Hi everyone!
Well I just took my first poly yesterday for police employment, and it was nothing like I expected.
I read over the site several times and knew all the tricks, but I was unable to use them, the poly this guy gave me really threw me off.
He started by asking me a short list of questions, i.e. was I ever in a gang, was I currently in the US, did I ever commit domestic violence, etc. While he asked these questions I was identifying each one as control, etc. He then switched the machine on, and again asked me the questions. He paused for approximately 2 secs between each question, giving me no time to employ any countermeasures. He read through a whole list of about 10 questions in less than a minute! All I could do was to try to relax and breath at a constant pace throughout. He then said I did good and unhooked me. (Although he did not say I passed) :).
Maybe I missed this in the book, but has anyone else experienced a poly like this?
Thanks for your interest,
gates21
From what you have written, your "test" was not up to standard with the requirements of the APA of AAPP. The exam should have been no less than 90 minutes including pre-test, in-test and post-test. A 2 second pause between your answer and the next question according to many in the polygraph community is not ample time to record your physiological response.
If I were in your place I would document everything you remember. Hold on to that documentation until you receive your results. If you "passed" just hold onto the documentation. If you "fail" raise hell.
Thanks for your response Brandon,
I arrived there at 10:40am, with my appointment scheduled at 11:00. When I arrived I signed a consent form, and had to fill out 1 page (front & back), with simple info concerning my personal information, and my employers for the last 10 years. I would guess I went in for the poly at around 11:15, and was done at the absolute latest by 11:35. I asked a friend who took a poly with the same company who said that they left at the most, 5 seconds between each question. I havnt received any information about whether I passed or failed, but I will let you know when I hear.
Gates21
These jokers are known as "chart rollers" even more scary then "real" polygraohers if there is such a thing. Their findings are arbitrary at the most where you were polygraphed at. Good luck, I would ask the department why they don't use an APA certified operator if you fail. (not that I am in favor of any polygraph testing at all). Takes longer to become a barber then a polygrapher anyways(more respected and legit too!).
It wouldn't surprise me if individual polygraph examiners who regularly visit this site have decided to alter their "tests" a little. From their point of view, I'm sure they see it as something that only affects examinees who try to use countermeasures, so "honest" people don't have anything to worry about. Plus, anyone who complains about it is essentially proving that they have knowledge of the polygraph process, which they may have denied earlier. Perhaps that's why your "test" was so brief and had such short intervals between questions.
I haven't had to take a polygraph in several years, but all four I did take included questions regarding whether I had done any research or read any books on how to beat a polygraph. I wouldn't be surprised if examiners these days are specifically asking about visiting this particular site. Anyone who admits to doing so can, I am confident, be assured of failing their "test."
Of course, the mere fact that examinee knowledge of the testing procedure may invalidate the test is fairly damning in itself. Can you imagine drinking all night in a bar, being arrested for DUI on the way home, and before you have to blow into the machine the cop asks you: "Have you ever done any research into how this Intoxilyzer works? Oh, you have? Well, then, there's no point in giving you this test."
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Jul 02, 2005, 12:35 PM
Of course, the mere fact that examinee knowledge of the testing procedure may invalidate the test is fairly damning in itself. Can you imagine drinking all night in a bar, being arrested for DUI on the way home, and before you have to blow into the machine the cop asks you: "Have you ever done any research into how this Intoxilyzer works? Oh, you have? Well, then, there's no point in giving you this test."
My position is I don't really care so much about people having knowledge of how the polygraph procedure works. I am more concerned about some of the things we have caught them doing trying to alter the tests. Some have admitted getting their countermeasure information here on this site. This bothers me for the following reason. Please allow me to make a comparison:
In my department, we have caught a growing number of applicants attempting to "beat" their urinalysis tests. Many of the applicants we have caught trying to alter their urinalysis results, would have probably never attempted such stupidity had it not been for internet sites very similar to this one providing methods on altering their urinalysis results. What I found once I went on the net and checked out some of those sites, was pretty interesting.
It seems the people who run those sites approach their mission with the same sort of rightness indignation as the people who hang around here. Each one of those sites justify the methods they teach by holding in contempt the governmental agencies who would dare to employ such "draconian measures."
To me, same cat, different spots.
Nonombre...
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 02, 2005, 06:56 PMMy position is I don't really care so much about people having knowledge of how the polygraph procedure works....
Considering that entire rationale for CQT polygraphy depends on the examinee being ignorant of the procedure, why don't you care so much if people have knowledge about it?
How do you proceed with examinees who, during the "pre-test" phase, admit to having such knowledge?
QuoteIn my department, we have caught a growing number of applicants attempting to "beat" their urinalysis tests. Many of the applicants we have caught trying to alter their urinalysis results, would have probably never attempted such stupidity had it not been for internet sites very similar to this one providing methods on altering their urinalysis results.
Not that I want to get into a pissing contest ;) but the comparison between urinalysis and polygraph testing is an apples and oranges comparison. Specific chemicals can be identified through urinalysis. The only similarity would be that some chemicals produce markers similar to other chemicals causing a misidentification much like the physiological responses gauged in polygraph testing can be caused by a number of factors. Unlike polygraph testing urinalysis results can be either confirmed or contested through other testing procedures such as blood analysis, hair analysis, etc. The reason for such a difference is that drug testing in a broad approach without identifying the particular test method is firmly grounded in scientific procedure.
QuoteIt seems the people who run those sites approach their mission with the same sort of rightness indignation as the people who hang around here. Each one of those sites justify the methods they teach by holding in contempt the governmental agencies who would dare to employ such "draconian measures."
Your broad sweeping statement should be ammended. As you are "hanging around" here, should you be labeled as righteously indignate? Most likely, no. I (and I suspect many others) do not necessarily hold the agencies in contempt for using such flawed procedures but I do hold in contempt the procedures themselves.
Quote from: Brandon Hall on Jul 02, 2005, 08:07 PM
Not that I want to get into a pissing contest ;) ...
Your broad sweeping statement should be ammended. As you are "hanging around" here, should you be labeled as righteously indignate?
You are right. I should have said, "Some of the people around here." And I do thank you for not initiating a "pissing contest," for territory marking could get messy. However, I do maintain that the similiarities in the attitudes of the two groups of websites (anti-PG and anti-whiz quiz) to be striking.
Nonombre.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 02, 2005, 08:06 PM
Considering that entire rationale for CQT polygraphy depends on the examinee being ignorant of the procedure, why don't you care so much if people have knowledge about it?
How do you proceed with examinees who, during the "pre-test" phase, admit to having such knowledge?
Mr. Mashke,
I am a very new examiner, so forgive me for not being willing to expound on what I was recently taught at polygraph school.
Your answer: Methodologies have changed. We don't just "compare" anymore. Therefore, we no longer care what they think they know.
Nonombre
Nonombre,
I have not viewed the urinalysis site you have mentioned (or any urnialysis site for that matter). Could you provide a link? However, I have read information that provided urinalysis testing is "beatable" and flawed. For example I do know herion, once metabolized, will show as morphine due to the opiate derivation both share. Thus the use of folicular, blood and sinovial (this one is a bit extreme) examination. Polygraph certainly does not share the same luxuries of substance screening in that it has no other "tests" to confirm or contest its resulting opinion. Drug testing removes the human factor from its result as there is no need for opinion rendering. The chemical markers either are detected or not detected through scientific process. I am sure misidentifications are made and that is most likely the reason for the site you have mentioned. From what I have read, urinalysis is the most cost effective (i.e. cheap and easy) method of substance screening. Similarly polygraph is more cost effective (cheap and easy) than a throrough background review.
Back on topic, what is your opinion of the test administered to gates21?
Quote from: Brandon Hall on Jul 02, 2005, 08:58 PMNonombre,
Back on topic, what is your opinion of the test administered to gates21?
Actually, I agree with the poster who called this examiner a "Chart roller." If the gates 21 is being accurate in his description of the exam, and if he winds up being called "deceptive," then if I were him, I would find out if the examiner is a APA member. I would then complain loudly to the APA and to the department who administered the test. Gee, I thought that EPPA got rid of examiners like this.
NoNombre.
:-[
well, nonombre, I dont know what agency you work for but as of October of last year, the FBI isnt doing what they say you are doing in regards to scoring the test. At least if the former head of FBI polygraphy is to be believed. They still just compare the questions they are sure you are lying about with the ones they want to know about.
You are delusional if you think your test is as good as you have been lead to believe. Im sure you think this board if full of malcontents who got busted, but mostly it is full of honest people whose careers were destroyed by accusations of being spies, terrorists, drug dealers and all sorts of ridiculous things after taking your stupid test. First, read our statements on this site, then come back and tell us what you think.
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 02, 2005, 08:51 PM...Methodologies have changed. We don't just "compare" anymore. Therefore, we no longer care what they think they know.
If this is true, then please explain how methodologies have changed such that it doesn't matter what the examinee knows. Since it doesn't matter, you shouldn't have any reluctance to explain this changed procedure of which you speak. What is the name of this new methodology, how does it differ from standard CQT methodology, what polygraph schools are teaching it, and where can we find documentation of it?
Also, if, as you say, polygraphers no longer care what examinees know about polygraphy, why do they continue to ask about this during the "pre-test" phase?
Just for more info I know for a fact this polygrapher and his office has been open for over 20 years. Apparently he doesn't get too many complaints to be open that long ;). I'm not going to make a big deal about it until I hear back from the PD, if for some reason I do fail, (which I shouldn't), I will check back with you for further advice.
Thanks for all the help!
gates21
Nonombre,
I don't see how you can compare polygraph examinations to urinalysis. Even the philosophy of the dissenters is different. I don't think there are many people who oppose the polygraph because they believe it to be an invasion of privacy and a violation of the Fourth Amendment, yet those are precisely the concerns of most people who oppose various forms of urinalysis. In my experience, most of the people who oppose polygraphs do so because they have had first-hand experience with the inaccuracy of the "test" process. The two issues are completely different. I am not aware of any group that opposes urinalysis because they believe it is inaccurate and renders as many false-positives as it does false-negatives, which are the core problems with the polygraph.
I would have to agree with George's sentiments; if you are not concerned about an examinee's knowledge of the procedure, why are you reluctant to share information on that procedure? If that is the case, why are so many polygraph examiners openly hostile with regards to this web site?
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 03, 2005, 02:54 AM
If this is true, then please explain how methodologies have changed such that it doesn't matter what the examinee knows. Since it doesn't matter, you shouldn't have any reluctance to explain this changed procedure of which you speak. What is the name of this new methodology, how does it differ from standard CQT methodology, what polygraph schools are teaching it, and where can we find documentation of it?
