I have been reading this site and have begun to understand the CM used. For instance...
Control questions: Is your name ( )?
Do you live in ( ) ?
Relevant questions:
Have you ever sold drugs?
Have you ever stole anything worth more then $300?
Is this correct?
Is this what is used on pre police polygraphs?
What I don't get is what CM's are to be used. I looked at this site but it is confusing because everyone has an opinion. TM Cullen or George, if you could put this is lame terms for me. What do I do when they ask me the control questions?
Pucker my butt? Bite my tongue? Count math numbers in my head?
Please help! 8-)
seahawks
Have you considered telling the truth?
You must be one of those worthless losers called a polygrapher.
Read "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector"
https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf
There is an entire section in it about countermeasures. But read the whole thing and you will see that simply "telling the truth" is NOT a guarantee of passing a polygraph.
Are you going to be taking one in the future? Under what circumstances? Is it a criminal polygraph given by police? A private polygraph taken at the request or an employer? Either way, such polygraphs are VOLUNTARY, you don't even have to take them. Don't go chomping at the bit to employ CMs when you can decline their request to take the polycrap test.
TC
It would be for police employment.
Then read the LBTLD, as you have no recourse but to take the it or change career paths.
Main point, polygraph is nothing more than an interrogation (fishing expedition for employment polygraphs). They try to CONVINCE you the machine can actually detect deception on your part. THEN, falsely claim that one or more of the test questions indicates YOU ARE LYING, or holding back. All a ploy to see what they can get you to say.
So, if you go in KNOWING (without any doubt) the machine CAN NOT detect lies, and they are just trying to bluff you and see what they can "get you to say", then you will be one step ahead of most other applicants. Most people believe in the myth of the polygraph, and fall for their little game. So when told by the examiner they are "showing deception" on this or that question, THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT, and start yacking like an old church lady. It is amazing what they can get people to admit to.
Of course, you don't want the examiner to know you are savvy tot all this. You can't beat a "con" game, if the conman knows you are aware of the "con". So on one level, it's letting the examiner think he/she has "flustered" you, but not giving up anything that would "raise an eyebrow". And all it has to do is "raise an eyebrow". Doesn't have to be a crime...etc. One should ask themselves "Would I want the hiring authority to hear this?" Don't admit to anything you haven't already disclosed on the security application!! And the info requested on your application is quite specific and above certain thresholds. Have you taken drugs in the past XXX months? Have you committed any major crimes? Not very ambiguous, is it?
Of course, there is still the squiggly marks on the chart that must meet their established parameters. Most people focus most of their worry and attention on what the machine is saying, and trying to make it say "something else". They totally stop paying attention to the stupid dumb ass shit they are admitting to the examiner! Again, usually because they actually believe the machine, NOT THEMSELVES!
Of course, if you take drugs, have committed crimes in the recent past, download kiddie porn, lied like a politician on your application, spend your time off in airport restroom stalls tapping your feet...etc., you should admit to it. But then why would you apply to a LE job? :-X
Good Luck
TC
Mr Cullen
Despite your advice to seahawks, you wouldn't hire an attorney that you knew cheated on his bar exam or a physican who cheated on his medical boards or fly with a pilot who cheated to pass FAA licensing. But you encourage LEA applicants to cheat their prospective departments screening procedures and see that as a good thing.
QuoteBut you encourage LEA applicants to cheat their prospective departments screening procedures and see that as a good thing.
How can you cheat on an interrogation? If you answer ALL relevant questions truthfully, just refuse to accept the examiner's false claim that you are lying based on machine readings, how is that "cheating"?
Quoteyou wouldn't hire an attorney that you knew cheated on his bar exam or a physican who cheated on his medical boards or fly with a pilot who cheated to pass FAA licensing.
Comparing a polygraph ?test? to a bar exam or FAA licensing, or Medical Board has been done here before by polygraphers, and is patently absurd. For starters, those tests exam a person's knowledge and skill at performing a VALID AND PROVEN function. Doctors heal, pilots fly a plane, lawyers practice law. Polygraph operators DO NOT DETECT DECEPTION on the part of job applicants. In fact, they routine brand truthful applicants as deceptive.
However, if a would be pilot passes his FAA test, passes his flight test it IS a safe presume the person can fly a plane and operate within FAA guidlelines.
To answer your question even more directly. I wouldn't hire a person for a position requiring honesty based on the results of a polygraph under any circumstances. Or based on the "vibes" picked up by a so-called psychic, for that matter.
TC
However you spin it, TC, cheating is still cheating, amd you condone it.
