I'm just curious if any of you know whether or not past use of antidepressant medication disqualifies you from becoming a police officer (i notice the disclosure forms ask if you've used antidepressants).
Also: regarding the use of illicit drugs. I've tried cocaine once before and I've read in places this is an automatic disqualification in some jurisdictions. Since I've tried pot before I was thinking of only saying i did pot a couple times (although its closer to 25 times)
Since I'm going to be lying on the drug question about my experimentation with cocaine, I figured I might as well say I've never tried any types of drugs whatsoever even pot. (i'll use countermeasures regardless)
Is saying I've never even tried any drug before look too fake?
I realize they cannot tell i've used drugs because honestly it's been years, also I have a degree in toxicology and know the piss/blood/hair tests would not find any traces of drugs since it's been years for me.
Depends Ryan...just what jurisdiction did you plan on applying to....that could determine a lot of how you plan to approach this situation...let's see if we can plan out an manner to best help you and your situation
Ryan,
You shouldn't give out any more personal information on these message boards. It's not going to be too difficult to track down your identity if you provide a city, or a department where you live, or have applied. You've already given an email address, told us that you are unemployed, and your major course of study in college.......a major I might add that is probably not very common among police officer recruits.
There are many here on these boards that would like nothing more than to reveal your identity and get you DQ'ed. Let's be careful out there.......
Kona
lol thanks kona, you're a good man
Oops!....too late...I think we have a pretty good lead on Ryan...not that we are attempting to DQ him, but if his integrity is such that he flagrantly intends to use countermeasures (and appears to brag about it), he probably isn't someone who should wear a badge....gotta admit, I felt some concern for him about the anti-depressant meds...and the pscy boys would ptrobably give hi a pass on that...but as soonas he is caught (and he WILL be caught) using CM's, he will be DQ'd and the word will be spread far and wide.....ond once again, the advice that you folks hand out has "helped" another.....just what is wrong with telling the truth and demonstrating that what you have done is in your past....what is being examined is a person's intention to CONTINUE the behavior he acknowldges....lying about it gets you NOTHING.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 21, 2003, 05:47 PMbut as soonas he is caught (and he WILL be caught) using CM's, he will be DQ'd and the word will be spread far and wide.....ond once again, the advice that you folks hand out has "helped" another
Torpedo,
Just curious, how do you tell the difference between someone employing countermeasures, and say.....someone that is feeling extreme guilt about the same control question, but is still telling the truth? How can you tell the difference between someone puckering their asshole, and that same person having a reaction to your voice, and/or stress of the situation? Come on, you know the answer.......you can't tell for sure. You're living in a dreamworld if you think you can catch everyone using countermeasures. The only way you'd know for sure is if they confessed to it. I'd say your chances of catching a person using countermeasures are about one in two; the same percentage you would have flipping a coin and calling heads everytime. Please understand, I don't condone lying to an investigator about the relevant questions, but I certainly know first hand why a person would use countermeasures to ensure passing. See below.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 21, 2003, 05:47 PMjust what is wrong with telling the truth and demonstrating that what you have done is in your past....
Absolutely nothing. The only problem is that there are many people here on these boards that have done exactly that, and were found to be deceptive. Therein lies the problem.......police departments use the polygraph, and believe that it is the holy grail. There is no telling how many honest people have been DQ'ed simply by the results of the polygraph. Maybe George has some stats. As long as supply exceeds demand with regard to police recruit applicants, a high percentage of polygraph DQs will continue to be deemed acceptable by the police departments that utilize this quackery.
Personally, I believe that the polygraph examiners I dealt with were skilled interrogators, and really didn't need the voodoo science to get to the truth. It's a nice intimidation tool to extract the truth or a confession, but I think it should be saved for use on criminals, not job applicants.
Regards,
Kona
Torpedo
I have a question for you.
Are you saying that if an examinee told the exact truth on all questions, both control and relavent and the chart is straight lined, that he would pass? Are you saying that polygraphers don't expect lies on controls?
Enlighten me Bud. I am still the seeker of knowledge.
Kona, perhaps you will understand, then again, perhaps you won't...it matters not to me, suffice it to say that I am every bit as confident that I will be able to detect most, if not all (if you care to gamble) of any countermeasures that you might throw at me. My experience and attention to the training that has been provided to me and becoming knowledgeable of what countermeasures people can, and will throw at me enable me to take the position that I have and espouse the confidence that I do. I am alert to the possibility that there is a truthful person who might end up taking my polygraph and I work as hard as I am able to ensure that he is treated fairly and that my examinatin is accurate. You trumpet the successes of those who have beaten the polygraph...I am sure there are some...but you seem to forget the ones who have NOT beaten the polygraph and have told the examiners....in explicit detail.... what they attempted...where they learned it, how they tried to become expert at it...but it just did not work...you just might be surprised at the number of people who fall into this category. You might be surprised to know that I too would prefer that polygraph was not needed for jobapplicants, but the sad thing is that it IS necessary. Perhaps you my friend are living in that same dreamworld if you think that everyone who seeks to wear the badge...or is wearing the badge is not inclined to step over the line. It is a sad but true fact that the many, many trie and dedicated officers of the law are and will continue to be infiltrated by those who want to use their position for some other reason. Until a better "mousetrap" comes along, I for one am glad that the polygraph is there....for if for no other reason, it does tend to keep honest people just that honest and causes the others to think twice. It is an valuable "tool" (as you call it)....and it works.
Twoblock, please review your Psychology 101. A persons TENDS to focus their concern on that which poses the greatest threat to their well being. If a person is appropriately socialized and is lying about a relevant issue, he will focus his concern on that issue. The "flatlines" to which you refer are quite unlikely, but if they were to occur, it would be called an inconclusive result.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 21, 2003, 11:39 PMsuffice it to say that I am every bit as confident that I will be able to detect most, if not all (if you care to gamble) of any countermeasures that you might throw at me. My experience and attention to the training that has been provided to me and becoming knowledgeable of what countermeasures people can, and will throw at me enable me to take the position that I have and espouse the confidence that I do.