Also, if, as you say, polygraphers no longer care what examinees know about polygraphy, why do they continue to ask about this during the "pre-test" phase?
George, I'm sorry. Respectfully, I will not go into any details regarding methods. The only thing I will say (not to sound "coy"), but it seems to me this whole poly-anti-poly situation has become a bit of a chess game. For years, polygraph examiners operated effectively in a certain fashion. Then a group of people, some with legitimate complaints, some definately not, started using the intenet to blindly attack how we do our job. Worse, they started telling others to do things that the very recipients of the "advice" didn't even know for sure what they were doing, or why (for proof, look at many of the highly confused postings on this site).
Obviously we have since adjusted our methods (would'nt you?). So as in a game of chess, now that the "anti" group has made a move, the polygraph community has countered with a number of procedural changes (not all, not yet, but that is what continuing education is all about).
As in urinalysis screening, which based on information primarily available on the internet, watches it's examinees more closely now and checks for the presence of certain altering substances, the polygraph community has also shifted and changed procedures.
Therefore, the reason I do not answer your questions outright should be easy to understand. Would you ask the urinalysis companies to post on a site like this one, which altering substances they look for, or which new illegal drugs they test for that matter?
As for why we inquire in the pre-test interview about knowledge or research into polygraph: I don't know about other examiners, but I ask the question because if the examinee answers they have researched (especailly if they relate they have visited sites like this one), I will then implore them to please not do anything stupid, for as soon as I see it, the test (and their job application/pre-trial agreement/probation) is over.
Nonombre
Nonombre,
Respectfully, I would have to say that characterizing this issue as a "chess game" is a bit specious, in my opinion. Perhaps you see it as: "So, there's a new countermeasure for the polygraph, eh? Well, I'll just come up with a method to defeat that and keep on giving examinations." Thus, you view it as a contest of "us vs. them." Simply dealing with the newest countermeasure is a rather shallow way of dealing with things. You don't seem to see the core issue: Why are truthful people investing so much time and effort to speak out against the polygraph?
There is a problem with polygraphy. The problem existed long before this web site was created. Instead of pointing to this site as a reason for the current issues with polygraphy, maybe the pro-polygraph community could actually look for the reason so many truthful people are so vehemently against the use of the polygraph. Are some of the people who claim to have told the truth and still failed actually lying about it? Probably. But do you really believe that ALL of them are lying about it? Start fixing the problem, not the blame.
Nonombre,
It seems to me that your unwillingness to provide any details about the allegedly "changed" polygraph methodology of which you speak belies your claim that polygraphers "no longer care what" examinees "think they know."
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Jul 03, 2005, 02:31 PM...You don't seem to see the core issue: Why are truthful people investing so much time and effort to speak out against the polygraph?
...maybe the pro-polygraph community could actually look for the reason so many truthful people are so vehemently against the use of the polygraph. Are some of the people who claim to have told the truth and still failed actually lying about it? Probably. But do you really believe that ALL of them are lying about it? Start fixing the problem, not the blame.
Sergeant,
I do not disagree with you. I am aware that there are people out there who are undoubtably victims of "false positives." However, unlike many of the folks who hang out on this site, I do not believe that polygraph is fundlementally flawed. As I have stated in other strings, I have seen far to many cases where the use of the polygraph has surfaced information which NEVER would have been otherwise developed. As I have said before, that is what so interested me in becoming an examiner, and even in my short time at this, I have helped to solve several criminal cases that had been left for dead until the polygraph was used.
How do we protect against the false positive? Especially in screening? (not as significant a problem in criminal testing, I am pretty sure) Well, I have a few ideas about that too, but I do not know if they would be well received in this forum.
Nonombre.
:-/
Nonombre,
Given your experience, I can understand why you are a fan of the polygraph. It is a powerful argument to say that cases that were otherwise at a standstill were closed because of information gleaned from a polygraph examination. If that is the sum of your encounters with the polygraph I can certainly understand why you are a proponent; you are restricting your view of the issue to a single aspect which makes the polygraph appear positive and useful.
However, I think if you look a little deeper, you will find out that the only reason the polygraph was able to get that information is because the subjects being interrogated believed the polygraph was a "lie detector." If you were interrogating someone who grew up believing that crystal balls or tarot cards were able to detect lies, then each of those two methods would have been just as effective as the polygraph. That effectiveness does not mean that such a method is valid or has any scientific foundation.
If a police polygraph examiner came to you and said that he'd ditched the polygraph and held something that he'd said was a crystal ball in his hands during the last ten interrogations of suspected child molesters, and all ten of them broke down and admitted to the crime, would that convince you of the effectiveness of holding a glass orb during interrogations? Would it make sense to start using that glass orb for pre-employment screening? Is society better off because those ten child molesters have been arrested? Absolutely, without a doubt, yes it is. Does the fact that the crystal ball trick worked on these ten morons make it any more valid? Not in my opinion, it doesn't.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Jul 04, 2005, 12:45 PM...I think if you look a little deeper, you will find out that the only reason the polygraph was able to get that information is because the subjects being interrogated believed the polygraph was a "lie detector." If you were interrogating someone who grew up believing that crystal balls or tarot cards were able to detect lies, then each of those two methods would have been just as effective as the polygraph. That effectiveness does not mean that such a method is valid or has any scientific foundation.
But didn't the NAS study, as critical as it was about polygraph screening, report that polygraph was in fact a valid tool for criminal specific issue testing? Certainly, that would make polygraph somewhat more accurate than the crystal ball you allude to.
Additionally, that being the case, don't you feel even a slight tinge of guilt support a site that makes every attempt to teach folks how to "beat" a polygraph examination?
Food for thought.
Nonombre :-/
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 04, 2005, 01:39 PM
But didn't the NAS study, as critical as it was about polygraph screening, report that polygraph was in fact a valid tool for criminal specific issue testing? Certainly, that would make polygraph somewhat more accurate than the crystal ball you allude to.
Additionally, that being the case, don't you feel even a slight tinge of guilt support a site that makes every attempt to teach folks how to "beat" a polygraph examination?
Food for thought.
Nonombre :-/
The Polygraph community views "false positives" as acceptable losses for the "overall good" they see polygraphics providing. Those of us in the false positive category obvioulsy think this is bull shit.
Do crooks sometimes get away with info learned on this site? Possibly. But are innocent people protected by information they learn on this site? Absolutely. And that is the intent.
Crooks using this information to beat the system are acceptable losses, in my opinion, compared to the damage that polygraphics and the ass hole chart rollers who practice it cause.
Quote from: Jeffery on Jul 04, 2005, 02:16 PM
Crooks using this information to beat the system are acceptable losses, in my opinion, compared to the damage that polygraphics and the ass hole chart rollers who practice it cause.
And it John Couey had successfully utilized the countermeasure information provided by this site? I'm afraid that little Jessica Lunsford would still be rotting in that hole. But of course, according to you, that is "acceptable losses" isn't it?
Nonombre?
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 04, 2005, 02:44 PM
And it John Couey had successfully utilized the countermeasure information provided by this site? I'm afraid that little Jessica Lunsford would still be rotting in that hole. But of course, according to you, that is "acceptable losses" isn't it?
Nonombre?
I think the honorable and potentially stellar agent(s) who were excluded from service in the FBI/Law Enforcement agency of their choice due to the system's reliance on unscientific polygraphics could potentially have conducted a proper investigation and caught the criminal John Couey without utilizing polygraphics. That of course would have required more *work*.
The real injustice here is a system that relies on polygraphics which are so easily beaten (if indeed you feel threatened by the information posted on this site) and conversely so often wrong (in the case of inconclusives, false positives etc).
Of course, none of this should concern you, if as you say, countermeasures are so easy to detect AND you have new and improved polygraph techniques (which you can't/won't tell us) which somehow enable the accurate testing of examinees who "know" how the system works. See the paradox here?
Nonombre,
You asked if I felt any guilt about supporting a site which attempts to teach people how to "beat" a polygraph. I absolutely do not feel any such guilt, and here's why:
If polygraphy was valid and had some scientific basis, I do not believe it could be defeated by visiting a web site which provides instruction on how to alter one's breathing pattern. If polygraphy was a valid method of detecting deception then it wouldn't matter how an examinee sat, or what he was thinking about, how he breathed, or whether he bit his tongue. A valid test would not be affected by such uncontrollable variables.
If there was a web site which instructed people under arrest for DUI to do math problems in their head, or bite their tongue, or clench up certain muscles when blowing into the Intoxilyzer, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with it. None of those things will affect the chemical analysis of a person's breath, because the analysis is being conducted in a scientifically valid way. If thinking about math problems or stepping on a tack concealed in your shoe enabled someone to blow .00 after drinking a liter of vodka, it would cause me to have serious doubts about the validity of the breath test. It would not, however, make me upset with the person who suggested the math problems or the tack.
Quote from: Jeffery on Jul 04, 2005, 03:06 PM
I think the honorable and potentially stellar agent(s) who were excluded from service in the FBI/Law Enforcement agency of their choice due to the system's reliance on unscientific polygraphics could potentially have conducted a proper investigation and caught the criminal John Couey without utilizing polygraphics. That of course would have required more *work*.
The real injustice here is a system that relies on polygraphics which are so easily beaten (if indeed you feel threatened by the information posted on this site) and conversely so often wrong (in the case of inconclusives, false positives etc).
Of course, none of this should concern you, if as you say, countermeasures are so easy to detect AND you have new and improved polygraph techniques (which you can't/won't tell us) which somehow enable the accurate testing of examinees who "know" how the system works. See the paradox here?
Jeffrey,
I guess the potential "honorable and potentially stellar agent" you are referring to is you? Making a bit of an assumption here, aren't we??? And exactly which "proper investigation" methods are you referring to? Please lay out the investigative plan you would have utilized (without use of polygraph of course) which makes you so sure you would have solved this case.
Jeff, I tend to go with what I see. (e.g., walks like a duck, etc). In this case, I see a very bad guy, caught by the use of polygraph, when other methods had failed. Confession obtained, body recovered, another pervert off the street thanks once again to the use of polygraph.
The problem I still see it, is that the people who live on this site would have been quite comfortable if Mr. Couey had read TLBTLD on line from his jail cell and managed to successfully evade detection by the methods taught by this site (much like the anti-urinalysis sites I have mentioned in my previous posts). Of course, from what I have read, Mr. Couey has alot of people with similar interests posting to this site. (and I am not attacking blindly here. I have read MANY posts from convicted sex offenders on this site. Birds of a feather?)
