding and reviewing these questions once more myself....I also have a pretty darn difficult time discerning the difference between the relevant and control questions. And throw in her nonchalant commentary during the question formulation process and I'm lost!!!
Yes, you are correct that the application and PHQ are separate pieces of information, however, when she used the word application, I assumed she was referring to the PHQ (as she had not previously seen my initial application). The initial application is a small form with a handful of questions (5, I believe) that is sent directly to HR and is designed to weed out candidates with obvious disqualifying backgrounds. The real meat and potatoes is the two PHQs that you complete throughout the application process. By the way, I am applying to a local township police department.
Triple X: Although I was honest throughout the entire process, my comment regarding CMs was somewhat of a spoof directed at BatMan. I understand their advantages/disadvantages but my personal choice was not to employ them (even if it meant being labeled a false positive). Thank you for the comments however.
I apologize for the disconnect regarding my initial post. I obviously failed to mention an important material fact regarding our pre-test interview relating to DUI. I'm not as experienced with the pros and cons of polygraphy as some of you and didn't initially realize its significance. In all honesty, I remember every detail of the day including the brand name of the examiner's shoes, but for the sake of brevity, I left a lot of the info out - unfortunately, that was a key piece I now see.
Your continued responses and insight are appreciated!
Batman: "No," the examiner's lack of qualifications (as she herself expressed) is not what I was questioning - those were facts offered by her. What I was clarifying was her definition of the phrase "under the influence" and what it meant to her as opposed to what I believed it to mean. Her understanding and interpretation of any given word, phrase, or line of question does not necessarily bear any correlation to her professional qualifications any more than it does mine.
*After reviewing my original post I realize that one thing I failed to mention was that during the pre-interview, we did review a question on the PHQ regarding driving while under the influence. Specifically, when was the last time that you operated a motor vehicle while under the influence? I answered "N/A and Never" on the paper application and she quickly jumped on it as if in complete disbelief. So, when she reviewed it during the pre-test and continued to question me, I inquired as to her definition at that point. Her response was stand-offish and vague as I'm sure she wanted me to incriminate myself or was suspecting that I was hiding behind the definition. Unfortunately, I was simply being honest and wanted to understand whether she defined "a" drink as having driven while under the influence. After more questioning and (very lttle) further clarification, I answered with a final "N/A" to the question. The questioning continued for another moment or two almost in a "c'mon, you had to have been drunk once or twice before while driving" manner, but I stuck with my final response. That is why this is the ONLY question that came to mind during the test at all - not b/c I had a personal problem with my answer, but b/c of the difficult time I had attempting to clarify the question with her.
And, "no", I don't want anybody to simply agree with my perceptions but I'm glad to see that you are so adept at assuming what they are (MY perceptions) and categorizing them for me. Obviously, I have a few individuals who have already suggested that I may have made some mistakes - THAT is what I wanted to hear - insight. Not sniveling banter and assumptions, nor avoidance of the questions proposed. Which brings me back to the question I ended with....wouldn't the perception of deception and an answer defined as a lie be the same regardless of what type of "test" I was taking? or do you highly qualified polygraphists also have the ability to discern the difference between a criminal lie and a civil lie???
George: Looking back, the only reason I believe #9 to represent a control is that the examiner at the time of questioning actually asked this...
Have you ever falsified (forged) an official document, you know, like a tardy slip or something of that nature?
Now to me, I would have again said a resounding "No" to the base question; however, when she mentioned the example (i.e. tardy slip) I suspect that she was deliberately creating far too wide of a category for me to answer honestly without hesitation or having some difficulties....I don't know???
After I get my results (good or bad) I will question as to whether these proceedings are audio or video taped as I would love to obtain a copy if possible.
Orolan: After assembling my own understanding and reviewing these questions once more myself....I also have a pretty darn difficult time discerning the difference between the relevant and control questions. And throw in her nonchalant commentary during the question formulation process and I'm lost!!!
Yes, you are correct that the application and PHQ are separate pieces of information, however, when she used the word application, I assumed she was referring to the PHQ (as she had not previously seen my initial application). The initial application is a small form with a handful of questions (5, I believe) that is sent directly to HR and is designed to weed out candidates with obvious disqualifying backgrounds. The real meat and potatoes is the two PHQs that you complete throughout the application process. By the way, I am applying to a local township police department.
