hi, im 19yrs old and i need some advice from u guys. Well im starting to take admin of justice classes next semester at a community college nearby to earn my AA degree in law enforcement and the only thing im scared of is the polygraph test. I have a clean record, the only thing is my drug use back in highschool when i was a junior(16yrs old). I was experimenting with drugs like marijuana,lsd and meth. I really regret wut i have done in the past. I have been clean for like 3yrs and i really want to be a police officer. Do u guys think i can really cheat this polygraph test if i study the "Lie-Behind-The-Lie-Detector???
Quote from: louie_417 on Nov 21, 2002, 02:55 AM
hi, im 19yrs old and i need some advice from u guys. Well im starting to take admin of justice classes next semester at a community college nearby to earn my AA degree in law enforcement and the only thing im scared of is the polygraph test. I have a clean record, the only thing is my drug use back in highschool when i was a junior(16yrs old). I was experimenting with drugs like marijuana,lsd and meth. I really regret wut i have done in the past. I have been clean for like 3yrs and i really want to be a police officer. Do u guys think i can really cheat this polygraph test if i study the "Lie-Behind-The-Lie-Detector???
The lie detector test may be beaten with countermeasures, which is one reason why its use needs to be discontinued. I would recommend that anyone who wants to go through one practice and use countermeasures.
Additionally, my recommendation to you would be to find out what the drug use requirements are for the department where you are applying, and make sure you meet them.
To the best of my knowledge, in most places, drug use is not a permanent disqualifier, especially if it occurred before age 18. You will likely need to have been clean for a certain length of time. Once that length of time goes by, apply to the department, admit your drug use, express your regret and subsequent drug-free behavior, and leave it at that.
The thing is, the polygraph isn't the only thing you'll face. They'll likely do a background check as well, which may uncover your drug use anyway.
You have a responsibility to the department and the public you'll be serving to meet the requirements of the job. That means answering relevant questions honestly.
Skeptic
You know Skeptic, you're a first class... >:(
You tell this kid that, "I would recommend that anyone who wants to go through one (polygraph) practice and use countermeasures."
Then you go on to tell him how honest he should be. What kind of advice is that?
Louie, you'll probably take a hit because of the LSD use, and the meth use isn't going to help either. You need to ask some of your Profs what they know about how various departments would react to the LSD use. I recommend that only because in most CC's the instructors have some level of Law Enforcement background and/or connections, so they should be able to get you an answer. If you have a particular department in mind you may be able to query them.
As for the polygraph, if the time comes for you to take one that means you have at least progressed somewhat down the application road. Hopefully you will have been totally honest during the process and the full extent of your past drug use will already be out in the open. If you try to hide it, and then attempt to use countermeasures, and get caught, your integrity will be shot, as will your chances of getting hired.
The second part of Skeptic's advise is OK, but ignore his first couple of sentences. Keep in mind, he has to stay in good stead with his anti-polygraph buds on this site, so he did a little CYA'ing at your expense. So as a result he sends a conflicting message.
Good luck, keep clean, be honest, and things will work out for you!
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Nov 21, 2002, 07:16 PM
You know Skeptic, you're a first class... >:(
You tell this kid that, "I would recommend that anyone who wants to go through one (polygraph) practice and use countermeasures."
Then you go on to tell him how honest he should be. What kind of advice is that?
It's pretty simple to anyone but a polygrapher -- and it should be noted for the sake of the reader that "Batman" is a polygrapher. It is truly a pity that he evidently feels his message is so weak that he must attack the messenger, instead.
The polygraph is simply too error-prone to trust your fate to it. Pure and simple. I would recommend that anyone who has to face such a procedure use countermeasures to ensure a correct outcome on the test. Otherwise, you carry a greater risk of becoming an "acceptable loss".