And by the way, how dare you unilaterally attack the detectives and agents who busted their asses for days and weeks on that case (long hours, little sleep, driven soley by the dedication they felt to find the piece of human crap who did that to that little girl) by smugly sitting in front of your computer screen and making statements like, "That of course would have required more *work*."
Nonombre.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Jul 04, 2005, 03:33 PMNonombre,
You asked if I felt any guilt about supporting a site which attempts to teach people how to "beat" a polygraph. I absolutely do not feel any such guilt, and here's why:
If polygraphy was valid and had some scientific basis, I do not believe it could be defeated by visiting a web site which provides instruction on how to alter one's breathing pattern. If polygraphy was a valid method of detecting deception then it wouldn't matter how an examinee sat, or what he was thinking about, how he breathed, or whether he bit his tongue. A valid test would not be affected by such uncontrollable variables.
If there was a web site which instructed people under arrest for DUI to do math problems in their head, or bite their tongue, or clench up certain muscles when blowing into the Intoxilyzer, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with it. None of those things will affect the chemical analysis of a person's breath, because the analysis is being conducted in a scientifically valid way. If thinking about math problems or stepping on a tack concealed in your shoe enabled someone to blow .00 after drinking a liter of vodka, it would cause me to have serious doubts about the validity of the breath test. It would not, however, make me upset with the person who suggested the math problems or the tack.
Sergeant,
I respect your response a great deal more than the one I just read from "Jeffrey." As I said, I am quite new to this field and am trying to be as objective as I can.
I have been told by my more experienced examiner friends that the volume of people employing methods to try and "beat" a polygraph exam has definately increased in recent years (thanks in part to this site, I expect). I do know that the examiners I know have caught many (I have seen the charts and their confessions with my own eyes). However, I guess that a number of people have probably "Beat" the test as well. (and yes, examiners have operationally responded to this threat, even though I am still not going to tell anyone how)
So Sergeant, what I believe we have here at the moment is a bit of a "Mexican standoff." The folks on this site say, "Perform countermeasures, they can't catch you." and the examiners are saying "Those anti-PG guys may be right, or they may be wrong. However I would not advise trying anything for if and when I do catch you, you can kiss your law enforcment career/probation/pre-trial agreement goodby."
Nonombre
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Jul 04, 2005, 03:33 PMNonombre,
You asked if I felt any guilt about supporting a site which attempts to teach people how to "beat" a polygraph. I absolutely do not feel any such guilt, and here's why:
If polygraphy was valid and had some scientific basis, I do not believe it could be defeated by visiting a web site which provides instruction on how to alter one's breathing pattern. If polygraphy was a valid method of detecting deception then it wouldn't matter how an examinee sat, or what he was thinking about, how he breathed, or whether he bit his tongue. A valid test would not be affected by such uncontrollable variables.
If there was a web site which instructed people under arrest for DUI to do math problems in their head, or bite their tongue, or clench up certain muscles when blowing into the Intoxilyzer, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with it. None of those things will affect the chemical analysis of a person's breath, because the analysis is being conducted in a scientifically valid way. If thinking about math problems or stepping on a tack concealed in your shoe enabled someone to blow .00 after drinking a liter of vodka, it would cause me to have serious doubts about the validity of the breath test. It would not, however, make me upset with the person who suggested the math problems or the tack.
Sergeant,
I respect your response a great deal more than the one I just read from "Jeffrey." As I said, I am quite new to this field and am trying to be as objective as I can.
I have been told by my more experienced examiner friends that the volume of people employing methods to try and "beat" a polygraph exam has definately increased in recent years (thanks in part to this site, I expect). I do know that the examiners I know have caught many (I have seen the charts and their confessions with my own eyes). However, I guess that a number of people have probably "Beat" the test as well. (and yes, examiners have operationally responded to this threat, even though I am still not going to tell anyone how)
So Sergeant, what I believe we have here at the moment is a bit of a "Mexican standoff." The folks on this site say, "Perform countermeasures, they can't catch you." and the examiners are saying "Those anti-PG guys may be right, or they may be wrong. However I would not advise trying anything for if and when I do catch you, you can kiss your law enforcment career/probation/pre-trial agreement goodby."
Nonombre
Quote from: Jeffery on Jul 04, 2005, 03:06 PM
I think the honorable and potentially stellar agent(s) who were excluded from service in the FBI/Law Enforcement agency of their choice due to the system's reliance on unscientific polygraphics could potentially have conducted a proper investigation and caught the criminal John Couey without utilizing polygraphics. That of course would have required more *work*.
The real injustice here is a system that relies on polygraphics which are so easily beaten (if indeed you feel threatened by the information posted on this site) and conversely so often wrong (in the case of inconclusives, false positives etc).
Of course, none of this should concern you, if as you say, countermeasures are so easy to detect AND you have new and improved polygraph techniques (which you can't/won't tell us) which somehow enable the accurate testing of examinees who "know" how the system works. See the paradox here?
Jeffrey,
I guess the potential "honorable and potentially stellar agent" you are referring to is you? Making a bit of an assumption here, aren't we??? And exactly which "proper investigation" methods are you referring to? Please lay out the investigative plan you would have utilized (without use of polygraph of course) which makes you so sure you would have solved this case.
Jeff, I tend to go with what I see. (e.g., walks like a duck, etc). In this case, I see a very bad guy, caught by the use of polygraph, when other methods had failed. Confession obtained, body recovered, another pervert off the street thanks once again to the use of polygraph.
The problem I still see it, is that the people who live on this site would have been quite comfortable if Mr. Couey had read TLBTLD on line from his jail cell and managed to successfully evade detection by the methods taught by this site (much like the anti-urinalysis sites I have mentioned in my previous posts). Of course, from what I have read, Mr. Couey has alot of people with similar interests posting to this site. (and I am not attacking blindly here. I have read MANY posts from convicted sex offenders on this site. Birds of a feather?)
And by the way, how dare you unilaterally attack the detectives and agents who busted their asses for days and weeks on that case (long hours, little sleep, driven soley by the dedication they felt to find the piece of human crap who did that to that little girl) by smugly sitting in front of your computer screen and making statements like, "That of course would have required more *work*."
Nonombre.
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 04, 2005, 03:40 PM
Jeffrey,
I guess the potential "honorable and potentially stellar agent" you are referring to is you? Making a bit of an assumption here, aren't we???
The only one makeing assumptions here is you (I hope your control questions aren't that bad). I was not referring to myself in that post, but to the many others denied a career opportunity due to your quack science.
Quote
And exactly which "proper investigation" methods are you referring to? Please lay out the investigative plan you would have utilized (without use of polygraph of course) which makes you so sure you would have solved this case.
There are many investigative tools. Are you saying that polygraphics is the only way to solve a case? Surprise; I'll admit. I'm not an expert investigator, but my plan would not be "let's just polygraph every perv and see if they confess." (and no, I'm not implieing that was their plan either)
Quote
Jeff, I tend to go with what I see. (e.g., walks like a duck, etc). In this case, I see a very bad guy, caught by the use of polygraph, when other methods had failed. Confession obtained, body recovered, another pervert off the street thanks once again to the use of polygraph.
Read the news pal, he may be back on the street due to a sloppy investigation that relied too much on the polygraph. It'd be a shame to have his confession kicked, and the lack of any other evidence let this guy go. Had a thorough investigation been done, there'd be other evidence.
Quote
The problem I still see it, is that the people who live on this site would have been quite comfortable if Mr. Couey had read TLBTLD on line from his jail cell and managed to successfully evade detection by the methods taught by this site (much like the anti-urinalysis sites I have mentioned in my previous posts). Of course, from what I have read, Mr. Couey has alot of people with similar interests posting to this site. (and I am not attacking blindly here. I have read MANY posts from convicted sex offenders on this site. Birds of a feather?)
The only thing that meks me uncomfortalbe is a system that'd actually assume that soembody passing a polygraph with flying colors was being truthful and drop their investigation on that person. If somebody uses CM information on this site and passes a polygraph, shame on YOU for your over-reliance on the polygraph, not shame on this site for making the info available. And lumping people adamantly against pre-employment polygraph screening in the same boat as convicted sex offenders is completely pathetic and wrong.
Quote
And by the way, how dare you unilaterally attack the detectives and agents who busted their asses for days and weeks on that case (long hours, little sleep, driven soley by the dedication they felt to find the piece of human crap who did that to that little girl) by smugly sitting in front of your computer screen and making statements like, "That of course would have required more *work*."
A complete investigation would have required more work. They already had their sites on the guy, and as I understand it, had already searched his house when the girl was still alive. He'd eventually have been caught, and convicted with evidence and not a confession that may now be tossed. You're again making too many assumptions. I had no untent of maligning the police who searched for the girl; but their reliance on a polygraph induced confession perhaps cuased their investiagtion to end early, and now that confession may be gone too.
Nonombre,
I would have to respectfully disagree with and your assessment of this as a "Mexican standoff." I would not characterize the polygraph issue as one in which the "anti" crowd advocates the use of undetectable countermeasures while the "pro" crowd warns that if you are caught using them you can count on failing the test. That is a tangential issue at best.
A much more fundamental part of the issue is; if the polygraph is a valid test firmly grounded in legitimate scientific method, why would any polygraph examiner be disturbed by a web site which gives advice on how to pass or even "beat" a polygraph? How should it even be possible to "beat" a polygraph if the test is a valid method of detecting deception?
It is a bit disingenuous of you to mention one high-profile case and offer that up as proof the polygraph is a useful law enforcement tool. For every high-profile case where the polygraph was helpful in obtaining a confession or other useful information, there is at least one equally high-profile case where the polygraph failed in the function for which it was used. If you wouldn't accept evidence of, say, the Aldrich Ames case as evidence that the polygraph is useless then don't expect anti-polygraphy people to accept the Couey case as evidence that the polygraph is accurate and useful.
By the way, if you were offended by Jeffrey's comment about investigators having to do some work, why would you include in your post a comment that convicted sex offenders and people who post on this board are "birds of a feather?" If you felt that including a derogatory remark made Jeffrey's post less respectable, why would you include a similarly derogatory remark in yours?
Quote from: Jeffery on Jul 04, 2005, 04:32 PM
Read the news pal, he may be back on the street due to a sloppy investigation that relied too much on the polygraph. It'd be a shame to have his confession kicked, and the lack of any other evidence let this guy go. Had a thorough investigation been done, there'd be other evidence.
Yes, I have also read about problems with the interrogation of this perpetrator. It seems the police may have violated his rights by not making a lawyer available when he first asked for one. This mistake was prior to any polygraph testing however.
