Now I am really confused. I might be taking a Poly soon and decided to read up about it and fear now that I should not have....control questions...I should lie?
Reading an earlier post it said the question: " Have you ever lied to your supervisor"...the polygrapher will expect you to lie?
I would have answered that question truthfully...I have many times for lots of reasons lied to a supervisor. SOmetimes just to get him off my back or if he was asking me about my personal life and I thought it wasn't any of his business and sometimes.
I never lied to him about serious work issues though.
I can never answer no to that question becuase I have lied lots of times about irrelvant things and I can never be comfortable answering "no".
Even if I think I have told the examiner about all the times I have lied about irrelevant things to my supervisor, I can never answer "no" becuase I know there are too many times to remember and can never comfortably answer "no", no matter how he rephrases the question.
Should I lie now that I know it is a control question?
Know I am worried that my knowledge of control/relevant questions will taint the test...help!
Would my honest reply of "yes" to this control questions have made me fail the test (assuming I never read about control/relevant questions)?
Download and read TLBTLD. It will answer all your questions. Control questions are designed to make one feel uneasy when answering--that's the whole point. I took a poly without knowing there was any difference in the questions--to me they were all of equal importance. I answered every single question honestly--purged, cleared my conscience and failed. Will your knowledge affect your test? Who knows? However, if you hadn't researched the poly and planned on being brutally honest even if you had done nothing that would disualify you, you were headed for trouble anyway. Be glad you found this site. At least you will have a clue what's going on when you take it. I didn't know what hit me. I wish I'd found this site before I took mine, but I believed in the poly so strongly I didn't think I needed to--I thought all I had to do was tell the truth. Obviously, I was very wrong.
As a newbie myself, I have to say I share the same question as Confusednow, even after reading TLBTLD. That is, once a control question has been identified, whether one should lie while employing CM, or whether one should tell the truth and use CM to appear uneasy?
For example, if the control question is "Have you ever lied to your supervisor" or "Have you ever betrayed the confidence of a loved one", it's obvious that no one could truthfully answer "no". So I would assume the correct thing to do would be to answer yes and employ CM to make it appear like there was at least some nervous deliberation involved in the answer.
I'm going back right now to re-read TLBTLD, but if someone could offer some additional perspective to this newbie, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Thanks.
You would answer the question on the test the same way you answered it on the pre-test and employ the countermeasure to make sure you show a response. This type of control question is designed to make the average person feel uneasy no matter how they answer it and a response is expected. A level of response higher than that one would not be expected on a relevant question.
Good luck
Bad advice flowing here. Countermeasures are detectable. We polygraph examiners read this site and the government has done years of research on the detection of countermeasures, yes, including mental countermeasures. I detect them all the time and once they are discovered, the examinee is black listed and will not be tested again, by anyone. The use of countermeasures is considered a deceptive measure and an automatic disqualifier, even if an honest person is foolish enough to try and "help" themselves along.
Admitting having researched polygraph and visiting this site will not automatically make you DI, as some here claim. Get real. I just had an examinee leave my office after I tested him. He admitted to researching polygraph and visiting this site. We discussed what he read at length and I had to calm him down and assure him the big, bad polygraph wasn't going to find him deceptive if he was telling the truth. He did fine and went merrily upon his way, moving to the next phase in the hiring process. I expect examinees, especially those of Generation X, who have been raised with the internet, to research polygraph. When they tell me they haven't, I actually become suspicious!
And no, knowledge of how the polygraph works does not affect the results.
Nonsense, Tasercop. Remember I have been to Oz and know of the research handed down to the state and local community. Your department doesn't do any of its own countermeasure research does it? Will countermeasures be the topic of your doctoral dissertation? If so, I'll set aside time to be on your dissertation examination committee...lol. If countermeasures were detectable what better way to end their use than to publicly embarrass me by demonstrating it and at the same time put the fear of God in those who might contemplate using them. Until the challenge has been met, such commentary is really laughable. It's fairly clear from the examinee testimony coming forth that the current modus operandi is to accuse many and hope the completely naive will fall out (make admissions regarding countermeasure use). Perhaps to some extent that has even worked in the recent past (post beginning of the internet information explosion) but such antics are really very shortsighted and will have limited utility in the long run. Of course examinee knowledge of your procedure(s) affects the conduct of your exams. Even your best Herculean efforts spent at convincing examinees that control material is really relevant becomes moot and laughable to the knowledgeable examinee or how about the examinee who inwardly smirks as he/she produces a response to your numbers test key eagerly awaiting your pronouncement that he is a real screamer and you won't have any trouble detecting his lies. Come on...get real.... examinee knowledge is changing all the rules. Again, examinee knowledge, whether it leads to countermeasure use or not, has made this a brave new world for you and your colleagues.
I stated in my first post I wasn't going to get into a lengthy debate as doing so would be a waste of time. You have your opinion and we have ours. My purpose of posting here is to give others who may happen upon this site some balanced information. As an examiner I interview people all of the time who have been here and are concerned about what they read. Most sane people take the rantings of a few rejected applicants with a grain of salt, but some have concerns.