Great. Confidence is a good thing to have. I'm equally confident that I can employ countermeasures, and you won't have a clue....other than a 50% chance of guessing. The only way you'd ever know for sure is if I admitted to using them. I'm 1-1 with the total honesty approach (no countermeasures), and 1-0 with countermeasures (truth on relevant questions).
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 21, 2003, 11:39 PMI am alert to the possibility that there is a truthful person who might end up taking my polygraph and I work as hard as I am able to ensure that he is treated fairly and that my examinatin is accurate.
I don't doubt for a second that you approach your job as a professional, and that you treat people fairly. Unfortunately, the outcome of your polygraph examination isn't always accurate. What happened to the time I was totally honest (no countermeasures) and was found deceptive? I'm sure my examiner was every bit as professional and knowledgeable as you, but somehow the truth did not prevail. What do you have to say to all the false positive examinees out there??
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 21, 2003, 11:39 PMYou trumpet the successes of those who have beaten the polygraph...I am sure there are some...but you seem to forget the ones who have NOT beaten the polygraph and have told the examiners....in explicit detail.... what they attempted...
You just made my point for me.....the only reason you know for a fact that they used countermeasures is that they ADMITTED IT. Otherwise, get out your quarter and flip it......same percentage.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 21, 2003, 11:39 PMPerhaps you my friend are living in that same dreamworld if you think that everyone who seeks to wear the badge...or is wearing the badge is not inclined to step over the line.
Torpedo, my dreamworld comment was directed at your claim that countermeasures are so easily detectable, not the fact that some people are inclined to step over the line.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 21, 2003, 11:39 PMIt is an valuable "tool" (as you call it)....and it works.
Agreed. It is an invaluable tool for interrogation and intimidation. Whether it works or not is debatable. When I told the truth and didn't use countermeasures, it didn't work so well. With countermeasures and the truth, it worked like a champ! What a great piece of gear! Polygraphs for all my friends!
Cheers,
Kona
I assume then that you have secured your job as a LEO....even though you never really came out and said so.....what a great victory for you and what a sad day for all those who you will be charged to protect and serve.....maybe someday you will see the error of your ways...I don't expect you to admit it....perhaps just change your ways and realize that you won a battle....but now you must answer to yourself! Good luck Kona.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 22, 2003, 01:08 AMI assume then that you have secured your job as a LEO....even though you never really came out and said so.....what a great victory for you and what a sad day for all those who you will be charged to protect and serve...
Torpedo,
Yes, I have job offers from two different law enforcement agencies. I am currently waiting for the next academy class to start.
So it's going to be a sad day for those citizens that I will be charged to protect and serve? Why is that? Because I told the truth on all my relevant questions, and used countermeasures on control questions? Oh, you're right.....I am a despicable dirtbag. I'm not worthy to serve on the force with the likes of you. What an arrogant horse's ass. You sit there in your ivory tower of purity and cast judgement down on the lowly masses. I'll just bet you were the perfect candidate when you applied to the force; never lied, never did anything out of line, and absolutely came clean about every minute detail to your BI. Oh please......save the fantasy for your polygraph buddies (I mean saints) in the lunchroom.
Answer this, what do you have to say to all the people who told the truth out there, but were DQ'ed because of your infallible machine? Not much, I imagine. As long as there is a long line of applicants, then they are acceptable cannonfodder, so to speak.....right? As long as it wasn't YOU that was denied the job, then there is no problem, right?
Maybe sometime in the future you will have to undergo a polygraph exam for that big promotion in your department. Wouldn't it be poetic justice if you were found to be deceptive? I can just hear you now, "but sir, I swear on a stack of Bibles that I am telling the truth." "Sorry Detective Torpedo, you're going to have to return to the parking enforcement division. We're really sorry, but you know as well as I do that the polygraph is unbeatable, and it is obvious that you are hiding something." Well, one can only wish.......
Cheers, and wishing you the best in your LE career and sainthood.
Kona
Ryan,
Congratulations on putting your drug use behind you. That said, AntiPolygraph.org was created not to help liars beat the polygraph, but to help the truthful to protect themselves against the random error associated with this invalid test. If, as you indicate, you intend to lie in response to relevant questions, you've come to the wrong place to seek advice on how to shade your lies.
You may well employ countermeasures and beat the polygraph (Torpedo's empty blustering aside). But your posts here point to a much more serious problem.
You have posted using the e-mail address "himmler88@yahoo.com." Heinrich Himmler (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler) was one of the main architects of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. And "88" is neo-nazi shorthand (http://www.tolerance.org/rthas/section4_1_2.jsp) for "Heil Hitler" ("H" being the 8th letter of the alphabet).
It is the duty of law enforcement officers to treat all persons fairly, without regard to race, religion, or ethnic background. Your apparent neo-nazi association casts serious doubt on your suitability for a career in law enforcement.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Dec 22, 2003, 04:55 AMYou have posted using the e-mail address "himmler88@yahoo.com." Heinrich Himmler (http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler) was one of the main architects of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. And "88" is neo-nazi shorthand (http://www.tolerance.org/rthas/section4_1_2.jsp) for "Heil Hitler" ("H" being the 8th letter of the alphabet).
George,
Amazing! Out here 88 is the name for an asian grocery chain that has a great seafood selection. I am told it means "good luck" in Chinese. Had no idea about the Nazi connection.