What is interesting to me is that apparently he was more than happy to B.S. the police investigators (and of course deny the crime) all day long. Until polygraph was mentioned. Then his immediate reaction was to ask about a lawyer (and I admit he probably should have been provided one at that point). However, rightly or wrongly, he was not. Now that part of the case will be up to the courts. Also, it should be noted that when advised of his rights immeditely prior to the exam, he waived his right to legal counsel, so this will be an interesting one to watch to be sure.
Yes, it seems Mr. Couey was quite comfortable lying and betting he would never be caught, but the instant polygraph was mentioned, he froze. Apparently he now feared he would indeed be caught, for as soon as the polygraph was complete, he realized the jig was up, immediately confessed to the crime, and took the police to the body.
As far as your statement, 'had a thorough investigation been done, Jeff, you have no idea how thorough an investigation had been done. You just don't know. Neither do I. Neither one of us were involved in this case. This polygraph exam was likely the last shot they had at this suspect before he would have clammed up permenently. Look at the case in Aruba right now. Evidence seems to imply that the young kid that in all probability has all the answers, got his stories straight before he was ever questioned by the police. Frankly, as a police polygraph examiner I would love to have a shot at him.
Quote from: Jeffery on Jul 04, 2005, 04:32 PM
The only thing that makes me uncomfortalbe is a system that'd actually assume that soembody passing a polygraph with flying colors was being truthful and drop their investigation on that person.
Good point. However, remember that in the vast majority of criminal cases, the polygraph is the very last thing that happens before a case is closed. I suspect that is why I have seen so many hopeless cases be literally saved by the polygraph. If the guys passes and the case is dropped, in many situations it was on its way to being dropped anyway.
Quote from: Jeffery on Jul 04, 2005, 04:32 PM
If somebody uses CM information on this site and passes a polygraph, shame on YOU for your over-reliance on the polygraph, not shame on this site for making the info available.
Our anti-urinalysis friends make the same argument. So do people who provide information on buying college term papers, hacking into corporate and government computer systems, and provide the words and phrases to use to convince your prison counsellor that you are a situational child abuser and not a preferential abuser. Therefore you are rehabilitatable and should be released back into the community.
Nobody who makes this sort of information available ever, ever takes responsibility if the information is misused. "Shame on society for placing such weight on things so easily manipulated." "If somebody bad gets ahold of this information I'm making available, and misuses it, its not fault. I just made it available."
Quote from: Jeffery on Jul 04, 2005, 04:32 PMAnd lumping people adamantly against pre-employment polygraph screening in the same boat as convicted sex offenders is completely pathetic and wrong.
Come on Jeff. That is not what I meant by the reference. I meant that I suspect there are a large number of convicted sex offenders who have this site bookmarked and have a copy of TLBTLD on their coffeee table hoping to successfully use the methods within to defeat their maintanence exams and stay out of prison. If you thought that I linked those folks with police applicants, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
Quote from: Jeffery on Jul 04, 2005, 04:32 PMA complete investigation would have required more work. They already had their sites on the guy, and as I understand it, had already searched his house when the girl was still alive. He'd eventually have been caught, and convicted with evidence and not a confession that may now be tossed. You're again making too many assumptions.
Jeff, I am afraid you and I are both guilty of making to many assumptions. You cannot say with any certainity that "...He'd eventually have been caught, and convicted."
Regards,
Nonombre
woops double post
Nonombre-
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I'll continue to characterize your viewpoint as "Nonombre doesn't care if hard-working, honorable, decent people are victimized by inaccurate polygraph testing, so long as a few criminals get caught" and you'll continue to assume my position is "Jeff doesn't care if a child molester walks, so long as good people aren't burned by the polygraph."
In both cases, good investigative work can either backup or refute polygraph results. It is often not done in employment screening and should always be done in criminal cases (and if it is not, then shame on the investigators).
For the record, I hate to see perverts cheat the system. But a system so easily cheated is simply a flawed system. You can point fingers at this site for publicizing the flaws in the system (The lie behind the lie detector) and we can point fingers back at you and lay the blame at your feet for your over-reliance on this flawed system. I would hope that a simple polygraph test is not the only thing keeping pervs out of prison. I'd expect actual investigations to ensure their continued compliance -- communications monitoring, random searches, ankle-bracelet monitoring and anything else that can legally be done to people who have lost their liberty through commiting a felony should be used; not simply a polygraph and guess. I'm sure the criminals would probably also prefer this system, since it actually gives them a chance to reform and prove their compliance (as opposed to the word of an "all knowing polygraph witch-doctor). Society would probably prefer this type of compliance monitoring, since it would eliminate the risk of a criminal actually beating a polygraph -- that is, of course, unless every sex offender always fails their maintenance exams (due to polygrapher bias).
Comparing polygraph "testing" to chemical drug testing is a joke. In one case somebody with a few weeks training uses Oijia-board like magic to gaze at a chart; in the other case, REPEATABLE chemical reacions occur that give indication if a substance is present. One testing method can be done completely blind; the other depends on the subject's ignorance of the process, can be beaten by altering one's breathing pattern (or whatever other effectve CM we decide to argue about) and is subject to somebody's subjective opinion (based on prejudical assumptions they make during a "pre test interview" to derive control questions).
Here's a question for you: Do you see greater numbers of suspected CM usage after an examinee admits to researching polygraphics prior to their exam, or do you also accuse people who deny researching polygraphics of using CM's?
Also, with my knowledge of polygraphics and open hostility for such, would you give me a screening exam if I happened to apply at your department? Would you simply fail me or accuse me of CM's if I expressed my feelings in a pretest interview?
Nonombre wrote earlier:
QuoteHow do we protect against the false positive? Especially in screening? (not as significant a problem in criminal testing, I am pretty sure) Well, I have a few ideas about that too, but I do not know if they would be well received in this forum.
Please elaborate on your ideas. What information do you hold that may be helpful to the truthful examinee? Please do not respond "just be 100% honest" as this is the standard and tired respone to this inquiry.
Nonombre also wrote:
QuoteJeff, I tend to go with what I see. (e.g., walks like a duck, etc). In this case, I see a very bad guy, caught by the use of polygraph, when other methods had failed. Confession obtained, body recovered, another pervert off the street thanks once again to the use of polygraph.
We have differing opinions on this topic. "Mr." Couey was brought into custody due to investigative methodology and would not have been in custody if not for investigation. Due to his personal belief that a polygraph examination would expose his guilt he confessed. This speaks to the utility of polygraphy in investigation but not to its accuracy or validity.
I am curious about your opinion in another matter which has to do with the "I provided it but didn't do it" argument (i.e. the information on this site aids criminals in avoiding polygraphic detection). Do you hold the belief that firearm manufacturers are responsible for homicides committed with firearms? Firearms are owned and used by numerous lawful and honest citizens. Should these citizens be denied their rights to own and keep firearms? I view this argument to be very similar to the one presented in this thread.
Keep in mind this site does not provide information as to the proper way to successfully commit a crime and avoid detection. If this site did in fact provide such information we would both agree that it should be immediately closed. But it does not. :)
Quote from: Brandon Hall on Jul 05, 2005, 12:07 AMNonombre wrote earlier:
Please elaborate on your ideas. What information do you hold that may be helpful to the truthful examinee? Please do not respond "just be 100% honest" as this is the standard and tired respone to this inquiry.
Nonombre also wrote:
We have differing opinions on this topic. "Mr." Couey was brought into custody due to investigative methodology and would not have been in custody if not for investigation. Due to his personal belief that a polygraph examination would expose his guilt he confessed. This speaks to the utility of polygraphy in investigation but not to its accuracy or validity.
I am curious about your opinion in another matter which has to do with the "I provided it but didn't do it" argument (i.e. the information on this site aids criminals in avoiding polygraphic detection). Do you hold the belief that firearm manufacturers are responsible for homicides committed with firearms? Firearms are owned and used by numerous lawful and honest citizens. Should these citizens be denied their rights to own and keep firearms? I view this argument to be very similar to the one presented in this thread.
Keep in mind this site does not provide information as to the proper way to successfully commit a crime and avoid detection. If this site did in fact provide such information we would both agree that it should be immediately closed. But it does not. :)
Brandon,
Both you and Jeffrey ask some very good questions. I will try to answer you first in this post and get back with Jeffrey later.
Concerning your first question: "What information do you hold that may be helpful to the truthful examinee? Please do not respond "just be 100% honest" as this is the standard and tired respone to this inquiry."
I was hoping somebody would ask me about this. Okay, before I articulate my proposal, lets address again the two types of polygraph testing.:
1. Criminal testing:
2. Screening:
Since my proposal addresses screening, lets attack it first. I will get to criminal testing later:
Police pre-employment polygraph screening is only one of several steps most police applicants must successfully navagate to get to the final point of being hired. For most departments, the post-application steps are:
1. Written test
2. Psychological testing
3. Physical test
4. Polygraph Exam
5. Interview/panel
6. Background investigation.
The order might be different, but these are the basic steps. (some departments add-subtract various things, but these are the usual basics).
Okay, here is what I propose. How about we weigh the various steps according to what a particular department feels are important, then numerically score each step with an eye torwards understanding that if an applicant "bombs" one particular area (including the Polygraph), he can still get the job.
You see, if you look at all the steps closely, you will see that most are actually quite subjective in nature:
1. Written test - Some people just don't "test" well.
2. Psychological testing - Oh please, psychology is the
"softest" of the sciences.
3. Physical test - Okay, pretty objective, but once the
average cop has a couple years on the force, the
donuts do tend to take over.
4. Polygraph Exam - Arguementively Subjective, with a
documented error rate.
5. Interview/panel - NOTHING is more subject than this.
6. Background investigation. High false negative rate.
As I see it, we provide a numerical value to each of the steps and come up with a minimum "pass" number. Additionally, we design the scoring system to specifically allow an applicant to to do badly in any one area and still get the job (Yes, that includes the polygraph).
Now, if the applicant does sufficiently poorly in more than one area, he is out of the running. That will allow someone who is otherwise excellently qualified but fails the polygraph (or some other area) to still get the job.
However, if anywhere during this process, information develops that specifically disqualifies the applicant (e.g., he admits during the polygraph/psychological interview he has several bodies buried in the backyard), he is likewise out of the running.
This way, we have gone a long way to protecting against the "false positive."
Now you can still argue against all the weaknesses of the polygraph, but as I have indicated, virtually all the steps towards employment have distinct drawbacks.
Okay, what do you say? Might this work a little better?
Now about criminal testing:
John Couey happens to fall into a group of criminals which polygraph testing happens to have a 60+ year history of properly identifying. I would argue that over the years, thousands of criminal cases have been solved by the very thing that caused the Couey case to be solved. Namely, Couey, faced with the polygraph results, confesses, and takes the cops to the body.
Case closed....
