I came across this site while I was searching information on a polygraph. I was curious as to what type of questions are asked and really just wanted to know what to expect. That is the only reason I have researched this subject.
I have read through several posts and came to the following conclusion. I do not know why one would attempt to "cheat" in order to beat a polygraph. Using these so-called countermeasures seems to me it would do more harm than good. Out of all the posts I read I could only find one or two where somebody claimed to use them and pass while lying. If one has that much to hide, they probably shouldn't be going into law enforcement anyhow. I am a believer (I may be wrong) that agencies are looking for integrity, not necessarily what you did wrong 20 years ago.
I also have an upcoming polygraph for a correctional officer position and plan on telling the truth. I wasn't exactly a saint in my teen years and I have nothing to hide, if I fail based on things I did 20 years ago then so be it. I am pursuing a law enforcement career simply because I have always wanted to and am now in a financial position that I can afford to.
Anyhow, after reading multiple posts, I am finding the polygraph to be very interesting as to what it measures to try and determine if one is lying. I am curious, if a person is raised to believe lying is ok and there is no harm in it would they pass? I haven't been raised that way in case you were wondering, I am just curious if this type of person would pass.
exrider,
pre-employment testing for a LE position usually consists of questions about whether you're withholding information about your past criminal activities, ie. are you withholding information about committing a serious felony crime? illegal drugs? serious theft? etc. Polygraphplace.com has a good area for reading information concerning upcoming pre-employment testing issues.
It really is all about being honest and being forthright in your answers to prevent mental conflict when answering the test quetsions.
No dept wants to hire saints, but they do want honest people they can trust. Generally speaking, non-federal agencies have lower hiring threshholds and will accept a wider, more "lively" past from their applicants.
As for your hypothetical, let me preface my response with, I am a polygraph practitioner (examiner) not a researcher or academic. I don't know where "those people" (ones raised to believe lying is OK) would come from. Even the lowest of socialized humans have rules, especially about lying to each other, therefore, the basis for that type of action being inappropriate, would still exist.
BUT, if they do exist, I believe their past would preclude them from hiring consideration well before the polygraph process. BUT EVEN if they got through the background, they would still know they were lying when answering the questions. At best, their reactions (might) be slightly diminished, versus a choir boy telling the same lie, but they would be found out, nonetheless.
There are many diverse opinions about the utility and applicability of polygraph. I believe it works fine, others doubt it. OK, this is America; well, for most of us. Believe what you will.
But let's put it this way. Do you (not you personally, I mean anyone) really want to begin a LE career by lying to get in? How sound is that thinking?
Best of luck to you,
Sackett
exrider
From what I have read, corrections has the lowest hiring criteria of all LE positions and not all require polys. However, if you are unfortunate enough to get a puntitive operator, he will have you so jacked up by his stim test that you will show DI when confirming your name. I believe truthfulness goes both ways but, when he tells you that the poly is 90 to 95% accurate, he is lying to you. The truthful statement would be "this process is a long way from being perfect but it's the best we have". Just one example. If he/she asks you have you researched the polygraph and you answer yes, your road just became harder.
I do not pre-judge people. I take them at their word until I'm proven wrong. Therefore I wish you luck in your endeavor because I have to believe that you are the person that you say you are.
Please post the results of you test.
I agree, just tell the truth. But, don't be surprised if they fail you, even though you tell the truth. A polygraph exam does not actually indicate if you are truthful or lying, but is simply the OPINION of the polygrapher as to if you are truthful or lying. Good luck.
Thanks for the responses. I am not too worried about the test. I am in my mid 30's now and have never have used/trafficked drugs. Heck I have never even smoked a cigarette before. I have participated in theft but it all dates back to my early teenage years. Like I said in my original post, if they don't take me based on that, then so be it.
I didn't come here to learn how to beat a poly, I plan on being truthful on everything, I don't even know if they will dig that deep into the theft being it was so long ago. But I did disclose it on my application so I am sure there is a chance I will be asked about it.
I was more curious if somebody who believes by lying they are not doing anything wrong could pass. The reason I am curious about this is the polygraph is supposed to be scientific and VERY accurate. We have a friend of the family who is a compulsive liar, at least that is how I describe her. This woman lies about everything no matter how big or small and I swear she does it just to lie. She lies so much I really think she believes half the stuff coming out of her mouth. I would be curious if this type of person would pass or fail a polygraph.
Good to question, and be curious about polygrpahy.
A large amount of people fail the test for NOT knowing what the hec is going on in that quaint little interrogation room. Your knowingly, and willingly(to a degree) giving up your 5th ammendment rights to either gain employment, a part of your release program, or were dumb enough to agree to take one in a criminal investigation, or someone doesn't trust you in the first place.
The problem I see with a lot of people is
a. There stressed as it is (high BP off the bat), your not gonna calm down no matter what the polygrapher says. It's too late. Which means your gonna be one sweaty person, and your guilty conscious is gonna get the best of you. Good Luck
b. Your playing too much in the cards of a professional interrogator, and will be showing some signs of NVI, which during your preinterview is going to kill you. He/She will know when you slip up. Forget the fact of what the machine says. Your preinterview is a make or break. As far as I'm concern, your NVI's will show deception better then the machine as shrinks do use them, and if you didn't know better you thought the machine gave you away, because you were uneducated to believe otherwise.
c. I screwed up once on a polygraph. Got myself interrogated (I myself am an interrogator), for not researching the polygraph the first time I did it. I stated I never researched it, which I didn't before that day. When the results showed inconclusive(I never showed NDI, however my NVI's never showed deception either). Afterwards I ran online, and read both pro-anti sites. When I took the test again, I stated I did research more into the polygraph, and retook the test, with no issues at all. I didn't need to use CM, I just needed to calm down.
d. I don't feel your going to beat the machine, unless you have a horrible polygrapher, who sucked at interrogating. It's a prop. But you can do all the biting, mental thinking, combat breathing you want. But your NVI's will get you all the time. These people record everything. A video, and audio. If you think there not gonna look at that, and use it for determing another approach, then we all have some serious issues...
e. Cheating doesn't work. Getting caught is too disastrous.
exrider,
(You wrote)
"I also have an upcoming polygraph for a correctional officer position and plan on telling the truth."
Telling the truth during a polygraph exam is no guarantee of a passing result. False positive results are not uncommon.
The use of polygraph countermeasures during a polygraph exam does not necessarily constitute (or confirm) deliberate and intentional deception for the sole purpose of concealing unfavorable behavior and/or prior criminal activity...
Keep in mind that honest candidates (with nothing to hide) may decide to employ polygraph countermeasures to reduce "the risk" of a false positive result.
triple x
However...
How do we know that people who tell the truth are actually telling the truth?
I've seem time and again on this site, people claiming they were wronged, but there posts on here proved otherwise.
I've seen time and again that polygraphers will tell you, it's not just the results of the box that they make their decision off of. It's the TOTALITY of the situation.
Using CM's may/may not help a indivual. If you get caught, your not gonna get much sympathy from anyone. It's cheating. If your not lying you will show no NVI. It's plain and simple. That's gonna show during the pre interview, and post interrogation. It's also how you answer the question as well. I'm not gonna give you all any hints on what to/not to say. But there are key words... 8-)
If your trying to get a job, and you haven't done anything to DQ yourself with. Be honest. It'll work out. Talk to your prospective employer beforehand about what is a DQ factor. It's not too difficult.
If you don't fit the criteria, and you wish you risk it. Well then, thats your decision, and you need to suffer the consequences if it didn't work out. You can't blame the polygrapher, you can only blame yourself.
nomegusto,
You wrote: "Cheating doesn't work. Getting caught is too disastrous."
Would it not be a greater disaster to tell the truth, and still fail a polygraph exam?