My earlier post was just stating what I do on a daily basis. I work in the field, not behind a lab coat. I have been to Oz too, but I wasn't kicked out for being the wicked witch of the east. A lot has changed in the last 5-10 years. I am doing nothing but presenting the other side. I am not opposed to this site and actually feel George has done us a favor by pointing out our weaknesses and making us more dilegent. Countermeasures have always been around. John Reid wrote about them and developed a countermeasure detection chair 40 years ago. The internet just made us stand up and take notice. We can and do regularly detect countermeasures. For me to fly to the east coast and prove it to you would be pointless. You would make excuses just like you did when an independant reporter proved that countermeasures don't work. Besides, if you admitted countermeasures are detectable, what would be the point of this site?
Unlike most others on this site, I serve and protect the citizens. Using the polygraph I have had the wrongly accused released from prison; had the guilty confess; and kept a lot of misfits out of uniform. I am human and I have made mistakes. Show me one person that hasn't.
Your on the wrong side. Polygraph usage is increasing and will continue to do so. Don't you think it is kind of strange: the more you guys protest and state your case, the more polygraph increases. Most of you are living proof it works. Keep up the good work!
Please excuse the typos in my last post. It is late and I hurried, failing to proof read. My apology! :-[
Tasercop,
No problem with the spelling, but you can modify your posts if you care to correct typos. With regard to the substance of your post though...well, that's a different matter. It is not sufficient for you to simply ignore the substance of the debate and state that I know we can do it, we do it, and that's all there is to it. Again, nonsense. I gave you two problem areas for you regarding knowledgeable examinees. How do you address/handle these problems? With regard to countermeasures, a reporter proved? Assuming we are speaking of the one recent account with which I am familiar, you must be kidding. I can speak with you as a cop or as a doctoral student. If the latter, do you really expect a peer reviewed paper or a doctoral dissertation resulting from such an exercise? Your reporter appears to be nothing but a confused layperson and one rather clueless as to how the exam works, what a countermeasure is, and how and why such should be applied. And as regard to this site (I am not responsible for it or its content, but) it would appear that the general theme is that various polygraph applications (particularly screening applications) lack validity IN THE ABSENCE OF COUNTERMEASURES. Again, that is, in the absence of countermeasures. The issue of countermeasures arises only as consequence and one of several remedies to the general problem and theme. And as regard to your various personal successes, I do not question that they have occurred. However, I have no doubt that if I were simply to flip a coin and use the result as a basis for a determination in a substantial number of important cases, I would have true positives and true negative results in these important cases. The degree of case importance does not change the fact that we are merely dealing with a binomial determination—DI or NDI. These correct coin-flip results would in no way justify the false positives and false negatives in equally important cases, represent scientific advancement (merely the expression of the laws of probability), nor represent a valid diagnostic test. Nothing that you have offered would indicate that your isolated successes are any different. Regards....
It seems the standard reaction of a polygrapher is to refer to one successful case that they are aware of or were part of as proof of the efficacy of the procedure. Scientificically verifiable tests do not rely solely on anecdotal information becuase they do not have to.
What would you say to people like me who havent sold drugs before yet had a potential FBI career ruined by an accusation of same by someone who has known me for <1 hr and will never bother to investigate the matter, but rather rely on the very shaky fact that my pulse may have quickened when asked if I ever sold drugs, but did not when asked if I ever lied to a loved one.
Quote from: tasercop on Jul 07, 2005, 10:30 PMI just had an examinee leave my office after I tested him. He admitted to researching polygraph and visiting this site. We discussed what he read at length and I had to calm him down and assure him the big, bad polygraph wasn't going to find him deceptive if he was telling the truth.
So what would you tell someone like me who went through multiple polygraphs, told the truth on everything, had never even heard of a countermeasure much less attempted one, and still failed because the examiner decided I was lying? You can claim I must have been lying anyway, but I know I wasn't. Hopefully you can produce a better answer than telling me that there are unprofessional polygraphers out there.
I am less interested in the debate on whether countermeasures are detectable or not than I am in this question: If polygraphy is a scientifically valid method of testing for deception, how could it be defeated by a change in breathing pattern? Or by doing math equations in your head? Or biting the side of your tongue? I would think that a valid test would not be affected by such things. I can't imagine going for my next cholesterol screening and being warned not to think about baseball or tense my buttocks because it might ruin the test.
Tasercop wrote:
QuoteAs an examiner I interview people all of the time who have been here and are concerned about what they read. Most sane people take the rantings of a few rejected applicants with a grain of salt, but some have concerns.
Although your input is welcome, please refrain from your across-the-board insults. You have not been insulted. Your comment on sane people is inappropriate. Most sane people, IN MY OPINION, cannot fathom a man and machine catching a lie.
QuoteBesides, if you admitted countermeasures are detectable, what would be the point of this site?
Much the same as if you were to admit countermeasures were not detectable, what would be the purpose of further polygraph examining?
QuoteUnlike most others on this site, I serve and protect the citizens. Using the polygraph I have had the wrongly accused released from prison; had the guilty confess; and kept a lot of misfits out of uniform. I am human and I have made mistakes. Show me one person that hasn't.
Many on this site would also serve and protect if not for the mistakes by you and your like. If polygraph were readily admissable in court proceedings you likely would be responsible for many wrongfully convicted innocents. You may indeed have kept misfits out of uniform, but you have also kept many honorable, qualified and motivated applicants out resulting in a detriment to law enforcement.
QuoteYour on the wrong side. Polygraph usage is increasing and will continue to do so. Don't you think it is kind of strange: the more you guys protest and state your case, the more polygraph increases. Most of you are living proof it works. Keep up the good work!