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 15, 2009, 02:41 PMQuote:
you wouldn't hire an attorney that you knew cheated on his bar exam or a physican who cheated on his medical boards or fly with a pilot who cheated to pass FAA licensing.
Comparing a polygraph ?test? to a bar exam or FAA licensing, or Medical Board has been done here before by polygraphers, and is patently absurd.For starters, those tests exam a person's knowledge and skill at performing a VALID AND PROVEN function.Doctors heal, pilots fly a plane, lawyers practice law.
TmC your comparison misses the mark. It's true Drs Heal, and Pilots fly Planes, but the people who administer FAA exams don't necessarily fly and the people who give the Bar exam don't necessarily practice law. But the people you encourage to cheat on a lie detector, if they are successful, will be carrying guns, stopping your wife on a darkened highway late at night, and swearing to tell the truth in court. If they can't be trusted not to cheat on a lie detector, How can you trust them not to fake evidence and lie in court?
BBuxton and Pailryder
You don't think some who pass the poly does this. Take your head out of the sand and smell the aardvarks.
While applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical duty to answer relevant questions truthfully, I see no ethical problem with otherwise truthful persons employing polygraph countermeasures to protect against the risk of a false positive outcome. Polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud that depends on the polygrapher lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested."
When polygraphers wax indignant about polygraph countermeasures, I am reminded of the old German proverb, "When the fox preaches, guard your geese."
;)
QuoteHowever you spin it, TC, cheating is still cheating, amd you condone it.
You still haven't explained how what I've suggested is cheating. And, in particular, similar to cheating on a bar exam, medical exam or FAA exam. Forgetting for the moment, the logical absurdity of comparing taking a polygraph to taking a bar exam, FAA exam, or medical board exam.
You've already admitted elsewhere that the polygraph is really not a test anyway, but an interrogation. If you truthfully answer relevant questions posed by the polygraph interrogator how is that cheating?
Speaking of ethics, do you consider telling the interrogee the machine "detects deception" when it doesn't a "lie". And polygraphers do this. The phrase "deception indicated" is standard. Do you have an ETHICAL problem with that? And of course, having the subject of the polygraph believe that lie is crucial to the success of the polygraph. IOW, the polygraph is "based on a lie". What say ye about that?
My position is that cheating on a bogus test, which ain't really a test, is a bit of an oxymoron. Oh, and not falling for used car salesman sales "tricks" isn't cheating either.
TC
TMC and George. It looks like you're saying that it is ok to lie or cheat as long as YOU think its OK.
If I fill out a police application and lie about a previous job that should have abolutely no effect on my ability to be a cop, should they be able to fire me if they find out.
Isn't fudging on your application just another countermeasure to keep the FBI from drawing a bad impression from a boss who never liked you anyway? I mean what business is it of theirs that I was fired from a job I held for 3 years because the boss found out I had slept with his wife.
What about someone who is trying to infiltrate law enforcement for criminal reasons.Do you think it is OK/Ethical for them to use these countermeasures to monkey with the lie detctor to create a false negative?
TC
The applicant is not cheating me, I'm only the polygraph examiner. They ARE cheating the department, the other applicants, and the public they say they seek to serve.
Mr Maschke
Whether or not polygraph is a psuedoscientific fraud is a seperate question. Regardless of what the applicant believes about polygraph, if he or she pretends to cooperate while knowingly obstructing or circumventing the departments hiring process he or she is cheating. And I can't believe that either you or Mr Cullen really believes that is the proper way to began a career in law enforcement.
T
Quotehe applicant is not cheating me, I'm only the polygraph examiner. They ARE cheating the department, the other applicants, and the public they say they seek to serve.
I'll try one more time. If the applicant answers the relevant questions TRUTHFULLY, how is that "cheating"? Oh, I see you've changed your wording, how is that "circumventing" the process. The goal is for the applicant to answer the questions truthfully, isn't it?
Do you consider an applicant who does NOT believe tin the machine's ability to dectect decpetion (let's suppose your testing Dr. Zimbardo for the position of the CIA's head of psych) "circumventing" the process or being "uncooperative"? Actually, it probably is. But that is not the same as "cheating" to use your original wording.
QuoteTMC and George. It looks like you're saying that it is ok to lie or cheat as long as YOU think its OK.
I try asking you. If an applicant fills out ALL relevant information on their application truthfully and fully, and RUTHFULLY answers all relevant questions on the polygraph, is that "cheating"?
TC
TMC How is trying to change the lines on the lie detector paper or puckering your butt the make the needles jump, to make it look like you aren't lying on any of the questions when you are lying NOT CHEATING?
I agree, using countermeasures IS cheating.