I agree with you that getting caught employing polygraph countermeasures would be less than ideal, however. I would certainly be devastated to say the least if I told the truth and was deemed dishonest.
To clarify... is it your position that false positive results do not occur and therefore are not a risk worth considering?
triple x
You didn't read my previous post did you.
I had a inconclusive. The machine said one thing, however with the totality of the situation, it was another IE: NVI's, how I answered etc etc. I retook the test, and passed with flying colors (afterwhich I actually did the research). Grant it, I was pissed that I had issues in the first place. But it was my own fault for not doing the research, and hell I was nervous. I wanted to try and gain employment with another agency. Which, in the long run I decided to stay where I'm at.
Nothing is perfect. Were humans. The polygraph is a tool. Mistakes are going to happen. However, there will be mistakes in a B/I, Psyche, Oral board etc etc. But to tell people to cheat is even more of a mistake. Especially when such people aren't doing everything by the book, and polygraphers are checking things after the test. Which is why most departments are not saying if you passed right away. There looking for the so called CM's.
Offenders as far as I'm concerned need no breaks. I don't feel sorry for saying that. If you violated your parole by going online, then you risk being bubba's friend again.
If your involved in a crime, and use this tool. Shame on you. However, if you feel your not going to pass, or if you have any doubts don't do it. Either way, your gonna look bad, and receive heat. Do you think that if there is any suspicion against your innocence there wont be heat against you. hmmmmmmm.......
So, no I don't believe that if you think you had a false positive it's bad. Talk to the polygrapher, and see where you messed up. Retake the test, or use a specific test. Do your research. Thats not illegal, and it's not a sign of deceipt.
nomegusto,
I have read all of your previous posts, however. You certainly seem overly defensive for no apparent reason. I simply asked you to clarify your position to specific subject matter, nothing more.
I'm certainly not in disagreement with anything you have posted. That said, I am trying to clarify your position with respect to a specific question.
Again, I ask you:
Is it your position that false positive results do not occur and therefore are not a risk worth considering?
A simple yes or no response will suffice.
triple x
Yes, it does happen.
No, it's not a risk worth considering.
Your question also is not a simple yes/no question.
Me, defensive. Nah...
triple x,
false positives do occur. They do not occur at the frequency some would have you believe as justification for cheating on the test.
BTW, whenever you ask a question then demand/request or expect a yes or no answer, you're looking for a particular response that will either support your claim or give you authority to attack the response. It is not a fair requirement/expectation when discussing something so diverse in nature as a polygraph examination.
Sackett
sackett,
Fair enough...
We could certainly debate the frequency at which false positive results reportedly occur. However, I was not trying to back nomegusto into a corner by asking for a simple yes/no answer. The question in which I posed is indeed a question that one can fairly answer yes or no.
My effort to clarify nomegusto's position on whether or not false positive results do not occur, and therefore are not a risk worth considering does not have to be a multiple paragraph essay type response.
It was a simple question which could be answered without a lengthy debate. I was asking for an opinionated response; not a supported position.
triple x
In which case, I answered as such.
However, I answered it as a yes/no.
I don't believe using any CM would help in a situation where a known interrogator has been trained on evaluating a testee's NVI, and other technical skills attributed to interviewing, and LE questioning.
nomegusto,
Indeed you did, and I respect your opinion.
triple x
Quote from: exrider on Feb 11, 2008, 12:55 PMfalse positives do occur. They do not occur at the frequency some would have you believe as justification for cheating on the test.
What is the rate at which false positive occur?
I do not know, but according to this bulletin board, I would guess about 99%.
As an examiner, I can say that I have never had a false positive which has been established through the presentation of any conclusive evidence, after the fact (test).
Sackett
Sackett wrote:
"False positives do occur. They do not occur at the frequency some would have you believe as justification for cheating on the test."
Thanks for admitting that "false positives" occur.
How exactly do you know, or could you know, the frequency in which they occur? How can you really know you failed a person who was telling the truth? Are agencies in the habit of doing follow-up investigations to see if the person they failed was actually telling the truth?
We are talking here about cases in which a person fails, even though he/she is telling the truth. How do you actually know they were telling the truth? Are you God, or a mind reader?
This reminds me of the polygrapher at the NSA, a Mr. Lingenfelter, who tried to tell me that the test was 98% accurate. How the hell does he know that?
Is there any pseudo-scientific evidence to back up claims regarding the frequency of false positives?
Incidently, there is LOTS of evidence to to validate the existence of "false NEGATIVES". Which is to say, spies caught who had passed their polygraph tests. :)
Aldrich Ames, Leavenworth KS
Sackett wrote:
"False positives do occur. They do not occur at the frequency some would have you believe as justification for cheating on the test."
Thanks for admitting that "false positives" occur.
You are welcome. Any diagnostic test has both false positives and negatives.
How exactly do you know, or could you know, the frequency in which they occur?
I don't, I think I indicated my knowledge in a previous posting.
How can you really know you failed a person who was telling the truth?
It's never been proven to me.
Are agencies in the habit of doing follow-up investigations to see if the person they failed was actually telling the truth?
I can't answer for "agencies", I don't know them all well enough...
We are talking here about cases in which a person fails, even though he/she is telling the truth. How do you actually know they were telling the truth? Are you God, or a mind reader?
No. But I have been called one by some and worse by others.
This reminds me of the polygrapher at the NSA, a Mr. Lingenfelter, who tried to tell me that the test was 98% accurate. How the hell does he know that?
Why are you asking me, I wasn't there...
Is there any pseudo-scientific evidence to back up claims regarding the frequency of false positives?
Do you have any evidence to prove the claims by the few on this board that they were "victimized" by false positives?
Incidently, there is LOTS of evidence to to validate the existence of "false NEGATIVES". Which is to say, spies caught who had passed their polygraph tests. :)
Really?! Were they false negatives? Beaten examiners, or simply disbelieved test results because of the nature of who they were testing...? Do you really know or are you regurtitating information you're read here?
Aldrich Ames, Leavenworth KS
Uh - huh?! You're in prison... LOL who really won!???
Sackett
P.S. Interesting you use a Traitor's name as your board moniker...
Sackett:
"Do you have any evidence to prove the claims by the few on this board that they were "victimized" by false positives?
How do you prove a negative?
In the case of a "false positive", how do I prove I did not not tell the truth. And in my case, it was a preemployment test. There was no aspecific event they were testing for (i.e. did you kill your wife, steal the missing $10 grand...etc). They were testing for the hypothetical. Something which may or may not have happened.
So, to restate:
Provide evidence that I did not not tell the truth about an event which we don't even know for sure happened.
Example: My wife asks me if I've ever cheated on her.
Note: She has been given NO reason to be suspicious of me at all. No woman has claimed to have slept with me, and no one has told her anythng along that line. No lipstick on the collar...etc. She just decides that I can no longer sleep in her bed unless I prove I've never cheated.
I tell her in no uncertain terms that I have NEVER CHEATED ON HER.
She then claims, your body language tells me you are lying! Besides, the lights flickered exactly when you claimed you have never cheated on me., and the tarot cards I just dealt tell me you are lying. So, Tell me the truth. HAVE YOU CHEATED ON ME!!
I continue to claim my innocence to an event she doesn't even know or have reason to believe has transpired.
This goes on for hours, and for the following three days.
Finally, sick and tired of this, I admit, well, okay. There was a couple times when I wondered what it would be like to sleep with other women. I had lust in my heart for the lady accross the street. Maybe that is a form of cheating.
My wife then latches onto that like a fly on a cow pie. She gets me to elaborate in detail about my dirty thoughts about the lady acrossed the street. What sexual position I might have thought of using on her, would I have had oral sex with her...etc. Like a fool, I play along with her stupid game.
In the end, I fail her stupid test even though I haven't really done anything!
Sackett wrote:
P.S. Interesting you use a Traitor's name as your board moniker...
