I have been looking into the idea of applying to the LAPD, what exactly are the questions they ask on the polygraph. I have heard the test is very hard to beat from some and very easy to beat from others. Any advice please?
Quote from: atomic84 on Aug 13, 2005, 09:32 PMI have been looking into the idea of applying to the LAPD, what exactly are the questions they ask on the polygraph. I have heard the test is very hard to beat from some and very easy to beat from others. Any advice please?
Please expound on exactly what areas of the pre-employment polygraph examination you are trying to "beat?"
Is it drugs?
Felony Theft?
Sexual assault?
Child Abuse?
Drug Running?
Murder?
Don't worry, there are several good citizens on this website would be more than happy to work with you closely and spare no effort to make sure you are successful in your attempt to cheat your way to the position of special trust and confidence you obviously and richly deserve.
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 13, 2005, 10:20 PM
Please expound on exactly what areas of the pre-employment polygraph examination you are trying to "beat?"
Is it drugs?
Felony Theft?
Sexual assault?
Child Abuse?
Drug Running?
Murder?
Don't worry, there are several good citizens on this website would be more than happy to work with you closely and spare no effort to make sure you are successful in your attempt to cheat your way to the position of special trust and confidence you obviously and richly deserve.
Nonombre
Nonombre,
You're a little quick to jump on this. You may be entirely correct that he has something in his past he wants to hide, but then again you may not. It might be prudent to withhold judgment until he provides a few more details.
Personally, I have told people that I didn't manage to "beat" the polygraph until my fourth attempt. I had nothing in my past I was trying to conceal; I used the term "beat" in the sense of some sort of challenge that must be met to continue with the application process.
Of course, what made it supremely frustrating was that I had no idea why the polygraph kept "beating" me. I knew then as I know now that I was completely honest in all my answers and had concealed absolutely nothing, yet I inexplicably continued to get "beaten" by the polygraph. I felt like I was playing a game in which no one explained the rules – they would just let me play and then tell me I lost.
To be fair, I and many others on this board continually counsel people who are looking to lie on their polygraph that they should tell the truth about their background. While there may be some segment of the members here who seek to let felons, child molesters, and drug dealers into the law enforcement field, I would have to say that the vast majority of members would vigorously oppose such a thing.
the only thing I have that concerns me are the standard mistakes that most make. Getting in the car after having a few too many and trying out pot. Other then that I've lead the life of the good civil servant since maturing into adulthood.
Quote from: atomic84 on Aug 13, 2005, 11:58 PMthe only thing I have that concerns me are the standard mistakes that most make. Getting in the car after having a few too many and trying out pot. Other then that I've lead the life of the good civil servant since maturing into adulthood.
If you are planning on lying to your background investigator because you figure that what you have done are "standard mistakes that most make," I would suggest you change your mind.
Depending on how many times you smoked marijuana and/or drove while intoxicated, some agencies will disqualify you and some will not. Be honest about your background and if the agency to which you are applying doesn't want you, so be it. Apply somewhere else. You do not want to start off a career in law enforcement by lying your way through the application. You can't compromise your integrity a little bit; you either compromise it or you don't.
In my opinion the information on this site is not here so that people can lie about their past on a polygraph. The information is intended to be used by people who intend to be truthful but want to protect themselves from a false-positive. If there was any way to disseminate the information strictly to those people that is what would be done. But since there is not the information is made available to everyone.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Aug 13, 2005, 11:11 PM
Nonombre,
You're a little quick to jump on this. You may be entirely correct that he has something in his past he wants to hide, but then again you may not. It might be prudent to withhold judgment until he provides a few more details.
Personally, I have told people that I didn't manage to "beat" the polygraph until my fourth attempt. I had nothing in my past I was trying to conceal; I used the term "beat" in the sense of some sort of challenge that must be met to continue with the application process.
Of course, what made it supremely frustrating was that I had no idea why the polygraph kept "beating" me. I knew then as I know now that I was completely honest in all my answers and had concealed absolutely nothing, yet I inexplicably continued to get "beaten" by the polygraph. I felt like I was playing a game in which no one explained the rules – they would just let me play and then tell me I lost.
To be fair, I and many others on this board continually counsel people who are looking to lie on their polygraph that they should tell the truth about their background. While there may be some segment of the members here who seek to let felons, child molesters, and drug dealers into the law enforcement field, I would have to say that the vast majority of members would vigorously oppose such a thing.
Sergeant,
You're right. The thought of this guy finding his way onto this site to look for ways to potentially "beat" the police pre-employment process got under my skin.
Next time I'll try to take a deep breath first.
However, I'm sure you keep in mind the fact that information provided to one, is given to all. Furthermore, though there is no conclusive proof the advice given on this site is of any reliable help to those hoping to cheat the process, the responsibility of any negative (dangerous) outcome must be on those publishing such "assistance."
