N/M
For a detailed explanation of polygraph procedure, including examples of the kinds of questions typically asked during a law enforcement pre-employment polygraph examination, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf
Also, by way of example, you may be interested in the message thread, LAPD Polygraph Questions Disclosed (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2632.msg18618#msg18618).
N/M
QuoteI qualify all of this with a strong distrust of most of the polygraph and psych evaluation stuff. It is probably a necessary evil, and maybe does do some good in weeding out a lot of chaff (with some wheat). But as a predictor of anything, it seems worthless. If all these recruits passing these tests were "clean" by virtue of passing them, there would be no need for full time I.A. officers/departments, and the amount of "police scandals" of all types would be negligible to non-existent.
Wrongo. Any test, be it a math test, or a psych test, whatever, is immutable----which means it is a snap shot of when you took the test, not a predicter of the future (necessarily.) The polygraph test is no exception---as they are seeking to see if you are honest
now. Try taking a test you took as a senior in h.s. and see if you do as well, as that test too was a snap shot.
N/M
Quote from: simolean on Nov 26, 2007, 07:37 PMQuote from: simolean on Nov 26, 2007, 06:53 PM
Wrongo. Any test, be it a math test, or a psych test, whatever, is immutable----which means it is a snap shot of when you took the test, not a predicter of the future (necessarily.) The polygraph test is no exception---as they are seeking to see if you are honest now. Try taking a test you took as a senior in h.s. and see if you do as well, as that test too was a snap shot.
and you make my point for me.
The test(s) do very little to verify or predict anything. The purpose of an "honesty evaluation" in terms of pre-employment is, by nature, not to see if you ever have been dishonest, or even are currently being dishonest, although that is what they test. They are to evaluate two things:
1. Truthfulness in past behaviors
and from that,
2. to deduce the probability that one will be "honest" in the future.
Therefore, the snapshot is worthless.
QuoteTry taking a test you took as a senior in h.s. and see if you do as well, as that test too was a snap shot.
I may do worse, or I may do better. If the test is on, for example, a particular geometry theorem, I will do worse. If it is a test on World History or Government, I will do better. Again, the snapshot analogy is worthless.
The polygraph test, no matter its original intent, seems to have morphed into something quite different. Do a google search on "police department scandal", and you might come to the conclusion that it has done little or nothing to prevent patently dishonest people, and those with loose moral and ethical boundaries from entering the ranks and file of the departments, and all the way to senior command positions.
Me, all I want to do is be a cop. I think I can be a good one. I look at the polygraph as a hurdle to jump to "get in". I want to be prepared for it intellectually and emotionally prior to taking it. Not because I place great value in its ability to catch me in lies or truths. But because it is a part of the process to get where I want to be.
Sooooooo, just how has polygraph "morphed" into something other than an immutable test? It seems to be the same ol test to me. The only caveat to the immutable aspect is that there are some very habitual behaviors that research shows are very difficult for people to cease---such as;
1. Sexual pariphilias/ Sexual addictions
2. Opiate addictions
3. Chronic alcoholism
4. Spousal abuse/ hetero-battery
5. Chronic rage disorder
6. Kleptomania
Polygraph has proven to be very helpful in indicating these areas. Ask any police applicant examiner and they will be happy to tell you stories of obscenely il-fitted applicants trying to be lawman/law-women.
On an aside, I believe that like all other stressful positions, acute dynamic risk factors (potential bad behaviors) become exaserbated with the lifestyle of being a police officer. It seems that many bad cops became bad after some time in the field, and under both great domestic and professional strife. Crappy pay, crappy hours, crappy cases, crappy criminals---and constant pressure on the marriage and children to subdivide compassion and mindfulness. Come to think of it, who would want to be a cop anyway? ;)
N/M
Quote from: simolean on Nov 26, 2007, 06:40 PMI have read, and am re-reading, the "e-book" via this site.
My question has less to do with the format of the test, and more to do with the "intent" of the test questions.
Obviously, if I have (for example) smoked weed in the last few months, that would be a legitimate disqualifier for employment.
If I had smoked weed in the past, but not in the last 5, but in the last 10, it may or may NOT be an (obvious) disqualifier.
If I had smoked weed 20 years ago, but none since, I could not lie and say I had not smoked weed (which I did not), but (to my opinion) it is such a long time ago as to be irrelevant, as it was not repeated since.