Is it honest for a polygraph operator to repeatedly tell the applicant that the polygraph machine "detects decpetion", when is doesn't?
My main advice to people has not really focussed that much on using CMs. Many formats aren't amenable to their use.
My advice has been for people to realize that the polygraph IS NOT a test for the truth. The machine DOES NOT detect lies. When examiners say that it does, they are actually lying. The test is based on a lie. And it is important for the polygrapher to get the applicant to BELIEVE THAT LIE.
The polygraph is a cleverly disguised interrogation. Disguised as a scientific test people overwhelmingly believe in due to the "pop" culture. So, when an applicant is told, to their utter amazement that the machine has "indicated" they are lying, when they are actually being truthful, they end up believing THE MACHINE, not themselves. This is just the OPPOSITE of what they should be doing.
Of course, judging by the behavior of four different polygraph operators I dealt with at the NSA, and the attitude of polygraphers posting on this board, it would NOT be advisable to question the validity of the polygraph WHEN BEING EXAMINED. That would be (i,e, telling the examiner what they really think of the process) more calculated to PISS OFF the thin skinned polygrapher who would them be predisposed to FAIL them. For being honest with them. So I my advice is:
1. Answer relevant questions HONESTLY and forthrightly, and stick to your answer.
2. Don't let the examiner convince you your are lying, and must be some big time drug dealer working for Al Qaeda, based on a bunch of stupid scratch marks on the chart. That would be just plain silly! All to common, but silly.
3. Don't get into an argument, and become confrontative over the validity of the polygraph, You'll just piss off the examiner.
4. Let the examiner "huff and puff", call you a liar, whatever, just don't cave in and start playing their game by speculating about why the "chicken scratches" on the chart are zigging when they should of been "zagging". The chart is BS anyway. Just realize that is the interrogative technique they employ. Don't fall for it.
That has been my advice, is that "cheating"?
TC
P.S. As for criminal police polygraphs. Same advice. Don't even taken them. The DA/police is just trying to take the opportunity to interrogate you under duress, without legal representation, when they have only a weak case against you. In these cases, however, you can end up in freaking jail, not just being declined for employment! :-X
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 16, 2009, 10:05 PMI agree, using countermeasures IS cheating.
If you agree, then do you think it is moral or ethical to teach or encourage their use?
Quote from: pailryder on Feb 16, 2009, 09:30 PMMr Maschke
Whether or not polygraph is a psuedoscientific fraud is a seperate question....
There is no question but that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. And I think any objective person will readily understand that any ethical consideration of polygraph countermeasures must necessarily involve the (well-settled) question of polygraphy's (lack of) scientific underpinnings.
For relevant discussion of the ethical considerations associated with making countermeasure information publicly available, see the discussion thread, A Response to Paul M. Menges (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=966.msg7147#msg7147).
I think that based on his comment gmc's response may be more relevant than your previos views on this subject
Yes. I think cheating a conman who is trying to chdat you is not unethical, but self protection.
Is it ethical to maintain that the polygraph can detect lies, and is scientifically valid, when it is not, moral and ethical?
Is it ethical for a polygraph operator to tell an examinee that George is working for Iran with no evidence, during a polygraph pretest interview? George, do you still have that tape?
Polygraphers, or anyone who perpetrates a fraud, are not in a very good position to make moral judgements of others, methinks.
TC
QuoteThere is no question but that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. And I think any objective person will readily understand that any ethical consideration of polygraph countermeasures must necessarily involve the (well-settled) question of polygraphy's (lack of) scientific underpinnings.
And comparing a polygraph to a bar exam, FAA licensing exam, or medical board exam is absurd on many levels. For one thing, those tests actually measure what they purport to measure (medical, legal and aviation knowledge). The polygraph does not actually measure deception, though it is presented in that fashion. Which does make it a fraud.
They just don't like the fact that you've exposed their fraud.
And I'd STILL like to know what they do behind those blasted one-way mirrors! :o
TC
Mr Cullen
When a person seeks employment with an agency that enforces our laws, that person should comply with all legal requirments for employment with the agency they have chosen. If they cannot comply they should seek another employer. You recommended countermeasures to Seahawks, and I don't have a problem with that, you have the right to help him cheat. Just be honest about it.
TMC OK so you think that countermeasures is cheating, but that cheating is OK, but what about the question I asked before??
Quote from: BBuxton on Feb 16, 2009, 04:22 PMIf I fill out a police application and lie about a previous job that should have abolutely no effect on my ability to be a cop, should they be able to fire me if they find out.
Isn't fudging on your application just another countermeasure to keep the FBI from drawing a bad impression from a boss who never liked you anyway? I mean what business is it of theirs that I was fired from a job I held for 3 years because the boss found out I had slept with his wife.
