Hi. I'm new to this, and looking for more info, after failing a poly graph.
Prior to the test, I disagreed to one of the 4 main topic questions. While I said I had broken a written rule, the examiner explained that I didn't really break the written rule and I should answer the test as if I didn't break it. After the test, he said there was issues with me lying on this question.
Should the polygraph examiner be allowed to interpret the written rules and have me change my answer?
The question about having broken a written rule was a probable-lie "control" question. You'll find this type of question explained in detail in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detection.pdf
Polygraphers expect that everyone has broken a written rule, and that when an examinee answers this question "no," that it will be a lie. If the examiner later accused you of "having issues" with this question, then it would suggest that you probably actually passed the polygraph. Were you accused of deception with respect to any other question?
Thanks for your response, but it was not a control question.
The question asked was - Did you break the rules of the fishing tournament? During the pre-screening, I told that administrator that I had not followed a rule due to a fishing licensing rule. The administrator said that the fishing tournament rule I felt I didn't follow, didn't really apply to me, so I should answer as "yes" meaning I followed all the rules of the tournament - this rule was written in the rules. I still don't think I follow the rule since it did not have a clause that applied to my situation.
Fisherman, what was the wording of the rule you think you broke which the examiner said didn't apply to you?
Oh, I see. I had supposed this to have been a pre-employment polygraph examination. Normal polygraph procedure would have been to rephrase the relevant question to "Other than what you told me, did you follow all of the rules of the fishing tournament?"
Your polygrapher's instruction that you answer the question "yes" without modification may have made your failing more likely. But it's important to bear in mind that polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml) to begin with. False positives are common.
Was your polygraph session video-recorded? If so, and if you can get a copy along with the polygraph charts and associated forms, I'd be happy to review them for you and provide a written critique.
The written rule that I feel I broke was that "all participants must have a valid fishing license". Since my son is under 16, he is not allowed to buy a fishing license and doesn't need one to fish.
The session was not recorded.
So if the rule says that all participants must have a valid fishing license, then those too young to obtain a fishing license should not have been allowed to participate. So, your son broke the rule, not you. But, since your son is a minor, you feel legally responsible for his decisions, thus the question bothered you.
However, as George noted, even the least skilled of examiners know how to properly preface questions to accommodate for admissions. The examiner should have easily been able to work through this snag.
Therefore, me thinks something is fishy here....
You are 100% right that the questions should have been restated. After I failed, I talked with the person who gave the lie detector test and he suggested a more specific test. I offered this to the tournament director and offered to pay for the test, but he refused. I paid and did another polygraph with a person that actually used a computer version polygraph, not the paper/pen type originally used, re-stated the questions and passed. The results were sent to the tournament director, and he is not acknowledging the email, but has read it.
The tournament director agrees that my son is allow to enter, and was upset that I couldn't get over the written rule. I told him before and after the test, that I couldn't say I followed the rules since there was no written disclaimer for my son age. Ironically, the second place was a kid who also didn't have a license.
One thing I thought was strange, was that the first question stated for me to pick a number between 3-7 and write it down. Then he asked my to say no when he asked if 1 was my number, all the way to 10. After that, he said my number was 5. I pulled out the paper with 6 written down, and from that point on, kind of thought the guy was a not competent. I told that to the tournament director, and he got irate - but I later found reason to believe that they are friends.
He also did not tell me that he would be going through the set of questions three times, which made me nervous during the second set of questions, because I thought I must have screwed up something.
Is there any action that I should take against the administrator of the exam? I'm already in the process of starting legal action against the tournament. I offered to try to resolve this after I gave him the polygraph results that I completed, but he is refusing.
Fisherman,
There are no differences between the charts produced by analog vs. computerized polygraph instruments; all pertinent physiological indices are captured. If what you say is accurate, the first examiner needs to brush up on some basic skills, such as question formulation and informing the examinee of the complete process during the pretest interview.
My advice is to let the whole matter go. All it will do is taint your joy of fishing and prematurely embroil your son into contentious issues during his carefree years...
It's already tainted my view of fishing...
It's hard to let something go when you know you are right, and people are labeling you as a cheater. Also, this has the potential to prevent both my son and I from entering another fishing tournament.