May you also keep up the good work. Persons such as yourself with an inflated god-complex are helping to disuade the widely held belief that polygraph works.
So many comments to respond to, so little time.
Drew,
First, the reporter is not "my reporter", but apparently and independent who visited this site and others and attempted to see if countermeasures work. From reading her report, it seems she did what you are advocating. She read the material and attempted to beat the polygraph. She found out what many others have: It is next to impossible to beat the polygraph, operated by an experienced and qualified examiner. A person's chances are greater if they can actually practice hooked up to the instrument, but that doesn't happen very often. Your response to her independent experience is exactly why nobody takes you up on your challenge. Even when proven wrong, your ego will not allow you to admit you are wrong. You stated that this one incident with the reporter does not prove you wrong. If I came there and detected countermeasures in front of you, you would say the same thing about me. I could do it 50 times and you would just come up with additional excuses. You are giving people bad information. I don't care if a liar attempts countermeasures and gets caught, it is just additional evidence he/she is unsuitable. My concern is for the honest person who comes to this site, gets bad information and thinks he/she has to use countermeasures to pass. They get caught and are black listed forever.
Bill and Sergeant,
What do I say to you? I say what happened to you was wrong. I am very vocal about my feelings toward agencies that use the polygraph as a pass/fail, weeding tool. Polygraph was never intended for this usage. If you were telling the truth, a series of specific examinations would probably have proven just that. I do it all the time. At least 50% of the applicants who I test that have a significant response to a screening question are subsequently found to be truthful. The other 50% have either admitted to withholding information or the subsequent DI results are supported by other negative information in the background. When an agency dumps an applicant because of a negative screening polygraph test, they run a 50/50 chance of losing a good employee. I know it is hard not to take it personally, but I wouldn't. It's no difference than being a 15-year police veteran with an outstanding work history and being turned down after an oral board because the raters didn't like you. Makes no sense, but that's the way the system operates.
As far as being able to manipulate test results, that has nothing to do with the validity of a test. Virtually any test in any setting can be manipulated and produce false results. Sergeant's argument would mean that every test used for any reason should be considered invalid. If you don't fast before having an Hemoglobin A1C blood test for diabetes, the tests results are invalid, but the test itself is not. The results were just skewed. The same goes for the polygraph, just because results can be manipulated if undetected countermeasures are employed, doesn't make the test invalid.
Here's another angle, sometimes the departments use the polygraph as a way to exclude an applicant they just don't like. Its wrong, but some do it and I believe, well I know, the FBI does it. It's an easy out for them. Again, it's an abuse and not why the polygraph was developed. In cases like these, even if the polygraph weren't used, they wouldn't hire you anyway. They would just find another excuse. A good department with a good examiner will get you through the examination, if you are telling the truth and they want you. If they don't want you or don't want you bad enough to spend the time, then you are out of luck.
Sorry everyone, but IT IS HERE TO STAY.
Quote from: tasercop on Jul 08, 2005, 03:56 PMAs far as being able to manipulate test results, that has nothing to do with the validity of a test. Virtually any test in any setting can be manipulated and produce false results. Sergeant's argument would mean that every test used for any reason should be considered invalid. If you don't fast before having an Hemoglobin A1C blood test for diabetes, the tests results are invalid, but the test itself is not. The results were just skewed. The same goes for the polygraph, just because results can be manipulated if undetected countermeasures are employed, doesn't make the test invalid.
That comparison is pretty bad. Comparing a chemical-reaction test to the Wouija-board like Polygraphics exam is an invalid comparison. I don't know much about diabetic testing, but I know that simply thinking about a strawberry milk shale while they take your blood won't effect the test results. Neither will being scared of needles.
Quote from: tasercop on Jul 08, 2005, 03:56 PM
As far as being able to manipulate test results, that has nothing to do with the validity of a test. Virtually any test in any setting can be manipulated and produce false results. Sergeant's argument would mean that every test used for any reason should be considered invalid. If you don't fast before having an Hemoglobin A1C blood test for diabetes, the tests results are invalid, but the test itself is not. The results were just skewed. The same goes for the polygraph, just because results can be manipulated if undetected countermeasures are employed, doesn't make the test invalid.
Sure, every test can be changed if you the variables in the test. That is a basic scientific principle. But a valid scientific test must have well-defined variables that can be replicated by anyone else attempting the same test. If anyone else attempts the same test using the same variables they must get the same results for the test to be valid.
The variables in a polygraph test are far too numerous, ephemeral, and subjective to be based in sound scientific principles. You cannot have a valid test where what the subject is thinking may affect the accuracy of the test. If the blood test for diabetes was only accurate if the subject didn't eat for twelve hours prior, AND didn't do math problems in his head, didn't clench certain muscles, didn't have a tack in his shoe, and didn't do research on how the diabetes test was conducted, then I would have to conclude the diabetes test was not accurate or scientifically valid.
Most of what you are saying could also adversely affect other medical tests. Moving, pressing a toe, squeezing the sphincter are also likely to affect most diagnostic imaging scans, making the results unusable, but not invalidating the instrument as an accurate medical device. If you have ever had an MRI or a CAT scan (I have), you have to remain perfectly still. You have a bad argument here :)
Has anyone noticed that the only place these arguments are being made is here, anonymously on this site? Information is circulating that there is a push by law enforcement in at least two other states that currently do not allow pre-employment polygraph screening, to amend the law to allow it. It will probably happen.
