All I have to say is I studied the book "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector" for two months straight. I read the whole thing almost six times over and practiced the countermeasures everyday while at my current job and while driving and doing other things. Pretty much every chance I got. The biggest key I found was identifying the control questions. Once you know what the control questions are, you can create a huge response. The control questions I was asked was were my first and last name and "did you drive here" and "up to the age of 25 have you ever cheated or lied to an authority". These were some pretty obvious control questions. I made my chart go nuts. I was hooked up to a computer and I swear the polygrapher did all the cliche things mentioned in the book. I am telling you folks that book really works. I bent a lot of the truth. I had the police department I am applying for think I was Jesus Christ himself. This book is awsome. Thanks ANTIPOLYGRAPH.ORG You guys freaking rock and now I am well on my way to having a career I can be proud of. You have to really study what the book says. Like I said earlier, the most important thing is to create a big response on the control questions and to stay calm for the rest. It was so simple. The polygraph is pure witchcraft/black magic. The greatest thing about the book is that it really puts you in control of the polygraph results. I made the polygraph do exactly what I wanted it to do. To hell with Doug Williams, what a waste of money, especially when this book is free. Thanks again ANTIPOLYGRAPH.ORG!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Aren't questions like "did you drive here" and first and last names irrelevant questions?
"did you drive here" I cosidered to be a control question because it was the next question after "Have you ever cheated" Because "Did you drive here" would be "the truth" when I said yes and "Have you ever cheated" was a "Lie" when I said no. The polygrapher got the same response for both. That way he had no real foundation between my chart responses for a lie and the truth. Then I maintained my breathing and sung "Safe Home" by Anthrax in my head while answering the relevant questions while concentrating on one spot on the wall. I gave the polygrapher nothing to work with. The CM's I used where the breathing control and mentaly keeping my brain away from deep thought while being asked relevant questions. I used tounge biting, sphincter contractions and irregular breathing for the control questions. So there were nothing but calm and normal chart responses for the relevant questions and irregular responses for the control questions. The irrelevent questions I considered control questions. The irrelevent questions can't hurt you unless you lie and that can put you in a weird situation I would imagine. I guess the real key for me was I gave the polygrapher nothing to base a lie off of.
stsocal:
Why would you consider "did you drive here" to be a control? Irrelevants are easy to recognize because they are the questions examiners absolutely know the answers to--not just an assumption as they do with controls. Obvious examples: Is your name ------? Are the last four digits of your social security number----? With control questions, to use your example, "have you ever cheated," examiners assume the examinee's response to be a lie. Also, why would an examiner ask two controls back to back? That doesn't make any sense--they don't do that. In addition, if indeed you did read TLBTLD as you say six times, you would know the book doesn't recommend making the charts "go nuts." It seems you would also be more adept at recognizing the obvious differences between relevants, irrelevants and controls.
Sounds like some bad information being passed on by a polygraph examiner to me. You overdid it a little with your story, including lines like, "I am telling you folks that book really works." I tell you what. Why don't you work on your story a little bit and re-register using a different name so that you can continue posting misleading information designed to get examinees into trouble with polygraph examiners?
***DO NOT TAKE STSOCAL"S ADVICE--either he is a horrible study and can't retain information despite reading TLBTLD six times or the more likley scenario---HE IS A POLYGRAPH EXAMINER!!!
Yes I see there are a lot of peolpe who will doubt what I am saying but it does not change the fact that I passed and I lied like crazy. You are probably a polygrapher. Yes the book doesn't say a lot of things and yes there are no guarantees with this book. But I passed today using what I learned from the book plus putting in my own logic. I will not change my post and I will not register under a new name. I have nothing to hide from you or anyone else. I am simply sharing my experience. Yes the book really worked for me. And I know it worked for others. So what I minipulated the chart. Who cares if you are bitter for whatever reason. I BEAT THAT USELESS PIECE OF JUNK BOX. What I learned today is that polygraphers are losers. Its sad that they get paid for absolutley nothing. What a waste of tax dollars. I am happy to SHARE my experience. I AM NOT A POLYGRAPH EXAMINER POLYFOOL. YOU ARE. I passed and that is a gods honest fact so get a life. POLYFOOL YOU ARE GETTING MAD BECAUSE YOUR JOB AS A POLYGRAPHER IS AT STAKE. Oh well who cares at least I got a real career job comming my way.