Triple X: Although I was honest throughout the entire process, my comment regarding CMs was somewhat of a spoof directed at BatMan. I understand their advantages/disadvantages but my personal choice was not to employ them (even if it meant being labeled a false positive). Thank you for the comments however.
I apologize for the disconnect regarding my initial post. I obviously failed to mention an important material fact regarding our pre-test interview relating to DUI. I'm not as experienced with the pros and cons of polygraphy as some of you and didn't initially realize its significance. In all honesty, I remember every detail of the day including the brand name of the examiner's shoes, but for the sake of brevity, I left a lot of the info out - unfortunately, that was a key piece I now see.
Your continued responses and insight are appreciated!
Posted by triple x
- Apr 19, 2003, 08:07 PMGuest,
You wrote:
Telling the truth is no guarantee that you [or anyone else] will pass a polygraph exam. False positive results (DI) are not uncommon.
If you have not already done so, I would recommend that you download and read chapters 3 and 4 of [TLBTLD] for free of charge available on this website.
It is strictly my opinion; the use of polygraph countermeasures employed by an honest examinee during a polygraph exam, [to reduce the risk/possibility of a false positive result] is no more unethical, than the trickery and deceit practiced (employed) by the polygraph examiner during a polygraph exam.
This is a very controversial debate on this website.
The pro-polygraph community will argue:
1) Polygraph testing is mostly very accurate, ethical, dependable and reliable.
2) Many polygraph examiners like to claim they are capable of detecting polygraph
countermeasures during a polygraph exam.
3) Polygraph examiners unequivocally agree and believe, the use of polygraph
countermeasures as described in [TLBTLD] are unethical, unreliable, and easily
detectable.
The anti-polygraph community will argue:
1) Polygraph testing is grossly inaccurate, unethical and unreliable.
2) Polygraph testing is riddled with trickery, deceit, and misleading.
3) Polygraph countermeasures as described in [TLBTLD] are indistinguishable from
normal physiological responses to fear, embarrassment, anger, etc.; and are
not easily detected if practiced and properly employed.
A potential honest examinee/candidate for employment facing a pre-employment polygraph exam must ask themselves the following:
Should a candidate/examinee:
1) Tell the truth; cross their fingers; hope to pass; and risk a false positive result.
2) Employ polygraph countermeasures; reduce the risk of a false positive result; thus risking
detection of employing countermeasures.
Respectfully,
triple x
You wrote:
QuoteFourth: Countermeasures Who needs them? I told the truth and that will set me free - right?
Telling the truth is no guarantee that you [or anyone else] will pass a polygraph exam. False positive results (DI) are not uncommon.
If you have not already done so, I would recommend that you download and read chapters 3 and 4 of [TLBTLD] for free of charge available on this website.
It is strictly my opinion; the use of polygraph countermeasures employed by an honest examinee during a polygraph exam, [to reduce the risk/possibility of a false positive result] is no more unethical, than the trickery and deceit practiced (employed) by the polygraph examiner during a polygraph exam.
This is a very controversial debate on this website.
The pro-polygraph community will argue:
1) Polygraph testing is mostly very accurate, ethical, dependable and reliable.
2) Many polygraph examiners like to claim they are capable of detecting polygraph
countermeasures during a polygraph exam.
3) Polygraph examiners unequivocally agree and believe, the use of polygraph
countermeasures as described in [TLBTLD] are unethical, unreliable, and easily
detectable.
The anti-polygraph community will argue:
1) Polygraph testing is grossly inaccurate, unethical and unreliable.
2) Polygraph testing is riddled with trickery, deceit, and misleading.
3) Polygraph countermeasures as described in [TLBTLD] are indistinguishable from
normal physiological responses to fear, embarrassment, anger, etc.; and are
not easily detected if practiced and properly employed.
A potential honest examinee/candidate for employment facing a pre-employment polygraph exam must ask themselves the following:
Should a candidate/examinee:
1) Tell the truth; cross their fingers; hope to pass; and risk a false positive result.
2) Employ polygraph countermeasures; reduce the risk of a false positive result; thus risking
detection of employing countermeasures.
Respectfully,
triple x
Posted by Batman
- Apr 19, 2003, 06:04 PMGeorge,
Maybe not.
I think you know that examinee must be applying for a position at some level of government service since he is taking a polygraph. Therefore, if he was asked a question about falsifying his application then it was relevant, which I'm also quite sure you know.