Quote from: Fisherman67 on Dec 13, 2015, 08:12 PMIt's hard to let something go when you know you are right, and people are labeling you as a cheater. Also, this has the potential to prevent both my son and I from entering another fishing tournament.
I'm sorry, but I'm just coming in on this conversation and can't find the initial thread. Are they polygraphing people in fishing tournaments ?
Quote from: Fisherman67 on Dec 13, 2015, 06:05 PMOne thing I thought was strange, was that the first question stated for me to pick a number between 3-7 and write it down. Then he asked my to say no when he asked if 1 was my number, all the way to 10. After that, he said my number was 5. I pulled out the paper with 6 written down, and from that point on, kind of thought the guy was a not competent.
Missing the correct number is not necessarily a measure of incompetence; at least the guy did an honest acquaintance test.
Quote from: Wandersmann on Dec 13, 2015, 10:51 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm just coming in on this conversation and can't find the initial thread. Are they polygraphing people in fishing tournaments ?
I am wondering the same. Why the hell is someone taking a polygraph for a fishing tournament? This polygraph shit is getting way out of hand.
Polygraphing fishing contestants is nothing new. It's been part of the contests for at least 30 years that I know of. Some of these contests pay thousands of dollars in prize money. Contestants have been known to bring their own "catch", stuff a fish with lead weights to increase the poundage of their catch, etc.
Yes. They are doing polygraphs on fishing tournaments, especially since there isn't much control to it, and since they don't do any checks on the fish. Some tournaments do metal detection.
I'm taking legal action, so I hope as part of that, I'll be able to look at the report to determine exactly why I failed.
Aren't the analog polygraph less accurate than the computer ones. The day after I failed the analog test, I took one on a computer and passed after slightly modifying the questions. The computer one did have two additional sensors.
Quote from: Fisherman67 on Dec 14, 2015, 09:34 PMAren't the analog polygraph less accurate than the computer ones.
No. Computerization has allowed an enhanced level of convenience but it has not affected the accuracy, nor alleviated the controversy surrounding the CQT.
By the way, you may want to consider the long term effects of legal action. If this is the first time, you may just be the one to set the precedent of disallowing polygraphs in fishing tournaments. Your last name may go down as the name referring to the court decision, forever engraved in the world of fishing.
If my name goes down on something, I would hope that it would reference timing and the ability to protest the original test (I've found out other tournaments have this)
This fishing tournament ended on Sunday morning, and the results were final. The tournament director waited a week, then called me the following Sunday to give me the name of the person to set up the test with. I called that nigth, and we set up the test for Tuesday afternoon. We then waited until THursday morning to tell me that i failed, and he had to start the engraving of the plaques. I think that is why he didn't allow the second test, because then the plaques wouldn't be done in time.
I was able to determine that the question I had an issue with, was "locked" by the tournament director, which is why he the examiner didn't change it.
Quote from: Fisherman67 on Dec 16, 2015, 05:49 PMI was able to determine that the question I had an issue with, was "locked" by the tournament director
Fisherman, polygraph examiners are not supposed to allow anyone to hijack the polygraph exam. The questions should only be formulated by the examiner during the pre-test interview. This is your legitimate beef; forget the analog vs digital polygraph instrument concern, that's irrelevant.
Thanks. It looks like this will go to small claims court, as not many lawyers what to take a case with so little money involved.
My focus will be on the question asked during the polygraph. and how I was able to truthly answer when the quesion was rephrased the second time.
It's my understanding that the rule question was "locked". Should the polygraph examiner tell me that?
Also, when the polygraph administrators are instructed how to issue questions, is there any information given to them about the impact of having the person taking the test, change their answer?
For example, is there an instruction manual discussing how to format questions?
I have filed this in court, and am trying to get all the information I can, showing that this question should have been re-phrased, so I was in total agreement with it.
Fisherman,
The polygraph examiner does not really have to tell you anything. The agency or person paying for the exam, will tell the examiner what they want to know. For example: "Did this person follow the rules or not?" It is then up to the examiner to formulate questions to determine such. These questions should be "tailored" to the individual during the pre-test interview, including rephrasing the questions to accommodate any admissions given. The examiner should then render an opinion on whether or not the examinee followed the rules. There are no "cookie cutter" solutions to polygraph question formulation.
*Dan, sounds like a job for a polygraph consultant?