********DON'T LISTEN TO POLYFOOL BECAUSE HE IS A SENIOR USER WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS A LOT OF INTEREST IN THE POLYGRAPH. I DON'T THIS IS MY LAST POST. I NO LONGER HAVE TO COME TO THIS WEBSITE. I HAVE NO NEED BUT POLYFOOL IS OBVIOUSLY ATTRACTED TO IT BECAUSE IT HAS TO DO WITH HIS JOB. NO FOLKS I SWEAR ON MY OWN LIFE I AM REAL AND POLYFOOL IS THE FAKE. HE DOES NOT EVEN SUPPORT THE FACT THAT I PASSED THE POLYGRAPH OR THAT THE POLYGRAPH WASTE OF METAL. POLYFOOL OBVIOUSLY HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE BECAUSE HE IS ATTACKING ME. I COULD CARE LESS IF ANYONE TAKES MY ADVICE. I PASSED AND THATS ALL THAT MATTERS. I TOLD THE TRUTH OF WHAT I DID IN MY PREVIOUS POSTS. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT BUT WATCH OUT FOR SENIOR GUY POLYFOOL. HE SEEMS THREATENED BY MY POSTS. THAT'S ALL FOLKS. ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR LIVES BECAUSE I WILL. GOD, THAT IS SO FUNNY THAT HE ACTUALLY THINKS I AM SOME SCUMBAG POLYGRAPH EXAMINER, WHAT AN INSULT. I WOULD RATHER CLEAN PORT A JOHNS THEN DO THAT FOR A LIVING**********************
stsocal:
It seems you have gotten very little correct about me. You definitely must be a polygraph examiner. Nice try though, acting like you hate examiners so much. Why the hostility? Let me get this straight--you "bent the truth a little" or "lied like crazy," passed your test using the ridiculous technique you describe, which does not correctly follow the advice in TLBTLD and you hate poly examiners? Why? It seems you would like them, if in fact, as you say, you were able to tell a bunch of lies and get over on one.
You did peg one thing right. Yes, I do have an interest in the polygraph, but it is not the reason you describe. I know from personal experience that answering every question with complete honesty in a pre-employment polygraph will not result in passing it even if one has done nothing to disqualify he or she from employment with an agency. Honest job applicants are being falsely accused of lying based soley on the results of an unreliable testing procedure. The most honest are being weeded out and I think it's a real shame and loss for the government and the country. This site is not about teaching liars to beat the system. It's about protecting honest individuals from the polygraph's shortcomings.
DarkCobra2005: You are correct. I am not a polygraph examiner. I was an FBI applicant who told the truth and failed both my polygraphs. I appreciate the honesty in your post. I do have a question for you if you would be so kind as to answer. Isn't it true that there is a such thing as an applicant being too honest during a polygraph and have you ever run into this problem as an examiner? If so, how did you handle it?
And if the changed format fails again???
Many people on this board have significant problems with polygraphics for this precise reason: when one is 100% honest and therefore gives an inconclusive -- the career impacts here van be devistating. Then follow up tests are, im my opinion, completely invalid becasue the person at this point has already been "traumatized" by the polygraph and is either highly nervous or skeptical for any subsequent exam.
The person may have researched polygraphics at this point -- or at least the polygrapher will suspect them of such and possibly not put 100% effort into the next test, drawing either an inconclusive OR accusations of CM use by the polygrapher.
DarkCobra- thanks for your candor. Please don't confuse my contempt for the polygraph industry and those who practice it with disdain towards you personally.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Jun 19, 2005, 12:15 PMPolyfool,
There is a problem with persons that are 100% honest and the test format is changed when this occurs. We most often see a person such as this give an inconculusive result and a retest is then given. That is when the format changes and different methods are used.
DarkCobra2005:
At what point would you deem the test inconclusive? Would you complete the entire test or only a few graphs before you would stop the test and schedule a re-test with a different format? Also, aren't polygraph examiners insulted by inconclusive results since they are generally thought to be an error on the part of the examiner? Thanks for your insight.