Were gaining ground, not losing it. Sites like this actually help. Most of the posts here actually have the opposite of your intended affect. They help support the belief the system works and bad apples are kept away from the badge. Nothing you say here will convince a legislature to abandon polygraph testing; it only garners support. Thanks!
Tasercop wrote:
QuoteHas anyone noticed that the only place these arguments are being made is here, anonymously on this site?
Ummm...are your eyes functional? Please take note that many posters here use their legal names including: George Maschke, Gino Scalabrini, Dr. Drew Richardson, John Furedy, Bill Crider and myself. You, yourself, post anonymously. That surely does not speak of your ability to fight your fight with even terms. You hide behind your nifty screen moniker and grace the readership with your point of view, much the same as those of us identifying ourselves provide our points of view. Get in step if you want to gain any credibility.
Tasercop also wrote:
QuoteMost of what you are saying could also adversely affect other medical tests
You would be well advised to realize that polygraphy is NOT a medical test. The only portion of such testing that could be used medically is the physiological tracings. My mother is currently in an ICU connected to many monitors, etc. Her heart rate, blood pressure and respiration are being monitored. So in that sense a polygraph instrument would be useful.
You also may not have noticed that you changed the argument from medical tests from sources intrinsic to the body to medical tests whose basis is extrinsic. Apples to oranges. Example to aid in your understanding: polygraphy is an extrinsic examination where urinalysis is intrinsic examination.
Surely medical tests may be skewed due to patient movement. But how do you propose that thoght and mathematical equations would effect such tests? Also keep in mind that such medical tests are corroborated or invalidated by other tests to determine the same sought information. Perhaps we should back up polygraph with CVSA. But you may not like that idea because it could be detrimental to your livelihood, not to mention the fact that CVSA is completely impotent in determining truth from lie. Sounds quite familiar to another method of deception detection :o.
Perhaps polygraphy is gaining ground. Please remember, however, that tyranny has gained ground in many instances. Such tyranny enjoys a run before coming to an end. After all, our national language is not German and there is no longer a wall down the middle of Germany. ;D
Quote from: tasercop on Jul 08, 2005, 06:11 PMNothing you say here will convince a legislature to abandon polygraph testing; it only garners support. Thanks!
Put the legislators on the box. That'll stop this bullshit junk science in a heartbeat.
I changed to my real name to make a point. I am not ashamed of being falsely booted from the FBI pool. I appreciate tasercop's honesty about poly screening not being used properly and as a prop for booting people they dont like or just dont want to make the effort to find out about.
I do think he is mistaken about his analogy. what makes the test internaly invalid is not that it can be disrupted by CMs, but that the procedure is not repeatable for each test. You cant use the same controls on each person, you cant assume a certain reaction means the same thing. If you take a DUI test, or a diabetes test, the numeric result is valid across all testers. A polygraph chart is not because person A got different controls than person B or the examiner has done or said something perhaps that influences the test, and so on. A cop cannot "influence" a breathalyzer. 0.1% is 0.1%. A diabetes blood sugar rating of 150 is what it is. but what the hell +4 means on a poly chart depends on a million uncontrollable factors.
I submit the real difference between honest opponents of the test and its advocates is that the latter believe that they can personallly guarantee its validity via their skill and experience and people like me do not for obvious reasons.
Quote from: Bill Crider on Jul 08, 2005, 07:02 PM
I do think he is mistaken about his analogy. what makes the test internaly invalid is not that it can be disrupted by CMs, but that the procedure is not repeatable for each test. You cant use the same controls on each person, you cant assume a certain reaction means the same thing. If you take a DUI test, or a diabetes test, the numeric result is valid across all testers. A polygraph chart is not because person A got different controls than person B or the examiner has done or said something perhaps that influences the test, and so on. A cop cannot "influence" a breathalyzer. 0.1% is 0.1%. A diabetes blood sugar rating of 150 is what it is. but what the hell +4 means on a poly chart depends on a million uncontrollable factors.
Bill,
I'm not sure that there are a "million" uncontrollable factors, but I agree there are many. The underlying problem will always be that polygraph examinations are psychophysiological tests (a merger of psychology and physiology). Basically there are two personalities in a polygraph testing lab, with all the variables that come with that mix.
As polygraph examiners grow in their education and experience (much like counsellors, psychologists, and others who work in the "soft sciences") they usually acquire better skills and simply improve in the application of forensic psychophysiological methodologies.
You would cetainly agree that it is not unusual for two psychologists to arrive at two vastly different diagnosis. Worse yet, the history of psychology is fraught with examples of "patients" using any number of behavioral "countermeasures" to fool the unsuspecting psychologist into making a diagnosis somehow more beneficial to the patient. Does that mean we should outlaw the practice of Psychology?
Nonombre
Tasercop,
Glad to have you on the board. I like to see the fireworks!! As for the advise to Confused, I stand by it and it works and I think you know it.
Just so you know, I serve and protect too and have been a cop for 13 years. I've seen crooks come to pieces in the interrogation room a lot more often than on a poly. But, I'm not saying that it's not worth putting some of them on your voodo machine! Bamboo shoots work better for confessions though, but we can't do that...can we.
I've seen too many informed crooks pass the poly and way to many un-informed good guys fail it.