Do we truly want to take such a useful tool away? Especially since our criminal justice system already protects suspects from being convicted or even charged based on the results of a polygraph exam. The criminals are already protected and as I indicated earlier, in most cases, polygraph is the last step anyway. So if a false negative occurs, all we are going to do is close a case that was going to be closed anyway.
I see a no lose situation here in regards to criminal testing.
You ask some questions regarding firearms. Please let my tired mind address that one another time...:)
Lastly, you argue, "...this site does not provide information as to the proper way to successfully commit a crime and avoid detection."
I would argue that point. If the countermeasures taught on this site do indeed enable at least one criminal to commit a crime and avoid detection (through the use of polygraph), then are you not helping that criminal?
Nonombre
:-/
Nonombre,
With regard to the point system you propose, it may be a step in the right direction. The most important of the steps involved is the background investigation. This is one area in which the applicant has little to do with the result as the records generally obtained in such an investigation are not available for the applicant to change or enhance. I personally find this step to be enormously more crucial than any other portion of the application process. Some other points you make (good ones at that) are the subjectivity of the psychogical evaluation and the oral board. These two phases much like polygraphy are left to the "opinion rendered" category. The oral board I find to be the most questionable portion. Regarding the physical fitness and written evaluations: both are objective in that minimum pass standards are defined. Either you do or you don't. In the last testing I completed for example the written test had a minimum pass percentage of 70% correct responses. The physical fitness evaluation defined the number of pushups and situps that must be completed as well as the maximum allowable run-time for a one and one half miles. Any score less than the defined minimums is automatically disqualifying. Perhaps different point scales for the objective portions and subjective portions should be assigned. But overall it is a step in the right direction.
Criminal polygraph examinations (not the reason I found antipolygraph.org) do have a record of exposing criminals. A record of misclassifications exist as well causing innocent persons to be accused or remain suspect. I have watched two episodes of "Cold Case Files" on A&E recently that have mentioned this fact. Innocents falsely accused and under suspicion for years as a result of deception indicated. Thankfully DNA evidence conclusively confirmed their innocence. Another example of misclassification: Gary Ridgway. He "passed" a polygraph and continued his gruesome crimes for years undetected and without deserving suspicion due to a polygraph examination. These are but a few examples of polygraph failure in the criminal arena.
The polygraph examination has utility, I agree, in criminal investigation. Persons that believe it works as purported and are guilty are more likely to make a confession. If a confession is gained great. But if a confession is not made toss it. I have also read of persons making a cofession believing that a copy machine and police radio were lie detectors. Like polygraph, great utility but only to those that believe them to be lie detectors.
As far as countermeasures go, I have never used them. I wouldn't do so without access to a polygraph instrument to self-test. As you may guess, I don't have one and have many other interests in which to spend my hard-earned money. No one has ever proved to me either way if they are detectable or not detectable. I would conclude that physical counters would be detectable, not by chart graphing, but by visual observance. I noticed my examiner watched me more than his monitor. Mental counters would seem much more difficult to detect since there are no visual indicators. No one really knows what anyone else is thinking and one would be hard-pressed to prove otherwise.
You also stated:
QuoteYou ask some questions regarding firearms. Please let my tired mind address that one another time...
Lastly, you argue, "...this site does not provide information as to the proper way to successfully commit a crime and avoid detection."
I would argue that point. If the countermeasures taught on this site do indeed enable at least one criminal to commit a crime and avoid detection (through the use of polygraph), then are you not helping that criminal?
I contend that this site is no more responsible for a criminal scumbag "passing" a polygraph examination than an ammunition manufacturer is for murder by gunshot. Intent is everything. The main intent of this sight is in providing information for employment screening. Much as a criminal uses ammunition and a firearm to commit a crime so might a criminal use information here to avoid prosecution due to a polygraph examination. Good or bad or a bit of both various information is available through many channels. Don't misunderstand me. For example: a web-site or other avenue of information providing information on hydroponics for the express purpose of harvesting illegal substances such as marijuana should be investigated. However our freedoms of speech allow for such information to be published. :)
I understand that Nonombre believes the polygraph is a useful tool, and that he is as entitled to his opinion as I am.
But, it seems he still is not facing the fundamental problem that I and many others on this board have with the polygraph. I failed three consecutive polygraphs over the span of several years before passing my fourth and getting my current job in law enforcement. On all three failures I told the complete truth, did not withhold anything at all, and didn't even know what a countermeasure was, much less employ any. The failures were for supposedly fighting/committing assaults, using cocaine, and stealing. None of them was even remotely accurate. To top it all off, on my fourth test I answered all the questions the same way I had on the first three (at that point I still believed the polygraph was accurate and thought this must all be a terrible mistake) and I passed.
Given my experience I'm confident you can understand why I think the polygraph is utterly useless as anything other than an interrogation intimidator. It's actually worse than worthless because some people think it is a valid way of determining deception when it clearly is not. Scaling back its use in pre-employment screening or assigning a point system to its results is no more acceptable than doing such things with a crystal ball or a deck of tarot cards.
Sergeant1107,
While I feel that a point system may be a step in the right direction, by no means do I believe it to be a fix-all. As it is many, if not all, LEAs give a large amount of weight to polygraph results. This would be a step in lessening the weight given. A step forward rather than backward or a standstill.
Polygraph has utility in criminal investigation but as you believe also do I that polygraphy has no place in employment screening. It simply does not perform.
You stated that you have 4 polys under your belt. Three of those polys categorized you as a liar and one as honest. Well to this point the poly has only categorized me as a liar. Don't take my openess to discussion as a pat on the back for polygraphy. I do not find that heated argument is productive. So I generally speak civily until provoked to do otherwise.
Also, congratulations on your success with the polygraph. You must have finally told the truth (add thick and heavy sarcasm ;) )
I think what really left me with such a negative impression after all four of my polygraphs was the utter dishonesty of the examiners. Each one assured me prior to starting that not only was it flat-out impossible to conceal from the machine my body's reactions to a lie, but they also solemnly stated that they (the examiners) were the real "lie detectors" and even without the machine they could easily detect any signs of deception in my answers. The way it was presented to me made it sound totally believable – they said they were highly trained and did this day-in and day-out, and they could effortlessly pick up on the tiniest clues, such as breathing or holding my breath, blinking quickly or at long intervals, pupil dilation, which way I looked when I answered, whether I moved or sat still during an answer, etc... I had no reason not to believe them, and no reason to worry about it either, since I was fully planning on being 100% honest in all my answers.
At the end of my first three polygraphs, when the examiner told me I was lying about this or that, they would tell me it was so obvious to them that I might as well be holding up a sign. Each one reminded me that they were experts at detecting deception, and that I would be better off admitting to whatever they were questioning me about.
So there I was, making statements that were 100% truthful, and having the examiner tell me how absurdly simple it was for them to see that I was lying. They were saying: "You can't fool me. It's as plain as day to me that you're lying. Even without the charts I can easily see you're not telling me the truth." When I repeated my earlier denials they would shrug as though they had tried to help me but I was too foolish to take their help.
Now, if they accused me of all that as a tactic to get me to admit something, fine. If that was the case they should have reported back to the agency I was applying to that I had passed. But in each of my first three polygraphs they reported back that I had failed because I had been deceptive about exactly what they questioned me about in the post-test interview.
The examiners could not possibly have had any proof or even indication I was lying for the simple reason I wasn't. I was being truthful in all of my responses, not only because I'm a truthful person but also because I really believed the machine and the examiner would be able to detect any lies or half-truths. But the examiners, who must have been unethical, incompetent, or both, still reported back that I was deceptive. Either they had no idea what they were looking for or at and took a wild guess, or they just decided to fail me on a whim.
This sounds as if in one sense you were the best polygraph candidate, in that your examiner(s) had you hook, line and sinker by your own admission (this is not an insult). You truly believed that the polygraph worked as purported and the garbage stacked on top of that belief by your examiner(s). Human lie detector? Sounds like these folks have taken to heart Mr. Deniro's role in "Meet the Parents."
If you were as honest as you report you cleared your mind of deceit. The totally honest examinee, according to polygraph examiners, does not react properly to control questions which may (does) cause false positives.
From what you have written, most likely the examiner(s) that administered your first 3 "tests" were fishing for an admission in the post-test phase. That is part of the training received regarding inquiry into a deception indicated graphing.
Behavior such as you have mentioned has left many of us with negative opinions to polygraph examining.
Quote from: Brandon Hall on Jul 05, 2005, 07:34 PMBehavior such as you have mentioned has left many of us with negative opinions to polygraph examining.
And those who practice it.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Jul 05, 2005, 01:17 PMI understand that Nonombre believes the polygraph is a useful tool, and that he is as entitled to his opinion as I am.
But, it seems he still is not facing the fundamental problem that I and many others on this board have with the polygraph. I failed three consecutive polygraphs over the span of several years before passing my fourth and getting my current job in law enforcement. On all three failures I told the complete truth, did not withhold anything at all, and didn't even know what a countermeasure was, much less employ any. The failures were for supposedly fighting/committing assaults, using cocaine, and stealing. None of them was even remotely accurate. To top it all off, on my fourth test I answered all the questions the same way I had on the first three (at that point I still believed the polygraph was accurate and thought this must all be a terrible mistake) and I passed.
Given my experience I'm confident you can understand why I think the polygraph is utterly useless as anything other than an interrogation intimidator. It's actually worse than worthless because some people think it is a valid way of determining deception when it clearly is not. Scaling back its use in pre-employment screening or assigning a point system to its results is no more acceptable than doing such things with a crystal ball or a deck of tarot cards.
Wow, it seems my posts have caused a bit of a stir. This is a good thing. I hope honest discussion is what continues to drive us all.
Sergeant, I understand that if you failed three screening polygraph exams while speaking the complete truth, you would have every reason to be completely pissed. I would be too. I mean that.
I first started posting to this board openly expressing my concern about the possibility of false positives, while maintaining that I have seen polygraph help to solve criminal cases and identify people who should never be given a gun and a badge.
I was conflicted by these mixed feelings.
That is when I started trying to think of ways to mitigate the harm a false positive could do in screening cases, while not "throwing out the baby with the bath water."
That is where I got the idea of the point system. You see, as I explained in a previous post, vitually every stage of the police pre-employment process is wrought with subjectivity, inaccuracy, personal feelings, predjudice, and some measure of injustice. Polygraph hardly has the monopoly in any of these things.
You see, that is the beauty of a weighted point system. That way, unfairness in one or more of the stages can be mitigated by shifting points earned in those areas the applicant did much better in.