Quote from: polyfool on Jun 20, 2005, 01:02 AM
DarkCobra2005:
At what point would you deem the test inconclusive? Would you complete the entire test or only a few graphs before you would stop the test and schedule a re-test with a different format? Also, aren't polygraph examiners insulted by inconclusive results since they are generally thought to be an error on the part of the examiner? Thanks for your insight.
polyfool,
Just as I was reading this thread and thinking back about Mr. "Long and Strong's" advice and you went and beat me (and probably George) to it.
Anyway, as regards the "too honest," there is a brief paragraph in Matte's book (yes, the guy with the home study PhD) about this. He says that on occasion, but infrequently, an examinee can not be persuaded to lie on the control and persists in answering yes. Matte states, without rationale, that he simply scores the exam as if the examinee lied. It seems to me this probably often works because the examinee is highly sensitized to the question by this point.
I also think Matte's quadra-zone technique is a rather innovative alteration of the CQT. It may be more effective than more generic CQT's for naive examinees since it takes into consideration certain fears normally ignored by basic CQTs. I am concerned about it's accuracy for informed examinees though.
darkcobra2005,
Welcome. Perhaps you could pick up where the polyplace people bailed with Drew's interesting thread on the more extensive use of the GKT (CIT). As you probably know, it is widely used in Japan and, since there are ways to validate it perhaps if it was used more widely it would gain acceptance under Fry.
Marty
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Jun 20, 2005, 10:39 AMThe exception to this is when a person is using countermeasures to defeat the polygraph. I do not do a retest, simply inform the individual he is inconclusive and do not reschedual at any time ever. This is why I say don't use countermeasures, it disqualifies a person from any further testing.
How do you know for sure CM's are being used (as opposed to random accusations)? I was accused of using them and had never even heard of CM's before. (Well, I wasn't directly accused; the polygrapher said I was "uncooperative" and "not following instructions"). Maybe he was just an one of the (ahem... few (yeah right)) unprofessional assholes.
DarkCobra2005:
So, if an examiner were administering an exam and were unable to get a reading after running a couple of charts, it would be a bad idea to stop the test, confront the examinee (falsely accusing them of not paying attention) and then resume the testing? Wouldn't the only reason an examiner would do this is because he/she doesn't want the test to end in an inconclusive result and wouldn't this naturally upset the examinee possibly resulting in an error?
I completely agree with you that a polygraph should never be the sole determining factor in the hiring process. You definitely don't work for the FBI. I have one more question for you--a hypothetical. Say, you adminstered an exam on an applicant and scored it as deceptive only to find out afterwards that the applicant had been investigated beforehand, which showed them innocent of the accusations. What would carry more weight with you as a polygraph examiner-- -the deception indicated polygraph score/opinion or the background investigation results?
Thanks for answering my questions.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Jun 20, 2005, 11:26 PMIf I get an inconclusive, it is my fault, not the examinees fault, therefore the person being examined is due all the respect I can give them. It does not upset me to get an inconclusive, I realize it is going to happen on occasion and I try to get the subject to come back and another examination is conducted.
Most polygraph examiners I know try very hard to give an applicant or suspect every opportunity to pass the examination.
I came up "inconclusive"... twice. I guess that was the polygrapher's fault then. I wish I had you, DarkCobra. I was treated like dirt with the inconclusives. But it was certainly an eye-opening experience -- I now realize first-hand that our government is not entirely run by honorable individuals intent on doing the right thing. It's run by people punching a clock and looking forward to retirement... not by those passionate about their work and serving admirably. In hind site, I guess my admiration for the agency I was screening with made me the perfect, naive and gullible candidate.
Dark Cobra:
Are you saying certain tracings are ALWAYS present when countermeasures are used or that some countermeasures are easier to spot than others?
How would you explain the errors that occur when a truthful examinee is scored deceptive?
Also, do you factor in an examinee's body language and/or your own gut instinct when rendering an opinion on their truthfulness?
Jeffery:
Don't you think your examiners treated you like dirt because your inconclusives bruised their egos? No one likes to be told they screwed something up, especially something that has to do with their professional performance. Some(not all, as we've seen with Dark Cobra) reach a point, in which they become so confident in their work, they never second guess it, believing that they and the machine are always right no matter what.