Interesting that this traitor was passing polygraph tests while spying for the soviets.
Have any spies at all been ferreted out via the polygraph?
To my knowledge, the only spy credibly claimed to have been "caught" by the polygraph is former CIA secretary Sharon Scranage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Scranage), who reportedly confessed to her polygrapher. While it has been suggested that Harold Nicholson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_James_Nicholson) was caught by the polygraph, the CIA director at the time did not endorse this notion (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=516.msg2575#msg2575), nor evidently did Edward Curran, a polygraph advocate who at the time headed CIA counterintelligence.
Aldridge; may I call you by your first name?
How does anyone prove a negative, you ask? Well, I would present the same irony with the many statements posted here, in that, how many spies have been prevented from being successful by the presence or threat of the polygraph...? How many spies have been caught?
I do not know; but then again, neither does anyone on this board. In any respect, do you actually expect the CIA/NSA, etc to report every employee or applicant who has in fact been caught spying (to any degree) just to disprove your assertion that either polygraph doesn't work or they have or have not caught any spies using it?
Proving a negative, you ask? I further find it interesting that there is no feedback on this board by the many readers who have attempted to utilize countermeasures and failed. How do I prove to you they do not work? How do I prove the negative? Moreover, how do I prove to you and the other readers here that myself and other examiners catch people using countermeasures on an almost daily basis? Or how do you prove (not simply assert) the number of people reporting they have been successful in "beating" an examiner?
I do not know, but an empty challenge or assertion presents no real threat. Conversely, polygraph testing apparently does present a threat to some who have things to hide. Otherwise, this site would not "need" to exist. As for countermeasures, theory and application are separated by a wide spanse...
From what I have seen, this is an open board with the freedom to post pretty much whatever you want regarding polygraph issues. I have my opinions, you have yours. OK, that's what makes the world go 'round. Please keep posting, but do not expect proof of anything, from anyone, positve or negative, while pounding anonymous letters of victimization around the internet.
Nice chatting with you,
Sackett
From what I have seen, this is an open board with the freedom to post pretty much whatever you want regarding polygraph issues. I have my opinions, you have yours. OK, that's what makes the world go 'round.
Good point. Everyone has his/her opinion. You make your living from the test, so one would expect you to be biased and pro-polygraph. I took the test, told the truth yet failed. So I have an anti-polygraph bias.
So let's look at what the scientific community, namely the NAS, has to say about the test, in particular, on the topic of "false positives":
False Positives with "Suspicious" Thresholds Polygraph screening protocols that can identify a large fraction of serious security violators can be expected to incorrectly implicate at least hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of innocent employees for each spy or other serious security violator correctly identified. ......
And they conclude that reliance on the polygraph test can:
lead to unnecessary loss of competent or highly skilled individuals because of suspicions cast on them as a result of false positive polygraph exams
Like me, George, and many, many, many others who don't even know about this board.
The also conclude that funds currently being spend on pre-employment screening tests would be:
better expended on developing or implementing alternative security procedures.
How would that effect your career Mr. Sackett?
Al,
would that be the same National Academy of Science (NAS) who rather than reviewing ALL material regarding polygraph reliability and validity, simply selected "certain" research to conduct a meta-analysis which in and of itself seemed to be selected to prove their hypothesis? Was this the same NAS study by "scientists" who themselves were being subjected to the very pre-employment and periodic security screening tests they were condemning? The very same NAS members (not all of course) who when the DOE abated screening tests as a result of that report resulted in multiple security violations through laziness, misconduct and/or negligence to such a degree the program had to be reinstituted?
A slight conflict of interest, I believe. I (personally) see their report as I would fat people writing a report condemning McDonald's for selling fat filled products while they hold their convention at the local Burger King and receiving BK stock options in exchange... These minor details conveniently ommitted when citing their findings.
BTW, I am all for finding a better "mousetrap." Some thought CVSA was it, it is not... Got any suggestions? Then invent it! But for now, polygraph is the best we have.
Sackett
P.S. BTW, how's the food at Leavenworth?
HEY...!!!
I eat at Burger King... (no stock options) are you calling me fat..??
triple x
Quote from: x_X_x on Feb 13, 2008, 04:30 PMAl,
I (personally) see their report as I would fat people writing a report condemning McDonald's for selling fat filled products while they hold their convention at the local Burger King and receiving BK stock options in exchange
How does this relate? The logic is flawed.
triple x,
I see you have a sense of humor. Outstanding! ;D
"Q.E.",
apparently my analogy was beyond you. I apologize... ;)
Sackett
Sackett,
I understand your analogy, however, it just doesn't work. You are attempting to discredit or disprove a report by carefully crafting Yes/No questions. You are then comparing those "assumed" Yes/No questions to a "hypothetical" situation that you concocted. You didn't disprove anything though.
If you feel that NAS is less than credible, please give facts or reasons. You don't have to do the research yourself, rather cite a book or work that refutes the NAS's report.
Forget the NAS!
Not a very credible organization.
Personally, I find the opinions of the APA, headed by polygraphers with phoney Ph'd degrees more credible.
Hey, they livelihood DEPENDS ON THE POLYGRAPH. Or more precisely, the MYTH of the poly.
I also get my info on crime statistics from the Gambino Family.
"Q.E."
no, I am not trying to discredit what the NAS prepared or their organization. I am sure if presented with the same (selected) material, I would have written a similar presentation in conclusion. Of course, they did report a certain level of viability with specific issue testing which everyone who seems to quote that (one) study as "proof" tends to ignore...
To the point, I was attempting to draw a pictorial of the foundation from whence information is derived. I failed you and I apologize...
Aldridge,
all of that and you have a sense of sarcastic humor? How does the spouse handle the separation...?
Sackett (non-PhD)
The report concluded that, regarding pre-employment screening anyway, the test is not accurate enough to be useful. Too many worthy candidates (like me) get falsely accused of dishonesty. Spies pass with flying colors (AA, Larry Wu-tai Chin)....etc.
Other than that, it's a pretty good test.
What they should do, if a candidate has significant problems on the poly, and is otherwise a superb prospect worth spending the money on, hand his/her case over to trained INVESTIGATORS, to check the guy/gal out. Rather than throw the baby out with the bath water.
Had they done that with me they would have found a military linguist who held a TS SCI for 20 years, and passed each and every 5 year update with flying colors during his career. It's not like I was an unknown commodity in the intelligence community.
I did get a call from a FBI SA a year later. We chatted about the area of concerns that came out in my poly. She said she didn't see what the problem was and ended the phoncon on an apologetic note.
:o
Oh great!!!! I agree with you Mr. Ames...
Thank God, I've had good polygraphers, who judged my actual background included with the polygraph for different agencies.
I'm also a believer in the polygraph, for LE cases. Great tool for interrogations, maybe a good tool for a POS who doesn't know better, and fails there HR pre screen (if they were a dirt bag). But, I'm more against the prescreen. Thats just my interpretation, and the decision of the powers to be.
But, shhhh don't tell anyone I've agreed with you... I don't want people to think, that I'm anti polygraph... ;)
Quote from: x_X_x on Feb 13, 2008, 04:30 PMAl,
would that be the same National Academy of Science (NAS) who rather than reviewing ALL material regarding polygraph reliability and validity, simply selected "certain" research to conduct a meta-analysis which in and of itself seemed to be selected to prove their hypothesis?
I believe the NAS used a collection of 57 studies when conducting their research study.
On the APA's web site they write:
QuoteThe American Polygraph Association has a compendium of research studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2, 174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%. Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92%. Researchers conducted 41 studies involving the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80%. Researchers conducted 16 studies involving the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations producing an average accuracy of 81%. Tables list the authors and years of the research projects, which are identified fully in the References Cited. Surveys and novel methods of testing are also mentioned.