I am trying to get a feel for the "intent" of the test in terms of how it, or the various agencies, look at age differences and life experiences between a 22 year old and a 42 year old, or if they truly do. I would imagine major felonies, discovered or not, are always relevant. If I kidnapped my neighbor and stole his car 15-20 years ago, that is quite a different animal than smoking some weed or driving home from a party with a good buzz on the same 15-20 years ago.
I qualify all of this with a strong distrust of most of the polygraph and psych evaluation stuff. It is probably a necessary evil, and maybe does do some good in weeding out a lot of chaff (with some wheat). But as a predictor of anything, it seems worthless. If all these recruits passing these tests were "clean" by virtue of passing them, there would be no need for full time I.A. officers/departments, and the amount of "police scandals" of all types would be negligible to non-existent.
OK, to answer your original question. Who the hell knows just what chronological order, content of questions and spans you will be recieving? No examiner could answer that question with any specificity. You are here, trying to peek at your christmas gifts. Your examiner will review the questions and despite advice to the contrary by non-examiners----you should tell your examiner that you have posted questions on this site to relieve the pent-up pressure you will no doubt feel when your examiner starts to discuss countermeasures and/or this site. A recent study shows that you could be found deceptive by entering your test with a large napsack of secrets-----secrets like your little research venture on this site. G'luck
Aparently, you serve some strange purpose here, but display of coherent thought is not one of them.
I have not asked what "chronological order" questions will be in, but what depth of chronology the typical LEO polygrpah focuses upon. In "non-felony" issues are they interested in the last 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years?
It is really a simple question, easily answered, and without injections of assumed morality and omipotence .
I am hopeful you are not a polygraph examiner. If you are, your conscience must be far more battered with your ineptitude than any that you accuse of being dishonest. I don't know about the science of polygraph, but it seems to attract some poor practioners of it. Your failure to read, or re-read the questions, and instead inject your own agenda into an opportunity to villify shows a lack of depth and professionalism.
Quote from: simolean on Nov 26, 2007, 10:21 PMAparently, you serve some strange purpose here, but display of coherent thought is not one of them.
That is quite funny... ;D
Quote from: simolean on Nov 26, 2007, 10:21 PMAparently, you serve some strange purpose here, but display of coherent thought is not one of them.
I have not asked what "chronological order" questions will be in, but what depth of chronology the typical LEO polygrpah focuses upon. In "non-felony" issues are they interested in the last 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years?
It is really a simple question, easily answered, and without injections of assumed morality and omipotence .
I am hopeful you are not a polygraph examiner. If you are, your conscience must be far more battered with your ineptitude than any that you accuse of being dishonest. I don't know about the science of polygraph, but it seems to attract some poor practioners of it. Your failure to read, or re-read the questions, and instead inject your own agenda into an opportunity to villify shows a lack of depth and professionalism.
No, your question is not easily answered, as different departments test for different biographical spans---5yrs, 10yrs, lifetimes---anyone's guess. Aside from your legit question---which George answered with a link, the discussion began to move towards polygraph utility, a common gravitational pull. I didn't mean to upset you per se----and the fact that you deleted your posts and ran off suggests you were upset. You asked a question regarding "a major US metropolitan police force"----a vague referance indeed. Even more assured, is that plastered all over this site is the fact that all police departments will accept applicants who have some drug use in their history. Individual HR departments set their own guidelines based on their own whims/ data pool.
Speaking of professionalism, you are seeking a career in the most trusted and reputably honest profession----law enforcement. Why are you at this anti-polygraph-in-law-enforcement website? You did notice the headliner "antipolygraph"----right? I am here in defense of polygraph, as there seems to be such lacking in this realm.
simolean,
I am an examiner for a law enforcement agency. Your question, at least the parts which were copied to other replies, are asked of me by various people. I tell these folks that it is very important that we are able to trust our employees. If a person cannot be honest with us and disclose things which may be embarassing to them, we have started off on the wrong foot.
Many people tell me things which may or may not be an automatic disqualifier in certain agencies. We are more concerned that the applicant is honest with us and has changed his ways since he made his earlier bad choices.
The facts of life are that people no longer try to be squeeky clean as they grow up. We try to get the best people we can to work here. We also know that everyone has skeletons in the closet. Usually those do not cause problems with the normal applicant, if they are disclosed.