-Marty
Kona, why do you call yourself those names...I certainly did not call you any of them...lest I be accused of a wrongful attack....it seems to be that there is a psychological factor at work here...where a person so consumed with guilt atttempts to project his guilt by admonishing himself in an effort to punish himself where no one else can (they don't know about your behavior....only you do). As a matter of fact, I did divulge everything that I believed needed to be told in light of the fact that I was seeking a law enforcement job. In my case, none, and I mean NONE, of the transgressions were of such magnitude that they would have DQ'd me from my job...and the fact that I chose to divulge what I had done sent a clear message to not only the examiner but those reviewing my application that I was an honest individual....I never intended to go on the attack to you Kona....for I know of others who fit into your category and wear the badge....they just have to be willing to live with themselves. I hope you have seen the error of your past behaviors and NEVER find the need or desire to revisit those behaviors....there might still be hope for you Kona....but in the future, don't be so aggresively defensive....there is no need!
George, you may be correct, but isn't that taking a bit of a leap in accusing Ryan of the neo-nazi affiliation that you have?...Marty is correct "88"is in fact a Chinese symbol for good luck....you might be correct in your assessmen of Ryan's background, but goodness, you are doing the same thing of which you accuse us pro-polygraphers!
P.S. we already know Ryan...and will be discussing his future soon.
Actually i have no racist associations personally i needed to add numbers to my email name since himmler was taken. 88 was easy to remember. No nazi No good luck.
That aside, I've talked to some of my LEO friends about my disclosure issues. I'm just going to fully disclose since my past afterall is years behind me and sounds foregiveable. I don't need to have some old skeletons in my closet come out later in my life and haunt my employment.
I wasn't asking you guys to help me lie, I was asking advice on my disclosure form. I'm sure you've all wondered whether saying you smoked that joint would compromise your chances of getting the job. I was just wondering whether or not the decision to take that puff when I was a teenager would screw me over for life.
Anyway I'm about to go drop it off, Monday morning with the truth, so now I guess I will only experience the poly if my past is acceptable. So if I get a poly then I will be telling the truth. If I am found deceptive there is going to be hell to pay lol. I've read on this forum too many truth tellers get labelled deceptive.
I've come to the decision that i'm going to be myself, admit my faults, if you don't want me then leave me. I'm making this decision fully aware that I could beat the poly if had chose to lie. The polygraph had nothing to do with scaring me into full disclosure, it was something I decided was right.
Now I'm going to be right pissed off if the poly thinks i'm being deceptive.
Ryan
Minutes before posting the message cited below, "Ryan" had posted a different message, in which he asserted that the 88 in in his e-mail address was for "good luck," stated that he was going in for his polygraph examination "today," and would post the results when it was over. Shortly after posting, however, "Ryan" deleted that message and replaced it with the one cited below. Caveat lector.
Quote from: Ryan on Dec 22, 2003, 01:14 PMActually i have no racist associations personally i needed to add numbers to my email name since himmler was taken. 88 was easy to remember.
That aside, I've talked to some of my LEO friends about my disclosure issues. I'm just going to fully disclose since my past afterall is years behind me and foregiveable. I don't need to have some old skeletons in my closet come out later in my life and haunt my employment.
I wasn't asking you guys to help me lie, I was asking advice on my disclosure form. Anyway I'm about to go drop it off, Monday morning with the truth, so now I guess I will only experience the poly if my past is forgiveable. So if I get a poly then I will be telling the truth. If I am found deceptive there is going to be hell to pay lol. I've read on this forum too many truth tellers get labelled deceptive.
Torpedo
Psychiatry students learn how to redirect those concerns and to focus in another direction.
Let me give you this scenario: I am taking a poly for LE. I tell the polygrapher that, in my young days on the farm, I was the ultimate watermellon steeler because of my ability to vault high fenses and heft the biggest watermellon in the field. Other than that, I have not stolen anything. The truth.
The questioning:
Is your name _______________ ? Yes
Do you live in _______________ ? Yes
Other than what you told me, have you ever stolen anything____________ ? No
Have you ever passed secret information to and agent of a foreign government_____ ? No
Do you know of anyone who has passed secret information to an agent of a foreign government? No
I have answered all questions truthfully and the chart readings are the same on all questions. You are actually going to deem me inconclusive? What is your reasoning why I didn't pass? You can't say countermeasures because there isn't a spike anywhere.
This shoots the hell out of you people's statement "tell the truth and you will do o.k."
Administrator is right and a tattle tale i might add LOL. My original intention was to come back later today praising about how i lied and passed. I knew it would get a debate going. I then decided against the post. But I had some explaining to do after Administrator ratted me out.
Ryan
Quote from: Ryan on Dec 22, 2003, 01:14 PMActually i have no racist associations personally i needed to add numbers to my email name since himmler was taken. 88 was easy to remember. No nazi No good luck.
Then why did an e-mail message I received from you include "heinrich himmler" in the "From:" header?
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 22, 2003, 12:34 PMKona, why do you call yourself those names...I certainly did not call you any of them...lest I be accused of a wrongful attack...
You've got to be kidding me. You said that it was a sad day for the citizens that I will be sworn to protect. What do you call that, a compliment? Let's call a spade a spade; that comment was an off handed swipe at my personal integrity, and I didn't appreciate it. Pardon me for being defensive.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 22, 2003, 12:34 PMit seems to be that there is a psychological factor at work here...where a person so consumed with guilt atttempts to project his guilt by admonishing himself in an effort to punish himself where no one else can (they don't know about your behavior....only you do).