I also have taken several polys and some before I was a cop and never failed one. However, I was told there were problems on a few questions on several tests. I always answered honestly to them and that's when I knew there was a problem with the poly and the examiners, not the subject!! These were long time, seasoned examiners! I've used cm's since then to guarrantee the outcome and NEVER have they been detected! Would I admitt to using them to an examiner?? Hell no and thats the only way YOU can DETECT them! A successfull interrogation is only as good as the admissions you get and you know that a good investigator will push the limits to get one. You and other examiners have been challenged to prove that you can detect cms, but have not taken the challenge. I know you think you are soooo good at what you do and I hate to burst your bubble, but you have no better chance at that detection than if you took a wild guess.
On another note;
There may actually be a few cop-haters on the board but this is about more than that. Look at it this way, I haven't met a cop yet that liked taking a poly and they take more than any other group out there and thus, have had more problems with them. Nobody should assume that there wouldn't be a lot of cops on a board like this.
Anyway, thanks for your service and I mean that. I don't care what anyone says, there's not near enough cops out there.
Just dump that machine in the trash and get into a patrol car!!
Quote from: Deputydog on Jul 08, 2005, 11:20 PMJust dump that machine in the trash and get into a patrol car!!
The polygraphers I've seen would have trouble fitting into a patrol car.
And I hope nobody mistakes my animosity towards polygraphics with a hatred of cops. Couldn't be further from the truth.
Deputydog,
Well, I spent a lot of years on the street and undercover. Would still be there if the chopper would have stayed in the air. It went down while spotting dope in a national forest. Got retrained in the 1990's as a polygraph examiner. I understand your feelings about being a cop and having to take the polygraph tests, but I disagree and will keep on doing it. I've seen the results.
Tasercop wrote:
QuoteWell, I spent a lot of years on the street and undercover. Would still be there if the chopper would have stayed in the air. It went down while spotting dope in a national forest. Got retrained in the 1990's as a polygraph examiner. I understand your feelings about being a cop and having to take the polygraph tests, but I disagree and will keep on doing it. I've seen the results.
Well you took the easy way out to continue supporting your family and lifestyle...understandable. However, if not for said accident would you be conducting examninations? Doubtful.
Not to be too nitpicky but...I understand tasers assist in subduing many a suspect. However, I find your screen name to be interesting in that Taser research has been conducted largely by those advocating its use just the same as polygraphy. Tasers have been the named culprit in the deaths of many suspects such as polygraphy has been the culprit in the death of many careers. Similar belief in tools used that are largely unproven? I think so. I have seen death certificates listing taser as the primary cause of death. Your credibility has never been in higher question. Leave now before you relegate your farce of a profession to a more questionable state.
Tasercop,
You write in part:
Quote
...Here's another angle, sometimes the departments use the polygraph as a way to exclude an applicant they just don't like. Its wrong, but some do it and I believe, well I know, the FBI does it....
If this is true, this should be reported to the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility and DOJ's Inspector General Office. If it is not true or you have no first-hand knowledge of such it shouldn't be offered here as mere insider bravado to bolster the rest of your bluster. And speaking of the latter, you wrote:
Quote
...And no, knowledge of how the polygraph works does not affect the results....
to which I replied:
Quote
...Of course examinee knowledge of your procedure(s) affects the conduct of your exams. Even your best Herculean efforts spent at convincing examinees that control material is really relevant becomes moot and laughable to the knowledgeable examinee or how about the examinee who inwardly smirks as he/she produces a response to your numbers test key eagerly awaiting your pronouncement that he is a real screamer and you won't have any trouble detecting his lies. Come on...get real.... examinee knowledge is changing all the rules. Again, examinee knowledge, whether it leads to countermeasure use or not, has made this a brave new world for you and your colleagues....
This will now be the third time that I have called upon you to explain your statement in light of the two examples I have given--ones which clearly show examinee knowledge has impact on typical procedures surrounding CQT examinations. I know this is merely a message board where you can go mum if you like but pretend it is your new academic setting where such questions will not go unanswered and the truth will come forth. Regards...
Quote from: tasercop on Jul 09, 2005, 01:37 AMDeputydog,
Well, I spent a lot of years on the street and undercover. Would still be there if the chopper would have stayed in the air. It went down while spotting dope in a national forest. Got retrained in the 1990's as a polygraph examiner. I understand your feelings about being a cop and having to take the polygraph tests, but I disagree and will keep on doing it. I've seen the results.
You have my sympathy and respect for somebody injured in the line of duty. It's unfortunate that your department couldn't have trained you in a real science -- like DNA or something similar.
So how often do YOU have to take a polygraph exam? Do YOU use CM's?
Jeffery,
Whether Tasercop has the specific information he claims to have regarding inappropriate conduct on the part of FBI polygraphers remains to be seen (see my previous post), but he is quite correct in the sense that a polygraph exam can be manipulated at will by both by the examiner as well as the examinee. Generally this is not done intentionally (by the examiner) as Tasercop has stated about FBI applicant exams but as a result of investigative or personal bias. Rightly or wrongly (see CBS 60 Minutes special, mid 80's with Diane Sawyer to see how intentionally made false bias can wrongly affect a polygraph exam and produce results known not to be true) this sort of bias can have great impact on polygraph results. Bias can actually help polygraph accuracy too. In a criminal investigation a polygraph-requesting case agent will generally tell the polygrapher of his theory surrounding a case. Because investigators are basing their theories on case facts they tend to be right more than they are wrong. This more-likely-to-be-right-than-wrong bias is often reflected in polygraph results. Occasionally we see investigative theory and hypothesis change only to be confirmed by a changing polygraph result. Go figure...lol. The lack of this kind of information in a screening exam leads to unaltered random error in this application that in turn results in the abysmal accuracy and outcome we see frequently see reported here. Now to your point... Due to personal bias and some degree of self survival (i.e., one could not exist in an organization by wrongly accusing co-workers and bosses the way applicants are accused), two groups which rarely fail polygraph exams (unless there exists reason in advance to do so, i.e. being a suspect in a crime) are polygraph examiners and superiors and executives in the chain of command of polygraphers. I don't think Tasercop ever need worry about using CMs in a routine screening exam.