Are the 80 research projects they used somehow superior or more accurate than the 57 research projects the NAS used? Is there any doubt that they used 80 studies with conclusions that backed up their own preconceived notions regarding the accuracy of polygraph testing?
Other examiners have referred to the NAS study as somehow incomplete or inadequate because it only used a portion of the available studies. That seems hypocritical considering the APA (motto: "Dedicated to Truth") did exactly the same thing.
I think that if the NAS study was truly invalid or inadequate the APA and polygraph examiners in general wouldn't spend so much time and effort trying to discredit it.
"Sarge",
once again you have have misrepresented what was posted and derailed the conversation. I am not trying to, or as you put it, spend "so much time" trying to discredit the NAS report. I am; however, pointing out a rather obvious fact that selected resources were chosen by the NAS to review and then report their findings, which in my opinion was academically dishonest.
The NAS purports itself as an unbiased organization of researchers and academics in various scientific fields. Their using selected material which supported their hypothesis to "discover" a particular finding was not the best or most honest work by so-called "unbiased" scientists. In that light, I believe I even posted that given the same material I probably would have the same results (you conveniently ommitted that).
My posting had nothing to do with anything presented by anyone else, but you obvioulsy felt threatened by the information presented and had to distract the conversation. That too, in my opinion, is dishonest.
"Al", you wrote:
"The report concluded that, regarding pre-employment screening anyway, the test is not accurate enough to be useful"
I do believe they reported accuracy and viability in specific issue testing and potential applicability in screening tests, but more research was needed (a typical and neutural researcher note).
If we're gunna report the facts, lets report them all, I say...
Have a nice day, :)
Sackett
Quote from: x_X_x on Feb 13, 2008, 04:30 PMAl,
would that be the same National Academy of Science (NAS) who rather than reviewing ALL material regarding polygraph reliability and validity, simply selected "certain" research to conduct a meta-analysis which in and of itself seemed to be selected to prove their hypothesis? Was this the same NAS study by "scientists" who themselves were being subjected to the very pre-employment and periodic security screening tests they were condemning? The very same NAS members (not all of course) who when the DOE abated screening tests as a result of that report resulted in multiple security violations through laziness, misconduct and/or negligence to such a degree the program had to be reinstituted?
A slight conflict of interest, I believe. I (personally) see their report as I would fat people writing a report condemning McDonald's for selling fat filled products while they hold their convention at the local Burger King and receiving BK stock options in exchange... These minor details conveniently ommitted when citing their findings.
BTW, I am all for finding a better "mousetrap." Some thought CVSA was it, it is not... Got any suggestions? Then invent it! But for now, polygraph is the best we have.
Sackett
P.S. BTW, how's the food at Leavenworth?
I gotta chime in here even though I need to be working on my dissertation which why I've been absent from this board...
Anyhow, "the same NAS study by "scientists" who themselves were being subjected to the very pre-employment"?!?! Really? You claim that the NAS report was done by people who work for the national labs and the DOE and are being screened by the polygraph? Baloney!
The main authors, Feinberg and Faigman, are from Carnegie Mellon and UC-Hastings respectively. The rest of the committee are from other universities or research organizations like RAND and the Cleveland Clinic. Not one is listed as working for a national lab and the committee is made up of statisticians, physicians, psychologists, and lawyers who I would argue are eminently qualified to examine the evidence on polygraph and render an opinion. Name one person on the list of authors of the NAS study who is employed by a national lab or is subject to polygraph screening.
Here's the link in case you have trouble finding it: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=375
Your implication is misdirection at best and deliberate obfuscation at worst. The NAS selected the 57 studies because the excluded studies were, as they put it, "below the quality level typically needed for funding by the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes of Health." That's academic speak for saying the majority of research on the polygraph is crap.
I can understand that you feel the need to attack their conclusions but if all you can offer is an attack on their credentials then you don't have much of an argument...
digithead,
I never said ALL NAS members were subjected to the screening process. But, many are! Name one? There are many scientists who, while working for various universities are contracted to the US government and because of their work are not listed as such. Sorry you must not be on the mailing list.
Just because everybody involved in the meta-analysis of a selected portion of polygraph research were not reported as helping to author it does not mean they were not influential or involved in the findings (perhaps purposefully to avoid that appearance of conflict; but I'm not a conspiracy theorist).
You have your opinion. Fine. As an examiner, I have mine. I know it works well. Pefectly, no. BUT, it's better than leaving it to "your" word...
The research was "below the level of funding of..." does not mean, except in your albeit humble opinion, "crap." However, I do believe much of the research about the uselessness of polygraph is in fact, as you put it, "crap."
I believe you have your right to your opinion. I suggest you go to polygraph school, apply your knowledge then write me. Your opinion would change.
Sackett
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 14, 2008, 08:01 PMdigithead,
I never said ALL NAS members were subjected to the screening process. But, many are! Name one? There are many scientists who, while working for various universities are contracted to the US government and because of their work are not listed as such. Sorry you must not be on the mailing list.
Except that none of the authors of the report are subjected to polygraph screening which is your implication. I think the NAS was quite aware of the appearance of bias and went out of its way to select people uninvolved with polygraphy beyond the requisite knowledge of physiology, psychology, statistics, engineering and law. To claim that this group was biased against the polygraph is sheer nonsense...
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 14, 2008, 08:01 PMJust because everybody involved in the meta-analysis of a selected portion of polygraph research were not reported as helping to author it does not mean they were not influential or involved in the findings (perhaps purposefully to avoid that appearance of conflict; but I'm not a conspiracy theorist).
You seriously think this? Wow, so that explains how polygraph people suppress their cognitive dissonance they get when they read this report, it was all an inside job designed to discredit polygraphy from the get-go...
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 14, 2008, 08:01 PMYou have your opinion. Fine. As an examiner, I have mine. I know it works well. Pefectly, no. BUT, it's better than leaving it to "your" word...
I never ask anyone to take me at my word, there is plenty of research out there to support my position that CQT polygraphy is fatally flawed, the NAS report to wit...
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 14, 2008, 08:01 PMThe research was "below the level of funding of..." does not mean, except in your albeit humble opinion, "crap." However, I do believe much of the research about the uselessness of polygraph is in fact, as you put it, "crap."
Yes, it's crap. If it can't qualify for NSF or NIH funding it means that there are serious flaws in the research methods. How else would you translate the NAS description of the state of polygraph research, especially since you agree that most of it is "crap?"
Additionally, qualifying for funding is different than actually getting funding because of the fierce competition for research dollars. Just because the research design is well-done doesn't mean it will actually get funded. Their conclusion is that the research methods were so poor in the ones that they excluded that they wouldn't even be considered for funding...
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 14, 2008, 08:01 PMI believe you have your right to your opinion. I suggest you go to polygraph school, apply your knowledge then write me. Your opinion would change.
No, my opinion wouldn't change because I would be roundly shouted down if I asked any questions that challenged conventional polygraph practice, especially when it comes to CQT...
I do think that GKT is promising however because it resides on a cognitive basis rather than the emotional basis of CQT...
digithead,
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and leave your (fairly) applied logic as the basis of your opinion and give you the last word.
I, on the other hand, will apply my knowledge and experience to opine that many of the statements on this board (not specifically yours) are wonderful examples of why a little bit of knowledge and an emotional agenda are a dangerous thing. Please return to you dissertation, I'll return to my "chartgazing"
BTW, I'm pretty good at it... Hope not to see ya, professionally anyway. ;D
Sackett
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 14, 2008, 09:29 PM
Please return to you dissertation, I'll return to my "chartgazing"
BTW, I'm pretty good at it... Hope not to see ya, professionally anyway. ;D
Sackett
Sackett:
If you are as good as you say, why don't you take Drew Richardson up on his Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge? You could singlehandedly put this countermeasure foolishness to rest.