Oh brother......Dr. Torpedo, do me a favor and put the Psych 101 textbook back in the bookcase where it belongs. No guilt here. I just did what I had to in order to pass you infallible machine. I think I'll be able to sleep at night. You see, based on my past experience with the polygraph, telling the truth WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH. I just had to tweek my physiological responses on questions that you WANTED me to lie on anyway. On all the relevant questions, I told the truth. Has this penetrated your brain housing group yet? Your pseudo science failed miserably at what it was supposed to accomplish, and I wasn't willing to take the chance of failing a second time. So now I'm the bad guy in your eyes for protecting myself against this quackery.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 22, 2003, 12:34 PMIn my case, none, and I mean NONE, of the transgressions were of such magnitude that they would have DQ'd me from my job...and the fact that I chose to divulge what I had done sent a clear message to not only the examiner but those reviewing my application that I was an honest individual..
Well whoop de doo!!! Guess what? I told the truth on my background package also. I didn't have any history of criminal activity, or drug use, or alcohol abuse, or have a secret Jeffrey Dahmer worship room in my basement. There are lots of good, honest people out there that have told the total truth during their BI. I'll ask this question for the THIRD TIME to you: What do you have to say to all the applicants out there that told the truth during their polygraph exam (me, for example), and were STILL found to be deceptive??? Please answer this for me.
Torpedo, you're no different than a lot of people that have told the truth here on these boards. You aren't anything special for having been an honest man. The only difference is that you were LUCKY you didn't experience any problems with the polygraph, and were offered the job. Otherwise, you might be one of many that were found deceptive, and obviously "hiding something."
Cheers,
Kona
PS Have you read the NAS report?
Wow!!!....so defensive.....in the spirit of the holidays, I find no need to respond to your tirade...chill Kona....I am sure you are a good person...just a little misdirected....as I have said before, good luck to you. Maybe we can talk more later after you have calmed down a mite and can engage in an intelligent conversation and not one where you are spewing venomous spittle! Have a great holiday Kona and the rest of the Anti Polygraph folks!
Personally, I did not care for the control questions that you claim were used. I can see how they would not "work"...but a lot depends on the conduct of the pre-test. I still have to say though that lacking any significant response in either the relevant or the control questions would cause me to call your examination inconclusive...and thereby require additional testing. It was not a matter of you "passing" or "failing"...there just wasn't adequate data to allow me to make a call and rather than force a call (and perhaps make an error), the proper thing to do is to call it inconclusive. KNowing what is a response and what isn't means a lot. You talk about something that psychiatry students are taught....I have to say I am not familiar with the concept you discussed, but PSYCHOLOGY students are keenly aware of the concept of situational adaptation....or focusing their concerns on those issues (mmediate or in the past) that pose the greatest threat to their well being....but STILL it depends on the adequacy of a person's socialization.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 22, 2003, 06:58 PMWow!!!....so defensive.....in the spirit of the holidays, I find no need to respond to your tirade...chill Kona....I am sure you are a good person...just a little misdirected....as I have said before, good luck to you. Maybe we can talk more later after you have calmed down a mite and can engage in an intelligent conversation and not one where you are spewing venomous spittle! Have a great holiday Kona and the rest of the Anti Polygraph folks!
That's wonderful Torpedo........when you can't, or won't answer a valid question that is relevant to this discussion, you call me "defensive," or unable to engage in an intelligent conversation. Where did you learn that, in the Debate Club at your local Junior College, or from watching Bill Clinton on TV?
Ok, here I am........very calm, kicking back in the lotus position, in my feng shue correct office, just being mellow, my yin and my yang in balance, listening to Ravi Shankar on the CD, sipping herbal tea, and waiting patiently for an answer to my question: What do you have to say to the many people here on these message boards that were 100% honest on their polygraph, and were still found to be deceptive? How could this happen with your incredibly accurate piece of machinery?
Oh, and BTW......Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanza, Festivus, New Year to you too.
Cheers,
Kona
I am soooooooooo glad that you have taken hold of yourself and returned to a quieter, more serene Kona....breathe in...breathe out.....repeat after me....I AM calm...I AM calm....now to respond to your questions...and I have to ask you to please put on your common sense hat my friend. First by the very tone of your questions, you assert that ALL those who have this incredible complaint of being treated unfairly were (in your words) "100% honest". Gotta tell you my friend, while not impossible...that is highly improbable....you see it wouldn't make for ANY conversation if they said that they were "almost 100% honest" now would it? You are making the assumption that they were in fact being 100% honest because...let's see now....because they told you so.....isn't that just a tad bit naive on your part....now for the part that may hurt...no one has ever said that the polygraph is perfect...it isn't...in fact, I am not sure that short of spiritual dieities that there is anything that is perfect. Think about that a while my friend...we will talk later.
Torpedo
I did not claim those questions were actually used. That was a made-up scenario. I guess, since these wern't good control question, it just shows how little I know about the polygraph. I strongly believe, however, that if one tells the total truth, then that machine should pass one. If it could actually distinguish between truth and lies then there would be no inconclusive. I believe there is a right or wrong. No in-between. Some times there may be a fine line between the two but damnit, there should be a definate conclusion. There should be NO second test. No chance to jack up a person for failure. Isn't this where you use psych 101?
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 22, 2003, 10:11 PMYou are making the assumption that they were in fact being 100% honest because...let's see now....because they told you so.....
Ok Torpedo, fair enough. Let's just talk about me. How do you respond to me, when I tell you that I passed a polygraph telling the truth, without using countermeasures.......and then a month later with a different police agency fail the polygraph using the complete honesty method with no countermeasures? How is this possible? What do you say to me as a job applicant? Sorry pal, you're obviously hiding something, and I think you are lying, or ...... you might be telling the truth, but we just can't offer you the job.
Thanks,
Kona
Still in a transcendentally meditated state.