That "quack who administers the test" remark really hurt. You know I'm an examiner, how could you say something like that? You don't think I'm a "quack" do you?
Batman
Maybe not.
I think you know that examinee must be applying for a position at some level of government service since he is taking a polygraph. Therefore, if he was asked a question about falsifying his application then it was relevant, which I'm also quite sure you know.
That "quack who administers the test" remark really hurt. You know I'm an examiner, how could you say something like that? You don't think I'm a "quack" do you?
Batman
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 19, 2003, 11:37 AMBatman,
You are right. The question about driving under the influence was included in the written application, and not asked during the "in-test" phase of the polygraph examination. Generally, Guest's Question #11 (Have you falsified any info on the application?) would be considered a relevant question. But if the application included questions commonly used as probable-lie "control" questions, might Question #11 have been a "control" question in Guest's case? Maybe, maybe not.
Guest,
I think it matters little whether your polygrapher had only a highschool degree or a Ph.D. in psychophysiology from an Ivy League school. Polygraph "testing" remains quackery, regardless of the education level of the quack who administers the "test."
You are right. The question about driving under the influence was included in the written application, and not asked during the "in-test" phase of the polygraph examination. Generally, Guest's Question #11 (Have you falsified any info on the application?) would be considered a relevant question. But if the application included questions commonly used as probable-lie "control" questions, might Question #11 have been a "control" question in Guest's case? Maybe, maybe not.
Guest,
I think it matters little whether your polygrapher had only a highschool degree or a Ph.D. in psychophysiology from an Ivy League school. Polygraph "testing" remains quackery, regardless of the education level of the quack who administers the "test."
Posted by Batman
- Apr 19, 2003, 09:03 AMGeorge,
According to Guest, there was no question specific to driving under the influence. This was his comback to the examiner when she asked about the question pertaining to falsifying information on his application.
Guest,
I'm the head Goofball!
You stated:
"I was no more concerned with the specific question about driving under the influence then, than I am now sitting in front of my PC. What did concern me however was the uneducated (she professed she had no college education) and inexperienced (after I asked about the "science" of polygraphy, she mentioned her three weeks of "intense" training) examiner who's personal bias and individual interpretation of the semantics "under the influence" would serve to render a decision about me. I wanted to clarify whether she defined "under the influence" as ever having a drink and then driving or if she was suggesting the denotation of the illegal state of being intoxicated while driving. If it were the latter, my answer was a resounding "No." I just wanted to close the gap so to speak and diminish any possible differentiation in definition that may have existed between myself and the way she defined the question."
So what you're saying is, the qualifications of the examiner, or lack there of as you saw them, were what concerned you, not your DUI activity, even though when she asked you about the falsification question you brought up the DUI concerns. Interesting. Why didn't you simply explain to her that the reason you responded to that particular question was because you were concerned about her poor qualifications?
Maybe because it sounds like so much bullshit?
You say you wanted to clarify how your examiner defined under the influence. Interesting. Did you want this clarification before or after the exam was administered? Was that before or after the examiner asked you about your responses to the question pertaining to falsifying your application?
In your original post you stated you were the one to bring up your concerns about DUI. Now you state you wanted to "clarify whether she defined 'under the influence' as ever having a drink and then driving or if she was suggesting the denotation of the illegal state of being intoxicated while driving." Your original post did not indicate the examiner said anything specific to DUI activity. She simply was suggesting the question about falsifying your application caused you concern. You then brought up DUI.
Finally you stated,
"I welcome and appreciate any other intelligent and reasonable comments regarding the original post - thank you! "
No you don't. All you want is someone to get on and agree with your perception that you got potentially screwed, that is was the examiners fault, etc, etc, etc. Well, you've come to the right place, however you just won't hear it from me!
Batman
According to Guest, there was no question specific to driving under the influence. This was his comback to the examiner when she asked about the question pertaining to falsifying information on his application.
Guest,
I'm the head Goofball!
You stated:
"I was no more concerned with the specific question about driving under the influence then, than I am now sitting in front of my PC. What did concern me however was the uneducated (she professed she had no college education) and inexperienced (after I asked about the "science" of polygraphy, she mentioned her three weeks of "intense" training) examiner who's personal bias and individual interpretation of the semantics "under the influence" would serve to render a decision about me. I wanted to clarify whether she defined "under the influence" as ever having a drink and then driving or if she was suggesting the denotation of the illegal state of being intoxicated while driving. If it were the latter, my answer was a resounding "No." I just wanted to close the gap so to speak and diminish any possible differentiation in definition that may have existed between myself and the way she defined the question."