We do have some drop dead disqualifiers and occasionally those things are discovered. The biggest disqualifier is dishonesty. Don't try to cover up what scares you about the questions. Just tell the truth and overcome your past.
Ejohnson, that is the most horrible signature that I can imagine.
QuoteEjohnson, that is the most horrible signature that I can imagine.
You mean to say that you can't think of a WORSE signature than "there's no devil, it's just God when he's drunk."---it is an old philosophical riddle of God's creation of the devil. I am however glad you are here so that you can represent the segment of the polygraph community that has no sense of irony.
p.s. I have been meaning to change it for a week now.
Quote from: simolean on Nov 27, 2007, 06:53 AMSpeaking of professionalism, you are seeking a career in the most trusted and reputably honest profession----law enforcement. Why are you at this anti-polygraph-in-law-enforcement website? You did notice the headliner "antipolygraph"----right? I am here in defense of polygraph, as there seems to be such lacking in this realm.
I am a trusted and honest law enforcement professional, and have been for more than ten years.
There is nothing unprofessional or dishonest about visiting this site or participating here.
I know from experience that the polygraph is not capable of detecting truth or deception. Are you suggesting that, rather than speak my mind, it would be somehow more honorable or more professional to keep silent, simply because a percentage of my brother and sisters in law enforcement may not agree with me? That's nonsense.
I am suggesting that you rethink taking a single data point---your own anecdotal experience---and applying it to an entire field. You do seem to relish any reported error---although you and others may give a sarrow-filled lip service over the casualties of errors------errors entirely outnumbered by successes. Once more, I and perhaps others still experience incredulousness over the fact that you eagerly assume that people claiming to be truthful and virtuous should use countermeasures on their polygraph----based only on their anonymous written claim. Once more, you levy--in not so many words---the label of fraud on thousands of fellow investigaters who either practice, or believe in the value (not just "prop" as you would label it) of the quirky yet effective art and science known as polygraph testing.
I'm trying to think of a way to write my reply to sound nuetral. I like nuetrality. Both sides have a valid point as far as I am concerned. I do post on a anti poly site. But does it make me anti poly, not particulary. I am in agreement, that for Sex Offender probation programs, and for criminal investigations it is a great tool. I'll admit even for a pre screening test it could be a good tool, as long as a applicant was foolish enough to show up unprepared. By this I mean not knowing what to expect. Do countermeasures work? I don't know. I never used it. Did I ever show a false positive. You betcha. Was I able to clear my name in the post interview. Uh huh. Guess what, I wasn't labled a liar, however I did manage to stress myself out a little more then I had too. I had no one to blame but me. I came to this site, not to learn how to beat it, but to learn where did I go wrong. Too be honest, there is more positive information for pre screeners here, on how to pass(without cheating), or atleast try and calm yourself down before a poly. The key besides telling the truth, is to walk in with confidence. An investigator, or polygrapher is going to see that. Every step in LE is a test (remember the recruit). It's sort of true. LE is a stressful job. You go to work with the mindset, your gonna survive, and go home alive. I learned to deal with the Poly, and the VSA the same way. I'm going to tell the truth, and your not gonna stress me out to fail, or give you any reason to believe a false positive. Grant it, there are bad apples. Bueno, esta bien. Eso es la vida. But you should have the oppurtunity to A. explain yourself, B retake the exam with a different operator, C it wasn't met to be, and try a different agency. Being honest with a polygrapher will HELP your situation. But don't say you went to an Anti site only. Do the research from Pro sites (you should do that yourself). If you have expierence, give details. It makes there job easier, and you can walk in with a smile. On top of everything I have stated. I would prefer to be labeled a liar, the a cheat. But, thankfully I haven't been labeled either. Because well, I know personally I havent done either, and I can sleep with a guilt free conscious... My two cents... :D
If you think you've done stuff to disqualify yourself, or you read disqualifiers where you match the description look somewhere else. Why waste people's time, and money, and that is including your own...
Dangit I like your posts nome. :)
He He He....
Thanks!!! :)
Quote from: simolean on Nov 28, 2007, 08:22 AMI am suggesting that you rethink taking a single data point---your own anecdotal experience---and applying it to an entire field. You do seem to relish any reported error---although you and others may give a sarrow-filled lip service over the casualties of errors------errors entirely outnumbered by successes. Once more, I and perhaps others still experience incredulousness over the fact that you eagerly assume that people claiming to be truthful and virtuous should use countermeasures on their polygraph----based only on their anonymous written claim. Once more, you levy--in not so many words---the label of fraud on thousands of fellow investigaters who either practice, or believe in the value (not just "prop" as you would label it) of the quirky yet effective art and science known as polygraph testing.