Skeptic
Just to clarify -- I feel it would be preferable to tell the department with which you will be applying that you are familiar with polygraph procedure, flaws and countermeasures and indicate you aren't an appropriate candidate for polygraph "testing". It should be noted, however, that such an approach carries a larger risk of disqualification in some places. You can read more about these options in the book available from this site, "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector".
The choice is certainly up to you -- it's your career.
Skeptic
Quote from: Batman on Nov 21, 2002, 07:16 PMYou tell this kid that, "I would recommend that anyone who wants to go through one (polygraph) practice and use countermeasures."
Then you go on to tell him how honest he should be. What kind of advice is that?
Really good advice, in my opinion. Since the polygraph is incapable of detecting truth or honesty, skeptic's two-pronged advice is quite sound.
QuoteThe second part of Skeptic's advise is OK, but ignore his first couple of sentences. Keep in mind, he has to stay in good stead with his anti-polygraph buds on this site, so he did a little CYA'ing at your expense. So as a result he sends a conflicting message.
Skeptic was dead on with his advice on all counts. Bear in mind, Louie, batman is an admitted professional liar (he finally copped to being a polygrapher after intentionally misleading us by ever-so-carefully choosing his words to give himself the slimmest possible wiggle room to evade the truth of the matter). He has to keep bread on the table so he continues with his propoganda here to cover his own ass.
Rule Number One: Never trust a polygrapher
Rule Number Two: When a polygrapher tells you to trust him, refer to Rule Number One.
Louie,
If you read most of Beech Trees posts throughout this site, you'll see he does not trust members of the law enforcement community in general. In fact, I don't believe he trusts anyone in public service and perhaps not anyone outside his own inner circle. Though he is a bit paranoid and misguided, he does at least seem to be a patriot and perhaps well-intentioned. Just be informed about the source before you accept advice.
Here is the bottom line: Your integrity is everything in law enforcement. Do not try to use dishonest means to obtain such a job. If you succeed in lying your way in, it will only serve to encourage more dishonesty in a profession wherein you are held to the highest standards by the community (and as you can see from this site, get little praise in return). Good luck in making your decision and put the drug scene far behind you!!
Quote from: Public Servant on Nov 22, 2002, 12:24 AM
Louie,
If you read most of Beech Trees posts throughout this site, you'll see he does not trust members of the law enforcement community in general. In fact, I don't believe he trusts anyone in public service and perhaps not anyone outside his own inner circle. Though he is a bit paranoid and misguided, he does at least seem to be a patriot and perhaps well-intentioned. Just be informed about the source before you accept advice.
Louie,
If you read any of my posts you will quickly realize:
1. public servant is lying about the nature of my posts, he's lying about what I think and believe, and he's lying to you now when he tells you to trust the corrupt system of which he is an integral part (by 'corrupt system' I mean the systematic use of the polygraph in pre-employment settings, not law enforcement as a whole).
2. He will do or say
anything here to get you to believe the lie behind the lie detector. Don't believe him. Use that big gray organ God gave you and research the debate here.
QuoteHere is the bottom line: Your integrity is everything in law enforcement. Do not try to use dishonest means to obtain such a job. If you succeed in lying your way in, it will only serve to encourage more dishonesty in a profession wherein you are held to the highest standards by the community (and as you can see from this site, get little praise in return). Good luck in making your decision and put the drug scene far behind you!!
Pretty good advice overall. The only thing I would add is, don't trust your lying polygrapher when he tells you that the polygraph is an accurate means of evaluating your integrity. In fact, you might want to reflect on the fact that if you do apply to a department that uses polygraphy as part of their pre-employment screening, the *only* person who will lie to you during that process is your polygraph interrogator (men like 'public servant' here). Think on this, and good luck to you.
Louie,
I apologize for all the crap you have to read though on this thread regarding the polygraph works/doesn't work debate.
Yes I am a polygraph examiner, however my original advice to you had nothing to do with the ongoing debate here. It was given in all sincerity, in your best interests.