So what you're saying is, the qualifications of the examiner, or lack there of as you saw them, were what concerned you, not your DUI activity, even though when she asked you about the falsification question you brought up the DUI concerns. Interesting. Why didn't you simply explain to her that the reason you responded to that particular question was because you were concerned about her poor qualifications?
Maybe because it sounds like so much bullshit?
You say you wanted to clarify how your examiner defined under the influence. Interesting. Did you want this clarification before or after the exam was administered? Was that before or after the examiner asked you about your responses to the question pertaining to falsifying your application?
In your original post you stated you were the one to bring up your concerns about DUI. Now you state you wanted to "clarify whether she defined 'under the influence' as ever having a drink and then driving or if she was suggesting the denotation of the illegal state of being intoxicated while driving." Your original post did not indicate the examiner said anything specific to DUI activity. She simply was suggesting the question about falsifying your application caused you concern. You then brought up DUI.
Finally you stated,
"I welcome and appreciate any other intelligent and reasonable comments regarding the original post - thank you! "
No you don't. All you want is someone to get on and agree with your perception that you got potentially screwed, that is was the examiners fault, etc, etc, etc. Well, you've come to the right place, however you just won't hear it from me!
Batman
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 19, 2003, 05:38 AMGuest,
Why do you believe that Question 9 (Have you ever falsified (or forged?) an official document?) was a "control" question?
The question about driving under the influence of alcohol is a commonly-used probable-lie control question.
Why do you believe that Question 9 (Have you ever falsified (or forged?) an official document?) was a "control" question?
The question about driving under the influence of alcohol is a commonly-used probable-lie control question.
Posted by orolan
- Apr 18, 2003, 09:14 PMGuest,
I would have to agree with Batman regarding the driving under the influence issue. This must have bothered you more than you thought, as shown by the fact that you apparently responded to #11 and immediately brought it up when the examiner questioned you about the response.
I do share your concerns about the examiner's qualifications. Seems pretty slim to me. I can say one thing; she's not a member of the American Polygraph Association. She doesn't qualify.
I have tried to separate the questions you were asked, and am having a hard time discerning the relevant and irrelevant ones. What type of job are you applying for? And I assume that the "application" is a different document than the "Personal History Questionnaire"?
I would have to agree with Batman regarding the driving under the influence issue. This must have bothered you more than you thought, as shown by the fact that you apparently responded to #11 and immediately brought it up when the examiner questioned you about the response.
I do share your concerns about the examiner's qualifications. Seems pretty slim to me. I can say one thing; she's not a member of the American Polygraph Association. She doesn't qualify.
I have tried to separate the questions you were asked, and am having a hard time discerning the relevant and irrelevant ones. What type of job are you applying for? And I assume that the "application" is a different document than the "Personal History Questionnaire"?
Posted by Guest
- Apr 18, 2003, 05:16 PMMy apologies for the previous post - I inadvertently posted before copying my response to the page.
Batman, I would like to address your commentary.
First: As you yourself define it, the polygraph is a "test". So, much like any other test I have taken in my life - driver's test, English test, Graduate entrance test, etc - I wanted to understand what I could expect and be prepared for all variables - what to bring, what I should wear, what to expect, even whether I should eat, drink, or take my medicine before the exam. Unfortunately, my assigned investigator has been completely unaccessible so I have to do all of the "research" myself.
Second: Long before I even came across this particular site I began the education process on polygraphy. It was only after reading some of the posts here did I really get a deep-rooted interest. Also, I assume you will be the head "goofball" because you were one of the few opinions that I actually paid particular interest to throughout my "research" - you see, I guess that you assume I am anti-polygraph, however, those words never left my mouth. I enjoy seeing and hearing from both sides of the coin whether I make my opinion known or not.
Third: I was no more concerned with the specific question about driving under the influence then, than I am now sitting in front of my PC. What did concern me however was the uneducated (she professed she had no college education) and inexperienced (after I asked about the "science" of polygraphy, she mentioned her three weeks of "intense" training) examiner who's personal bias and individual interpretation of the semantics "under the influence" would serve to render a decision about me. I wanted to clarify whether she defined "under the influence" as ever having a drink and then driving or if she was suggesting the denotation of the illegal state of being intoxicated while driving. If it were the latter, my answer was a resounding "No." I just wanted to close the gap so to speak and diminish any possible differentiation in definition that may have existed between myself and the way she defined the question.