Quote from: tasercop on Jul 08, 2005, 06:11 PMMost of what you are saying could also adversely affect other medical tests. Moving, pressing a toe, squeezing the sphincter are also likely to affect most diagnostic imaging scans, making the results unusable, but not invalidating the instrument as an accurate medical device. If you have ever had an MRI or a CAT scan (I have), you have to remain perfectly still. You have a bad argument here :)
Tasercop,
Certainly, if you are getting an MRI you need to hold still. But that's a rather disappointingly glib way of dismissing my point. No valid test I am aware of is dependent upon what the examinee is thinking during the test. If my doctor cautioned me prior to an MRI that I not only had to hold still, but I had better not do long division in my head or the test would have to be repeated, I would seriously doubt the validity of the MRI.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but if I was being given a polygraph and after each answer I stared at a spot on the wall and began reciting poetry (either out loud or in my head) you would stop the test and tell me not to do that, because you need to have me thinking about the answer I just gave in order to produce any sort of a response. What the examinee is thinking about is an important part of the polygraph exam, and it is in no way under the control of the examiner. The best the examiner can do (short of an admission from the examinee) is make a SWAG as to whether the examinee is following directions. If the conclusions of the "test" are based on such a Scientific Wild Ass Guess it clearly calls into doubt the validity of the entire procedure.
Additionally, as Jeffery also stated, you have my respect as an officer who was injured in the line.
Sergeant1107,
Perhaps you have not seen and would find interesting the following quote that appears on the left hand column of the home page of this site:
Quote
"Polygraph is more art than science, and unless an admission is obtained, the final determination is frequently what we refer to as a scientific wild-ass guess (SWAG)"
retired
CIA polygrapher
John F. Sullivan
I will be away for a few days, but you and the others keep up the good job of keeping the louts as honest as can be...lol...cheers
This board has been fun, but a full time job and graduate studies are taking its toll and I'm afraid I won't have much time from now on to come out and play with everyone. :'( So, I will try to answer as much as I can in what is probably my last post for a while.
Drew, you know as well as I do that there is no way for a guilty person, or deceptive person, whatever you want to call them, to diminish responses to relevant questions. In a screening R/I examination there are no comparison questions, so there is nothing to be manipulated. Know all you want about the polygraph, you can't change your sympathetic responses to questions to which you are lying. Since you can't change your deceptive responses, the only hope in a probably lie comparison question test is to manipulate the comparison questions. Countermeasures are very detectable, so this is not really a problem.
If what you are saying is true, one would expect a change in the past 10 years in an increase in examinees passing the examination. It hasn't happened. I pulled the stats from my agency and in 1994, 92.2% of applicants making it to the polygraph, passed their examinations (not all were hired of course, due to other factors, such as admissions and other negatives in their background). That is, 92.2% were found NDI (as it was called back then). In 2004, 95.1% were found to have No Significant Responses. I think you will agree that a 2.9% increase is statistically insignificant, especially when you consider the next set of stats.
What has changed is the percentage of inconclusives. In 1994, 4.6% of examinees were inconclusive. In 2004 it was .25%. This is due to the practice of not automatically disqualifying applicants due to an inconclusive or SR screening examination without collaborative information. We now do follow-up examinations in these cases.
What else do these stats show? Most applicants pass the polygraph and that the current trend with researching the polygraph has little or no affect on the results.
I could give you additional stats on countermeasures detected in 1994 compared to 2004, but you wouldn't believe them anyway, so I'm not going to waste my time. Its the old saying, "Don't try to argue with a conspiracy theorist, it only proves you're part of the conspiracy" LOL.
As far as the information about the FBI abuses, I can't post specifics here as it would violate applicant confidentiality, but I certainly believe it. Two applicants have reported the same experience, from different examiners, at different periods of time in the same year. The two did not know each other. Yes, I filed a complaint and hope it will be investigated, not only by the feds, but also the APA (I don't hold out much hope with the APA).
Brandon,
The easy way out! I wish. 6 years of college so far. 3 exams a day, 5 days per week. I do it because I know it works. I have convicted the guilty, exonerated the innocent and kept the undesirable away from the badge. And believe it or not, exonerating the innocent is what police examiners do most. 75% of examinees (this is not official, but what most examiners I talk to report) pass a criminal police polygraph. If you listen to most on this board, you would think we are just out to screw people, but it couldn't be farther from the truth. Private examiners report just the opposite. 75% of criminal examinations are DI. Why? Because defense attorneys tell their suspected guilty clients to take it from a private examiner. If they fail, it is privileged information. If we are the ones out to screw the innocent, why are ours 75% NDI? Makes no sense.
I don't know for sure if I had not been hurt if I would have become a polygrapher. It was something I was always interested in, but I had so many other duties and responsibilities that I loved, that I probably wouldn't have put in for it.