Nonnombre
I've been in the game long enough that I know how certain things work. There are very few perfect people in the world, and a governmental agency wants the taxpayers to believe that their money is only going to hire the perfect. Having made a few mistakes does not immediately mean that someone is unfit for a position or would make a bad cop. However, because of large numbers of candidates and the costs involved an agency like the LAPD cannot take each individual and consider if they have outgrown their past mistakes. What I would like to do is figure out an edge that would allow me to prove that the forest is more than the trees, and that I have amounted to more then some past decisions. Sorry if I came off sounding callus with my first post, I diddnt mean to insult anyone's integrity.
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 14, 2005, 02:13 AM
Sergeant,
You're right. The thought of this guy finding his way onto this site to look for ways to potentially "beat" the police pre-employment process got under my skin.
Next time I'll try to take a deep breath first.
However, I'm sure you keep in mind the fact that information provided to one, is given to all. Furthermore, though there is no conclusive proof the advice given on this site is of any reliable help to those hoping to cheat the process, the responsibility of any negative (dangerous) outcome must be on those publishing such "assistance."
Nonnombre
Most of us have ethical principles high enough to not let our contempt and disdain for your evil profession let us lower ourselves to assisting those who truly do not belong in a position of trust.
That being said, the need to shed light on polygraphics and bring it out of the darkness (to protect the truly innocent) outweighs the need to keep your (profession's) dirty secrets private.
If a bad guy stumbles onto this site and finds information of value, that is unfortunate, but the root of the problem is your industry's reliance on polygraphics to the exclusion of more costly and time-consuming investigations.
As far as the "buyer beware" with the information on this site being "unproven" -- why don't you step up to the challenge and answer the question once and for all? You have no proof you can detect countermeasures absent a confession. All you can do is make wild (and unsubstantiated) accusations of CM use.
Quote from: Jeffery on Aug 14, 2005, 02:28 AM
Most of us have ethical principles high enough to not let our contempt and disdain for your evil profession let us lower ourselves to assisting those who truly do not belong in a position of trust.
Nonetheless, your actions clearly do not support your words, for that is exactly what you and others are doing...You truly do not care who gets your information. How do you plan to separate out the bad guys from the good guys, those who should have your most treasured information, and those who clearly should not? At least polygraphers make an effort to weed out the deceptive from the truthful. What effort do you and others on this site make to protect the innocent? Do you really care? I think your anger and your distain cloud your otherwise good judgement.
Nonombre
I am torn on this issue. I don't want to see undesirables cheat and are therefore entrusted with a Badge and a Gun. On the other hand, I don't want to see honest people branded liars when that is not the case. I think the polygraph should be used as a tool, to be used in conjunction with a good, thourough background investigation. If the person is a drug user, liar, cheat, molester...yada yada yada, it will come out in the investigation................If it werent for the fact that George was treated like shit by the FBI and LAPD because of a bogus call made by some flunkie FBI Poly examiner, this site wouldn't be here. I say to the good poly examiners out there (I am sure there are many) to police your ranks and weed out the bad apples who want to DQ candidates simply because they have a chance to be a cop of Agent, where the examiner only dreamed of such a thing...
atomic84,
With regard to the questions asked on the LAPD pre-employment polygraph, an exact list is not presently available. (UPDATE: A listing has become available; see the discussion thread, LAPD Polygraph Questions Disclosed (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2632.msg18618#msg18618).) However, the Los Angeles Police Department Pre-employment Polygraph Guidelines (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/lapd-polygraph-guidelines.pdf) describe the general areas of inquiry at p. 4:
QuoteBackground Standards and Areas of Inquiry
The Los Angeles Police Department pre-employment polygraph examinations for police officers are based upon the City of Los Angeles Personnel Department Policy, Public Safety Positions – Background Standards. According to these standards, candidates shall have conducted themselves in a manner, which shows that they respect the law and the rights of others, possess high moral standards of character and integrity, and are dependable, responsible, and conscientious. Each candidate's prior conduct will be evaluated to assure that it meets the following standards:
1. Interpersonal Skills, Sensitivity, and Respect for Others
2. Decision Making and Judgment
3. Maturity and Discipline
4. Honesty, Integrity and Personal Ethics
5. Setting and Achieving Goals
6. Record Checks
Based on these standards, the areas of inquiry in the pre-offer stage are:
1. Employment History
a. Jobs that were not put on the application
b. Terminations
c. Resigned in Lieu of Termination
d. Disciplinary problems
e. Falsification of application
2. Employee theft
3. Serious undetected crimes
a. Sex crimes
b. Any felony case
4. Illegal drug history
5. Disqualifying acts against another based on personal bias
6. Domestic violence
With regard to one of the areas that concern you, note that polygraphers assume that
everyone with a driver license who consumes alcoholic beverages has on some occasion gotten behind the wheel after drinking more than they should have and will falsely deny it when asked, "Did you ever drive while under the influence of alcohol?" This is a commonly used probable-lie "control" question in pre-employment polygraph screening for law enforcement agencies, and applicants are secretly expected to answer it deceptively and show a reaction to it. Reactions to this question are then compared to reactions to a relevant question such as, "Besides what you told me [assuming some illegal drug use has been admitted], did you ever use an illegal drug?" If one reacts more strongly to the "control" question, then one is assumed to have answered the relevant question truthfully. But if one reacts more strongly to the relevant question, then one is assumed to have answered it deceptively. Perversely, if one makes a pre-test admission about having driven while under the influence of alcohol, and as a consequence reacts less strongly to the question (which will simply be rephrased as, "Besides what you told me, did you ever drive while under the influence of alcohol?"), it actually
increases one's chances of wrongly "failing." For more on "control" questions, as well as other aspects of polygraph practice, see
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf).
