- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by ne
- Aug 11, 2003, 12:41 PM
I passed my polygraph and they have started my BI. Thanks Marty and George!!!! 
One more question, the job I applied for a clearance may want me to move depending on the area is if I end up taking the job. Would I still have a top secret clearance if I pass my Background investigation even if I do not take the job??
Foe example, can i take another job and state that I have a top secret clearance??
Posted by ne
- Aug 11, 2003, 12:41 PM I passed my polygraph and they have started my BI. Thanks Marty and George!!!! One more question, the job I applied for a clearance may want me to move depending on the area is if I end up taking the job. Would I still have a top secret clearance if I pass my Background investigation even if I do not take the job??
Foe example, can i take another job and state that I have a top secret clearance??
Posted by ne
- Jul 19, 2003, 07:24 PMThanks!!!
I will post my results in two weeks to let the both of you know.
I will post my results in two weeks to let the both of you know.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 19, 2003, 03:55 PMMarty,
I agree that if NE had heard the phrase "other than what you told me..." during the first question series, then it would not have been unusual for him to have mentioned that he expected the question about stealing to be rephrased.
I also agree that it seems plausible, if not likely, that the polygrapher was attempting to help NE to pass by keeping the scope of that control question open.
I agree that if NE had heard the phrase "other than what you told me..." during the first question series, then it would not have been unusual for him to have mentioned that he expected the question about stealing to be rephrased.
I also agree that it seems plausible, if not likely, that the polygrapher was attempting to help NE to pass by keeping the scope of that control question open.
Posted by Marty
- Jul 19, 2003, 03:35 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 19, 2003, 03:11 PMHowever, when you told your polygrapher that you thought he was going to rephrase the question about stealing to, "Other than what you told me..." you may have tipped him off that you know more about polygraphy than you're supposed to.I don't think so. This phraseology is normal in pretest interviews and it would be expected that the examinee would recall this from the first test as well. I am suspicious that the examiner may well have left off the phrase, "Other than what you told me.." to elicit a stronger reaction to the control after personally concluding that the examinee may well have been completely honest on the prior, circumscribed, control. I suspect most polygraphers dread getting a DI on someone who simply is too honest.
QuoteI was speaking from the standpoint of persons facing a polygraph "test" when I wrote that I think "it is not in anyone's interest to remain ignorant of polygraph procedure -- including the key point that polygraphy is, in essence, merely a bamboozle designed to elicit admissions/confessions."
That's certainly a major part, especially on specific incident tests.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 19, 2003, 03:11 PMNE,
I agree with Marty; it looks like you probably passed. However, when you told your polygrapher that you thought he was going to rephrase the question about stealing to, "Other than what you told me..." you may have tipped him off that you know more about polygraphy than you're supposed to.
Marty,
You wrote in part:
I was speaking from the standpoint of persons facing a polygraph "test" when I wrote that I think "it is not in anyone's interest to remain ignorant of polygraph procedure -- including the key point that polygraphy is, in essence, merely a bamboozle designed to elicit admissions/confessions."
I agree with Marty; it looks like you probably passed. However, when you told your polygrapher that you thought he was going to rephrase the question about stealing to, "Other than what you told me..." you may have tipped him off that you know more about polygraphy than you're supposed to.
Marty,
You wrote in part:
QuoteTo the extent true admissions/confessions are produced, whether by bamboozlement, voodoo, or entrail reading, I quite disagree. This is one positive of the rather disagreeable process.
I was speaking from the standpoint of persons facing a polygraph "test" when I wrote that I think "it is not in anyone's interest to remain ignorant of polygraph procedure -- including the key point that polygraphy is, in essence, merely a bamboozle designed to elicit admissions/confessions."
Posted by Marty
- Jul 19, 2003, 01:53 PMQuote from: NE on Jul 19, 2003, 10:56 AMSo, you took the red pill Neo.... Yep, you read that correctly. Looks like you passed.
I guess the examiner wanted stong responses on my control questions right?
-Marty
Posted by NE
- Jul 19, 2003, 10:56 AMThanks George and Marty. You are right by reading your book I was able to see what the the control questions but I didn't know how to handle the questions once I made my minor admissions. The examiner said if my supervisor was aware that employees normally take supplies home than their agency can investigate this matter. THIS IS LIE RIGHT GEORGE?
He asked me have I ordered anything not needed for my job I say yes paper for scanning but I told him that I never taken anything home except pens and pencils. Eventually the subject came to an end and he told me that he didn't believe me. Once I was hooked up to the machine, you know that he made this one of my control questions. he gave me my set of three questions and the test was over. This was my second test because I had already passed the espionage part. So he unhooked me and as we were walking, the examiner said I had a strong response to the question about had I stole anything. I told him that I thought he was going to rephrase the question to besides what he told me minor admissions(child, and office supplies). But he did say he believe we got a conclusive result this time. I guess the examiner wanted stong responses on my control questions right?
He asked me have I ordered anything not needed for my job I say yes paper for scanning but I told him that I never taken anything home except pens and pencils. Eventually the subject came to an end and he told me that he didn't believe me. Once I was hooked up to the machine, you know that he made this one of my control questions. he gave me my set of three questions and the test was over. This was my second test because I had already passed the espionage part. So he unhooked me and as we were walking, the examiner said I had a strong response to the question about had I stole anything. I told him that I thought he was going to rephrase the question to besides what he told me minor admissions(child, and office supplies). But he did say he believe we got a conclusive result this time. I guess the examiner wanted stong responses on my control questions right?
Posted by Marty
- Jul 19, 2003, 05:06 AMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 19, 2003, 03:24 AMOne certainly hopes you are right. I am less sanguine.
Thus, what is seen here is perhaps not a good measure of our reading public's ability to grasp the material presented.