Fourth: Countermeasures??? Who needs them? I told the truth and that will set me free - right?
It wasn't interesting that the examiner mentioned I had problems with the question about providing false info on your application...it was interesting that she mentioned I would have fared differently and my chart would have been scored differently (somehow?) if this was a criminal case versus a "civil case" (as she referred to it).
Not only was it not a "civil case", but more importantly, wouldn't the perception of deception and a lie be the same regardless of what type of "test" I was taking?
I welcome and appreciate any other intelligent and reasonable comments regarding the original post - thank you!
Batman, I would like to address your commentary.
First: As you yourself define it, the polygraph is a "test". So, much like any other test I have taken in my life - driver's test, English test, Graduate entrance test, etc - I wanted to understand what I could expect and be prepared for all variables - what to bring, what I should wear, what to expect, even whether I should eat, drink, or take my medicine before the exam. Unfortunately, my assigned investigator has been completely unaccessible so I have to do all of the "research" myself.
Second: Long before I even came across this particular site I began the education process on polygraphy. It was only after reading some of the posts here did I really get a deep-rooted interest. Also, I assume you will be the head "goofball" because you were one of the few opinions that I actually paid particular interest to throughout my "research" - you see, I guess that you assume I am anti-polygraph, however, those words never left my mouth. I enjoy seeing and hearing from both sides of the coin whether I make my opinion known or not.
Third: I was no more concerned with the specific question about driving under the influence then, than I am now sitting in front of my PC. What did concern me however was the uneducated (she professed she had no college education) and inexperienced (after I asked about the "science" of polygraphy, she mentioned her three weeks of "intense" training) examiner who's personal bias and individual interpretation of the semantics "under the influence" would serve to render a decision about me. I wanted to clarify whether she defined "under the influence" as ever having a drink and then driving or if she was suggesting the denotation of the illegal state of being intoxicated while driving. If it were the latter, my answer was a resounding "No." I just wanted to close the gap so to speak and diminish any possible differentiation in definition that may have existed between myself and the way she defined the question.
Fourth: Countermeasures??? Who needs them? I told the truth and that will set me free - right?
It wasn't interesting that the examiner mentioned I had problems with the question about providing false info on your application...it was interesting that she mentioned I would have fared differently and my chart would have been scored differently (somehow?) if this was a criminal case versus a "civil case" (as she referred to it).
Not only was it not a "civil case", but more importantly, wouldn't the perception of deception and a lie be the same regardless of what type of "test" I was taking?
I welcome and appreciate any other intelligent and reasonable comments regarding the original post - thank you!
Posted by Guest
- Apr 18, 2003, 04:00 PMQuote from: Batman on Apr 18, 2003, 02:16 PMGuest,
Polygraph isn't a test that you "prepare" for, you just go in and tell the truth. You listened to many of the goof balls on this site, and you studied to hard.
Interesting that the examiner mentioned you had problems with the question about providing false info on your application and you were able to pull out driving under the influence as the issue. Maybe you were a bit more concerned about this particular question then you want to lead folks to believe?
Ah well, should have used countermeasures.
Batman
Posted by Batman
- Apr 18, 2003, 02:16 PMGuest,
Polygraph isn't a test that you "prepare" for, you just go in and tell the truth. You listened to many of the goof balls on this site, and you studied to hard.
Interesting that the examiner mentioned you had problems with the question about providing false info on your application and you were able to pull out driving under the influence as the issue. Maybe you were a bit more concerned about this particular question then you want to lead folks to believe?
Ah well, should have used countermeasures.
Batman
Polygraph isn't a test that you "prepare" for, you just go in and tell the truth. You listened to many of the goof balls on this site, and you studied to hard.
Interesting that the examiner mentioned you had problems with the question about providing false info on your application and you were able to pull out driving under the influence as the issue. Maybe you were a bit more concerned about this particular question then you want to lead folks to believe?
Ah well, should have used countermeasures.
Batman
Posted by Guest
- Apr 16, 2003, 11:55 PMThis message has been removed at the poster's request.
--AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
--AntiPolygraph.org Administrator