"n.p.c.",
First off, Richardson nor anyone else on this board is qualified to proffer such a challenge. It would be akin to me challenging you to come to where I am and wash my car. OH YEAH! It's been XX days and you haven't washed my car. Chicken? Can't handle it? Don't know how to wash a car??? See everybody, n.p.c. doesn't know how to wash a car... Now, disprove my hypothesis. IT HAS BEEN 763 DAYS AND N.P.C. HASN'T PROVEN TO US THAT HE KNOWS HOW TO WASH A CAR!!! Do you really know how to wash a car??? If you did, you'd accept my challenge, huh?! Nope! You missed the rims and antenna, see you have failed in proving to my satisfaction that you know how to wash a car...
Be realistic, no examiner will take up on the challenge. Not out of fear. Not out of inability, but because no method or means of CM identification would ever satisfy the fanatical idiology of those who boast their effectiveness. Professing to be fair and impartial to such a challenge coming from an "anti" board is no more than grand-standing to the audience. But, like I said, it's an open board.
You keep your opinions and I'll keep mine. We can agree to disagree, in a civilized manner and share them openly. Let those who read this board figure out who is accurate, believable and professional.
BTW, sorry for the sarcasm before but I am tired.
Sackett
Sackett:
I wasn't impuning your integrity by suggesting that the days that have gone by since Mr Richardson issued that challenge somehow was important, I was just wondering that if you were so good at "chartgazing" you might want to take up the challenge and put the issue to rest.
One thing I have noticed here, is that polygraphers have pretty thin skins. I was nothing but polite and respectful in my post, but yet you felt the need to be sarcastic. THAT, also shows the readers here who has what dog in the fight.
Sackett, you just happen to be the polygrapher de jure, who comes here to try to discredit this website. But, because you and others cannot back up your arguments, you eventually go away.
For instance, the statement you made in the "Sick" thread that a person who was "abnormally distracted" is not a good candidate for a polygraph. That statement of course, means that anyone who has been arrested or is a suspect in a murder or other heinous crime is not a good candidate to take a polygraph, which others here state that the shining light for polygraphy is it's use in criminal investigations.
Everytime this happens, of course, polygraph on the whole looks stupid.
Carry on my misguided, trade school graduate friend...Keep posting your opinions, and I will keep posting mine, and we WILL let the readers judge for themselves. I am not going away.
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 15, 2008, 10:32 AMSackett:
I wasn't impuning your integrity by suggesting that the days that have gone by since Mr Richardson issued that challenge somehow was important, I was just wondering that if you were so good at "chartgazing" you might want to take up the challenge and put the issue to rest.
I explained why in my previous posting. I thought I was clear.
One thing I have noticed here, is that polygraphers have pretty thin skins. I was nothing but polite and respectful in my post, but yet you felt the need to be sarcastic. THAT, also shows the readers here who has what dog in the fight.
Of course we're thin skinned. People on this board are attacking our profession without having any more than a cursory understanding of the sciences that go into polygraph, what would you expect? BTW, my sarcasm was addressed for the purposes of my analogy since I did not want to assume anything about you. Therefore, I used the car wash analogy as it is innocuous and non-offensive example. I didn't mean to insult, but didn't want to really insult by assuming anything.
Sackett, you just happen to be the polygrapher de jure, who comes here to try to discredit this website. But, because you and others cannot back up your arguments, you eventually go away.
n.p.c., I haven't tried to discredit anything, just open eyes of those who would read this board and blindly believe everything written here. Then, believing what they read, enter an examination room like mine and screw themselves out of a job or their freedom, then wonder what happened...
Why would I go away? Most have been respectful and as long as that remains I fear nothing written here. I must admit though, it is sort of like a debate between the democrats and the republicans. Each side has their opinions and there is little chance either side will change. I am not here for you or the rest of the "usualy suspects", I am here for the curious and to present an alternate understanding of the process where I believe it is best applied. Com'mon, do you really want me to go away...?
For instance, the statement you made in the "Sick" thread that a person who was "abnormally distracted" is not a good candidate for a polygraph. That statement of course, means that anyone who has been arrested or is a suspect in a murder or other heinous crime is not a good candidate to take a polygraph, which others here state that the shining light for polygraphy is it's use in criminal investigations.
Polygraph requires an examinee to be mentally and physically healthy at the time of the examination. Accusations, false or not, are naturally stressful; however, they are not abnormally so and would not prevent an examination. Nice try at extending the conversation. Of course, if these type of allegations were causal to abnormality, then no examination would ever take place since every examinee would be abnormally distracted. And, no examinee would ever pass, since they would be abnormal, right? Then why do many examinee's pass? It is certainly not that they implemented the techniques outlined in TLBTLD! But then again the extinction of polygraph IS the purpose of this board, right?!
Everytime this happens, of course, polygraph on the whole looks stupid.
Your opinion and certainly entitled to it.
Carry on my misguided, trade school graduate friend...Keep posting your opinions, and I will keep posting mine, and we WILL let the readers judge for themselves. I am not going away.
Wow! Return sarcasm? At least I apologized for mine in advance...Talk with you soon,
Sackett
Sackett:
I am, unfortunately for the extension of this conversation, going to be tied up for the next couple of weeks. But, to finish my part of this thread, regarding you leaving, I have no opinion of whether or not you should leave here, but most other polygraphers who have come here do so with an agenda, then when they get their asses handed to them on a plate with logical argument, decide they are better off playing with themselves over at PolygraphPlace. I find it amusing.
Frankly, honest discussion of polygraph with polygraphers would be refreshing. Let's start with you answering a few honest questions. A yes or no, (you may expand upon your answer, of course).
1) Can you for certain tell if a person is lying?
2) Can you for certain tell if a person is using countermeasures, and if so, which ones can you for certain detect?
3) What is the accuracy rate of polygraph, and how can one be certain that accuracy rate is valid?
Please give these a stab, but I will have to let others continue this thread if they are so inclined, as I do have to take care of business.
BTW, I don't apologize for my sarcasm, it is one of the better things I do!
n.p.c.,
if you decide to hand me my ass on a plate, please ensure you have assistance. I woud not want you to get a hernia or throw out your back... ;D
You asked:
1) Can you for certain tell if a person is lying?
A] no, but I can tell when a person is withholding information concerning a specific topic when that topic, by virtue of the pre-test interview is made significant. On that note, I would also like to clarify that polygraph is NOT a lie detector. It is a medicological instrument collecting biological data influenced by the physiological activity of the ANS, nothing more. Stop trying to make it some mystical, esoteric process, all too easily attacked through disbelief and misunderstanding.
2) Can you for certain tell if a person is using countermeasures, and if so, which ones can you for certain detect?
A] Yes. However, I will not discuss the what I can detect and/or how I can detect them. Lets call it a "trade" secret (for the lack of a better term).
3) What is the accuracy rate of polygraph, and how can one be certain that accuracy rate is valid?"
A] I don't know. I'm not a researcher, I am a practitioner. It seems to work very well when I apply the procedure and protocol in a proper manner as I was instructed.
Also, be aware, while I am not willing to discuss anything and everything about polygraph, I am willing to answer most questions about the polygraph testing process and profession. Just remember, for me and others like me, this is a (semi) hostile board. I reserve the right not to answer some questons or inquiries for a variety of reasons. These reasons are mine alone and not for debate.
See you upon your return
Sackett
".....I can tell when a person is withholding information concerning a specific topic when that topic, by virtue of the pre-test interview is made significant. "
For certain? I can see where you might SUSPECT somebody is withholding info, but I don't see how you can know for sure.
That's what the NSA polygrapher thought I was doing, but I wasn't. They were suspicious about some translation work I did for an embassy official. He suckered me into translating a 20 page regulation from his home country for free. They just couldn't believe it. Thought I was passing secrets or something.