Thanks for all the help. I have one last question (hopefully).
There was four relevant questions about the fishing tournament - should the examiner be able to tell which one I failed? I was able to obtain a copy of the report, and it doesn't state which question I failed.
Some examiners take it upon themselves to call individual questions as being truthful or deceptive. The polygraph technique does not allow for this and those examiners who engage in this practice are taking a huge risk. The call of deception or truthfulness is to be for the exam in its entirety.
Thanks Ark... thanks makes more sense.
At first the examiner said I showed a reaction to the rules question, then later said it's graded on the whole test.
I guess now I see more of why polygraphs are not reliable. As someone with no experience in polygraphs, I always assumed it was like the movies, the needle spiked up when the person lied.
Quote from: Fisherman67 on Jan 03, 2016, 04:42 PMI guess now I see more of why polygraphs are not reliable. As someone with no experience in polygraphs, I always assumed it was like the movies, the needle spiked up when the person lied.
To be clear, I'm not entrenched on either side. I enjoy the conversation which interweaves science and ethics. One can take the stand that the polygraph is extremely unreliable, however, my opinion is that the true reliability (and validity) of the CQT is unknown. It lacks a psychological theory (construct validity), yet practitioners point to their own cases to prove their point. Laboratory experiments have ground truth, but lack ecological validity; it's just the opposite for field studies. Does the CQT have validity? I do not know dear Fisherman.
Please keep me advised on your interesting case.
Fisherman, I will be happy to conduct a thorough quality assurance review of your polygraph "test" at absolutely no charge.
In order to do that, I will need the complete polygraph "test" file, which I suspect will be unavailable for one reason or another.
Why?
Well, Fisherman, in some cases -- maybe yours -- polygraph "testing" is simply a racket.
Your situation may prove otherwise. Let's hope so.
That said, polygraph "testing" for fishing tournaments is a farce, in my opinion.
Still, your case could be the exception to the rule.
As for the validity of the CQT, the apologists at the American Polygraph Association are your "go to" guys for evidence. I suggest you visit www.polygraph.org, drill down to the board of directors, then reach out to past president Barry Cushman, current chairman Raymond Nelson, and current president Walt Goodson for guidance.
All three of those individuals are considered to be heavyweights within the polygraph industry.
Please tell them I sent you.
Again, I'll be happy to review your "test" at no charge.
Feel free to email me at polygraphexam@gmail.com or call me 9:00AM to 9:00PM EST at 603-801-5179.
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Certifed Polygraph Examiner
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Dan,
thanks for the help and contacts. I'm going to send you a email.
I reviewed the results again. Of interest, is that he said he formulated the questions, based on our interview, but he told a person I talked with from the Ohio Polygraph Association that the questions was locked. He mentioned that I had an issue with the "rule' question, but later in the report and not with the rest of the interview questions. Of bad news for me, I signed a wavier, that pretty much states that can't be help liable for anything as a result of the lie detector.
I've asked for the raw results, but haven't gotten an answer yet. I may have to subpoena them. Of course, I need to figure out how to do that.
Fisherman, you said:
"Of bad news for me, I signed a wavier, that pretty much states that can't be held liable for anything as a result of the lie detector."
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you meant to say that the waiver you signed states that you cannot find the contest promoters, or the polygraph examiner, liable for anything.
If that's the case, then it's "game over."
Most every examiner has a so-called consent-and-release form, which serves as a convenient loophole.
In large part, that's how the polygraph racket survives.
Yes. I guess it's a great catch 22 - I am forced to sign the release or I can't take the polygraph and then am disqualified from the tournament (which makes sense why the polygraph was delayed to not allow time for rebute). Or I take the polygraph and am disqualified. Either way I lose.
It's a shame that there are all these releases and legal statements to protect that people that are at fault.
I'm not sure if the small claims court will hear the facts, or focus only on the release.
Quote from: danmangan on Jan 04, 2016, 09:11 PMIf that's the case, then it's "game over."
I'm not so sure about that. Having someone sign a release does not shield oneself from all impropriety or negligence; otherwise there would not be a need for polygraph examiners to have insurance. If the questions were not properly formulated as a result of the examiner being a puppet of the administrators, along with insufficient time for a peer review, I think a small claims court judge could impose an injunction of some sort. Fisherman may get a moral victory.