I mean, look at it this way. How would you like it, if you aced every bit of the process to include the polygraph exam, and was then "disqualified" by a couple of panel members who happened to disagree with your feelings about something you were asked, or worse harbored some concealed prejudice against you?
In most applicant systems you would be dead in the water. With a properly weighted numerically scored applicant system, your excellent results in the other areas would qualify you for a rightfully earned position.
Oh, and one more thing, a couple of you have stressed that you would be more dependant on the applicant's background investigation then any other measure. To that comment, I would like to say this. Anyone who has ever conducted background investigations (and I have), know that they in fact have a ridiculously high "false negative" rate.
You see, unless you are lucky enough to find a police report, or a pissed off ex-spouse, you can be pretty much assured that anyone you talk to about the applicant will have nothing but good things to say, or will say noyhing at all. Our civil litigation system has pretty much guaranteed that.
Once again, food for thought
Nonombre
Nonombre wrote:
QuoteYou see, unless you are lucky enough to find a police report, or a pissed off ex-spouse, you can be pretty much assured that anyone you talk to about the applicant will have nothing but good things to say, or will say noyhing at all. Our civil litigation system has pretty much guaranteed that.
I cannot disagree with you on this point. As a manager for a former employer I was instructed to provide minimal information when contacted by prospective employers of former employees. Yes he/she worked here. No he/she no longer works here. All of this bs due to civial litigation. The problem therein lies that the company hired some real bafoons after having received like information. However, I thought this was the reason an applicant signed a release for former employers, credit agencies, etc. to provide information regarding the applicant. I know I signed a release to hold harmless the agency and polygraph examiner when I was administered a polygraph examination. I can bitch, but I can't sue (wouldn't have anyway).
A background can look into a person's present, past and patterns of behavior. I asked my personal references to be honest even if they thought or knew I would not like their statements (probably not many or least not all do the same). My feeling is that the background investigator is accustomed to sugary bullshit and knows it is just that. If it led to another contact which was not listed as a reference so be it. My character stands on its own whether it is appreciated.
Nonombre:
A solid investigator is able to pick up on subtleties and wade through all the bullshit while getting people to talk.
A thorough background investigation virtually covers a person's entire life and involves multiple investigators and corroborating evidence. If the applicant has something to hide, it'll most likley be found or at the very least, there will be clues indicating something should be looked into a little further. Investigators talk with people who haven't seen the applicant in years and may never see them again. Are you saying you don't believe in investigative leg work? Why bother with backgrounds at all then? Do you have any idea how many applicants are denied clearances based on information obtained during background investigations? I don't think any cop would place more weight on a polygraph than solid detective work. The two don't even come close to being on the same level. You're comparing a couple of hours in a room with a stranger and a faulty SUBJECTIVE test to several independent investigators checking record after record and conducting interviews spanning an applicant's life. There's really no comparison.
Applicants sign releases absolving any possibility of litigation, so interviewees and former employers have nothing to be afraid of. A former employer will at the very least be able to say if the person is eligible for rehire--which says a lot without coming out and saying it.
Nonombre, if you had to weigh a thorough background investigation and a polygraph --how much weight would you give each?
Quote from: polyfool on Jul 06, 2005, 10:33 PMNonombre:
A solid investigator is able to pick up on subtleties and wade through all the bullshit while getting people to talk.
A thorough background investigation virtually covers a person's entire life and involves multiple investigators and corroborating evidence. If the applicant has something to hide, it'll most likley be found or at the very least, there will be clues indicating something should be looked into a little further. Investigators talk with people who haven't seen the applicant in years and may never see them again. Are you saying you don't believe in investigative leg work? Why bother with backgrounds at all then? Do you have any idea how many applicants are denied clearances based on information obtained during background investigations? I don't think any cop would place more weight on a polygraph than solid detective work. The two don't even come close to being on the same level. You're comparing a couple of hours in a room with a stranger and a faulty SUBJECTIVE test to several independent investigators checking record after record and conducting interviews spanning an applicant's life. There's really no comparison.
Applicants sign releases absolving any possibility of litigation, so interviewees and former employers have nothing to be afraid of. A former employer will at the very least be able to say if the person is eligible for rehire--which says a lot without coming out and saying it.
Nonombre, if you had to weigh a thorough background investigation and a polygraph --how much weight would you give each?
Polyfool,
Thank you for posting. I am afraid that however that I must disagree with you. Not because your vision of a classicially run investigation is not commendable, but because it unfortunately does not jive with the realities of life. I have done background investigations, and I have conducted criminal investigations and in the real world, your description much more closely fits a "textbook" criminal case.
You see, as a criminal investigator, I have managed between a dozen and two dozen felony criminal cases at a time, a managable case load when their are prosecutors and victims relying on you for a solved case and closure to what is usually a horrendus situation.
Conversly, as a background investigator, I have sometimes had 200 to 300 files, stacked on the floor, in piles from three to five feet high, with hirings pending, academy slots needing to be filled, and the other two guys out sick.
And it is not just the overwork. It is the whole dynamic of a criminal case vs. a background investigation. In a criminal case, there is physical evidence, witness interviews, confessions of co-conspirators, a criminal act, a victim, changing stories, and all the tings you have alluded to in your post. Good stuff, the stuff that solves cases.
In a background investigation, all you start with is the word of the applicant and a carefully chosen list of references HE has provided. Sure you do the usual asking of the references what other people know this guy and MAYBE you get lucky. But I hold to my earlier statement that unless you manage to find an arrest record or someone who has a beef with this person, all you are going to get is the usual "He's a really good guy." In most cases, the neighbors who are giving him such a glowing reference have no idea he had been molesting their 12 year old.
Polyfool, at one point you asked me, "Do you have any idea how many applicants are denied clearances based on information obtained during background investigations?"
I am not sure what answer you were looking for, but I can tell you this. From what I know, I would figure that VERY, VERY, few people are denied clearances based purely on a background investigation.
Ahhh, but add a full scope polygraph into the mix... ::)
Nonombre.
Nonombre,
Respectfully...assuming polygraph works just as it is touted to work, based on study after study after study (including the National Academy of Sciences review) we can conclude that studies provide specific incident polygraphing is 98% accurate (readers please note that this is not my belief). Studies regarding background screening polygraphing are few and far between and do not claim such a high level of accuracy. So going by these conclusions and yours, I can only arrive at the following: Criminal investigations recieve more attention and leg-work as there is more evidentiary proof with a known result (the crime) as well as victim and prosecutorial involvement. Poygraphy has a higher accuracy rate in such cases. Conversely, applicant background investigations receive less attention and concrete facts are hard to come by due to references providing only positive information and no known facts. A full scope polygraph examination then has no concrete facts to back up it's results whether positive or negative because ground truth is not known by the investigator or polygraph examiner. By this logic both the background investigation and polygraph examination should be eliminated from the hiring process.
By admission of polygraph examiners, a specific incident examination and a screening examination are two different animals. Screening examinations are given based on studies regarding specific incident testing. However screening exams cover multiple areas. To use another analogy: It is deer season and I harvest an elk. Both are game animals. I use the same weapon for each. However there are major differences between each animal. Just because it is open season on one does not make it alright to take the other.
My conclusion remains the same. Polygraph testing has utility when examining individuals that believe in it's ability and the examiner's ability to discern truth from lie, thereby inducing confessions by guilty examinees. However that utility is far too often mistaken for accuracy and validity. Again different animals. :)
Brandon,
As you correctly assess, a full scope polygraph exam (or any polygraph screening exam for that matter), as a diagnostic tool, would be accurately, fully and simply described as one of the most useless activities of mankind if it were not for the fact that it is additionally and routinely counterproductive and harmful as well.
I won't try and argue the validity of polygraph here on this site, it would be like trying to convince people who believe in UFO's that they don't exist. Pointless. You all have your opinion and we have ours. However Drew, let me ask you this: I was sent a subject to polygraph regarding multiple sex offenses. He was accused of molesting his 4 children. He had been in prison for 18 months without benefit of trial. His DEFENSE ATTORNEY sent him to me, a police deparment polygrapher. I found him NDI. His attorney was trying to convince him to plead guilty. All evidence was stacked against him. After passing the polygraph, I polygraphed the "victims" who failed and subsequently confessed to lying at the request of their mother, who was mad because he would not up the child support payments. He was freed. Without the polygraph, he would have likely been convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison.
Worthless science? I bet he would differ!
Tasercop-
Welcome aboard. The distinction here is between validity and utility. I don't think anybody would argue that polygraphics had a high degree of utility in this case. Fortunately for the "suspect" both he and his accusers believed in polygraphics. This combined with the skills of a good interagotor (you) was able to extract a confession from the false accuser.
However, this particualar story in my mind provides no proof of polygraph validity; esp. in cases of screening exams.
Tasercop,
If you will note, my post that you replied to was in reference to polygraph screening. Your question and related anecdote refers to a criminal investigation and specific incident polygraph exams. Although still clearly problematic, this form of testing for reasons beyond the scope of this answer tends to be less problematic (although far from valid and highly accurate) than as is the case with screening exams. You make reference to (CQT, yes?) polygraphy (tongue in cheek) as "worthless science." Even I would take exception to that characterization. It may or may not be worthless but is most certainly not science.
Jeffery,
The polygraph has been used for scientific research for years for things other than the detection of deception. As an instrument it is both valid and accurate. Validity is determined by whether or not it accurately records what it is purported to record, which it does. Reliability, another requirement, is whether or not it consistently records what it is supposed to record. Here too, the polygraph is proven. The debate, I believe, is more about the accuracy and reliability of a polygraph examiner to detect deception using the polygraph instrument.
The polygraph for the detection of deception, in the hands of a well trained, educated and experienced examiner, is very accurate and reliable. I will agree that there are a lot of examiners out there who should not be doing polygraph examinations and my profession has done a poor job or regulating itself. I, as most legitimate examiners, openly embraced the EPPA as it was needed and forced a lot of bad examiners out of business.
The detection of deception using the polygraph is rooted not only in physiology, but equally in psychology. Because of this it is nearly impossible to consistently replicate field conditions in a laboratory environment. This has been a problem that has plagued us for years. Testing someone on a mock crime does not elicit the same sympathetic arousal as testing someone accused of murder. The negative consequence with getting caught in the lie is not the same.
As far as pre-employment screening, I agree, there are problems. Nobody should ever be rejected for failing a pre-employment polygraph examination. In fact, agencies should not even call it a failure, but "significant response". These are screening exams and the polygraph is used to spot possible areas of concern. Once SR is detected for a particular question(s), follow-up, specific issue examination(s) should follow. It is not uncommon for me to give 6 or 7 specific issue exams to a person whose initial PE screening showed SR. My experience is that at least 50% are cleared by the subsequent testing and move forward in the process. The others end up DI and usually admit they had withheld something or the tests results coincide with negative information obtained during the background. The agency should look at everything as a whole, not just the polygraph.