Quote from: polyfool on Jun 21, 2005, 01:21 AMJeffery:
Don't you think your examiners treated you like dirt because your inconclusives bruised their egos? No one likes to be told they screwed something up, especially something that has to do with their professional performance. Some(not all, as we've seen with Dark Cobra) reach a point, in which they become so confident in their work, they never second guess it, believing that they and the machine are always right no matter what.
Perhaps. But unlike them, I won't pretend to have any sort of mind-reading ability. In hindsight, the things they were "accusing" me of during the "interview" or rather interrogation are so completely ubsurd and impossible that I should have ripped their gear off, slammed it on the table and walked out.
Here's a question (since I'm sure it's happend before) -- what happens if a screening test subject "accidently" breaks the polygrapher's gear when not-so-gently removing it? Who gets the bill for the damaged goods? I'd think it'd have to be a cost of doing business for the polygrapher.
Jeffery:
We wouldn't be so lucky. I'm sure it would be the taxpayers who'd get the bill in the end. That way you could get screwed three times: Once because our tax dollars are paying for an unreliable testing procedure that's victimizing the innocent. A second time when you come up inconclusive or a false positive during the polygraph and a third time if you break their equipment and have to pay for it as a taxpayer.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Jun 20, 2005, 11:32 PM Yes I do believe the polygraph has an accuracy rate of 90 to 95% when conducted properly, so we do have an error rate of 10 to 15% including inconclusives.
Where do these numbers come from?? It never ceases to amaze me that all these percentages are flying around about the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the polygraph. Who here pretends to know the truth? The polygrapher or the subject? Yes, I've read about all the studies, Lykken's book, TLBTLD, etc, etc, but it all comes down to the TRUTH!! And nobody really knows IT except the person strapped to the machine. There might be rare occasions when the truth might be known through some other means or those ridiculous "controlled" experiments, but no one ever really knows. Polygraphers can talk all they want about how "sure" they are when they think someone is lying (oh, sorry, Deceptive), but that doesn't count, because that just isn't science. I've "failed" two polygraphs, so I guess a polygrapher would consider that 100% accuracy. I call it BS.
Dark Cobra,
You write in part:
Quote
Yes I do believe the polygraph has an accuracy rate of 90 to 95% when conducted properly, so we do have an error rate of 10 to 15% including inconclusives.
The simulated-crime(s) research related to specific incident testing is poor at best--biased (largely done by the polygraph industry and/or those who benefit from polygraph testing) and is largely lacking in external validity (no meaningful relevant issues and no fear of consequences for any of the examinees being tested). That's the good news--there is almost no research dealing with the fishing expedition you have come to know and enjoy as polygraph screening. What little exists would indicate that this application is an abysmal mess. I hope you are not suggesting the accuracy rates you mention apply to polygraph screening. If so, you are no less than completely delusional. Sorry to be so painfully blunt, but the consequences for examinees are too great not to be. Regards...
not to mention that so many of the studies that do exist are guilty of massive sampling bias. How can the polygraph community continue to tout 90%+ accuracy studies when the sampling criterion for so many of these studies to establish "Ground truth" was the admission of guilt! I've made this point before on polygraphplace.org and apparently the polygraph community in general has never done even the elementary level of social science research that I did as a Criminal justice undergrad if they cant understand the issue of sampling bias.
Dewey defeats Truman!
Bill,
Actually, sampling bias is not the real weakness of polygraph research. Although it is true that some fairly early and naive researchers have simply used college students or military recruits (such has been used for polygraph examiner trainee exams at DoDPI) as an examinee population, many more serious studies have been done using more meaningful sampling techniques. Again the real problem with simulated studies is that they have little to no external validity and furthermore the studies done have absolutely nothing to do with polygraph screening. This latter application has no validity whatsoever. With regard to real field studies, there generally is a necessary sampling bias (you deal with what you have) and as you allude to there are serious problems with studies that are based on confession criteria. As Bill Iacono and others have pointed out, all innocent subjects deemed to be deceptive and who do not confess are by definition excluded from said study results and thereby underestimate problems with false positive results. Obviously such a study would be almost meaningless. But back again to polygraph screening, the main interest of most who frequent this site--there is not one shred of research data to support most of what goes on with this application.