Jeffery,
I have taken 4 polygraph exams in my life (not including the practice ones during polygraph school) and passed all. I just told the truth. No, I have never used countermeasures. Never needed to and know that doing so and getting caught would be the end of a career.
Well its been fun, but I have work to do. Maybe I will see some of you in my chair one of these days. ;)
A six year polygraphy course? ;)
Your polygraph training is what was meant by the "easy way out" comment. Likely the education you are currently gathering has little to do with your decision to become an examiner. As I mentioned I understand the need to provide for one's family and one's self. Your decision to become a polygraph examiner was probably based largely on this need and your want to stay in the investigative realm. If I'm am wrong by all means correct me.
Tasercop wrote:
Quote3 exams a day, 5 days per week.
Again correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought examer's were supposed to administer 2 a day max. If I rememberd where I read that I would quote.
Tasercop wrote:
QuoteAnd believe it or not, exonerating the innocent is what police examiners do most. 75% of examinees (this is not official, but what most examiners I talk to report) pass a criminal police polygraph. If you listen to most on this board, you would think we are just out to screw people, but it couldn't be farther from the truth. Private examiners report just the opposite. 75% of criminal examinations are DI. Why? Because defense attorneys tell their suspected guilty clients to take it from a private examiner. If they fail, it is privileged information. If we are the ones out to screw the innocent, why are ours 75% NDI? Makes no sense.
Would the reader be correct in concluding that there is a distinction between police and private examiner here? This sounds as if the polygraph result depends on who foots the bill.
I don't suspect many polygraph examiners approached becoming an examiner to screw people, but rather the opposite. But the fact remains that many people, myself included, have been screwed by polygraph examiners intentionally or otherwise. It is like the drunk guy that kills a family of four on the roadway. His intention was not to kill anyone, but to get home and pass out. His intention makes him no less culpable for the result.
Anyway, best wishes to you in your pursuits of study. :)
Quote from: tasercop on Jul 08, 2005, 06:11 PM Information is circulating that there is a push by law enforcement in at least two other states that currently do not allow pre-employment polygraph screening, to amend the law to allow it. It will probably happen.
Unfortunately, it seems that he has a very good point here. In my years in LE I have seen a LARGE increase on the use of the polygraph both as a pre-employment screening tool and as an IA tool. In my area alone all the major police departments have now gone to using the polygraph.
The fact of the matter is that it comes down to liability for them at this time. Corruption in LE can seriously hurt a department both from the public perception and from the lawsuits resulting from it. As a supervisor my previous department I got so fed up with 'corruption" within the department that I actually didn't put up much of a fight when they brought in the polygraph. Fortunately, the polygraph was not used as a sole disqualifier or as the sole piece of evidence for making decisions. But I cannot say the same for the other departments in the area.
One thing I can say for sure is that the powers that be that implemented the use of the polygraph in our department really didn't know anything about the polygraph and neither did the IA investigators. While I did fight for our department to send one of our own to polygraph school, it was ultimately decided to contract an independent investigator to do them for us. Pretty scary to put your future in the hands of someone who relies on testing you for a profit. (especially when he gets to charge a larger fee for every retest)
Dimas,
Sadly, I would have to agree with about the continued prevalence of polygraphs in law enforcement. As long as the majority of the people believe that polygraphs are a useful tool in the detection of deception they will likely remain with us.
The polygraph examiners hold the high ground in the court of public opinion. Movies and television shows portray the polygraph as an accurate method of detecting lies, and those forms of media are exactly where most people get their information from. There is a stigma associated with a refusal to take a polygraph, so an informed person who chooses not to roll the dice on an "exam" is often viewed as someone with some sort of dirty secret to hide. That is one of the major problems for anyone proposing to eliminate the use of polygraphs on prospective law enforcement officers. Many people would look at a proposal like that and ask themselves what the applicant has to hide, because why else would they be reluctant to take a polygraph? Web sites like this one are the first step in changing such public perception.
If we can ever get to the point where the majority of the public sees the polygraph as a pseudoscience akin to phrenology and palmistry the issue of pre-employment screening would be quickly resolved. Lawmakers and police administrators won't be willing to look foolish by promoting pre-employment screening and employee testing once it is clear that the public views polygraphy as a parlor trick and not as a "lie detector."
A statement was made previously comparing the 'art' of polygraphy to other 'soft' sciences like psychology. It might seem a valid question to ask why not all the fuss about the psychological review when that is based on a psychologist's opinion and not scientific fact?
The problem with the poly is that it does not fall into the realm of verifiable 'soft science' like psychology does. However, a poly test is scored as if it is a verifiable, scientific test. If your blood pressure, pneumo reactions, etc show higher than a relevant question vs. a control, the polygrapher makes a blanket statement that you 'lied' and therefore 'fails' you from the 'test??' It seems to me, as the poly cannot prove that you lied or not, that the polygraph tests one's skills at passing the polygraph and not much else - similar to how a student prepares for the SAT's knowing that the SAT's have little to do with 'student aplitude.'
This kind of 'testing' cannot be included in the same category with pre-test interviews or psyhological interviews, which are meant to be 'pseudo-scientific' and scored by judgement rather than hard-edged scientific accuracy. No interviewer would begrudge you the opportunity to explain yourself before passing/failing you, unlike polygraphers, who seem to take delight in indimidating, cooercing, and 'failing' their subjects with zero hard evidence to back it up.