The courts have ruled that an applicant does not have a property right to a job and cannot sue due to being denied a position because he/she failed a polygraph. Unfortunately, many large agencies, especially in the federal government, use it as a tool to thin out and narrow the candidate pool. They do not have the time or desire for subsequent testing and because of this they lose some good people. However, they weed out more bad than they lose good, so they consider the loss acceptable. The same happens with applicants who do poorly on psychological tests, such as the MMPI, which if my memory serves me correct, is only about 70% accurate.
In years of doing pre-employment screenings, I have never had a complaint filed or even had an applicant use the appeals process. As far as doing just a thorough background and getting the same information, it doesn't work. The federal government did a study and found out they miss 70% of the negative information that exists about an applicant without the polygraph. Many offenses, such as child molesting, peeping Tom, frottage and undetected thefts, are committed in secrecy and must be self reported. When hiring a cop, I want to know this information if it exists.
Some of the people on this forum were unjustly denied a job because of a failed polygraph and were not given the benefit of subsequent follow-up examinations. For them, I agree it was wrong, but hardly justifies stopping its use. Most of the people who post here, however, do not seem as if they have the honesty, integrity and fortitude of someone who should wear a badge or work with national secrets. I believe they are living proof that the system works. Pre-employment polygraph screening isn't going away; in fact it is increasing exponentially. Get used to it as it is here to stay until someone develops something that works better.
Tasercop,
You write in part:
Quote...Validity is determined by whether or not it accurately records what it is purported to record, which it does. Reliability, another requirement, is whether or not it consistently records what it is supposed to record....
.
Wrong. Validity and reliability have nothing to do with whether your polygraph records accurately. We know that electrons flow, etc. Validity has to do with whether the application and its entire component parts measures what it purports to measure, e.g., whether polygraph screening detects deception. It most certainly does not and the serious theoretical flaws involved in such would lead one to hypothesize such to be the case.
You further write:
Quote...However, they weed out more bad than they lose good....
very interesting....and how did you divine that? As far as I can tell they can't tell that those who passed the polygraph are good and those who fail are bad, so what is the basis for such a statement?
You further write:
Quote...The negative consequence with getting caught in the lie is not the same....
Close, but no cigars. The negative consequence of being found deceptive (independent of whether one is lying) is not the same. This is why simulated crimes followed by polygraph tests would be expected to underestimate false positives.
You further write:
Quote...Nobody should ever be rejected for failing a pre-employment polygraph examination. In fact, agencies should not even call it a failure, but "significant response"....
I don't care whether they call it DI, significant response indicated, or pigs don't fly. Nobody and I mean nobody should ever be denied a job based solely on a polygraph result. Your first sentence of the last quoted material would indicate that we are in apparent agreement on this point. I would add to that that you and others who share this point of view should speak out publicly and do everything in your power to bring this to pass.
Tasercop wrote in part:
QuoteSome of the people on this forum were unjustly denied a job because of a failed polygraph and were not given the benefit of subsequent follow-up examinations. For them, I agree it was wrong, but hardly justifies stopping its use. Most of the people who post here, however, do not seem as if they have the honesty, integrity and fortitude of someone who should wear a badge or work with national secrets. I believe they are living proof that the system works. Pre-employment polygraph screening isn't going away; in fact it is increasing exponentially. Get used to it as it is here to stay until someone develops something that works better.
Actually by admission of many posters on this forum, many applicants were unjustly denied further processing. You write of the lack of honesty, integrity and fortitude of many site users. Please expound on the information posted by these multiple users that caused you to form this opinion. Your last statement would more properly read as: Get used to it as it is here to stay until someone develops something that works.
I also agree with you, Dr. Richardson. Validity and accuracy are dependent upon the use of the instrument. I agree the polygraph is spot-on reliable to record one's physiology as designed. However, its use in detecting deception is lacking in validity and accuracy. A polygraph's accuracy in detecing deception is lacking due to the sheer existence of false-postives and negatives. The accuracy is lacking due to the need for human opinion regarding the meaning of the chart. Without validity how can one claim accuracy? Without accuracy how can one claim validity?
Although polygraph examiners will generally admit that human physiological responses fluctuate for a number of conditions and reasons, they seem unwilling to accept this fact as they continue to administer examinations with this information in hand. This to me would pose a question of integrity to those who blindly continue to administer these examinations.
Drew,
Sorry, by the tone of your post I touched a nerve. You are taking bits and pieces of a lengthy post instead of looking at what I said as a whole. I criticize departments for doing the same thing with applicants; taking the polygraph as a pass/fail, not looking at the applicant as a whole. And yes, I do speak publicly about this!
The validity/reliability I was speaking of was the instruments ability to accurately and reliably record the channels of physiological activity. It does it quite well, so the polygraph, as a recording instrument, is very accurate and reliable. I was interpreting the debate as being the examiners ability to detect deception using the polygraph. I tell everyone who takes an examination from me that the polygraph is not a lie detector. It cannot detect a lie, which is very true. It is in many ways similar to an EKG in the hospital. It doesn't tell a doctor you are having a heart attack, it merely records what the heart is doing. Good doctors can tell, usually, if you are having a heart attack. Bad doctors make errors. However, even the best doctors at times make mistakes. This is why other tests are run before a conclusive prognosis is made. The polygraph is no different. Departments should not make a decision solely on the polygraph, anymore than a doctor should operate solely on an EKG. Neither makes any sense!
You are also confusing the issue of passing over an applicant because he failed the polygraph with information obtained because of the polygraph. Without the polygraph, negative information would not be disclosed. The polygraph weeds out a lot more bad apples, mostly from information obtained in the pre-test/post-test, than those who are unjustly denied. I can't speak for the federal agencies, but I can for myself. I have given thousands of exams, so I am speaking from personal experience. It is not passing or failing the exam I am talking about, it is the self-disclosure of information that would not have occured if it was not for the polygraph. Here are some examples of applicants I personally tested:
1. The examinee was just getting out of the military. He was one of the elite- special forces. Served honorably in the Persian Gulf. His background glowed and there was not a single negative mark in his background. During the polygraph he admitted to sexually molesting his 4 year old daughter, two years earlier.
2. The examinee glowed and had nothing negative in his background. During the pre-test he admitted to an undetected armed robbery.
3. Another examinee had nothing negative in his background. His employer references were top notch. After being SR on a theft question, he admitted to thousands of dollars worth of thefts from a previous employer.
I could go on for pages. These applicants would have easily been hired by an agency in a state that does not allow pre-employment testing. Is there anyone out there who would want them patrolling their community? I don't think so.
You are an researcher who once served with the FBI. I am a street cop/detective who years ago was also a federal agent. I personally have a problem with scientist, on both sides, who try to make polygraph fit squarely in the scientific realm. It doesn't. My degree is in psychology and I am currently working on my Ph.D. (yes, from a reputable, major university), so this is how I approach polygraphy. The accuracy of the polygraph lies solely with the examiner, just like most other things we do in police work.
Quote from: nonombre on Jul 07, 2005, 01:03 AM
Polyfool,
Thank you for posting. I am afraid that however that I must disagree with you. Not because your vision of a classicially run investigation is not commendable, but because it unfortunately does not jive with the realities of life. I have done background investigations, and I have conducted criminal investigations and in the real world, your description much more closely fits a "textbook" criminal case.
You see, as a criminal investigator, I have managed between a dozen and two dozen felony criminal cases at a time, a managable case load when their are prosecutors and victims relying on you for a solved case and closure to what is usually a horrendus situation.
Conversly, as a background investigator, I have sometimes had 200 to 300 files, stacked on the floor, in piles from three to five feet high, with hirings pending, academy slots needing to be filled, and the other two guys out sick.
And it is not just the overwork. It is the whole dynamic of a criminal case vs. a background investigation. In a criminal case, there is physical evidence, witness interviews, confessions of co-conspirators, a criminal act, a victim, changing stories, and all the tings you have alluded to in your post. Good stuff, the stuff that solves cases.
In a background investigation, all you start with is the word of the applicant and a carefully chosen list of references HE has provided. Sure you do the usual asking of the references what other people know this guy and MAYBE you get lucky. But I hold to my earlier statement that unless you manage to find an arrest record or someone who has a beef with this person, all you are going to get is the usual "He's a really good guy." In most cases, the neighbors who are giving him such a glowing reference have no idea he had been molesting their 12 year old.
Polyfool, at one point you asked me, "Do you have any idea how many applicants are denied clearances based on information obtained during background investigations?"
I am not sure what answer you were looking for, but I can tell you this. From what I know, I would figure that VERY, VERY, few people are denied clearances based purely on a background investigation.
Ahhh, but add a full scope polygraph into the mix... ::)
Nonombre.
Nonombre:
There are so many FBI applicants who don't make it through the hiring process to obtain a security clearance that the agency hires double for each position and even then the job may go unfilled. Some managers may even extend offers to four candidates HOPING that just one will make it to the finish line. The FBI purports that 50 to 70 percent of its applicants who are extended conditional job offers will not make it through the background.
Quote from: tasercop on Jul 07, 2005, 10:08 PM
Here are some examples of applicants I personally tested:
1. The examinee was just getting out of the military. He was one of the elite- special forces. Served honorably in the Persian Gulf. His background glowed and there was not a single negative mark in his background. During the polygraph he admitted to sexually molesting his 4 year old daughter, two years earlier.
2. The examinee glowed and had nothing negative in his background. During the pre-test he admitted to an undetected armed robbery.
3. Another examinee had nothing negative in his background. His employer references were top notch. After being SR on a theft question, he admitted to thousands of dollars worth of thefts from a previous employer.
I could go on for pages.
I'm a bit curious about the examples you provided as proof the polygraph is a useful tool. None of those examples were polygraph-specific in the sense that detection of changes in respiration, heart rate, or galvanic skin responses proved or disproved a fact or set of facts. What those examples do a great job of proving is that if you have someone hooked up to the machine who believes it will "detect lies" then you may get a damaging admission out of them. To me, that doesn't prove the validity of the polygraph or the polygraph operator to even the smallest degree. If you put a shiny rock on your desk and told them it would glow if they told a lie, they would have made the same damaging admissions if they believed you. That wouldn't make the shiny rock useful in anything other than an interrogation setting.
As an interrogation tool, the polygraph belongs in the same category as the blank videotape you claim has relevant images on it, or the cell phone camera you claim has relevant images on it, or the thick folder stuffed with blank papers with the suspect's name written on it. Any one of those things might make the suspect admit to something, or it might not. But none of them are reliable detectors of deception. And none of them have any place in pre-employment screening.