I am uncertain how you came to the conclusion that I "eagerly assume that people claiming to be truthful and virtuous should use countermeasures on their polygraph." I don't think I have ever advised anyone to use countermeasures; I have always said it is up to them. And I have always advised people to tell the truth rather than lie on their polygraphs.
There is a clear paradox in the fact that you can support polygraph testing as accurate and effective based on your own experiences and specific scientific studies that support your belief, yet you believe it is unreasonable for me to base my belief that the polygraph is inaccurate and ineffective on my own personal experiences and those scientific studies that support my belief.
Quote from: nomegusto on Nov 28, 2007, 01:40 PMThe key besides telling the truth, is to walk in with confidence. An investigator, or polygrapher is going to see that. Every step in LE is a test (remember the recruit). It's sort of true. LE is a stressful job. You go to work with the mindset, your gonna survive, and go home alive. I learned to deal with the Poly, and the VSA the same way. I'm going to tell the truth, and your not gonna stress me out to fail, or give you any reason to believe a false positive. Grant it, there are bad apples. Bueno, esta bien. Eso es la vida. But you should have the oppurtunity to A. explain yourself, B retake the exam with a different operator, C it wasn't met to be, and try a different agency. Being honest with a polygrapher will HELP your situation. But don't say you went to an Anti site only. Do the research from Pro sites (you should do that yourself). If you have expierence, give details. It makes there job easier, and you can walk in with a smile. On top of everything I have stated. I would prefer to be labeled a liar, the a cheat. But, thankfully I haven't been labeled either. Because well, I know personally I havent done either, and I can sleep with a guilt free conscious...
That's an interesting point of view.
I believed, prior to failing my first three polygraphs, that all I had to do was tell the truth and I would pass. I told the truth and I failed three times in a row. My truthfulness and my confidence had nothing to do with it. The test itself is flawed.
If the polygraph was worthwhile then truthful applicants would pass. It's just that simple. An unknown percentage of truthful applicants do not pass. Supporters of the polygraph believe that percentage is small, and opponents of the polygraph believe it is large, but no one pretends it doesn't exist.
If, in your opinion, the test being used can only be passed (or is more likely to be passed) by a truthful person if that person studies the testing procedure and the available literature, how valid can that test possibly be?
The last post puts it in a nutshell. The test is represented as scientific. The exam is the end all. How do you explain the hell that innocent applicants go through as they are accused and presumed guilty only for telling the truth? There is no avenue of recourse for "guilty" subjects other than to go through the gauntlet. The Vikings would throw the accused into the water with their hands bound only to say that the innocent would float to the surface. If one was smart enough to know that exhaling would allow the examinee to sink to the bottom only to push off to the surface and "breath" they would be presumed to be innocent. If the Vikings only knew of "countermeasures" I assure you that they would have thrown the innocent into the waters at least two or three times!
Regards.
I'm thinking hard about the previous posts. Actually I'm thinking way too hard for this time of night, just so you know. But I got finished watching an awesome soccer game for Saprissa. So, here's another 2 cents from little ole me.
About the validity of the tests? Hmmm, good point. I've stated earlier, that I'm not a fan of pre screening polygraphs. However that being said, if it's part of the hiring process you have two options. Take the test, or look for an agency that doesn't utilize this test nor the VSA.
However, if you take the civil service test, Treasury Enforcement Test, ASVAB, or any other test. Who normally passes, or receives a better score? The one who prepares, and studies, or the one who doesn't? I didn't say your gonna pass if you look up information. I said your gonna have an easier time being prepared. I've also stated the difference for me with preparing for the poly, and not preparing for the poly. I passed both times, because I was able to explain my reactions. But the first one was a lot more stressful then the others.
I have NO idea where your going with the gauntlet post?!?!?!?!?! But it is a good point. Again, if your guilty of a crime, I personally think your a DUMB ASS for taking the poly in the first place. I don't really need a poly to get someone to confess of a crime. Niether does a polygrapher, however forget the science, anytype of interoggation is a art. The polygraph in that way is part of the canvass, the confession would be the final product. If your innocent, and being investigated for a crime, and you know/understand your rights, and were ask to take a poly, inwhich you foolishly agreed to. It's your own damned fault for willfully giving up your 5th ammendment rights. Shame on you, and your lawyer for agreeing.