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 14, 2005, 02:37 AM
Nonetheless, your actions clearly do not support your words, for that is exactly what you and others are doing...You truly do not care who gets your information.
I presume that your discomfort with the dissemination of information about polygraphics as is provided on this site is due to the fact that the information is accurate and you have otherwise no way by which to detect its use?
Quote How do you plan to separate out the bad guys from the good guys, those who should have your most treasured information, and those who clearly should not?
Respectfully, it is not my problem. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I don't think your witchcraft test is a fair way to determine guilt.
QuoteAt least polygraphers make an effort to weed out the deceptive from the truthful.
Really? That wasn't my experience.
QuoteWhat effort do you and others on this site make to protect the innocent?
Have you missed the point? This site exists entirely to protect the truthful, innocent examinee-victim from a system that assigns guilt arbitrarily with no scientific basis.
QuoteDo you really care? I think your anger and your distain cloud your otherwise good judgement.
I care that polygraphic screening exams be abolished. My anger and disdain help fuel my passion for this endeavor.
Quote from: Matty on Aug 14, 2005, 04:28 AMIf it werent for the fact that George was treated like shit by the FBI and LAPD because of a bogus call made by some flunkie FBI Poly examiner, this site wouldn't be here.
Exactly. They pissed off the wrong guy. George can speak to this himself if he wishes, but I am certain his interest in polygraphics peaked after being wrongly accused of lieing and then having his career plans destoryed (loss of FBI opportunity, damage to Military career etc). I can't help but think what value he could have contributed with his mid-east language skills and knowledge.
The polygraph community is responsible for this site. They created this "monster" or rather, "fountain of truth." If they don't like it, I say "Fuc* them."
They can label this a site of a bunch of liers and whiners; but their whining and oppostion to this site only adds to the credibility and confirms the truthfulness of what is on here.
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 14, 2005, 02:13 AMFurthermore, though there is no conclusive proof the advice given on this site is of any reliable help to those hoping to cheat the process, the responsibility of any negative (dangerous) outcome must be on those publishing such "assistance."
I'm afraid I simply can't agree with you. Polygraphy is purported to be a valid scientific test. If that is so then I don't see how it could possibly matter if the subject of such a test has knowledge of how the test works.
When you come right down to it that is all the information this site provides. There is information here regarding how the test is run and what the polygraph examiner is looking for in order to determine if the subject is being deceptive.
Some people will choose to use that information to protect themselves from a false positive, and I have no doubt that others will use that to lie to the authorities and get away with it. I can't see how that is the responsibility of the people who created this site.
If anything, I believe that the fact a person can spend a few minutes looking at a web site and then "beat" a supposedly objective and scientific test such as the polygraph is one more significant reason to reexamine the validity of that test. If a person could produce a different set of fingerprints by biting their tongue or thinking exciting thoughts, and by doing so they caused some sort of negative (dangerous) outcome, would that be the fault of the web site which provided the tongue-biting information, or would it be the fault of the authority that chose to rely on a test that can be defeated by such laughably mundane countermeasures?
Enrico Fermi once said, "It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge."
You can't stuff everything back inside Pandora's box. Knowledge of the polygraph is out there and is easily available to everyone. If having that knowledge invalidates the test, then I believe the test was never valid in the first place.
I think it is time to acknowledge that polygraphy cannot survive if everyone who may become subject to a test is aware of the deception that goes on and is also aware of what the examiner is looking for. Wishing that knowledge was never made widely available is a bit immature, in my opinion. Move with the cheese.
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 14, 2005, 02:37 AMNonetheless, your actions clearly do not support your words, for that is exactly what you and others are doing...You truly do not care who gets your information. How do you plan to separate out the bad guys from the good guys, those who should have your most treasured information, and those who clearly should not? At least polygraphers make an effort to weed out the deceptive from the truthful. What effort do you and others on this site make to protect the innocent? Do you really care? I think your anger and your distain cloud your otherwise good judgement.
Providing information to people who seek it is not wrong. Citizens engaging in free speech directed at what they believe to be an injustice are not wrong.
I'm sure there are some polygraphers who believe they are making an effort to weed out the truthful from the deceptive. I'm also sure that a century ago phrenologists believed they were making a good faith effort to identify people with criminal tendencies.
It seems that, in your opinion, providing information is the same as failing to protect the innocent. If you could explain that I'd be very interested to hear it. As someone who has dedicated his entire adult life to protecting the innocent I'd be curious to see how I am apparently undermining all the good I've done by providing information.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Aug 15, 2005, 01:22 PMCountermeasures are being detected on a regular basis. Use of them does disqualify one from further consideration in employment. Information is good, and the postings on this site are good. If you are informed regarding polygraph examinations and have read the Lie Behind the Lie Detector, this does not disqualify you, it makes you informed. The point to center on is be untruthful to the control questions and truthful to the relevant questions and you will pass your polygraph examination.