Be honest throughout your application process. If you try to hide any past illegal activity, it will come back to bite you in the ass. If you are truthful during the entire process, to include revealing the full extent of your drug use, you stand a much better chance of being successful in your endeavor to become a police officer. There are no guarantees. You may apply with a department that considers use of LSD a disqulifier. If that is the case, so be it, but let that department make that decision based on truthful facts. Do not lie and then try to "verify" that lie by using countermeasures on your polygraph exam, if one is required. Even if you succeeded in "beating" the polygrapher, there is always a good chance that someone in your past, if interviewed, will mention what you were attempting to hide. If this happens, your dismissal will be the only thing guaranteed, along with losing all your chances of getting hired by any other departments.
Please, if you are dedicated to getting into the law enforcement career field, do not start it with a lie. Even if your honesty costs you some opportunities, at least you will be able to walk out with you head held high. Sounds corny, and old fashioned, but believe me, it is the best way to go.
Again, good luck, stay clean, and be honest throughout the entire application process.
Batman
Louie,
If your head isn't spinning yet, hang on as I'm sure my next message to you will accomplish that.
While the exhortations to be honest during your polygraph might seem to be well-meant advice, bear in mind that your polygrapher expects you to lie during the course of your charted exam. You read that correctly. Quoting The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf):
The theory is that when you answer the question "no," you must still be withholding something, or at least feel uneasy
about not remembering some incident from long ago. The polygrapher
treats your response to this question as though it were a lie.
The polygrapher assumes that if your physiological responses as
measured by the polygraph are stronger when answering a relevant
question (e.g. "Have you violated this agency's guidelines concerning the use of illegal drugs?") than when answering the "control" questions
(e.g. "Have you ever lied to a loved one?"), then you must
have been deceptive in answering the relevant question. If your
physiological responses while answering the "control" questions are
greater, then you must be telling the truth in answering the relevant
question. And if your physiological responses while answering the
relevant and "control" questions are about the same, then the outcome will be deemed inconclusive. If these assumptions seem overly simplistic to you, you're right.--pgs. 82-83
Ponder that, Louie. Your polygrapher lies to you repeatedly throughout your interrogation, urges you to be honest, and expects you to be a liar.
It is a totally corrupt, worthless practice. Yes, please exercise all manner of honesty when applying for your position. No, don't believe a word a polygrapher tells you.
Louie,
The following are quotes are from a posting by Beech Trees under the thread, A New Kind of Polygraph, 11/22/02 at 13:51
"I answered truthfully except...";
"I lied to my interrogator...";
"I also lied during the actual charted exam when he asked questions such as 'have you been entirely truthful with me today?'...";
"I lied as they related to honesty during the pre-test interview..."
"I lied during the pre-test about what I knew about polygraphy..."
"I had to then lie about lying..."
Louie, now you make the call as to whose advice you want to consider as more sincere and credible.
My advice to you has nothing to do about polygraph; it simply centers on being honest. Individuals like Mr. Trees want to turn your simple request for advice into a portion of their ongoing debate about polygraph. They want you to believe that because a polygraph examiner introduces certain questions used during the polygraph process in such a way as to give the truthful examinee others options for which to focus his concerns, that the examiner is now being "dishonest", and this "dishonesty" reflects on how he conducts himself in his everyday affairs.
Louie, I have got to believe that since you are mature enough to recognize your mistake of using illegal drugs, and to have stopped using them, you are also mature enough to recognize the faulty logic about "honesty" as presented to you by folks like Mr. Trees.
Again, simply apply the honesty is the best policy rule and regardless of the final outcome, you will come out on top. If you choose the routes presented to you by Mr. Trees and Skeptic, you will end up making posts on this site, similar to those of Beech Trees, wherein you state all the lies you have told, and how you lied about those lies.