If your trying to obtain employment, again read what I wrote earlier. If a polygrapher is just reading your charts, he's not a good investigator. They record for a reason. I bet he/she is checking for NVI's. That's what I would do, but then again, I'm NOT a polygrapher. I'm just concerned that people aren't being responsible enough when it comes to this.
Whether or not a person chooses to use CM's, it's thier own decision. I won't. I personally don't know if there is a class or not to detect CM's. I don't want to find out the hard way either. I'm interested in finding out how to detect them, but here is not the area to dispute. I enjoy the civil posts pertaining to a topic, not adhock attacks by either pro/anti ;D. The majority of posters are mostly leo's. So were mostly on the same team one way or another. Stay safe everyone...
You should become an examiner nomeg', add the satement analysis and your already steely-eyed sensebility and you'd be lethal in LE. Think about it.
.....and yes, there are courses for detecting countermeasures. Dr. Barland, formerly of DODpi throws a real humdinger of a course on cm detection.
Quote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 12:15 AM
Again, if your guilty of a crime, I personally think your a DUMB ASS for taking the poly in the first place.
If your innocent, and being investigated for a crime, and you know/understand your rights, and were ask to take a poly, inwhich you foolishly agreed to. It's your own damned fault for willfully giving up your 5th ammendment rights. Shame on you, and your lawyer for agreeing.
...
WTF?
Nom, I find your posts full of common sense, but this one got me. Maybe it was late, but it seems to me you said that if you are guilty of a crime and take a poly, you are a fool, and if you are innocent and take a polly, you are a fool.
I can think of a couple of instances where I would disagree with both of these. If you are Gary Ridgway and want to take the suspicion off you for having killed 40 or so women, take a poly, pass it, and the cops look elsewhere. it worked for him.
If you have been accused of a crime, but didn't do it, you might take a poly to clear your name, (but this is a VERY RISKY GAMBLE). If one chooses to do this, do it privately, not with the LE polygrapher.
Quote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 10:39 AMQuote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 12:15 AM
Again, if your guilty of a crime, I personally think your a DUMB ASS for taking the poly in the first place.
If your innocent, and being investigated for a crime, and you know/understand your rights, and were ask to take a poly, inwhich you foolishly agreed to. It's your own damned fault for willfully giving up your 5th ammendment rights. Shame on you, and your lawyer for agreeing.
...
WTF?
Nom, I find your posts full of common sense, but this one got me. Maybe it was late, but it seems to me you said that if you are guilty of a crime and take a poly, you are a fool, and if you are innocent and take a polly, you are a fool.
I can think of a couple of instances where I would disagree with both of these. If you are Gary Ridgway and want to take the suspicion off you for having killed 40 or so women, take a poly, pass it, and the cops look elsewhere. it worked for him.
If you have been accused of a crime, but didn't do it, you might take a poly to clear your name, (but this is a VERY RISKY GAMBLE). If one chooses to do this, do it privately, not with the LE polygrapher.
Ok, that last paragraph makes sense. But the first is rediculous. A close friend viewed the Ridgeway polygraph charts and noted an absolute lack of arousal response----like the polygrams of a piece of furniture. Many would make an Inconclusive call. So, your repeated referance to the killer is tired and narrow, but you definitely get an "A" for getting attention.
Well Nopoly I'm no Gary Ridgeway, nor am I anyperson thats good at deceiving others. I know personally, if I became under investigation for a felony crime. I'm NOT going to allow myself to take a poly. Again, as I stated on earlier posts a polygraph is part of a painting.
For instance, when someone applies for law enforcement agency, and is subject to a polygraph does that person get hired afterward? Normally I'd say no. You have to go through the psychological, and then you have to (wait wait, are you sick of waiting yet? LOL) go through the Back Ground INVESTIGATION!!!!
Grant it, I've read posts where we slam polygraph as a whole because a few bad apples were able to slip through the cracks. It happens, thats life. Innocent people are labled liars, and I apologize for that as well. But nothing is perfect. I don't like getting polygraphed. But I'm not at a level in my profession to tell the bosses to not polygraph for pre screening either.