Once again, advice from a polygraph examiner which assures the reader that telling the truth will cause you to pass your polygraph examination. All of the anecdotal evidence on this site from people who told the truth and failed must not count for much.
I did exactly what you suggest on all four of my polygraphs and failed the first three of them. In the first one I supposedly lied about using cocaine, in the second I supposedly lied about fighting/committing assaults, and in the third one I supposedly lied about stealing army equipment. None of those things were even remotely true.
At the time I had no knowledge of countermeasures and (naively) had complete faith in the polygraph as a valid detector of deception. After all, if it wasn't completely accurate then I wouldn't be forced to go through it, right? I was completely baffled as to why I kept failing when I knew I wasn't lying about anything. I went through each test in exactly the same manner, answering the same way each time. Since I was telling the truth it was easy to keep my answers the same from test to test. I kept thinking that I must be doing something wrong or that some random anomaly kept popping up to screw up my tests. Little did I know...
There are many others like me who know they were completely honest on their polygraph examinations and yet were still labeled "deceptive" or "deception indicated." I am continually amazed whenever I see examiners advise people to "just tell the truth and you'll be fine."
Sergeant,
You'll never win an argument with a polygrapher. Polygraphers sadly believe that their profession is true and just. The multi-week polygraph training course has brainwashed and diluted their minds to such a point that they feel they can simply look at someone and detect deception. I can remember my first "failed" polygraph as if it was yesterday. What is so vivid in my mind was the pathetic nature in which the polygrapher tried to convince me that I was lying. He was trying so hard to get me to admit to something, anything! It is somewhat amusing now when I think back on it... and terribly easy to feel sorry for him.
Good luck, atomic84. Inform and prepare yourself as best you can.
Quote from: mustbaliar on Aug 15, 2005, 03:16 PMSergeant,
You'll never win an argument with a polygrapher. Polygraphers sadly believe that their profession is true and just. The multi-week polygraph training course has brainwashed and diluted their minds to such a point that they feel they can simply look at someone and detect deception. I can remember my first "failed" polygraph as if it was yesterday. What is so vivid in my mind was the pathetic nature in which the polygrapher tried to convince me that I was lying. He was trying so hard to get me to admit to something, anything! It is somewhat amusing now when I think back on it... and terribly easy to feel sorry for him.
Good luck, atomic84. Inform and prepare yourself as best you can.
I can vividly remember points from my polygraphs as well. One of the things that stand out the most from all of them is the way each examiner solemnly assured me that they were the true "lie detectors" and that even without the machine they could easily tell that I was lying. That must be something they are taught in school – all three of them used the same line on me.
I'm sure that when people actually are lying then a statement like that makes the examiner seem mysteriously omniscient. However, in my case, when the examiners assured me they could, through their powers of observation, easily tell I was lying when I was in fact telling the truth, it was utterly baffling to me.
As I mentioned, at the time I had faith in the accuracy of the polygraph, because I had never heard anything negative about it. I was absolutely floored by this person I had assumed was an honest, ethical professional looking right into my eyes and telling me he KNEW I was lying and I might as well admit it. I couldn't believe such a mistake was being made.
Looking back at it now, I am not sure what to think about the examiners. I'd like to think they were ethical people doing their best to find deceptive applicants, but it's hard for me to believe that.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Aug 15, 2005, 01:22 PMCountermeasures are being detected on a regular basis. Use of them does disqualify one from further consideration in employment. Information is good, and the postings on this site are good. If you are informed regarding polygraph examinations and have read the Lie Behind the Lie Detector, this does not disqualify you, it makes you informed. The point to center on is be untruthful to the control questions and truthful to the relevant questions and you will pass your polygraph examination.
Your assertion that countermeasures are being detected on a regular basis is unsupported by any peer-reviewed research, and undermined by the fact that in some three-and-a-half years, no polygrapher, including yourself, I must respectfully add, has mustered the self-confidence to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=418.msg1942#msg1942).
On the other hand,
not using countermeasures is no guarantee that one
won't be accused of using countermeasures. That was my experience with the LAPD (the agency with which atomic84 is applying). Ervin Youngblood, a senior polygraph operator still with the LAPD, angrily but falsely accused me of using countermeasures. Not only had I not
used countermeasures, I didn't even
know what they were at that time.
I wish it were true, as you suggest, that being informed about polygraphy and having read
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) -- or more precisely, admitting the same to one's polygraph examiner -- would never result in retaliation against an examinee. But feedback received by AntiPolygraph.org strongly suggests that at least in some cases (if not most), it can and does.