Hello all,
Been away for awhile, but I had a few free minutes and was bored so I thought I would check in on things here. Good to see the site still alive and kicking.
Those darn Polygraphers are still around I see, they're nothing if not tenacious. I guess I was hoping they would just kind of "go away", and go onto more fulfilling careers, maybe as tarot card readers or "Psychic Hotline" operators, but that's just wishful thinking of course.
Funny thing to me is that they KNOW what they are doing amounts to garbage that they want to pass off as a "science". They do this knowing full well that the "test" is flawed and not anywhere close to being accurate or truly reliable.
I do realize that they see the usefulness in their "art" as being a good intimidator and interrogating tool for those who do not know better and believe that the "test" is capable of distinguishing truth from deception. To the polyguys (especially the screeners)out there, how many people's lives are you willing to screw up and how many careers are you willing to wrongfully deny, based on this garbage? I'm not really looking for a response, they're just rhetorical questions.
I also hear many polygraphers say "this is the best we've got for now and until we find something better..." yada yada yada. They also try and justify themselves with reasons such as those given by Tasercop. These examples do absolutely nothing to disprove that Polygraphy is nothing but a scam, easily squashed by anyone who is lucky or insightful enough to come across accurate info. These people kill me with their attempts to justify the unjustifiable. ::)
Fortunately for me, I was one of the lucky ones, and I have enjoyed a very satisfying career to this point. I just hit my 10 year mark and I have accomplished more than I would have ever thought possible before I began my career. I am thankful everyday for the opportunities that I have been given. :D
Best regards and good luck,
PK
Quote from: Poly-Killer on Jul 10, 2005, 01:39 PM...I have enjoyed a very satisfying career to this point. I just hit my 10 year mark and I have accomplished more than I would have ever thought possible
PK
Congratulations. I run across so few people with lives as fulfilled as yours. You are truly lucky. Best of luck in all your future endeavours.
Nonombre
Quote from: tasercop on Jul 07, 2005, 07:14 PMSome of the people on this forum were unjustly denied a job because of a failed polygraph and were not given the benefit of subsequent follow-up examinations. For them, I agree it was wrong, but hardly justifies stopping its use. Most of the people who post here, however, do not seem as if they have the honesty, integrity and fortitude of someone who should wear a badge or work with national secrets. I believe they are living proof that the system works.
Tasercop,
If I am reading your post correctly, you agree that some people on this site were unjustly denied a job because of a failed polygraph. Even though you agree that is wrong you don't see how that would justify an end to polygraph use in pre-employment screening.
However, when you refer to the people who failed the polygraph because they don't have the honesty, integrity, or fortitude to wear a badge or work with national secrets, you believe their example is proof that the polygraph works.
With all due respect, how can you look at the statistics in such a selective manner? You look at some anecdotal evidence and dismiss it out of hand as insignificant, certainly not enough to cause one to doubt the validity of the polygraph. Then you take another set of anecdotal evidence and claim it to be proof the polygraph works.
Why did some percentage of applicants unjustly fail and subsequently not be offered employment? Shouldn't there be some scientifically repeatable variable which caused them to fail a test you seem to agree they should not have failed? Why did the applicants reportedly lacking in honesty, integrity, or fortitude fail their tests? Were all the variables and controls set up properly in their tests?
Please don't use the tired old excuse of "there are bad examiners out there." That sounds no more convincing than the pointy-haired boss in "Dilbert" claiming that profits were up last quarter because of good management, but down this quarter because of bad employees.
Well, 60 posts later and I just got notice that I have passed both the phsych. & polygraph :D. Im glad to have started the forums on a "lively" conversation.
Can someone help me with the bench press now :P
Gates21
Quote from: gates21 on Jul 23, 2005, 06:06 AMWell, 60 posts later and I just got notice that I have passed both the phsych. & polygraph :D. Im glad to have started the forums on a "lively" conversation.
Can someone help me with the bench press now :P
Gates21
Congratulations on getting this far in the process! Good luck on the rest of it and good luck at the academy.
Recently took my first poly. It was a nightmare. I wish I had found this site before going in. There was a set of "sex" questions which consisted of things like "Have you ever had sex with animals, have you ever molested kids, etc." I was so disturbed and upset by the questions because I think those are such horrible things that my heart started racing. She asked the questions a second time saying I had moved (I was not aware that I had moved). I told her after the second round of questions that the fact she continued to ask me these horrible questions made me nervous. I have never done anything wrong--never even tasted alcohol, never had drugs, certainly never involved with sexual perversion--and was very worried that my nervousness would make it appear that I was lying. The lady told me that the test was 95% accurate and that if I didn't do anything wrong than I shouldn't have anything to worry about. She then asked me the sex questions a third time and by then I was ready to freak out. I never want to take another poly again. It was horrible experience.
She made me feel like a criminal and like I had done something wrong when I know that I am a good person and was not lying!!!
I wonder how long it will take before I hear my results. She said she wasn't allowed to tell me and could only give them to the agency (it was for a law enforcement job) requesting them. It will be a miracle if I passed.
Phil413,
Your experience has similarities to mine. It causes one to wonder if the examiner relishes in asking questions regarding sexual deviance in an attempt to satisfy his own urges through proxy or simply for his own amusement. I had the added pleasure of being subjected to a question of "have you ever had sex with a dead person." Not only was I taken aback I became livid. Though I tried to not show my anger outwardly, I am sure it was apparent.
I see no reason for sexual questions to begin with defined specificity. A simple question to lead off the topic should be: "have you ever engaged in unlawful sexual activities or conduct." If the examinee answers yes, the topic should be explored. The majority of applicants, I would assume, would be uncomfortable if not unnerved by the types of questions both you and I were asked.
This area of questioning has been a bone of contention of mine since I was "tested" in January. I was informed prior to testing that I would only be queried regarding responses on my background questionaire. The only question relating to sexual conduct was a general one like the example given above.
Other aggressive techniques and improper behaviors were exhibited by the examiner. He was, in my opinion, the biggest jerk on the planet. My opinion has not changed.
By the way, I didn't "pass." The examiner influenced physiological response by his method of sensitization to one particular relevant question. However, I haven't given up and neither should you. I have a few more tests lined up in the near future. Good luck.
Thanks, Brandon. You made me feel much better. On my original application it said that I would be asked questions from the application and not one of them was about anything sexual in nature. When I went in for my poly I filled out a two page paper and none of those questions had anything to do with anything sexual. Then, when it was time for the actual exam and the examiner began asking these questions I was so taken aback that I laughed at first.
You said, "I see no reason for sexual questions to begin with defined specificity." and I completely agree. It was not only disturbing because I felt as if I was a criminal being accused of these atrocities but it was also embarrassing.
Thanks for your encouragement.
I just thought of a couple of questions I had regarding the test I recently took.
1. The agency that I was taking the poly for told me not to be worried about the test because the examiner would ask me questions like "Is your name_____?" and that would show them how I answered while being nervous and telling the truth. I was then told that I would be asked a question to which I would lie so that there would be a reading of how I responded when I was lying and nervous. When I went to take the test, I was not told to respond with a lie to any of the questions to test my response when lying. Was I supposed to be asked to do this?
2. Now that I've read this website and studied about how inaccurate these "tests" are I am concerned about what to do when I have to re-test (the way the examiner was acting and by my own racing heart there is almost no chance I passed). When I took my poly the other day they asked "Have you read anything about polygraphs? Are you going to try to beat the test? Have you read about how to beat the test?" I had not so I was able to answer "No" truthfully. What will they do when I say yes to these questions should I have to re-test?
Phil413 wrote:
Quote1. The agency that I was taking the poly for told me not to be worried about the test because the examiner would ask me questions like "Is your name_____?" and that would show them how I answered while being nervous and telling the truth. I was then told that I would be asked a question to which I would lie so that there would be a reading of how I responded when I was lying and nervous. When I went to take the test, I was not told to respond with a lie to any of the questions to test my response when lying. Was I supposed to be asked to do this?
The first part regarding your name is a bullshit tactic. This question says nothing and reveals nothing as it has an established ground truth. The directed lie test, the second part of this question, is in the same category as the first part. It is a technique that some examiners, not all, use.
Phil 413 wrote:
Quote2. Now that I've read this website and studied about how inaccurate these "tests" are I am concerned about what to do when I have to re-test (the way the examiner was acting and by my own racing heart there is almost no chance I passed). When I took my poly the other day they asked "Have you read anything about polygraphs? Are you going to try to beat the test? Have you read about how to beat the test?" I had not so I was able to answer "No" truthfully. What will they do when I say yes to these questions should I have to re-test?
When re-testing or testing with another agency my suggestion is to be honest about the information you have learned. This will probably subject you to further questioning and possibly unfairly influence the examiner's opinion of you. So be it. Examiners regulary (without fail) advise and instruct examinees to be completely honest. Give them what they want whether they want to hear it or not. This advice is quite comical as the examinee is expected to lie on controls. If you are completely honest it screws with their "accuracy."
I will hopefully be tested again soon. If so I'll let you know what happens. I refuse to let these "tests" derail my desire to become a police officer.
I am really regretting taking this polygraph and I still don't know if I passed or not. My poly was for an unpaid volunteer laboratory position and after reading this site I don't think I should have agreed to it in the first place. I figured I would pass with flying colors so I readily agreed and in my naiveté I thought it would be an interesting experience.
In briefly reading some of the information on this site I can only identifiy one control question and several irrelevant questions during my hour long poly. Is this typical?
My control question was "have you ever stolen anything from work?" Of course I've accidentally taken home pens or paper clips but nothing that I've purposely stolen (and I was actually thinking that when I was asked the question) so I said "No." In hindsight I'm wondering if I was expected to say "Yes."
I can remember at least 5 irrelevant questions that were asked.
I'm really mad over this whole experience and the way I was tricked. I thought the pre-test interview and questions were necessary and I had no idea the was I was answering the questions or my body language was being analyzed during this time.
I have already passed on information regarding polygraphs and this site to several people who were like me, completely unaware and uninformed!
For what it's worth, those who support the use of polygraphy fail to understand why many seek knowledge about this "test", the most critical being the fear of failure (ie false positive) result.
I, too, have a polygraph upcoming for law enforcement-and fail to understand why this piece in inclusive in an already demanding process: a background investigation including criminal background check, reference checks, drug screens, letters of recommendation, fulfillment of the neccessary educational requirments should be enough-and I have a sense of nervousness about the possibility of failing at this point.
It borders on the absurd. Anyone would be a fool not to come prepared to a polygraph exam.