Nopoly, knowing the information you know now. If per chance you were investigated for committing a crime, which you are innocent of. A detective, or criminal investigator asked to polygraph you, would you take the risk? If so, would you cheat, and risk being caught? I think if an investigator caught you using CM's, you'd be screwed. Especially if there were no other leads, fruits of the crime, or instrumentality of the crime.
I wouldn't even need to use the machine as evidence. The fact that you were trying to delibratly alter a interrogation could be enough to make life miserable.
If that was me, I'm gonna lawyer up. Keep the mouth shut, and well most LEO's know what to do afterwards.
EJ thanks... ;)
So yah, what I said was exactly that. For good reason. Since the majority of individuals unfortunatly DON'T know there rights.
Quote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 11:57 AMQuote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 10:39 AMQuote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 12:15 AM
Again, if your guilty of a crime, I personally think your a DUMB ASS for taking the poly in the first place.
If your innocent, and being investigated for a crime, and you know/understand your rights, and were ask to take a poly, inwhich you foolishly agreed to. It's your own damned fault for willfully giving up your 5th ammendment rights. Shame on you, and your lawyer for agreeing.
...
WTF?
Nom, I find your posts full of common sense, but this one got me. Maybe it was late, but it seems to me you said that if you are guilty of a crime and take a poly, you are a fool, and if you are innocent and take a polly, you are a fool.
I can think of a couple of instances where I would disagree with both of these. If you are Gary Ridgway and want to take the suspicion off you for having killed 40 or so women, take a poly, pass it, and the cops look elsewhere. it worked for him.
If you have been accused of a crime, but didn't do it, you might take a poly to clear your name, (but this is a VERY RISKY GAMBLE). If one chooses to do this, do it privately, not with the LE polygrapher.
Ok, that last paragraph makes sense. But the first is rediculous. A close friend viewed the Ridgeway polygraph charts and noted an absolute lack of arousal response----like the polygrams of a piece of furniture. Many would make an Inconclusive call. So, your repeated referance to the killer is tired and narrow, but you definitely get an "A" for getting attention.
Hmmm. Eric, you've gained a few pounds.
Nom:
Knowing what I know now, I cannot answer the question you pose to me, because every circumstance is different. A lot would hinge on the emotional baggage that would come with the type of crime accused of. Are you going to respond emotionally when asked about that type of crime? Have you ever committed a similar crime under different circumstances, which you might react to? These are just a couple of variables that would preclude me from answering your question.
But, I do know that I would be very distrustful of taking a poly where it was done at request of a detective, by an LEO examiner. After all, the results are not subjective, but instead, the opinion of the examiner. IN truth, one cannot subjectively pass or fail, but instead one is given an an objective opinion by someone who has attended a trade school.
Dear Nomegusto,
Which do you prefer; Lafayette or Axciton ?
Take care,
There's other circumstances concerning the polygraph. A. it's recorded. As far as I am concerned. If your a thorough polygrapher, your not determining the test just by the chart. It's going to be the totality of the situation. Your going to look for NVI's etc etc. I can tell without a polygraph if your sweating prefously during questioning by looking at a subjects shirt, or all of a sudden he's thirsty etc etc, and the room temp is 59 degrees. I honestly don't think there making a final decision just on a chart. As far as I am concerned, your prescreen interview will be a big make or break in any polygraph. Hell, if your doing so well on a prescreen, and a good written statement, will I even do the interrogation. Sometimes no. Polygraph as far as I am concerned is the same way. People are nervous. It happens. Some people can alter there breathing without realizing it, because of the conditioning in a stressful enviorement. It's life. But, it's not just the squiggly lines on a part, or computer graph. Thats interview/questioning 101...
Polygraphers, please let me know if I am right or wrong? I don't want to overstep my boundry on this, since I'm not a polygrapher. I'm trying to write more on common sense then anything else...
I prefer Munroe 1904.
:)
Stay safe...
nome', 1904 asked you the question because he believes that anyone who is objective about polygraph must surely be an examiner. Let's just say he is an "out of towner"----coming from a (albeit beautiful) country that has more than its share of woes aside from polygraph.
Thanks Mr. Johnson...
I saw the lafayette. so I was thinking of the history of the agency I work for. It did get me a little confused. LOL :-X
Just FYI 1904... I'm not a polygrapher, but a certified interviewer/interrogator and a written statement analyzer...