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jun 21, 2005, 09:39 AMDark Cobra,
....I hope you are not suggesting the accuracy rates you mention apply to polygraph screening. If so, you are no less than completely delusional. Sorry to be so painfully blunt, but the consequences for examinees are too great not to be. Regards...
Drew,
Darkcobra was rather specific in excluding screening from his numbers. He stated earlier in the thread:
QuoteThere are no conclusive studies with error rates on screening examinations because we don't know what ground truth is in screening examinations.
One of the other problems with screening tests is the near impossibility of verification. Unlike specific incident tests where false positives will sometimes be later identified, this doesn't happen with screening. Human nature, being what it is, likely results in screening examiners increasingly believing their own declarations since evidence to the contrary will be rare.
marty
Quote from: Marty on Jun 20, 2005, 04:16 AM
polyfool,
Just as I was reading this thread and thinking back about Mr. "Long and Strong's" advice and you went and beat me (and probably George) to it.
Anyway, as regards the "too honest," there is a brief paragraph in Matte's book (yes, the guy with the home study PhD) about this. He says that on occasion, but infrequently, an examinee can not be persuaded to lie on the control and persists in answering yes. Matte states, without rationale, that he simply scores the exam as if the examinee lied. It seems to me this probably often works because the examinee is highly sensitized to the question by this point.
Marty
Marty:
But what if the examiner doesn't know the examinee is answering the control questions truthfully? For example, they are able to answer no because they have confessed enough to be able to do so, yet the examiner would not know this and would still expect them to be lying.
Also, the examinee may not be sensitized to the control because he/she may feel at ease when answering because they've confessed their sins and cleared their conscience.
Quote from: polyfool on Jun 21, 2005, 11:20 PM
Marty:
But what if the examiner doesn't know the examinee is answering the control questions truthfully? For example, they are able to answer no because they have confessed enough to be able to do so, yet the examiner would not know this and would still expect them to be lying.
Also, the examinee may not be sensitized to the control because he/she may feel at ease when answering because they've confessed their sins and cleared their conscience.
Examiners generally assume that the controls represent something that everyone will, at a minimum, be uncertain about. The "excessively" honest will be unwilling to lie and thus answer yes or probably. The "excessively" good will not have done what the control Q states. Both are problematic, but the latter is more problematic as the examiner won't know. By utilizing differing controls, the examiner can minimize the risk the person has done none. Perhaps Darkcobra can disclose how he/she tells if a person answering no on a control is not deceptive. Other than watching for psychological clues in the prelim (which is a subjective call) I don't know what could be done. After all, if an examiner can tell, rather than presume, whether someone is lying on a control they could skip the poly and just make an assessment on the relevant.
marty
Marty,
You write:
Quote
Examiners generally assume that the controls represent something that everyone will, at a minimum, be uncertain about. The "excessively" honest will be unwilling to lie and thus answer yes or probably. The "excessively" good will not have done what the control Q states. Both are problematic, but the latter is more problematic as the examiner won't know. By utilizing differing controls, the examiner can minimize the risk the person has done none. Perhaps Darkcobra can disclose how he/she tells if a person answering no on a control is not deceptive. Other than watching for psychological clues in the prelim (which is a subjective call) I don't know what could be done. After all, if an examiner can tell, rather than presume, whether someone is lying on a control they could skip the poly and just make an assessment on the relevant.
This is a very well articulated description of why there is not even any general (qualitative) control associated with the probable-lie control question test. Beyond this (but almost irrelevant due to the lack of general control and basic theoretical support) is the lack of finer quantitative control, i.e., what is the relative affect caused by the relevant and the paired control questions and how does this relationship change with the various alternative control questions which might be so paired with a given relevant question. All of this largely becomes mere speculation and has absolutely nothing to do with scientific control. Because of a complete lack of understanding, insight, and control regarding both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of this, this whole notion of a control question test would be comical if did not involve tragic consequences for the many involved.
my experiences with 4 FBI polygraphers is that they suck at making control questions that may give one uncertainty.