Kona, my friend, you really lack a lot of knowledge about polygraph...and that concerns me because aren't you one of the folks who are freely passing information to others about the polygraph, what to do, etc.. I do not mean to be insulting, but you fail to consider the limitless number of variables that exists out there. Most regretably, from my point of view, is that far too many states have withdrawn their polygraph regulations. It might come as a surprise to you, but these states that have either repealed their laws, or never enacted them, it is NOT because the procedure doesn't work (despite what you have been told), polygraph licensing is NOT a cash cow to many jurisdictions and it simply costs too much to administer. I would very much like to see a federal licensing regulation and establishment of federal standards to which all examiners and their schools were required to adhere. You do not know how troubling it is for legitimate examiners (George won't like that word) to see examiner on some of the TV tabloid shows and those who "perform" in states where there is no regulation. Yes,even police departments employ examiners where there are no laws and their training may be less than desireable. I honestly believe that when examiners who lack the requisite skils that all examiners SHOULD possess become known, and there are addressable issues, organizations such as the APA and the AAPP DO take action. They too are limited to when an examiner is a member, but at the very least correspondence is sent to the offending department so that perhaps proper training can be provided. You seem like a reasonable person, think about what I have said and perhaps we can talk again. I think you would want your fellow officers to be honest...it is just the right thing to do. I wish there was something PERFECT to do these jobs of screening,but right now, it would seem that polygraph performs that mission....sometimes we like it, sometimes we (yes, even examiners are digusted at some of the antics of those who profess to do the same work as we do). If you prefer to engage in a private discusssion, feel free to leave me a message.
Torpedo,
The problem with polygraphy is not with quality control and industry regulation. None of that makes one whit of difference with a technique(s) that has no diagnostic validity under any circumstances. In fact, the comedians who do polygraphy on television are somewhat less dangerous (more widely and easily recognized by the public for what they are) than those like you who offer some pretense of knowing what you are doing...
"88" was easy to remember? You just happened to have thought of that out of nowhere, and it just happens to be the 8th letter of the alphabet, and also means good luck? Most people would have chosen their year of birth.
The polygraph can be beaten. I did it. I did it without any training other than reading TLBTLD. The polygrapher was, by his own admission, a retired FBI polygrapher and a current polygrapher instructor for the State of California. Before my examination, he told me that he was trained in the dection of countermeasures and any attempt to use countermeasures would result in permament disqualification from State employment and from any agency that inquires as to my disqualification from the State. I used countermeasures, and withheld the entire truth on some of the relevent questions; ie drug use history. I passed the polygraph and I have been employed with the State for over two years now.
Simple fact: The polygraph can be beaten and beaten with very little training. Nothing can change that fact. I did it and I know others who have done it.
Merry Christmas,
John Doe
Dear John Doe....either you are fibbing...or have been fibbed to!...While the examiner you spoke with may very well have been a retired FBI examiner....there simply is no such thing as "a current polygraph instructor for the State of California". That implies that he works (or has worked for a state sponsored school....of which there is only one. While there are a number of schools in California, the only state- sponsored school is in Texas for the Department of Public Safety.
perhaps he went to the Ed Gelb School of Bloating Your CV, eh?
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 25, 2003, 08:57 PMDear John Doe....either you are fibbing...or have been fibbed to!...While the examiner you spoke with may very well have been a retired FBI examiner....there simply is no such thing as "a current polygraph instructor for the State of California". That implies that he works (or has worked for a state sponsored school....of which there is only one. While there are a number of schools in California, the only state- sponsored school is in Texas for the Department of Public Safety.
Guest, I certainly acknowledge that is possible....but wouldn't it also be possible that Mr. Doe is.......let me see now....LYING?????? (not that anyone on these boards....pro or anti.... have engaged in that practice before. What is fair is fair.....you spin the bottle and it stops wherever!
Torpedo,
It's relatively irrelevant as to whether either Mr. Doe or the alleged "retired FBI polygrapher" was "fibbing." Mr. Doe's understanding of the latter gentleman's pedigree is rather unimportant...apparently he (as well as who knows how many other people) has "beaten" the polygraph with very little effort and training. No one with a grain of sense does or will believe your idle claims that you and your colleagues are able to RELIABLY (not get an occasional admission from the naive through the rather arbitrary and capricious brow beating of large numbers of examinees) detect countermeasures. If you really believe you can do so (yeah right!), prove it!
Quote from: Anonymous on Dec 26, 2003, 01:28 PMTorpedo,
It's relatively irrelevant as to whether either Mr. Doe or the alleged "retired FBI polygrapher" was "fibbing." Mr. Doe's understanding of the latter gentleman's pedigree is rather unimportant...apparently he (as well as who knows how many other people) has "beaten" the polygraph with very little effort and training. No one with a grain of sense does or will believe your idle claims that you and your colleagues are able to RELIABLY (not get an occasional admission from the naive through the rather arbitrary and capricious brow beating of large numbers of examinees) detect countermeasures. If you really believe you can do so (yeah right!), prove it!
I second this. Torpedo, you can settle this issue of whether countermeasures can be detected right now by taking up the
Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge. It's fun, it's easy and it's simple! How about it? Care to put your money where your mouth is?
Skeptic, Annoymous...forget it....you will not twist this issue (or me) around...as is so very typical of SOME on this board fropm your camp (not all mind you....some ascribe to engage in worhtwhile discussions and others just take shots. George, can you see my point...I have no desire to PROVE anything....continually throwing challenges out will not prove anything. I accept the fact that even if I did accept the challenge, and it were to come out in my favor.....there would be some who would say that it wasn't done right....so what is the point. I will be glad to discuss...but forget these adolescent challenges
...and I can't hrelp but ask.....just what is meant by "relatively irrelevant".....is that anyhing like partially pregnant?