I also wish it were true, as you maintain, that if one simply were to answer the "control" questions untruthfully while answering the relevant questions truthfully, one would be assured of passing the polygraph. If this were true, then AntiPolygraph.org's advice to law enforcement applicants hoping to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome would be precisely this -- and nothing more. But your assurances, I am afraid, are little more than wishful thinking on your part.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Aug 15, 2005, 10:11 PMGeorge,
As stated before, no one is going to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge. It would violate the APA standards, it poses no threat to Dr. Richardson, therefore no fear of being caught using counter measures or fear of being found deceptive. If there is no consequence, there is no fear, if there is no fear there is no reaction. Possibly the challenge could be refered to others in the polygraph community with there being a fear or consiquence for being deceptive and using countermeasures. The stakes would have to be high to instill the necessary fear of detection of deception and countermeasures. How would you propose to structure such a test? I personally would not participate in any such test.
Could you comment on the so called "mock crime simulated tests" that the DOD conducted to bolster their claims of polygraph accuracy?
If there is no substantial fear of being caught, there is no reaction, as you indicated above. I'd lie to see what "fear" can be manufactured in a "mock crime" scenario.
Quote from: Jeffery on Aug 15, 2005, 11:26 PM
Could you comment on the so called "mock crime simulated tests" that the DOD conducted to bolster their claims of polygraph accuracy?
If there is no substantial fear of being caught, there is no reaction, as you indicated above. I'd lie to see what "fear" can be manufactured in a "mock crime" scenario.
Jeff,
You have identified the most significant problem in laboratory polygraph research. In many cases, the researchers do try to make the mock crime "real" to the participants (In one study, the Isrealis actually convinced some police recruits they had in fact commited a real crime, and if caught on the polygraph were going to get thrown out of the police acadamy.)
However, in the U.S. we cannot go to the extremes they can in other countries (These are called "human use" issues.) So, we use other methods like financial awards, etc. It is not the best possible approach, but sometimes you do the best you can with the hand you draw, so to speak
Regards,
Nonombre
Nonombre,
This would seem to go back to the specific issue versus screening examinations argument. At least with the lab experiements there is some base known truth at hand. With the screening exams there is not such a luxury. For the false-positive examinee there is no way to disprove what cannot be legitimately proven. In contrast there is no way for the examiner to disprove what has been proven by a false-negative examinee, at least not by the polygraph. With lab tests and real-life specific issue tests a bit more can possibly be proven due to ground truth having been established.
I think it all goes back to the utility versus validity argument. Do polygraph examinations have utility? You bet. Do they have validity? Well I guess that depends on whose opinion you seek and what research you trust by looking at the motivations behind the research and the researchers themselves.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Aug 15, 2005, 10:11 PMGeorge,
As stated before, no one is going to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge. It would violate the APA standards, it poses no threat to Dr. Richardson, therefore no fear of being caught using counter measures or fear of being found deceptive. If there is no consequence, there is no fear, if there is no fear there is no reaction. Possibly the challenge could be refered to others in the polygraph community with there being a fear or consiquence for being deceptive and using countermeasures. The stakes would have to be high to instill the necessary fear of detection of deception and countermeasures. How would you propose to structure such a test? I personally would not participate in any such test....
Darkcobra2005,
Specifically which paragraph of the APA standards prohibits a member from accepting Dr. Richardson's challenge?
You suggest that no meaningful analog (laboratory) test of a polygrapher's ability to detect countermeasures can be constructed. I disagree with that notion. Charles Honts has conducted experiments along these lines and published his results in peer-reviewed journals. His results indicated that even experienced polygraphers could not detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.
I think it is abundantly clear to the neutral observer why not even one of the 3,000+ polygraphers operating in the United States has accepted Dr. Richardson's challenge.
Quote...I can assure you that I have observed numerous individuals using the countermeasures proposed on this site and they have admitted to using them, I don't need per review when I get admissions, I know they have used the couner measures, I confront them and they admit to the use of them.
The fact that you have accused examinees of countermeasure use and received admissions does not establish your ability to actually
detect countermeasures. (By detection I mean identification at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.)
How many of those whom you have accused of countermeasure use, and who made no admission, were in fact innocent of such? You have no way of knowing.
How many of those whose charts you scored as "no deception indicated" in fact used countermeasures to pass (whether or not they answered the relevant questions truthfully)? Again, you have no way of knowing.
Considering the absence of any research evidence whatsoever suggesting that polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures, the fact that polygraph screening is without scientific basis, and that many law enforcement agencies, including the LAPD, have pre-employment polygraph failure rates on the order of 50%, I think many applicants will conclude that using countermeasures to avert a false positive outcome is a reasonable survival strategy.
QuotePlease do not read this as a accusation against you or your integrity or honesty. I truly believe that you have been wronged by polygraph, and I cannot fix that. I can only strive to not treat any person in the manner you or others report they have been treated by polygraph examiners.
I don't take any offense at your arguments, and hope you take none at mine, either. But please understand that the unfair treatment I have experienced as a result of polygraph screening stems from the inherent unreliability of polygraphy. I have no evidence that my FBI and LAPD polygraphers engaged in any willfull misconduct. Had you conducted my polygraph examinations, the results may very well have been the same.