QuoteTo the extent true admissions/confessions are produced, whether by bamboozlement, voodoo, or entrail reading, I quite disagree. This is one positive of the rather disagreeable process.
I think a site warning, such as you suggested, is unwarranted, and that it is not in anyone's interest to remain ignorant of polygraph procedure -- including the key point that polygraphy is, in essence, merely a bamboozle designed to elicit admissions/confessions.
I am just pointing out that people should be forwarned that rather like taking Morpheous's red pill, there is no turning back after learning the truth. You can't unlearn it and it is especially problematic for people that choose the path of not using countermeasures.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 19, 2003, 03:24 AMMarty,
No doubt, some people who read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector will not absorb the material completely. We've tried to keep the language simple without being simplistic. I think the great majority of readers are not having problems understanding it. Note that the great majority (>95%) of those who download the book have not posted on this message board. Thus, what is seen here is perhaps not a good measure of our reading public's ability to grasp the material presented.
I think a site warning, such as you suggested, is unwarranted, and that it is not in anyone's interest to remain ignorant of polygraph procedure -- including the key point that polygraphy is, in essence, merely a bamboozle designed to elicit admissions/confessions.
No doubt, some people who read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector will not absorb the material completely. We've tried to keep the language simple without being simplistic. I think the great majority of readers are not having problems understanding it. Note that the great majority (>95%) of those who download the book have not posted on this message board. Thus, what is seen here is perhaps not a good measure of our reading public's ability to grasp the material presented.
I think a site warning, such as you suggested, is unwarranted, and that it is not in anyone's interest to remain ignorant of polygraph procedure -- including the key point that polygraphy is, in essence, merely a bamboozle designed to elicit admissions/confessions.
Posted by Marty
- Jul 19, 2003, 02:55 AMGeorge,
While I think your TLBTLD is well written, I am concerned that many who learn best through labs or traditional classroom instruction may not absorb the information completely. While the scientists at DOE have likely long understood the dance, I can't help but worry that many may learn just enough to reduce their fear of a control Q but not enough to effectively deploy CM's. Further, the people with enough incentive to investigate and completely understand polygraphy may be more likely to be the ones who are trying to deceive rather than just prevent a false positive.
George, you might consider a site warning that the information contained, unless completely read and understood, may increase the risk of an innocent person failing. If completely understood and CM's are not deployed, it may also increase the risk of an innocent failing since the polygrapher will not be able to create the required anxiety on the controls.
-Marty
While I think your TLBTLD is well written, I am concerned that many who learn best through labs or traditional classroom instruction may not absorb the information completely. While the scientists at DOE have likely long understood the dance, I can't help but worry that many may learn just enough to reduce their fear of a control Q but not enough to effectively deploy CM's. Further, the people with enough incentive to investigate and completely understand polygraphy may be more likely to be the ones who are trying to deceive rather than just prevent a false positive.
George, you might consider a site warning that the information contained, unless completely read and understood, may increase the risk of an innocent person failing. If completely understood and CM's are not deployed, it may also increase the risk of an innocent failing since the polygrapher will not be able to create the required anxiety on the controls.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 19, 2003, 02:29 AMNE,
No, you would not have failed based on the taking of minor office supplies. Your polygrapher's "getting mad" over your admission to taking pens and pencils was a show, a stock part of the con-artistry of the polygraph trade. The reason the polygrapher made such a big deal of your minor admissions was to steer you into a denial of having taken anything else, so that when you answered the question, "Other than what you told me, did you ever take anything that did not belong to you?" your denial would either be an outright lie or at least not completely true.
Your responses to this and other "control" questions were then compared with reactions to relevant questions.
No, you would not have failed based on the taking of minor office supplies. Your polygrapher's "getting mad" over your admission to taking pens and pencils was a show, a stock part of the con-artistry of the polygraph trade. The reason the polygrapher made such a big deal of your minor admissions was to steer you into a denial of having taken anything else, so that when you answered the question, "Other than what you told me, did you ever take anything that did not belong to you?" your denial would either be an outright lie or at least not completely true.
Your responses to this and other "control" questions were then compared with reactions to relevant questions.
Posted by NE
- Jul 19, 2003, 12:48 AMMY FIRST TEST I HAD INCONCLUSIVE AS WELL AND I USED COUNTERMEASURE. MY POLYGRAPH HE ASKED ME THE CONTROL QUESTION HAD I EVER STOLE ANTHING. I MADE MINOR ADMISSIONS FOR EXAMPLE WHEN I WAS A KID AND OFFICE SUPPLIES. I CURRENTLY WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT. THE EXAMINER GOT REALLY MAD SAYING IT WAS GOVERMENT PROPERTY AND ASKED ME TO NAME THE STUFF I HAD TAKEN AND DO MY SUPERVISOR KNOW. I TOLD HIM PROBABLY SO AND IT WAS PENS AND PENCILS. DO YOU THINK I FAILED BASED ON TAKING OFFICE SUPPLIES?? tHIS WAS THE ONLY QUESTION THAT SEEMED TO FIRE HIM UP!!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 02, 2003, 06:51 PMA senior polygrapher may have scored your chart as inconclusive, even if the polygrapher who administered the examination scored it as "no deception indicated."
Another possibility is that you may be suspected of having used countermeasures, in which case you are likely to be confronted during the re-test.
Another possibility is that you may be suspected of having used countermeasures, in which case you are likely to be confronted during the re-test.
Posted by neon225
- Jul 02, 2003, 06:37 PMI applied the methods on chapter3-4. After waiting for 3 weeks they called me to tell me that my test was inconclusive. The Polygrapher was nice and friendly, but I didn't fall for any tricks, as discribed in the chapters. What gives?