Torpedo, I do appreciate your efforts and time that you spend with us on this site. You seem to be a gentleman and an educated one at that. I do not understand why you don't seem to accept the FACT that many people do routinely beat lie detector tests. I know it is easy for someone to post on a message board about a so called experience, but I have to admit that I too know of 3 police officers who have totally beaten their polygraph exams. Two of the officers work for the Dallas police department and one of them works for the Plano, TX p.d. All I can say is that this is the 100% truth. If you choose not to believe, that is your choice. The truth often hurts. You should read all of the testimoials on Doug Williams' site. I seriously doubt that they are all fabrications.
Torpedo sure knows how to push the right buttons. He posts once and at least ten of you feel compelled to set him straight. He is just like a rooster in a hen house - he crows once and all you hens sure do cackle.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 26, 2003, 05:17 PMSkeptic, Annoymous...forget it....you will not twist this issue (or me) around...as is so very typical of SOME on this board fropm your camp (not all mind you....some ascribe to engage in worhtwhile discussions and others just take shots. George, can you see my point...I have no desire to PROVE anything....continually throwing challenges out will not prove anything. I accept the fact that even if I did accept the challenge, and it were to come out in my favor.....there would be some who would say that it wasn't done right....so what is the point. I will be glad to discuss...but forget these adolescent challenges
Torpedo,
Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942) is hardly "adolescent." It is quite serious, and was first offered at a public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph:
http://antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml#challenge
You would have those who visit AntiPolygraph.org to believe that you and other polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures. For example, earlier in this message thread, you wrote:
Quote...as soonas he is caught (and he WILL be caught) using CM's...
and
Quote...I am every bit as confident that I will be able to detect most, if not all (if you care to gamble) of any countermeasures that you might throw at me. My experience and attention to the training that has been provided to me and becoming knowledgeable of what countermeasures people can, and will throw at me enable me to take the position that I have and espouse the confidence that I do....
However, the fact that not just you, but
no one in the polygraph community has been willing to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge (698 days and counting) suggests that you and your fellow polygraphers are not nearly as confident in your ability to detect countermeasures as you would have others believe.
The polygraph community has to date offered
no evidence whatsoever that it has any ability to reliably detect countermeasures. Indeed,
the federal polygraph community stonewalled the National Academy of Sciences with regard to purported federal countermeasure studies as it conducted its review of the scientific evidence on the polygraph. The National Academy of Sciences report notes at p. 118 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html/118.html):
Quote...we were advised by officials from DOE and DoDPI that there was information relevant to our work, classified at the secret level, particularly with regard to polygraph countermeasures. In order to review such information, several committee members and staff obtained national security clearances at the secret level. We were subsequently told by officials of the Central Intelligence Agency and DoDPI that there were no completed studies of polygraph countermeasures at the secret level; we do not know whether there are any such studies at a higher level of classification....
And Paul M. Menges, who teaches the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's countermeasure course for polygraphers has gone so far as to suggest that making countermeasure information available to the public (such as AntiPolygraph.org is doing) should be outlawed:
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029.shtml
So why should anyone believe you (and your fellow polygraph operators) when you claim that you can reliably detect countermeasures?
I see this as a circular argument....you will not relent, and I will not change my views. I believe I can catch those who elect to use countermeasures....you believe otherwise....I CHOOSE not to take you up on your challenege...I recognize Drew's academic credentials, but he too has tired of the back and forth banter...that much is fairly evident to me. My reference to adolescent challenges is the "put up or shut up"approach that your followers assume. I guess the best one can hope for is that we agree to disagree...period.
Torpedo,
There is no circular argument here. A circular argument is one that makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument.
Rather, what we see here is your (and the polygraph community's) utter failure to support with evidence your claimed ability to detect countermeasures.
Torpedo:
You wrote:
I recognize Drew's academic credentials, but he too has tired of the back and forth banter...that much is fairly evident to me.
(sorry my computer skills aren't good enough to do the type of pastes George M and other more frequent posters do).
How do you know Dr. Richardson no longer supports the polygraph challenge he made to the National Academy of Sciences? Notwithstanding your opining here, I predict he will be on this thead shortly confirming he's willing to carry out his challenge.
Quote from: Skeptic on Dec 26, 2003, 02:47 PM
I second this. Torpedo, you can settle this issue of whether countermeasures can be detected right now by taking up the Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge. It's fun, it's easy and it's simple! How about it? Care to put your money where your mouth is?
Skeptic,
"Fun?" well it would be for the observers. "Easy and simple?" I don't think so. Drew's challenge, far from being the childish taunt some polygraphers have stated, is not simple and requires serious work to set up protocols that each side can agree on as providing statistically significant results - a non-trivial task. Drew's challenge would require significant resources (mostly time and thoughtful preparation) to execute. It would be much more elucidating if funding could be arranged and experienced polygraphers recruited.
-Marty
They can't take the challenge because they have doubt and fear being disproved. Its like if somehow you find out there is no God, you start questioning your existance, maybe go into a deep depression, kill yourself, etc... It wouldn't be a pleasant experience to find out the idol of your worship was a fraud. Hell, they may actually have to find something honest to do, but probably just move on to another scheme in which they can instill fear in others by using deceit and scare tactics.
Quote from: n0mad on Dec 27, 2003, 03:45 PMThey can't take the challenge because they have doubt and fear being disproved. Its like if somehow you find out there is no God, you start questioning your existance, maybe go into a deep depression, kill yourself, etc... It wouldn't be a pleasant experience to find out the idol of your worship was a fraud. Hell, they may actually have to find something honest to do, but probably just move on to another scheme in which they can instill fear in others by using deceit and scare tactics.
I think polygraphers believe in what they are doing. Newton believed in Alchemy. Exponents of Facilitated Communication believe in their technology. The medical establishment long believed ulcers could not be caused by a bacterium.
Things change.