If you don't want to cause others the kind of harm that I, Sergeant1107, mustbaliar, and many other truthful individuals have experienced, you need to follow the example of FBI Special Agent Leroy Chan (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2310.msg16336#msg16336) and get out of the business of polygraph screening.
Darkcobra wrote:
QuoteAll research can be scewed, and some is. The research currently being done by good researchers is guided by ASTM standards and is valid research. ASTM sets up the research and monitors it, they are not interested in polygraph, they are a research institute that insures research is done properly to meet their standards.
They say figures don't lie, but liars can figure, so you are correct in stating that some of the research is flawed on both sides, not just one.
Nice to see you back. It's been a while since we've talked.
I think you are correct in your assertation that all research can be skewed. The ATSM has established standards for testing in many areas. Why, though, would research on the part of the ATSM outweigh that of the NAS? Both are recognized and respected organizations. Again, I think it falls to the question of which research project benefits the ones who are looking for the benefit? As you are aware very little research has been conducted regarding employment screening polygraph examinations. The reason is that ground truth cannot be established without admission on the part of the examinee. That ground truth can be questionable as well. As pointed out by respected scholars such as Dr. Lykken, employment screen accuracy cannot be directly correlated to specific incident accuracy...two different fruits because of the lack of or inclusions of ground truth. Until research can prove otherwise, I think it unjust to continue the pre-employment screens.
Also, the other matter which we discussed at length has come to a conclusion. I cannot say that I am satisfied with the result, but it is what it is.
Quote from: nonombre on Aug 16, 2005, 01:01 AM
Jeff,
You have identified the most significant problem in laboratory polygraph research. In many cases, the researchers do try to make the mock crime "real" to the participants ... It is not the best possible approach, but sometimes you do the best you can with the hand you draw, so to speak
Regards,
Nonombre
So what I am hearing is there is no good way to scientifically validate polygraphics, but we (society) rely on bogus or (the best hand we got) scientific studies to back up a process that has hurt the lives of untold thousands.
Sure, you can engage in self-congratulation for the hundreds of crooks you may have caught through bluffing them into confessions during a polygraph interrogation. You may have brought these bad guys to justice, helping the lives of their innocent victims.
But the people falsly accused and whose lives were damaged due to bogus polygraph tests were innocent too.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Aug 16, 2005, 02:34 AMBrandon,
All research can be scewed, and some is. The research currently being done by good researchers is guided by ASTM standards and is valid research. ASTM sets up the research and monitors it, they are not interested in polygraph, they are a research institute that insures research is done properly to meet their standards.
They say figures don't lie, but liars can figure, so you are correct in stating that some of the research is flawed on both sides, not just one.
"The old research was bad, but now the new research is good. Trust me."
Is that basically the argument you are making? For a profession that professes to be after the truth, this is pretty poor.
DarkCobra, why donn't you engage in your own research and take Dr. Richardson's challenge.
Quote from: Jeffery on Aug 16, 2005, 11:24 AMSo what I am hearing is there is no good way to scientifically validate polygraphics, but we (society) rely on bogus or (the best hand we got) scientific studies to back up a process that has hurt the lives of untold thousands.
Jeffery,
It does seem that the argument is a bit circular: The polygraph is accurate because we know it's accurate because we polygraph people and sometimes they admit to things. In other words, the anecdotal evidence submitted by the polygraph examiners themselves in which they relate their success stories in catching liars with the polygraph proves that the polygraph is useful and accurate.
The next logical question would be: Is there any anecdotal evidence suggesting the polygraph is not useful and accurate? The answer, of course, is "Yes!" The stories of many of the people on this board would qualify, as well as the stories of many, many other people who have been labeled "deceptive" despite an utter lack of actual deception.
What is it that makes the anecdotal evidence of the polygraph examiners, who after all have a vested interest in the polygraph's continuing use, more valid than the anecdotal evidence submitted by people like myself? I have no idea.
Other than the fact that I believe it is an injustice to use such a flawed process which does not really determine truthfulness or deception, I have no real personal stake in getting the polygraph thrown out. I have already (luckily) passed one and gotten the job I was seeking.
Looking at it objectively, I would think that an account like mine would hold much more weight than the account of any polygraph examiner, simply because of the lack of personal consequences to me if the polygraph continues as it is or is banned from use.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Aug 16, 2005, 12:59 PMThe APA prohibits individual polygraph examiners from participating in public displays of polygraph such as Dr. Richardsons Challenge. (without APA sanction).
I could find no such prohibition in the American Polygraph Association's bylaws (http://www.polygraph.org/bylaws.htm). Might you be mistaken about this?
Is Ed Gelb a member of the APA? I ask becuase he publicly displays polygraphy on the television program "Lie Detector."
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Aug 16, 2005, 12:59 PMThe APA prohibits individual polygraph examiners from participating in public displays of polygraph such as Dr. Richardsons Challenge. (without APA sanction).
Perhaps it is just me, but I find this interesting in and of itself.
I recall many posts on this board by polygraph examiners which assert that examinee knowledge of the polygraph procedure is irrelevant – even a knowledgeable subject can be accurately polygraphed.