Batman
Louie,
The short answer to your question, "Do u guys think i can really cheat this polygraph test if i study the 'Lie-Behind-The-Lie-Detector?'" is yes. If you study and practice the countermeasures detailed in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml), you will likely be able to pass any pre-employment polygraph "test," whether or not you choose to tell the truth with regard to the relevant questions.
As you read the replies that have been posted here by Skeptic, Beech Trees, Public Servant, and Batman, I think you'll find that the polygraph critics and practitioners are in agreement on one key point: law enforcement applicants have an ethical duty to be truthful with regard to the relevant questions asked during a pre-employment polygraph examination. I share this view.
However, you need to be aware that whether or not you choose to be truthful with your polygrapher, your polygrapher will be less than truthful with you. Polygraph "testing" is a pseudoscientific fraud that fundamentally depends on the polygrapher lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested." You'll find this trickery exposed in detail in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
The National Academy of Sciences has determined that polygraph screening is without validity. To protect against the high risk of a false positive outcome associated with this invalid procedure, it is in the interest of truthful applicants facing a pre-employment polygraph examination to study, practice, and employ countermeasures.
Louie,
You've had the chance to read a number of responses on what to do, and what not to do. And when you go in for your polygraph test, it will be YOU, not these people who give you advise, that must decide and answer the question.....Am I going to be an honest law enforcement officer, or shall I start my career by engaging in dishonesty? "IF" the polygraph is being used as it should be used in the pre-employment process, it will not be the sole basis for a determination about you getting the job. "IF" it is being used in an inappropriate manner, you don't want to work for that agency anyway. And remember, in some jurisdictions, law enforcement is required to report to the District Attorney/State Attorney, that they have identified one of their officers as being dishonest and lying about official police matters. Once that happens, you are of no value whatsoever to the law enforcement agency and you will be discredited every time take the witness stand. And guess what happens to your career then? That's correct. You won't have a job anymore. By all means, read the book. There is alot of interesting information in it. However, there is alot that is NOT put in this book. And that Louie, is what is going to get you in trouble. You have no idea what type of test you will be given. And even if you THINK you do, you could be wrong, and that is going to cause you a problem. A professional examiner is going to do whatever they can to get you through (to pass or be non-deceptive) to the test. So Louie, the decision is yours. Are you going be honest, and in the apparent opinion of some, above the polygraph examiner. Good luck.
Quote from: Batman on Nov 23, 2002, 07:29 AM
Louie,
The following are quotes are from a posting by Beech Trees under the thread, A New Kind of Polygraph, 11/22/02 at 13:51
"I answered truthfully except...";
"I lied to my interrogator...";
"I also lied during the actual charted exam when he asked questions such as 'have you been entirely truthful with me today?'...";
"I lied as they related to honesty during the pre-test interview..."
"I lied during the pre-test about what I knew about polygraphy..."
"I had to then lie about lying..."
Louie, now you make the call as to whose advice you want to consider as more sincere and credible.
My advice to you has nothing to do about polygraph; it simply centers on being honest. Individuals like Mr. Trees want to turn your simple request for advice into a portion of their ongoing debate about polygraph. They want you to believe that because a polygraph examiner introduces certain questions used during the polygraph process in such a way as to give the truthful examinee others options for which to focus his concerns, that the examiner is now being "dishonest", and this "dishonesty" reflects on how he conducts himself in his everyday affairs.
Louie, I have got to believe that since you are mature enough to recognize your mistake of using illegal drugs, and to have stopped using them, you are also mature enough to recognize the faulty logic about "honesty" as presented to you by folks like Mr. Trees.
Again, simply apply the honesty is the best policy rule and regardless of the final outcome, you will come out on top. If you choose the routes presented to you by Mr. Trees and Skeptic, you will end up making posts on this site, similar to those of Beech Trees, wherein you state all the lies you have told, and how you lied about those lies.
Batman
Nicely done Batman! I would expect nothing less from a polygrapher. Louie, what you see above is classic modus operandi from a professional liar (I'm just an amateur hack compared to batman).