What about someone who is trying to infiltrate law enforcement for criminal reasons.Do you think it is OK/Ethical for them to use these countermeasures to monkey with the lie detctor to create a false negative?
BBuxton,
Howse about answering some of my questions for a change.
quid pro quo Dr. lecter!
TC
Quote from: pailryder on Feb 17, 2009, 04:10 PMMr Cullen
When a person seeks employment with an agency that enforces our laws, that person should comply with all legal requirments for employment with the agency they have chosen. If they cannot comply they should seek another employer. You recommended countermeasures to Seahawks, and I don't have a problem with that, you have the right to help him cheat. Just be honest about it.
The problem, as I see it, is that polygraph examiners consider an examinee's thoughts to be something within their (the examiners') span of control.
I have written many times on this board that I do not consider it a breach of ethics if an examinee answers all questions truthfully and then recites poetry or does math problems in his head. Other examiners have told me that they consider such behavior to be "purposeful non-cooperation" and that they would fail a candidate who behaved thusly.
A police applicant who tells the truth, does not withhold any information, and cooperates with every phase of the application process is behaving ethically. If, during the polygraph exam, he answers truthfully and then chooses not to dwell on the question because he believes that by doing so he will become the victim of a false positive, he is still doing nothing wrong. A person's thoughts are their own.
There really is no logical way to counter such a plan, so polygraph supporters claim that anything you think that might thwart their test is unethical. I think that is simply nonsense, and I think most polygraph examiners are fully aware that it is nonsense. A truthful applicant would really have no reason to dwell on each truthful answer, but ironically enough, the examiner has no way to determine if the examinee is answering truthfully and relaxing because they have nothing to hide, or is answering deceptively and then forcing himself to relax to cover his lies.
Now, if only there was some way of determining if the examinee was telling the truth or not...
TMC OK youre right fair is fair. I'll try to answer some of them as best I can.
"I try asking you. If an applicant fills out ALL relevant information on their application truthfully and fully, and RUTHFULLY answers all relevant questions on the polygraph, is that "cheating"? "
answer Your question seems to say that some of the questions on a lie detector test don't have any bearing on the process. Why ask them if they don't do anything? I thought all the questions were part of the test or relevant and if an examinee answers all questions truthfully to the best of his ability, and follows instructions, and doesn't try to alter the results by countermeasuring, he would not be cheating
"Is it honest for a polygraph operator to repeatedly tell the applicant that the polygraph machine "detects decpetion", when is doesn't?"
answer If the polygraph machine does not detect deception, then it would not be honest for a polygraph operator to say that it does.
"Is it ethical to maintain that the polygraph can detect lies, and is scientifically valid, when it is not, moral and ethical?"
answer If the polygraph cannot detect lies and isn't scientifically valid then I don't think it would be be moral and ethical to maintain that it does.
"Is it ethical for a polygraph operator to tell an examinee that George is working for Iran with no evidence, during a polygraph pretest interview? "
answer While I think people are entitled to their beliefs and are entitled to share them with whoever they wish, I think it would be innapropriate for an operator to tell someone that if they didn't have some reason to believe it.
I tried to answer your questions. The reason I didn't answer them before is that they seemed to depend on me agreeing that polygraph don't detect deception, aren't scientific and that the examinner didn't have any evidence about Iran am I'm not ready to do that yet.
Is there some problem about the way I worded my question about fudging on a job application?
PS I think Brian Cox made the best Dr Lektor
Sergeant1107
An applicant can fully protect against a false positive by making application at a department where polygraph is not part of the process. If one freely chooses to apply with knowledge that polygraph is a legal, lawful requirement at that department, they must accept the risk and should fully comply with that department's screening proceedures. To pretend to comply cheats the other applicants.
Please note that polygraphers, including pailryder himself, admit that there is no evidence at all that polygraph pre-employment screening exams do anything to improve the quality of the workforces of the agencies which use them. Not one shred of evidence, as they admit.
Note that this has nothing to do with the accuracy rate or the polygraph or how easy it is to defeat via countermeasures. It is a plain, simple empirical fact: there is no reason to believe that police departments are better off for polygraphing all of their employees or potential employees.
This is not an argument, simply a statement of fact that one might want to consider in constructing an argument.