If you admit to social drinking, they will ask you if you have ever abused alcohol as a control. One need not be "excessively good" to be a social drinker and never have abused alcohol, which I assume to mean either DWIs or perhaps a degree of alcoholism.
others were even more laughable. I was once asked if anyone knew I had failed an FBI poly as a control. beyond the other problems listed, one has to assume the examiner can develop controls that are impactful.
I knew nothing about this site or the material on it before I was strapped into the chair. But in hindsight, my controls were so bad, even thinking back now I couldn't identify them.
They didn't ask anything that made me uncomfortable. Being strapped into the chair and confronted by an overbearing (and overweight) polygraph examiner over things I'd never even contemplated doing was uncomfortable -- and shocking. But the questions themselves weren't bad at all. I guess I failed the "control" questions...
QuoteIn screening examinations it is important to note that "IF" and individual shows what is considered to be reactions associated with deception, a second test should be constructed based on the one question showing responses and another examination conducted.
i was only interrogated, neve afforded more specific testing. this is NOT how the FBI does it I can assure you.
darkcobra, you seem very reasonable about this whole sbuject. Thank you.
I think I reacted to the relevants simply because I knew they were the money questions and represented failure, while I knew the controls didnt. Other polygraph people say this doesnt happen. WHat is your view on the idea of reacting to relevants for this reason? Of course, i cannot prove it, but for the sake of argument take it on faith that I have never sold any drugs.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Jun 24, 2005, 12:32 AMRegarding the issue of countermeasures, you can in fact put reactions on a chart by using countermeasures, however you cannot remove reactions with countermeasures. If you are showing reactions to both the controls and the relevant questions, there is a problem that needs to be addressed before proceding with an examination.
So if a person is reacting to both questions, does that automatically set off the "countermeasure" alarm, or what problems are there and how would you address them before proceeding?
QuoteThere are some problems with screening examinations, I do hope we can find a manner in which to overcome the problems. I don't believe countermeasures are the answer. Again, this comes from a polygraph examiner, not a person supporting countermeasures.
Ok, so let's have your honest answer here: if you had a big mortgage, a family to support and were years aaway from retirement; you worked in a job you like and,
knowing what you know now about polygraphy, were told you had to sit and pass a screening exam,
would you or would you not use countermeasures? (since I'm asking this to a polygrapher, one would think this was a control question :D but in this case, assume it is relevant)
DarkCobra2005:
Your polygraph screening technique is definitely not in play within the FBI. After my first test, the examiner intensely interrogated me at length and flat out called me a "liar." Looking back and nowing what I know now, he did try to sensitize me to the contols and initially I was very concerned with them thinking that I was not going to get the job because of the things I had done in my distant past. However, after confessing to the worst things I've ever done (a joke to him, but a big deal to me) I no longer felt any more guilt about them. I truly believed that the only way to pass the test was to answer all questions with complete honesty, so I was very concerned about trying to remember everything and not leave anything out. However, as the test went on, I felt more comfortable and confident in answering the controls honestly.
It's also important to note how influential the mind games that some polygraphers play can have on examinees. For example, my polygrapher's honesty sermon forced me to confess everything, but it also kept me from giving into the coercion tactics he used to try and get me to give a false confession. In addition, I think being confident in knowing who you are and what you stand for also works against you in screening situations because the examiner will be unsuccessful in making you question yourself and exhibit concern pertaining to the controls.
In my second test, I have no doubt I probably reacted to the relevant drug question after what I'd been put through during my first exam. However, my supposed reactions would not have been caused by lying. Wouldn't a polygraph examiner expect an examinee to react to the questions they'd been grilled about in a previous interrogation and what would be the point of a second exam? It seems like one would always react to the relevant because of the memory with which it is associated. Since there are emotions that would cause reactions shown as deception on a test how would you ever know for sure whether they were lying or being truthful or would you just make your best guess?
It seems there are so many factors that may come into play during polygraph screening. Given the simple fact that people are so complex and diverse and the test assumes everyone thinks and acts the same, it's no wonder there are problems associated with its use. For the life of me, I still can't comprehend why it's used to hire in the government. With the apparent dysfunction, it doesn't appear that its use is resulting in choosing the best workers. The agent who conducted my personnel interview did a much better job of figuring me out by not playing games and spending a fair amount of time just getting to know me by talking at length. She didn't need a polygraph, but the agent who used one got me all wrong. Instead of using investigative skill and sound judgement, he chose to rely on a faulty testing procedure on which to base his opinion.