Wouldn't it be better for a trained INVESTIGATOR to check something out like that, rather than screw a qualified candidate because of "hunch" you have.
Would you want an investigator conducting your polygraph?
I'm glad you mentioned the "pretest". That, and the interviewing (INTERROGATING) between chart gazing, is where people screw themselves. They want you to open up and tell them your life story. Which they will use against you later, whether you're truthful or not, if they have to (e.g. if there is an "unacceptable" squiggle mark they have to account for).
So what do you do if you test and test and keep getting a reaction WITHOUT A CONFESSION? My polygrapher did the following:
Let out a big sign when looking at the chart. Dramatically, got out of her chair, walked out from behind her desk, picked up a chair that was against the wall (thought she was gonna throw it at me), put the chair in front of me, sat in front of me knee2knee, then started yelling at me.
What do you do Mr. Sackett, when a guy keeps professing his innocence (you can't coerce an admission out him), yet that troublesome squiggle mark (which is outside of "acceptable parameters") keeps showing up.
Does a "reaction" necessarily mean he is lying. Maybe he is reacting cause that's THE QUESTION YOU KEEP SAYING HE'S HAVING TRUBS WITH EVEN THOUGH HE'S BEING HONEST. I mean, that alone is enough to get somebodies ANS to get agitated! >:(
Oh, yeah, and why don't polygraphers allow the test subject to tape the test for their records. If it's all on the "up and up", that is. ;D
Quote from: sackett on Feb 16, 2008, 03:24 AM".....I can tell when a person is withholding information concerning a specific topic when that topic, by virtue of the pre-test interview is made significant. "
For certain? I can see where you might SUSPECT somebody is withholding info, but I don't see how you can know for sure.
that's because you do not understand the entire process. You understand the mechanics of the testing, but not all the principals. It is easy to apply a small amount of information to a process then attack what you do not understand. It's ALL about that which is withheld, not necessarily lied to.
That's what the NSA polygrapher thought I was doing, but I wasn't. They were suspicious about some translation work I did for an embassy official. He suckered me into translating a 20 page regulation from his home country for free. They just couldn't believe it. Thought I was passing secrets or something.
I can't answer for anything that is outside my control or knowledge.
Wouldn't it be better for a trained INVESTIGATOR to check something out like that, rather than screw a qualified candidate because of "hunch" you have.
Sometimes it is not a confirmable or refutable issue. Are you suggesting that, for example, you report on an application you never smoked marijuana. You take the examination and fail, specifically to marijuana use. B/I's can't find anyone in your past that can establish it one way or another, so your word alone should be the deciding factor? Sorry, I disagree. That is exactly why polygraph is used. There are many things in a person's life that can be corroborated through a background; however, there are many more that can not. Hense the applicability of polygraph...
Would you want an investigator conducting your polygraph?
No! I want an investigator conducting my background check and a polygraph examiner conducting my polygraph examination. FYI, I have undergone two comprehensive backgrounds and pre-employment polygraph examinations. Yes, I was scared. Yes, I was nervous. Yes, I was (completely) honest and yes, I was hired.
I'm glad you mentioned the "pretest". That, and the interviewing (INTERROGATING) between chart gazing, is where people screw themselves.
No valid examination process has interrogations between charts. Ever!
So what do you do if you test and test and keep getting a reaction WITHOUT A CONFESSION? My polygrapher did the following:
Let out a big sign when looking at the chart. Dramatically, got out of her chair, walked out from behind her desk, picked up a chair that was against the wall (thought she was gonna throw it at me), put the chair in front of me, sat in front of me knee2knee, then started yelling at me.
What do you do Mr. Sackett, when a guy keeps professing his innocence (you can't coerce an admission out him), yet that troublesome squiggle mark (which is outside of "acceptable parameters") keeps showing up.
I talk with them and try to figure out the problem. Almost everytime we find it, retest and they pass. It's really an amazing and accurate process, when done right.
Does a "reaction" necessarily mean he is lying. Maybe he is reacting cause that's THE QUESTION YOU KEEP SAYING HE'S HAVING TRUBS WITH EVEN THOUGH HE'S BEING HONEST. I mean, that alone is enough to get somebodies ANS to get agitated! >:(
No, reaction in a significant and consistant manner indicates information that has been withheld (and/or lied to). By the time the test begins, the issue has been covered well enough not to be a threatening issue, unless of course they're withholding something. In that case, no amount of preparation can prepare them.
Oh, yeah, and why don't polygraphers allow the test subject to tape the test for their records. If it's all on the "up and up", that is. ;D
I have taped every test I have conducted since 2000, for my protection and theirs. I specifically do not allow the examinee to tape the process because once they leave the polygraph suite, I no longer have control of it's release or dissemination. You've seen the press cut and paste interviews to intentionally sway the viewing audience?!
I make the tapes for judicial or official use under discovery and by personnel who have some inclination to the polygraph process. I do not want any examination cut and paste by a disgruntled examinee only to be reviewed in the court of public opinion concerning a topic (i.e. polygraph) which most people don't understand (and whose understanding may extend only to to watching "The Recruit" or "Meet the Parents") and in which I have no feedback or means to explain the proceedure and protocol.
Sackett
Sackett
What's to prevent polygraphers to cut and paste their tapes? Wouldn't the fair way be for each to tape the test. Then, if the tapes don't jibe, the ruling body can determine who altered their tapes. An alteration on a tape can be detected if one is armed with that technology.
You're not suggesting that all polygraphers and interrogators are above lying to and deceiving subjects, are you?
If I was an honest polygrapher, I would encourage my subjects to both audio and video tape my tests. If he altered his tapes, then he would be required to pay the costs of detection or spend a comparable time in jail. If I altered my tapes, the same would apply to me. What's wrong with this scenario?
twoblock,
after I made my posting, I figured that someone would make some ridiculous accusation to that effect. OK, you believe what you will. But, for anyone to think that we examiners have nothing better to do than purposefully cause people to fail exams and interrogate them for our own sadistic entertainment... well, that's OK, your opinion has been expressed. BTW, how come we never talk on this board about those people that honestly passed their examinations...? Anyway,
Contrary to your's and apprently others' belief, examiners do not have a personal interest or agenda in the outcome of any examination; THE EXAMINEE DOES!. Secondly, the reputation, social and professional standing and future business of a private examiner rests in their ability and integrity. If we get a subpoena or law suit filed, the last thing we would do is risk jail or losing our business by altering evidence. Besides, no examiner with the propensity to lie, cheat and/or alter evidence of an examination would even allow recordings of their exams for the very fear of their discovery...An issue we are trying to correct within the polygraph community.
Further, you wrote:
"You're not suggesting that all polygraphers and interrogators are above lying to and deceiving subjects, are you?"
You already know that law enforcement is allowed (by law) to lie to people during investigations (there are exceptions, but this is not a law class). You are attempting to bait me on this subject by mixing apples and oranges. It makes you look simple and silly.
You wrote:
"If I was an honest polygrapher, I would encourage my subjects to both audio and video tape my tests. If he altered his tapes, then he would be required to pay the costs of detection or spend a comparable time in jail. If I altered my tapes, the same would apply to me. ."
No you wouldn't and for you to suggest it is an example of your lack of understanding of polygraph process as a whole; a common problem on this board. Besides, while your suggestion concerning punishments of unethical people is a noble one, it has little effect on the law as it currently stands. If you do not like the current law, then I suggest you run for office and get elected. I hear there could be an opening in Illinois or Arizona soon...
Sackett
Sackett
What rediculous accusation? I made no accusations whatsoever. I asked questions and made a statement. I was not trying to bait you. But, when polygraphers like you and nonombre will not answer intelligent questions to which we all know you have the answers, makes you all look simple and silly. You guys wear your feelings on your sleeve cuffs.