Quote"I try asking you. If an applicant fills out ALL relevant information on their application truthfully and fully, and RUTHFULLY answers all relevant questions on the polygraph, is that "cheating"? "
answer Your question seems to say that some of the questions on a lie detector test don't have any bearing on the process. Why ask them if they don't do anything? I thought all the questions were part of the test or relevant and if an examinee answers all questions truthfully to the best of his ability, and follows instructions, and doesn't try to alter the results by countermeasuring, he would not be cheating
If there are "control questions" isn't the applicant expected to "lie" when answering those? But wouldn't that be unethical? Some polygraph operators get angry and irritated when applicants continue to answer control questions truthfully. So you have an applicant, wanting to cooperate in every way, answering ALL questions (relevant, control and filler) TRUTHFULLY, yet not seen as "cooperating" and it just earns them the angst of the examiner. Applicants are often bewildered when this happens. "I'm being truthful, why is this asshole get so angry!"
OTOH, if the applicant is informed about the polygraph, they'd know that what you are actually doing is try to get a lie on a control to gauge whether reactions when answering those are greater or lower than reactions to "relevant" questions. Isn't that right? Consistently greater reactions to relevants versus controls results in a "fail". Right again?
But that is junk science and not a valid measure of truthfulness!
And if an applicant were to come clean and explain that they know all this process, have read the NAS report...etc. and said something like "Hey, Mr. Polygrapher, isn't that a control question? Aren't I expected to lie on that one?" That too would piss off the examiner. Pissing off the examiner for telling the truth about what they know.
What you guys really want is a gullible, naive, uninformed stooge to just "go along" with your little charade. Which is why you hate people coming to this site and learning about the process.
This is another example of the absurdity of comparing the polygraph to a bar exam, FAA licensing...etc. Examiner of those test WANT EXAMINEES TO COME IN INFORMED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE!!
TC
Quote from: pailryder on Feb 18, 2009, 08:14 AMSergeant1107
An applicant can fully protect against a false positive by making application at a department where polygraph is not part of the process. If one freely chooses to apply with knowledge that polygraph is a legal, lawful requirement at that department, they must accept the risk and should fully comply with that department's screening proceedures. To pretend to comply cheats the other applicants.
So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that an applicant who answers all questions truthfully and does not withhold any information is merely "pretending to comply" unless he
thinks about what the examiner wants him to think about during specific portions of the test?
I disagree. An applicant is not pretending to comly with a test that purportedly detects deception if he answers all the questions truthfully and does not withhold any information. He is doing his part.
How exactly can you justify your expectation that an examinee must think about what the examiner wants him to think about or he is essentially "pretending to comply" with the test?
When the applicant fills out the background packet is he "pretending to comply" if he answers all questions truthfully and does not withhold any information, but he also hums to himself or thinks about a TV show he saw the night before?
TMC what do you mean by the following?
What you guys really want is a gullible, naive, uninformed stooge to just "go along" with your little charade. Which is why you hate people coming to this site and learning about the process.
QuoteI disagree. An applicant is not pretending to comly with a test that purportedly detects deception if he answers all the questions truthfully and does not withhold any information. He is doing his part.
An applicant doesn't even have to do that. Just DON'T believe the polygraph operator when they say that the machine is indicating "You are holding back", or "you are being deceptive", or "something is bothering you about that question"!
The applicant is under NO OBLIGATION to tell the examiner he thinks the test is bullshit! It is to his advantage NOT too, as we've all seen what thin skin polygrapher have when it comes to questioning their "magic box".
It's a con game. Nothing wrong with scratching your head, shaking your head..etc. and saying "Gee, that's strange. I don't know how the machine could be indicating that. I answered truthfully. Nah, just can't think of nothin Mr. Polymaster." And the above statement is actually true (unlike statements routinely made by polygraphers to applicants). If you are informed about the polygraph then you truly WOULDN"T know how the machine could be indicating what the examiner claims.
First and foremost, people need to know in no uncertain terms that consistent reactions DO NOT necessarily equate to DECEPTION. If you are answering truthfully, believe YOURSELF, not the MACHINE/POLYGRAPHER!
Forget all the old "Dragnet" TV episodes you watched as a kid. Don't sit there thinking of the examiner is some kind of SGT Friday. They are there to trip you up in anyway they can. YES! Tell the truth, but don't be a naive dunce either! If they make a claim (this machine is 98% accurate in detecting deception) know that they are lying, but don't be a belligerent jerk either. Just nod, and say "hmmm, wow, that's pretty accurate" (even though your actually thinking "Yeah, pretty accurate if it were ACTUALLY TRUE!").
It amazing to me how polygraphers can wax indignant and talk of ethics when most lie everyday as part of their job description. And what kills me is that if an applicant came totally clean and told them in no uncertain terms what they thought about the "validity" of the test, brought up the NAS report...etc. they'd try to screw them for that!
TC
What does it sound like it means Dr. Lecter?
TC