I think polygraphers believe they can often detect CMs. It may even be true for some kinds of CMs. The issue of CM detection isn't subject to the uncertainties of base truth like the CQT. I suspect many pass using CMs but I suspect CM users are also sometimes detected. The knowledge (as opposed to use) of CMs could also be subject to the CIT, the type of test ascribed the highest (only?) validity.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Dec 27, 2003, 03:38 PM
Skeptic,
"Fun?" well it would be for the observers. "Easy and simple?" I don't think so. Drew's challenge, far from being the childish taunt some polygraphers have stated, is not simple and requires serious work to set up protocols that each side can agree on as providing statistically significant results - a non-trivial task. Drew's challenge would require significant resources (mostly time and thoughtful preparation) to execute. It would be much more elucidating if funding could be arranged and experienced polygraphers recruited.
Marty,
I stand corrected, although I hope my light-hearted tone was taken for what it was, and not as an attempt to belittle the challenge. Nontheless, the fact that polygraphers en masse have utterly refused to even discuss taking up a challenge that could put the issue to rest and provide a solid boost to their profession (provided detection were as easy as they claim) should be taken as speaking volumes regarding the accuracy of their boasts -- or at least, their confidence in said boasts.
Skeptic
Skeptic,
Any ideas what size grant it would take to put Drew's challenge into a publishable work? What institutions to funnel it through? A properly funded, peer reviewed, scientific study would really be ideal.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Dec 27, 2003, 11:50 PMSkeptic,
Any ideas what size grant it would take to put Drew's challenge into a publishable work? What institutions to funnel it through? A properly funded, peer reviewed, scientific study would really be ideal.
-Marty
Actually, I would think most psychology departments at major universities would be more than capable of setting up and carrying through such a study. The major issues would be the study design, which would likely be rather standard psychology fare (double-blind, etc.).
Getting the results into a reputable journal would be more a matter of time than anything (assuming it's well done).
Skeptic
Skeptic,
Any idea how much of a grant would be required to do a quality study? I'm not an academic, I went into the private sector (not gov related) so while I've very much enjoyed spending time at Millikan and UCSD's tech library as part of the R&D I've done, I'm clueless as to the practices in the credentialed, non-profit world.
TIA
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Dec 28, 2003, 02:23 AMSkeptic,
Any idea how much of a grant would be required to do a quality study? I'm not an academic, I went into the private sector (not gov related) so while I've very much enjoyed spending time at Millikan and UCSD's tech library as part of the R&D I've done, I'm clueless as to the practices in the credentialed, non-profit world.
TIA
-Marty
That, I would not know, as I've never done grantwriting. I do recall, during my Psychology undergrad days, that undergrad Psych majors were required, as part of "intro to Psychology 101", to participate in ongoing Psychology studies. This was a relatively small Psychology department, yet it had multiple studies going on the scale you seem to envision. So I would imagine we're talking $50,000 or perhaps considerably less, mostly to fund research assistants for a year or two. If the department wanted to set up a permanent polygraph research lab, it might cost more (for equipment and space, etc.). An informal study with all volunteers, of course, could be done for the price of the equipment.
Of greater consideration would be the design of the study, to avoid confounds that the polygraph community would claim regarding the "reality" of the study conditions. Since most of us seem to agree that "fear of consequences" is the main factor in the functioning of the polygraph, one would need to set up a situation in which the subjects felt concern that the detection of countermeasures would have real consequences for them. At the same time, you'd need to tread an ethical line regarding deception of the subjects.
On the other hand, it might be interesting to compare such results with those from subjects who felt they had nothing to lose. This second part could be considered a "baseline" for the detection of countermeasures.
You'd also need to lay out beforehand that the polygraph examiner was only allowed to judge the presence of countermeasures based upon chart recordings, not upon beating a confession out of an examinee. No interrogations allowed -- we're looking for the actual performance of the device, after all, not for how often an examinee can be made to confess...
Skeptic
George, perhaps I am incorrect and you will no doubt enlighten me. When I spoke of a circular argument, my intetion was to point out that you have your position and I have mione...and apparently neither of us CHOOSE to change or modify our position. My understanding of a circular argument is:
A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument
Forgive me for being less than intelligent (in your eyes), butit would seem to me that I am making a conclusion and you are making a conclusion, both of which are assumed in our respective arguments for and against polygraph therefore we must BOTH be engaing in separate circular arguments
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 28, 2003, 07:53 PMGeorge, perhaps I am incorrect and you will no doubt enlighten me. When I spoke of a circular argument, my intetion was to point out that you have your position and I have mione...and apparently neither of us CHOOSE to change or modify our position. My understanding of a circular argument is:
A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument
Forgive me for being less than intelligent (in your eyes), butit would seem to me that I am making a conclusion and you are making a conclusion, both of which are assumed in our respective arguments for and against polygraph therefore we must BOTH be engaing in separate circular arguments
Torpedo,
Another term for a circular argument is
begging the question. I think what you're referring to is a couple of people holding on to positions dogmatically.
Skeptic
Skeptic, I took the time to look it up and it is identified as "circular reasoning"....not a circular argument. (as I called it)...not sure if there is a difference, but your inference of being dogmatic is correct....at least the way that I see it. ;)
Torpedo
I am still in the learning process so here's another question for you.
Let's say you are giving me a poly. In the numbers stim test, I pick the number 5. When you ask "did you pick the number 5". I refused to lie and said yes. Would you fail me for being uncooperative for refusing to lie as you directed? Remember, you want me to be truthful and all I want to do is tell the total truth.