What do you do when you suspect countermeasure use? Do you change the format or the test? If my memory serves me correctly, I think you said you don't confront examinees about cm use. Why is this and how often would you say you believe you see cm use?
I do appreciate your candidness and hope that you will keep in mind the things that you learn from this board as you hold the futures of job applicants in your hands.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Jun 24, 2005, 11:28 PMThe other question, would I take a polygraph to continue in my job, a screening examination. Well, I did take one for the job I currently have. I did not use countermeasures, just cooperated with the examiner. (I do have mortgage, family, and bills) and I was concerned about passing the examination during the process.
Were you a polygrapher before you took the polygraph to qualify for your current job? Or did you get trined on the polygraph after taking your one and only screening exam? If you had to take a polygraph
now to keep your job what would you do?
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Jun 26, 2005, 01:11 PMI was a polygraph examiner when I took my last polygraph and I did not use countermeasures. I did not tell the truth to the control questions purposly. I do understand polygraph and was truthful to the relevant questions
Thanks for your honesty here.
So what you are saying is, as a polygraph examiner, you did not use countermeasures, but were intentionally dishonest (on controls) and still passed?
So you lied on a polygraph but still passed?
As someome like myself (who, believe it if you will, is TOTALLY honest) can you now see our disgust with the overall polygraph process?
Isn't your being intentionally dishonest (on controls) in itself a form of countermeasure?
Those of us whose examiners sucked at leading them to lieing on controls in my opinion have a right to be a bit pissed off. But we're just additional numbers in the system.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Dec 31, 1969, 07:00 PMBill,
Yes, if in the pretest interview the examiner does not construct the setting for the examination and the questions for the examination, reactions can occur that are intrepreted as deception. This is not the examinees fault, it is the examiner. We try to explain exactly what we mean in each question, sometimes the individual being tested goes outside our meaning because he/she is human and thinks of "outside issues" other than what we are asking and we do get a reaction.
Dark Cobra:
Not all examiners elaborate on what they mean when it comes to controls, leaving room for interpretation by the examinee. Even if an examinee questions the examiner about the questions, he may not offer clear explanations. Wouldn't this be a problem during a polygraph screening, since people interpret things differently?
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Jun 26, 2005, 01:11 PMI was a polygraph examiner when I took my last polygraph and I did not use countermeasures. I did not tell the truth to the control questions purposly. I do understand polygraph and was truthful to the relevant questions, some were a bit embarasing, but I felt the truth was the way to go on relevants. I did qualify based on my background and all areas the agency was concerned about.
Again my advice is to be honest with the agency hiring you and make sure you meet their qualifications, cooperate with the examiner on control questions and don't be 100% honest on them. The examiner will lead you into a no answer on them and just cooperate. This worked for me and I don't feel I was in any manner doing anything improper, I was cooperating and completing the task in the manner the examiner required.
Would I do it again? Yes and in the same manner as the last time. My very first polygraph was before I became an examiner and the experience was very anxiety producing, The examiner used a relevant irrelevant question technique with me, I did pass. Again I was honest and did meet all the requriements of the agency I was applying to.
Dark Cobra:
Would it not affect the test to know the difference between relevants and controls? For example, when I took my polygraph, I didn't know there was a difference in any of the questions except the irrelevants, which were obvious. Had I known the examiner didn't care about the controls I would have been even less worried about them than I was. I was very concerned about the controls in the pre-test until I answered with complete honesty. It would seem like knowing there is a difference in the questions would adversely affect the test or at least make the examinee anxious when he hears the different types of questions. For example, an espionage question is an obvious important question even to someone who knows very little about the polygraph, such as I did. However, when I was asked that question during my exam, I do remember thinking how horrible it would be to be accused of such a thing.