As to my statement about if I was an honest polyghrpher and your answer was "No you wouldn't" -- Bud, you don't know my propensity for honesty and integrety which would preclude me from ever being a polygrapher. I, also, know more about the polygraph than you think, but I refuse to get in a pissing contest. We all have our ideas and opinions so I will leave this discussion alone except to say - don't ever get the notion that I won't/can"t back up what I say.
Twoblock,
no pissing contest here! :)
However, it IS fair for me to suggest that a proposition of impropriety is the same as a charge equal to an accusation. Regardless of how you twist the English language, this is an adversarial board. When you make veiled allegations in support of your assumptions, I do not think it is written in the sense of balance or simple inquisition. You had an agenda to (try and) present.
It would be like me letting you work at my store, but to ask you what would keep "the likes" of you from stealing from me? If you don't see that as an accusation, then, Okedokey!
BTW, you further accused me (maybe it was not an accusation but an allegation, I guess) of not answering "intelligent questions?" I have answered almost every question presented here. I believe it is fair to those who read this board (not just post their opinions on it) to understand there is another side of polygraph.
I previously stated that I reserved the right not to answer some questions, so this is not a matter of deceipt as I have been forthright and honest. Maybe that concept coming from a simple and silly polygraph examiner is difficult for you to grasp, but I do understand...
Sackett
P.S. There has been no time in which I have demanded anyone "back up or prove" what they post, though it has been demanded of me. This is a one sided opinion board, not a neutral academic source.. I''m just trying to round off the edges a little bit with the truth from the "other side."
Like I have said, you have yours and I have mine.
Sometimes it is not a confirmable or refutable issue. Are you suggesting that, for example, you report on an application you never smoked marijuana. You take the examination and fail, specifically to marijuana use.
Just because I fail the pot portion of the test doesn't mean I was lying. You can tell the truth and STILL FAIL. All you can say is that my ANS "reacted".
That is exactly why polygraph is used. There are many things in a person's life that can be corroborated through a background; however, there are many more that can not. Hense the applicability of polygraph...
You are talking in circles. You said the polygraph can't tell for sure whether one is telling the truth.
So, there are many things in one's background that can't be corraborated, so we need the polygraph, which can't really show for sure (by your own admission) that the subject is telling the truth?
Maybe we need to bring Edgar Cayce back from the dead.
FYI, I have undergone two comprehensive backgrounds and pre-employment polygraph examinations. Yes, I was scared. Yes, I was nervous. Yes, I was (completely) honest and yes, I was hired.
FYI, I passed a SBI when I entered the service, held a TS SCI for 20 years, passed 4 periodics BI updates, passed a polygraph at NSA after retiring (told the truth), failed a polygraph at NSA five years later (was telling the truth). So what does that prove:
You can PASS the test when telling the truth.
You can FAIL the test while telling the truth.
No valid examination process has interrogations between charts. Ever!
First they they went over my application, then explained what the CI questions mean, hooked me up, turned on the voodoo box and conducted the 1st test. Stopped and looked at the chart, said I was having trouble with the "foreign contacts" question. Tried to get me to explain why I would have trouble with it. Turned the player piano on again and did it again. Stopped, said I was still having trouble....ad naseam for two freaking days! Each time trying to get more info.
Like an idiot, even though I knew I had had no elicit foreign contact (and they explained what that meant in great detail), and after two grueling days, they were able to get me to question my own veracity. IOW, got me to think, even though in my CONSCIOUS mind, I knew I was answering truthfully, maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me.
This is VERY similar to the COERCED FALSE confessions police get people to make all the time.
No, reaction in a significant and consistant manner indicates information that has been withheld (and/or lied to). By the time the test begins, the issue has been covered well enough not to be a threatening issue, unless of course they're withholding something.
A consistent ANS reaction still is not proof they are lying or withholding. It just means the question is consistently bothering them.
In my case, it was because I knew it was THAT question (foriegn contacts) that they were having trouble with. Which, pissed me off, cuz I was telling the truth. And might stop me from getting the job I am extremely qualified for...etc.
What they did, was keep changing it, during the interrogations between tests you said never happen, to read: "Other than what you already told me, have you ever had an illicit contact with a foreign contact..." But these were just the 1st, 2nd, 3rd...permutations of the original question. I guess some people can DESENSITIZED that way, but I couldn't.
Incidently, the "scuttlebutt" at the NSA is that if the hiring committee really want's you, whether a new applicant, or an existing employee doing a "periodic", they will test you, test you, test you, test you, test you....until you finally pass.
Gee, that should make the nation feel secure!
I specifically do not allow the examinee to tape the process because once they leave the polygraph suite, I no longer have control of it's release or dissemination.
Wouldn't want the subject to walk away with any documentation, would we? ::)
I make the tapes for judicial or official use under discovery and by personnel who have some inclination to the polygraph process. I do not want any examination cut and paste by a disgruntled examinee only to be reviewed in the court of public opinion concerning a topic (i.e. polygraph) which most people don't understand (and whose understanding may extend only to to watching "The Recruit" or "Meet the Parents") and in which I have no feedback or means to explain the proceedure and protocol.
Oh please! Doesn't work the other way around, huh?. Bedsides, polygraphers have NOTHING TO HIDE, anyway. ;D Like those taped coerced false confessions you see on TV from time to time.
The point I am trying to make to people is that a polygraph is an INTERROGATION. The polygraph machine is just a prop used to intimidate. If you go in naive, like I did, believing "just tell the truth, and the machine will show you are being truthful. Ya got nothing to hide of fear": You can GET SCREWED!
Better to go in with the attitide, that machine can't tell if I am being truthful. TELL THE TRUTH, and DON'T LET THEM TELL YOU YOU ARE LYING WHEN YOU AIN'T!
My fingers are too tired to continue this!
OK, you believe what you will. But, for anyone to think that we examiners have nothing better to do than purposefully cause people to fail exams and interrogate them for our own sadistic entertainment... well,
What I am suggesting, is that a polygrapher does NOT WANT a "reaction" on the chart, without an admission from the subject he/she can use to account for that "reaction" to justify a "failure". So they try to con the subject into believing there is just no way you can lie without the machine picking up on it. So they keep hammering the subject until he tells them something that might explain why he's reacting (if it's bad enough, you fail, if not you get through), OR they get desensitized and stop reacting.
It's "bogus" anyway, because a "reaction" IS NOT EQUAL to a lie.
The whole thing is a pathetic game!
Lingenfelter (my tester) went as far as to draw a pie chart. He marked a small part of the chart representing 1%. He said: "See that 1%? That's the percent chance you have of the machine not registering a LIE!"
Yeah buddy, only at the INSTITUTE of BIZARRE STUDIES!
No you wouldn't and for you to suggest it is an example of your lack of understanding of polygraph process as a whole; a common problem on this board.
Only lack of understanding I have is why I failed my test when I was telling the truth.
This is a one sided opinion board, not a neutral academic source..
Shit son! We put forth the findings of the NAS, but you didn't like the source.
Otay, so show us a valid ACADEMIC study concluding that polygraphs are reliable. And not something published by a phoney Ph"d working in the industry!
Explain to us why polygraphs ARE NOT GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE IN COURTS.
Quote from: sackett on Feb 16, 2008, 11:27 PMSometimes it is not a confirmable or refutable issue. Are you suggesting that, for example, you report on an application you never smoked marijuana. You take the examination and fail, specifically to marijuana use.
Just because I fail the pot portion of the test doesn't mean I was lying. You can tell the truth and STILL FAIL. All you can say is that my ANS "reacted".
I have already addressed this. It is up to the readers to decide.
That is exactly why polygraph is used. There are many things in a person's life that can be corroborated through a background; however, there are many more that can not. Hense the applicability of polygraph...
You are talking in circles. You said the polygraph can't tell for sure whether one is telling the truth.
No, don't think so. I never said polygraph was a lie detector...