Probably not. The rationale behind the "stim" test (most examiners do not like that moniker) is that it is INTENDED to demonstrate to the examinee how the test works, truth be told, for the skeptical examinee that the test in fact works. I am not "giving anything away" (this description is readily available) In explaining the test, I will tell you that I want you to answer no to all questions about the numbers, including the one which you picked/wrote. If you "refused" to answer as I directed, I do not care...I simply would not administer that particular test to you. The idea isn't to trick (as some would have you believe) it is used to provide an opportunity for the examinee to have some idea of the process. It may come as a surprise to some of the anti folks, but a distinct advantage of the test is for innocent examinees when they are able to see that the test does work and that will be vindicated. I think the idea of the whole process being equated to a palor game , at least inpart, comes from the manner in which SOME examiners use a deck of playing cards to perform this test. This manner is not exactly embraced by all for obvious reasons.
Torpedo,
Because there are others quite well qualified to offer running commentary regarding the nature of, reasons for, and the passage of time that "the challenge" has gone unanswered, my ongoing participation in the matter is rendered largely unnecessary. That having been said, lest you think that my lack of daily commentary would indicate some disinterest on my part, let me clearly state that (1) it is my intention to, once the terms of the stated challenge have been accepted, to honor my offer of participation and (2) I still have no doubt whatsoever that my original assertion, i.e., that the polygraph community can not reliably detect CQT polygraph exam countermeasures, will be clearly shown to be correct as evidenced through the exercise.
With regard to your latest post, my concern with numbers/stim/acquaintance tests is that it/they really have nothing at all to do with lie tests. In reality these are nothing more than concealed information tests with an examinee merely responding to an act of significance (picking a number when instructed to do so) to him and one not requiring that any lie be told, i.e., a silent test will work just as well as one in which the examinee is told to answer "no" to each question. Neither success nor failure on the part of the examiner in picking the number (blind stim) or demonstrating appropriately produced response(s) (open stim) has any bearing on the validity of the lie test to follow. This of course, is quite apart from and in addition to any fraud, which might be involved in the execution of the stim test. Regards, Drew Richardson
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Dec 29, 2003, 02:28 AMTorpedo,
...let me clearly state that (1) it is my intention to, once the terms of the stated challenge have been accepted, to honor my offer of participation and (2) I still have no doubt whatsoever that my original assertion, i.e., that the polygraph community can not reliably detect CQT polygraph exam countermeasures, will be clearly shown to be correct as evidenced through the exercise.
Drew,
Perhaps I misread you earlier. Do you believe that all types of countermeasures are not detectable in a CQT - or only those you intend to utilize?
Quote
With regard to your latest post, my concern with numbers/stim/acquaintance tests is that it/they really have nothing at all to do with lie tests. In reality these are nothing more than concealed information tests with an examinee merely responding to an act of significance (picking a number when instructed to do so) to him and one not requiring that any lie be told, i.e., a silent test will work just as well as one in which the examinee is told to answer "no" to each question. Neither success nor failure on the part of the examiner in picking the number (blind stim) or demonstrating appropriately produced response(s) (open stim) has any bearing on the validity of the lie test to follow. This of course, is quite apart from and in addition to any fraud, which might be involved in the execution of the stim test. Regards, Drew Richardson
I thought the purpose of the "stim" tests was psychologically conditioning the examinee to be less sensitive to the relevant (assuming "No" is truthful) and vice versa. How often (or if) that works is an open question. I'm curious about whether informed examinees who had decided not to use CM's would be disadvantaged by acquaintance tests.
-Marty
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 25, 2003, 01:19 PMKona, my friend, you really lack a lot of knowledge about polygraph...and that concerns me because aren't you one of the folks who are freely passing information to others about the polygraph, what to do, etc..
Torpedo,
The information I pass on these boards is based on my personal experience with the polygraph. I am not making anything up, or embellishing any stories. I have never professed to be a polygraph expert, rather I opine on the subject based on how the polygraph experience has affected my quest for a job in Law Enforcement. The people here can either take my advise, or leave it......it's totally up to them.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 25, 2003, 01:19 PMYes,even police departments employ examiners where there are no laws and their training may be less than desireable.
Excuse me, are you insinuating that the 3 different polygraph examiners that conducted my examinations weren't quite up to snuff? Very interesting. All three exams were very similar, and all three examiners acted professionally. These guys were all experienced Detectives with over 20 years on the force, and several years experience in their respective polygraph departments. In fact, their exams were amazingly similar to the trip reports I've read here on this website. You could have substituted a LAPD or a FBI polygraph session with mine. They all use the same techniques, and follow the same basic pattern.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 25, 2003, 01:19 PMI wish there was something PERFECT to do these jobs of screening,but right now, it would seem that polygraph performs that mission...
I've got news for you......there is never going to be anything that is perfect for screening police recruit applicants. Your assertion that the polygraph seems to be performing that mission now is highly debatable. We have a fundamental difference of opinion concerning the accuracy of the polygraph, and whether countermeasures can be detected. Again I can only speak from my personal experience that my polygraph examinations were as accurate as flipping a coin when no countermeasures were used, and I told the truth. Also, the one and only time I used countermeasures and told the truth, worked like a champ for me......I passed with no problem.
Good luck convincing the masses out there that you can catch a majority of people that utilize countermeasures. I'll believe it when I see you prove it on the countermeasure challenge.
Regards,
Kona
i have a similar problem to Ryan's. I'm applying for a job as a police dispatcher.... i have had some drug use in the past, mostly marijuana, and just recently quit (about a month ago).... i don't know wether that is going to disqualify me or since i have been quiting, it'll be okay....
i've seen a lot of different opinions on the board.... and personally i don't know whether polygraphs tests work or not... this is my first one... so i wouldn't know how to cheat it.... i'm mostly an honest person and a bad liar so i don't think that's a good idea for me...
but is the fact that i recently quit grounds of disqualification?
mkyadidas,
The fact that you "quit" smoking dope a month ago isn't going to bode well with any police department that I know of in the USA. Nothing personal, but I would venture to say that your chances of being hired are located somewhere between slim and none. You might want to expand your job search to include other professions that are more lenient with regard to your recent drug use.
Kona