Darkcobra,
Thanks again for more insight. You are the first to advise against total honesty during a poly exam. Other polygraphers have stated that the only way to successfully complete a poly is to be 100% truthful. That would appear to be horrible advice from what you have stated. The question (which may have been asked) is: wouldn't intential deceit regarding controls be a kind of countermeasure? If the instrument accurately records physiological activity strongly associated with dishonesty would this intentional deceit not be a purposeful augmentation to the response? The appearance in reminiscent of the 'ole apples (controls) to oranges (relevants) comparison.
Sounds like this may be a good approach for those with knowledge of polygraphy to complete a polygraph exam with a positive outcome.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Jun 27, 2005, 11:21 PMThe examiner should be aware that you are being 100% truthful and then change the format used or there will be a problem in analyzing the charts and making a correct decision.
That problem leading to crushed dreams of honorable service to ones government and increased skepticism and cynicism of a system that would label a 100% honest person deceptive on account of a flawed test. But one can still honorablly provide service to ones
Country by bringing to light some of the darker tools used by these agencies.
Funny how the rats scurry about when light is shined on them. Just take a look at polygraphplace.com...
Darkcobra2005,
I like many others have reported approached my first polygraph with all intentions of being completely truthful and did just that. Prior to my exam, like other, I had very little knowledge in regard to polygraph testing, method and procedure. I had no idea that lying was expected in relation to certain questions (controls). So I searched my past and divulged all that was asked of me until with clear concience (spell check anyone) I could honestly answer all questions. My question to you is: during the intest how many relevant, control and sacrifices do you ask? How many questions do you ask per chart? I am wondering what percentage of the test one should expect to be forthright and honest. I realize that due to policy restrictions you may not be able to answer. If you are able to reply but for any reason you are not comfortable doing so on the public forum, intant message me or send and e-mail.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Jun 28, 2005, 03:23 AMJeffery,
I did not mean to say that one would be called deceptive, I said the charts would be difficult to interpret. The probable outcome would be an inconclusive result and require changing the format.
That is not to say they would be called untruthful. Before others jump in, I do not speak for Federal Agencies, only for myself and they manner in which I do testing.
Nbody gets hired on an Inconclusive. And after experieincing the first round (and totally bogus accusations stemming from such) and susbsequent attempt at a polygraph is a complete joke. Regardless of format.
Which agency tested you?
If the examiner doesn't frame the question properly?
I'm sorry, but that is a bit nonsensical on the question of "have you ever sold illegal drugs?" My particpation with drugs, either as a seller or consumer is 0, so I don't think it was due to ambiguity or failure to understand the parameters of the question.
ok this is where i get confused. if the only questions u should worry to really have to act on our the control questions. why not just do it for everything question except the relevant questions?
Now you can confess - what were you hiding? Truthful people NEVER use countermeasures.
Quote from: Eastwood on Sep 24, 2005, 01:27 AMNow you can confess - what were you hiding? Truthful people NEVER use countermeasures.
And truthful people will fail if the idiot polygrpaher chooses "probable lie control questions" that the truthful person is actually... truthful on.
Quote from: Eastwood on Sep 24, 2005, 01:27 AMNow you can confess - what were you hiding? Truthful people NEVER use countermeasures.
Please allow me to finish your statement. What you mean is,
"Initially, truthful people NEVER use countermeasures... however, when they find out that they've been labeled deceptive for being truthful, then they are obligated to use countermeasures in case of course, they want to continue to pursue their career or in case they want to clear their names".
Yes, Eastwood, I agree with you 100%, because I was truthful and I never even thought about using countermeasures. If I could rewind back time I'd do it without an ounce of regret. I'd think of it as studying for the LSAT - like any other exam.
I'll agree with you there - it's unfortunate that they listen to some here who could never pass one on their own, and had to resort to using this crap
Eastwood wrote:
QuoteI'll agree with you there - it's unfortunate that they listen to some here who could never pass one on their own, and had to resort to using this crap
Please elaborate the handles of those you feel could not "pass" a polygraph on their own without use of countermeasures. Perhaps people would not resort to countermeasures if agencies didn't regularly resort to polygraph testing as a means of attempted truth verification. The polygraph community, in my view, is not up in arms with regard to countermeasures because their use thwarts the truth but because they expose the numerous flaws which plague polygraph testing. Flaws which are akin to the bleeding holes of a stuck pig.