I cannot think of any scientific test where knowledge of the testing procedure would possibly invalidate the test. I also cannot think of any reason for the APA's prohibition except to prevent knowledge of the testing procedure from becoming available to the public.
I would guess that in cases like Ed Gelb on the TV show, the ground rules were laid down in advance as to what would be shown and what would not, and that is why it was apparently acceptable to the APA.
Quote from: atomic84 on Aug 13, 2005, 09:32 PMI have been looking into the idea of applying to the LAPD, what exactly are the questions they ask on the polygraph....
A listing of the questions asked on the LAPD pre-employment polygraph is now available. See the discussion thread, LAPD Polygraph Questions Disclosed (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2632.msg18618#msg18618).
A sidebar:
Being American-born of Asian descent I applied for LAPD back in the mid 90's. Went all the way up to the interview process, but everything stopped after my last job working with people I didn't always agree with. Well, they did not consider me Asian because my fluency was in English and Spanish but weak in my actual (chinese) language. So I was considered white, because I couldn't speak a chinese language. I guess at that time the Asian community never sued the LAPD. So beware of the LAPD usage of what they consider a minority. As far as I know now, I am really white, even though I look Asian and I think now my parents must have adopted me! ::)
Cobra,
Would you not agree that examinee knowledge of the poly affects the testing procedure? I had no prior knowledge when I took mine, so I believed that all the questions mattered to the examiner/agency and that the poly was practically infallible. However, once an examinee knows the diffference between controls and relevants, the game changes completely. Why would an examinee be concerned enough to react to questions he knows the examiner doesn't care about? Also, what about the use of fear during the poly? An informed examinee would be familiar with the importance of its use during the procedure. Polygraphs depend on ignorance. Knowledge changes everything. Surely you must acknowledge this.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 13, 2005, 12:51 AMPolygraphs do not totally depend on ignorance. If you understand the concept, and do not make admissions to the controls (Information readily available on this site) you will be informed and able to complete the process without problems.
So information is not bad if properly used. Information on countermeasures (and many disagree) don't get you through the examination if the examiner is observant and knows what countermeasures look like.
The studies by Hont's is used to demonstrated that examiners are unable to detect them. Since his study, many changes have been made and countermeasures are observed on a daily basis.
Knowlege is good and honesty is good. They go hand in hand.
Darkcobra,
Are you saying it's better to polygraph someone who understands the concept behind the procedure? Do you believe that prior knowledge w/o countermeasures reduces the chance of false positives? Do you inform your examinees about the concept behind the polygraph before administering it? If polygraphs don't depend on ignorance, then why are examinees not informed about the concept behind them beforehand?
Darkcobra,
You write in part:
Quote
For a person to have knowledge of polygraph does not hamper testing.
I'm sorry to have to differ on this point, but I can hardly imagine the self-contained snickering of a knowledgeable examinee not affecting your or a colleague's exam. This examinee would be one who recognizes (but does not reveal) what he/she has read about on this site, e.g., the misrepresentations about exam question types and purposes and the charade of the numbers test/acquaintance test as he manipulates you through this exercise, etc. But then again, perhaps you disavow all that is listed for these readers to peruse in the Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Polygraph Exam (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-lepet.pdf), yes?
Darkcobra,
That which I would have you and your colleagues do is rather quite simple. Cease and desist from doing polygraph screening. It is a fishing expedition with no present or probable theoretical basis for practice. It is further a danger to the national security (several recent well publicized examples) and to individuals alike. Use the saved resources (time, money, manpower) to conduct serious investigations to augment concealed information material for your specific incident testing. I maintain steadfastly that which I said to you in my previous post--a "test" whose foundation rests upon (examinee) ignorance is radically impacted by knowledge and truth. Regards...
Darkcobra,
Neither you nor I have any way of fixing polygraph screening--it is a fatally flawed practice, causes irreparable damage to country and individual alike and should be immediately discontinued. The flip-of-a-coin probability of success ("uncovers deception and verifies truth") with a binomial determination in no way compensates for the horror associated with ongoing daily failure. The only way I can see current methodology having a widespread social benefit would be to have a lottery for which of your various colleague's number comes up next, i.e., for the next polygrapher to be revealed in a major screw up that is picked up by the national media. The winnings from this lottery would be donated to the Katrina fund (or the like) in the revealed dupe's name. Quite seriously-you do appear to be more caring than many of your colleagues, but you share their culpability and stain if you continue in this practice. The only thing you can hope for is that your mistakes remain local mistakes and do not reach the level of national notoriety and embarrassment that we witness on a regular basis. As I recall, you are not a federal examiner. As such you are somewhat protected from this occurence, but at the same time you are disadvantaged with the aforementioned lottery. ;) You suggest that my research has some bearing on polygraph screening. If you believe this you are quite mistaken. I would have nothing whatsoever to do with this activity and in fact, other than opposing it and educating others about it, have little to do with current lie detection methodology. My research and operational involvement deal exclusively with concealed information testing.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Aug 15, 2005, 10:11 PMGeorge,
It would violate the APA standards, it poses no threat to Dr. Richardson, therefore no fear of being caught using counter measures or fear of being found deceptive. If there is no consequence, there is no fear, if there is no fear there is no reaction. Possibly the challenge could be refered to others in the polygraph community with there being a fear or consiquence for being deceptive and using countermeasures. The stakes would have to be high to instill the necessary fear of detection of deception and countermeasures.