Nom:
Assuming you were responding to my post, I agree with what you say, it's not just the charts. In fact, that is exactly my point. If the charts could actually give the results, then that would be one thing, but a "pass" or "fail" is more than the recorded squiggly lines on a chart. It is the OPINION of the trade school graduate known as a polygrapher.
Added then to this human opinion is the issue of whether or not countermeasures can or are effective. The fact that polygraphers have started using butt pads, suggest that at least in the case of anal constriction, countermeasures can be effective.
The fact that the result of a polygraph exam is mere opinion, and that opinion is based on squiggly lines on a chart that might be susceptable to the use of countermeasures, might lead a reasonable person to conclude that the results of any polygraph exam are suspect.
Although it didn't used to be the case, people who are drug- screened are now watched while they fill their specimen cups-----as it was eventually found out (among other countermeasures) that it was easy to render the tests as inconclusive by virtue of spitting in the samples. Such ease of countermeasures should in no way negate the use of drug tests---despite the relative ease of which people can render some of those tests as inconclusive. You don't have to be James Bond to spit in a cup.
Like other major retailers and or "advice givers"----this site has two products---the stated/virtual one, and the actual result....like this below :-/----
Nopoly:
But the opinion comes with a lot of wieght and expierence my friend. Assuming the history of a LEO polygrapher. That person is a detective, or a an experienced Special Agent. More then likely with a degree in psychology and has a tremendous amount of expierence in interviewing and interrogation. He/She will use all of that knowledge and expierence to make the best decision possible. Will they make a mistake, sure. Hec, I've made them too. But I had probable cause to do the things I did. Was I wrong for the mistake. It just didn't work out that time. However the next officer that felt the same way I did got the goods (lucky bas*&^%).
I've been fortunate to have skilled, and ecellent interrogators who polygraphed me. When I've talked to other VSA/Polygraphers, I get the same answer. They hate each other, but at the same time they won't make a determination until after reading the charts, looking at the video, and listening to the recording. Once they have the totality of the situation they'll make there judgement. Meaning you could use countermeasures during a polygraph. But those darn NVI's you can't mask can and will fail you.
I've never gone through any type of polygraph training. Again, thats interview/interrogation 101.
If a subject keeps telling me no no no, but his NVI's are showing me yes yes yes. Am I gonna stop asking? Will I believe his no's. I stated to painful the other day, I'm skeptical as soon as I hear I'm a religous person. So, are priests who committed sexual abuse on minors, or jihadists blowing things up.
Am I synical? Nah... I have a job to do.
I've heard that polygraphers are lying about how the machine detects lies. Well, no polygrapher has ever told me that. It shows your BP, respitory, and sweatiness etc etc. However again it's the totality of the situation that will dictate that a person could POSSIBLY be deceptive. However without a confession, then it's only possibly. For prescreeners unfortunatly that could be enough NOT to get a job (which is why I don't like them), but at the same time there are a literally thousands of LEA's throughout the country. If your a criminal, and you go tightlip afterwards, well I'd say thats a clue. I guarantee the investigators will be working harder to complete the job.
Mr. Johnston: nice analagy... Please again as a polygrapher let me know if I'm not writing this impartially... :)
Nom:
I don't disagree with your comments, with the caveat that you are assuming good faith by all polygraphers. I think this assumption would be naive. For one example, refer to the thread about the ethics complaint against Louis Rovner...
Secondly, while most polygraphers in agencies are likely to be experienced investigators, I doubt if many have psychology degrees, nor even have a degree past an AA.
Nopoly:
I'm not assuming good faith, I'm assuming professionalism. You can't go in there thinking the polygrapher is your friend, nor is he your enemy.
On the contrary most investigators whom become polygraphers do have some sort of degree. I'll admit to being off on the psychological, but it was a guess on my part... ;D
QuoteHowever without a confession, then it's only possibly.
So is s jury's or judge's guilty verdict.
But normally it's hard to make an arrest stick with possible cause. JAJAJA...
Sorry if I offended you. I thought it was funny... Have a great evening... ;D
Quote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 05:24 PMNom:
Secondly, while most polygraphers in agencies are likely to be experienced investigators, I doubt if many have psychology degrees, nor even have a degree past an AA.
NoPoly,
Your statement is very valid at the local LE level. At the Federal level, The top agencies, the DEA, ATF, DOJ, and FBI, all require a 4 year college degree before applying.
It is also safe to assume that many polygraphers have
NO formal education beyond high school. This, in my opinion only, creates a feeling of inferiority. That may lead to operator bias.