So, there are many things in one's background that can't be corraborated, so we need the polygraph, which can't really show for sure (by your own admission) that the subject is telling the truth?
Maybe we need to bring Edgar Cayce back from the dead.
FYI, I have undergone two comprehensive backgrounds and pre-employment polygraph examinations. Yes, I was scared. Yes, I was nervous. Yes, I was (completely) honest and yes, I was hired.
FYI, I passed a SBI when I entered the service, held a TS SCI for 20 years, passed 4 periodics BI updates, passed a polygraph at NSA after retiring (told the truth), failed a polygraph at NSA five years later (was telling the truth). So what does that prove:
You can PASS the test when telling the truth.
You can FAIL the test while telling the truth.
But not when withholding information.
No valid examination process has interrogations between charts. Ever!
First they they went over my application, then explained what the CI questions mean, hooked me up, turned on the voodoo box and conducted the 1st test. Stopped and looked at the chart, said I was having trouble with the "foreign contacts" question. Tried to get me to explain why I would have trouble with it. Turned the player piano on again and did it again. Stopped, said I was still having trouble....ad naseam for two freaking days! Each time trying to get more info.
Like an idiot, even though I knew I had had no elicit foreign contact (and they explained what that meant in great detail), and after two grueling days, they were able to get me to question my own veracity. IOW, got me to think, even though in my CONSCIOUS mind, I knew I was answering truthfully, maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me.
"maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me" doesn't sound like you were completely truthful. I'm not suggesting you were lying, but if there is any chance you withheld, then you would naturally have problems on the testing.
This is VERY similar to the COERCED FALSE confessions police get people to make all the time.
I have seen the same shows, movies, etc. I will tell you for me, I have never taken a false confession, ever!
No, reaction in a significant and consistant manner indicates information that has been withheld (and/or lied to). By the time the test begins, the issue has been covered well enough not to be a threatening issue, unless of course they're withholding something.
A consistent ANS reaction still is not proof they are lying or withholding. It just means the question is consistently bothering them.
I've already discussed this.
In my case, it was because I knew it was THAT question (foriegn contacts) that they were having trouble with. Which, pissed me off, cuz I was telling the truth. And might stop me from getting the job I am extremely qualified for...etc.
What they did, was keep changing it, during the interrogations between tests you said never happen, to read: "Other than what you already told me, have you ever had an illicit contact with a foreign contact..." But these were just the 1st, 2nd, 3rd...permutations of the original question. I guess some people can DESENSITIZED that way, but I couldn't.
Further, inter-chart interviewing concerning a specific subject is inappropriate at best. But I can not speak to your experience, I wasn't there, nor was I responsible for your test.
Incidently, the "scuttlebutt" at the NSA is that if the hiring committee really want's you, whether a new applicant, or an existing employee doing a "periodic", they will test you, test you, test you, test you, test you....until you finally pass.
Nepotism, buddy considerations, friends of friends, dynastic desires, etc, that's the "scuttlebutt" at every dept.
Gee, that should make the nation feel secure!
I know many federal examiners and yes, it should make the nation feel more secure.
I specifically do not allow the examinee to tape the process because once they leave the polygraph suite, I no longer have control of it's release or dissemination.
Wouldn't want the subject to walk away with any documentation, would we? ::)
No. Wouldn't want testing information to be misused, manipulated, falsely misrepresented, etc before the truth can come out...
I make the tapes for judicial or official use under discovery and by personnel who have some inclination to the polygraph process. I do not want any examination cut and paste by a disgruntled examinee only to be reviewed in the court of public opinion concerning a topic (i.e. polygraph) which most people don't understand (and whose understanding may extend only to to watching "The Recruit" or "Meet the Parents") and in which I have no feedback or means to explain the proceedure and protocol.
Oh please! Doesn't work the other way around, huh?.
No, it doesn't! I've explained that.
Bedsides, polygraphers have NOTHING TO HIDE, anyway. ;D Like those taped coerced false confessions you see on TV from time to time.
Do not believe everything you see on TV, or the internet for that matter...
The point I am trying to make to people is that a polygraph is an INTERROGATION. The polygraph machine is just a prop used to intimidate. If you go in naive, like I did, believing "just tell the truth, and the machine will show you are being truthful. Ya got nothing to hide of fear": You can GET SCREWED!
Well, I think you reported four polygraphs before having problems. Now I can't speak for your examination, but I think your hypothesis of naivete is a little off.
Better to go in with the attitide, that machine can't tell if I am being truthful. TELL THE TRUTH, and DON'T LET THEM TELL YOU YOU ARE LYING WHEN YOU AIN'T!
My fingers are too tired to continue this!
me too, have a nice night...Sackett
QuoteMy fingers are too tired to continue this!
Great! Because you have deposited more methane gas than a herd of long horns.
Al, you really need some help formulating thought without the pseudo bluster.
Al: I am king s____ and I deserve the jobs and all of the clams, and I only did some unauthorized translating for a foreign national behind the backs of the most paranoid, strict, national security agency on planet earth.....and WAH WAH WAH! They (sob) moved their chair close to me and started to yell at me. I almost had an asthma attack, had I not had the inhaler (you get the picture).
Sackett; Yeah, polygraph works very well and..
Al; It's all an interrogation! I started to doubt my own truthfulness after so much questioning. You'd think I was working for an organization of buttoned-up, hard-on government paranoid types...er...say...I was working for those types of people. Come to think about it, those people were aweful serious bout stuff.
EJ; Hey Aldrich, wake up and smell the glue. Get a job working with people who don't care if you do some side work and who don't polygraph their staff. Life is too short to be such a whiney, sourpuss. Why are you federal government types so gaddamn self-deserving of jobs? I know a postal worker who thinks he deserves to be postmaster general because he has never been late for work. Woopty do. In the real world, you get no assurances just because "it's your specialty" or "I worked so doggone hard."
Jesus, I have spoken to Holocaust survivors with far less righteous indignation. Move on brother.
Ejohnson,
Let me guess. You're a polygrapher.
Al, you really need some help formulating thought without the pseudo bluster.
Like your post above?
Al
Ejohnson,
Let me guess. You're a polygrapher.
Al, you really need some help formulating thought without the pseudo bluster.
Like your post above?
"Federal government type"? I'm a military retiree, and have been running my own business (real estate) for the last 10 years.
Sorry for the duplicate post, hit the wrong button.
Al
Sackett,
Well, I think you reported four polygraphs before having problems. Now I can't speak for your examination, but I think your hypothesis of naivete is a little off.
They said I was having trouble with one of the questions right from the start (after the first chart). I had lunch with 3 other candidates tested that day and they all reported the same thing. They probably tell everyone they're having problem in an effort to get them to "open up".
So in your expert opinion, is being untruthful or withholding information the only possible reason for a ANS "reaction"? Rather than anger, fear, frustration for being called a liar even though you're telling the truth....etc.
You kind of glossed over that one.
Maybe Ejohnson has an answer for that.
Here is my answer Al;
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3832.msg28399#msg28399
Quote from: sackett on Feb 17, 2008, 03:24 AMSackett,
Well, I think you reported four polygraphs before having problems. Now I can't speak for your examination, but I think your hypothesis of naivete is a little off.
They said I was having trouble with one of the questions right from the start (after the first chart). I had lunch with 3 other candidates tested that day and they all reported the same thing. They probably tell everyone they're having problem in an effort to get them to "open up".
I can not speak of a particular test of which I was not involved.
So in your expert opinion, is being untruthful or withholding information the only possible reason for a ANS "reaction"? Rather than anger, fear, frustration for being called a liar even though you're telling the truth....etc.
No. I suppose a diagnosable mental disorder could also explain it...
You kind of glossed over that one.
No, I didn't give the answer you were looking for.
Maybe Ejohnson has an answer for that.
Sackett