Importscout wrote:
QuoteA statement was made previously comparing the 'art' of polygraphy to other 'soft' sciences like psychology. It might seem a valid question to ask why not all the fuss about the psychological review when that is based on a psychologist's opinion and not scientific fact?
The problem with the poly is that it does not fall into the realm of verifiable 'soft science' like psychology does. However, a poly test is scored as if it is a verifiable, scientific test. If your blood pressure, pneumo reactions, etc show higher than a relevant question vs. a control, the polygrapher makes a blanket statement that you 'lied' and therefore 'fails' you from the 'test??' It seems to me, as the poly cannot prove that you lied or not, that the polygraph tests one's skills at passing the polygraph and not much else - similar to how a student prepares for the SAT's knowing that the SAT's have little to do with 'student aplitude.'
This kind of 'testing' cannot be included in the same category with pre-test interviews or psyhological interviews, which are meant to be 'pseudo-scientific' and scored by judgement rather than hard-edged scientific accuracy. No interviewer would begrudge you the opportunity to explain yourself before passing/failing you, unlike polygraphers, who seem to take delight in indimidating, cooercing, and 'failing' their subjects with zero hard evidence to back it up.
Actually polygraph examinations supposedly provide just such an opportunity to explain reactions charted. This is known as the post-test phase. This opportunity is, however, not afforded all examinees.
An interview as has been mentioned depends largely on the interviewer. First impressions are made very quickly. No matter what the applicant says or does, if the first impression of the interviewer is negative the outcome will be as well. The psych portion is soft as well. In most agencies (ones that I have researched) there are subjective and objective application phases. Objective phases would include areas in which true hard data can be measured: physical fitness, written apptitude, medical evaluation and controlled substance screening. Subjective phases would include: polygraph, psychological evaluation and oral board/interview. Polygraph is more in-tune with these phases. I've nothing to back this up, but my hunch is that the psychological tests have not been do damning to as many as polygraph tests have. However that is not to say that the psych hasn't incorrectly DQ'd applicants.
One of the things that bother me and other cops I've spoken with regarding the polygraph is the lack of due process. As police officers we are used to having to prove something, rather than having the luxury of making a guess.
I am quite comfortable with the thought of conducting an interview with a suspect and getting an overall feeling based on my years of experience that the suspect is lying, but winding up the interview without the suspect confessing or making any damaging admissions. After such an interview I would continue to investigate that person, using my "gut instinct" that he was being deceptive as justification. I could not, however, go ahead and arrest him at that point based on nothing other than my "gut instinct." Not only would it be unlawfully lacking in probable cause, it would be unfair because there was no due process.
However, change that setting to a police applicant sitting in a polygrapher's exam room, and suddenly there is no due process. At the end of the exam, the polygrapher will make a decision based on his years of experience that the suspect was either deceptive or truthful. It is not a scientifically valid opinion based on hard evidence – it is a judgment call based on feelings and opinions. Another polygraph examiner could look at the same charts and come up with a different conclusion. In one study the same chart was given to the same polygrapher a few months later and it produced a different opinion. Yet when that opinion is given to the police agency it is presented and accepted as fact, not as the scientific wild-ass guess it is. The buck effectively stops at the polygrapher, for all practical purposes. There is no investigation afterward to prove or disprove any claims of theft, drug usage, or drug dealing. The process is over with a single person's opinion, which is inherently unfair.
You are absolutely correct Sergeant, and those who practice this voo doo crapola seem to feel this is perfectly legitemate.
If Polygraphy is so damned good in screening applicants seeking to get into the law enforcement profession, why then did the Philadelphia PD drop the polygraph as a pre-employment screening device? Why doesn't the NYPD require a polygraph?
Quote from: Matty on Jul 13, 2005, 08:50 PM
If Polygraphy is so damned good in screening applicants seeking to get into the law enforcement profession...Why doesn't the NYPD require a polygraph?
And why do most of the other police departments in the state of New York require the applicant to undergo a polygraph examination?
hmmmmmm?
;)
Get a life and answer the question..
So I guess that Polygraphy is legitemate again because PD's in other towns in New York still use Poligraphy?
Answer the question: Why did the largest City in America and the 4th largest drop Polygraphs? Hmmmmmmm? ;)
Quote from: Matty on Jul 14, 2005, 01:11 AMGet a life and answer the question..
So I guess that Polygraphy is legitemate again because PD's in other towns in New York still use Poligraphy?
Answer the question: Why did the largest City in America and the 4th largest drop Polygraphs? Hmmmmmmm? ;)
And why are more and more federal, state, and local agencies coming on line and adding polygraph testing to their hiring process (or greatly increasing their use?)
We can play this game all day
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 14, 2005, 01:17 AM
And why are more and more federal, state, and local agencies coming on line and adding polygraph testing to their hiring process (or greatly increasing their use?)
We can play this game all day
And we all know that the pressed-shirts making policy in Washington are HIGHLY intelligent people with real world experience, don't we?
Jeesh. Using the Federal Government as an example of competence is like using Iran as a model of a democracy.
On this logic, nonombre, since the FBI doesn't tape polygraphs (why don't they, BTW?) why do other agencies?
Nonombre,
Side step the question all you want, but it's obvious you cannot answer the question... But then as long as I have been around here I have never heard one of you witch doctors explain the fairness of your sorry line of work....can you say Karma? :-*