While there surely is many educated polygraphers at the local level, Being a polygrapher may not be the path to promotion above rank and file.
NoMeGusto,
Thanks for your candid insight,
Fred F. ;)
Quote from: nomegusto on Dec 01, 2007, 12:31 PMQuote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 05:24 PMNom:
Secondly, while most polygraphers in agencies are likely to be experienced investigators, I doubt if many have psychology degrees, nor even have a degree past an AA.
NoPoly,
Your statement is very valid at the local LE level. At the Federal level, The top agencies, the DEA, ATF, DOJ, and FBI, all require a 4 year college degree before applying.
It is also safe to assume that many polygraphers have NO formal education beyond high school. This, in my opinion only, creates a feeling of inferiority. That may lead to operator bias.
While there surely is many educated polygraphers at the local level, Being a polygrapher may not be the path to promotion above rank and file.
NoMeGusto,
Thanks for your candid insight,
Fred F. ;)
Fred:
YOur statement about promotions is very logical. Afterall, what chief wants to promote someone who knows all is secrets?
Regarding education, perhaps there should be a college requirement for polygraphers, even so much as one must have a Masters in Polygraphy, much like Psychologists must have a Masters before engaging in their profession. I suspect such a requirement would go a long way towards legitimizing the field of polygraphy.
Quote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 06:29 PMQuoteHowever without a confession, then it's only possibly.
So is s jury's or judge's guilty verdict.
Without a confession a guilty verdict is only a possibility?
Are you serious?
In some cases that is true, but in many others it is not. A blanket statement like that without any qualifiers attached is intentionally misleading. It attempts to link the polygraph with the court system in order to gain credibility the polygraph simply does not have.
A polygraph result without a confession is ALWAYS merely a possibility. Regardless of a confession or lack thereof, a guilty verdict in a trial is very often the result of incontrovertible physical evidence.
It would be far more accurate to compare the polygraph to a trial system where a jury of one spoke with the accused for an hour or two and then rendered a verdict, without a defense counsel, rules of evidence, witness statements, investigating officer's reports, or physical evidence.
Sarge,
Wake up and get with the program. He said without a confession then a polygraph result of DI is only a possibility. In other words, it's not a sure thing. I said the same is true of a jury verdict of guilty without (and some would argue even with) is the same reasoning. Hello!
Actually he said "....a person could POSSIBLY be deceptive. However without a confession, then it's only possibly."
Hello?
Quote from: nomegusto on Dec 03, 2007, 03:19 AMQuote from: nomegusto on Nov 29, 2007, 06:29 PMQuoteHowever without a confession, then it's only possibly.
So is s jury's or judge's guilty verdict.
Without a confession a guilty verdict is only a possibility?
Are you serious?
In some cases that is true, but in many others it is not. A blanket statement like that without any qualifiers attached is intentionally misleading. It attempts to link the polygraph with the court system in order to gain credibility the polygraph simply does not have.
A polygraph result without a confession is ALWAYS merely a possibility. Regardless of a confession or lack thereof, a guilty verdict in a trial is very often the result of incontrovertible physical evidence.
Sarge, Barry
That is why defense lawyers make so much money nowadays, They will twist, bend, manipulate, and retool evidence to mislead the jury. The right statement at the right time will make a difference.
Also a guilty verdict can be the result of poor defense too.(a little devils advocacy there) :)
Fred F. ;)
Quote from: Fred_F. on Dec 04, 2007, 11:39 PM[
That is why defense lawyers make so much money nowadays, They will twist, bend, manipulate, and retool evidence to mislead the jury.
Don't forget the police and prosecution... I have seen amazing lengths the police and prosecution will go to for the hopes of a conviction, only to have convicted the wrong individual. DNA is clearing these victims of police/prosecutor misconduct daily.
NoPoly,
I agree with you on that point. There have been many innocent men who have spent large amounts of their lives in prison for crimes they did not commit. Kudos to Barry Scheck and his Innocence Project for proving these men were the victims of overzealous prosecution and poor police investigations.
Another point to consider is that the polygraph may have been involved in these cases too. Operator bias may be a key to the mens being found deceptive, simply because the polygrapher may have presumptions of guilt. They don't want to be a "stand up" person for the "criminal element" who was actually guilty. It would be safe to assume that this is a minority of those who "work the box"
Fred F. ;)