I am using DarkCorbra owns words, and I will give him credit for at least being an atypical examiner. But this is exactly the point why this web site exists. I will concede that a danger of this information on this web site poses an ethical dilemma when criminals can use it, and beat the polygrapher. But its a risk that those who believe in fairness must endure. Just one false positive to an innocent is wrong, PERIOD. This web sites information removes the fear, the unknowns and the anxiety. And from my own emperical tests, know that with the removal of the fear, the polygraph is just a line drawing machine. Because the examiner, whether its you DarkCobra or another examiner,you can not read my mind, and you can't beat the knowlege and the montra going on in my head .... this thing does not work, its a lie.
A disciplined mind will negate the use of any physical countermeasures. And using the physical type countermeasures is a recipe for failure. As I am sure that as this knowlege spreads, you and your examiner brethern are testing to see if you can detect the better and less detectable countermeasures. I know I would in your shoes.
Still the bottom line, Knowlege is power, and with the removal of the fear and anxiety. The best you will get is a "NO" No Opinion, or stalemate in Chess. THe best outcome is "NDI", and walking out knowing that its checkmate. But you might get a youngpup to cough up the info that he gleaned from here, but that is inexperience on that persons part. Again Experience is the difference. Happy Hunting
Darkcobra,
I would be more than disappointed at this stage of our conversation to learn that you do not understand the difference between concealed information testing and lie detection. Tell me it is not so. Your last note leaves it very much in doubt. In the simplest analysis, the former has a sound basis for practice; the latter does not. The fact that a standard polygraph can be used for both is irrelevant.
Darkcobra,
A Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) is an information-based test. Lie detection includes a group of emotion-based procedures. Polygraph Screening (by its very nature) is an absence of information procedure, i.e., a fishing expedition. You the examiner do not (by the very nature of the exam) know whether a crime or some prohibited behavior has occurred let alone let alone that your examinee is the one who has committed/performed it. A Peak of Tension Test (POT) to the first approximation is a poorly constructed Guilty Knowledge Test and as you allude to a poorly named exam as well. It like the GKT, it is putatively an information-based exam; any emotion (tension) involved is merely an artifact of using a standard autonomic-channel-based polygraph (one of several reasons for using CNS measures for concealed information tests), not the parameter (concealed information) which is theoretically being measured. But again, a GKT is an information-based exam (you the examiner via the investigator and the guilty examinee must both have access to the privileged information you seek to probe for.) A screening exam is a lack of information exam, has no theoretical basis for practice, and has nothing in common with or anyway benefits from some artificial linking with a GKT exam. And to end on the general theme of our recent exchanges, neither you nor your colleagues in the federal community can fix or make better a screening exam. Polygraph screening can only be made better through abandonment and resource redirection and redistribution. If you seek to make your polygraph program better and it now includes polygraph screening, perhaps no one thing that you and your colleagues could do to improve it would do so more than eliminating its polygraph screening component.
Quote from: darkcobra2005 on Oct 14, 2005, 03:25 AMFor a person to have knowledge of polygraph does not hamper testing. For me to educate a person who is taking a polygraph regarding Neutral, Symptomatic, Relevant, Copntrol questions is very time consuming and unnecessary. No I don't give a polygraph course to each individual taking an examination, I don't mind if they are aware of the procedure.
Cobra,
With all due respect, I didn't inquire whether you taught a polygraph course to examinees prior to the so -called testing procedure. I asked you if you informed them of the BASIC CONCEPT behind the control question format. Anyone could easily understand it in a matter of minutes--much less time than examiners spend trying to convince examinees that they care about controls. You said yourself that knowledge is not a bad thing--why not impart examinees with it, since as you say it doesn't hamper the testing? How do you handle a test if an examinee admits to knowledge? Do you still conduct a so-called stim test? How do you get around the so-called controls? Are you honestly saying that it makes no difference whether an examinee has prior knowledge? Knowledge changes the dynamics of the situation. Polygraphs are nothing but a tool to ellicit confessions and if the examinee is not willing to give up the info., they are worthless. If an examinee knows that they don't really detect lies as myth has it, then they won't react and they also won't fess up. They'll just sit back and laugh to themselves at the stupid charade.
Darkcobra,
I support specific issue testing to the extent that it is performed with a concealed information test. I do not support the use of any of the lie detection formats (PLCQT, DLCQT, or RI) for any purpose or application (specific issue testing or screening). You are correct about the similarity of my views and those of David Lykken. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for him and have been privileged to have personally known and interacted with him for more than two decades. I believe that his views about polygraphy were correct almost half a century ago when first expressed/published and are equally correct today. I'm glad that you feel our exchanges have been worthwhile and, of course, would be happy to discuss research and other issues in the future. Best Wishes....