He adroitly cut and pasted only those responses that seemed to brand me as a 'big fat liar' and assembled them into a devastating character assasination attempt in order to help sway your decions about right and wrong with regard to submitting to a polygraph interrogation (and what to do when sitting opposite a professional master of deceit).
Louie, you too can expect any feedback you give to your polygrapher (outside of firm denials) to be twisted and manipulated into a damaging admission, just as batman did above. Polygraphers live and die by how many applicants they chew up and spit out.
Perhaps the most sickening aspect of this whole sordid dilemma... whereas I consciously chose to understand and embrace the corrupt process and use it to my advantage (while remaining as absolutely honest as I could given the absurd nature of the test itself), men like batman will never admit how many lives they have ruined, how many innocent people they branded as liars, how many careers they have unjustly ended, how many false confessions they have obtained, all through lying to themselves and their interrogation subjects about the true nature of the polygraph, the 'lie behind the lie detector'.
When asked here about the unfortunate need to lie during my polygraph, I answered truthfully and candidly. I failed to mention the days of agonizing over what do to do prior to the exam. I failed to mention my hard-edged bitterness I felt at having my future determined by an absurd, illogical, unscientific process by men who lie for a living, and my final resolve to take control of my future and opt-out of the crap shoot. Once I found out the lie behind the lie detector, there was simply NO WAY IN HELL I would submit to the polygraph and simply rely on the good nature of my polygraph interrogator to 'get me through the process'-- if nothing else the repeated libel and outrageous lies you see posted constantly here by the pro-polygraph side should be ample illustration that polygraphers don't deserve your honesty, because they give none in return. "Trust the process... We want to help you get through this" they croon. Don't trust the process, Louie. They don't want to help you.
Mark Twain once wrote,
Never tell the truth to people who are not worthy of it. He must have run across a polygrapher or two in his day!
Note that I am NOT exhorting you to lie about major events or experiences in your life that would preclude you from becoming a police officer in the department of your choice. Reasonable men understand right from wrong, and I think anyone, pro or anti-polygraph, would understand the turpitude behind such an act. All I am trying to do is to tell you to understand the true nature of a pre-employment polygraph screening 'test' and then decide for yourself, based on your own moral compass, how to best proceed. And that Louie, is no lie.
Dave
PS Batman, you have failed yet again to answer a direct question posed to you. Question: Would a polygrapher who administered an exam to a woman whom he knew to be 6 months pregnant be an idiot?
A pregnant woman should NEVER be polygraphed. Period
Louie,
Let's cut to the chase. The risks involved for an innocent examinee who takes a polygraph exam and doesn't use countermeasures are not unlike that of one who has unprotected sex with a prostitute. No comment or implication(s) regarding the relative pleasures and benefits of both activities or the relative natures of polygraph examiner and prostitute...
OK Beech,
Louie can make his own decision from here on out.
Do you really need an answer to your question, or are you really that damn stupid? I'll make it real easy for you shit for brains:
1 month pregnant: No polygraph
2 months pregnant: No polygraph
3 months pregnant: No polygraph
4 months pregnant: No polygraph
5 months pregnant: No polygraph
6 months pregnant: No polygraph
7 months pregnant: No polygraph
8 months pregnant: No polygraph
9 months pregnant: No polygraph
Overdue: Should I wait for your direct question on this one too? Just what in the hell do you do for a living? It's a legitimate question in that it has a direct impact on public safety. You are so damn dumb you're dangerous!
As for my assassination of your character, well, you are a character, but you have none. The cuts/pastes of your comments were just that, YOUR COMMENTS. You're the one who, in one simple post, admitted to being a liar at least as many times as I quoted you. You put the bullet in your own gun, pointed it straight at your own ass, and blew your own brains out. That's a suicide bud, not ASSasination, except as it relates to where you shot yourself.
Now here's another great one that came straight from your ass to your finger tips, "Perhaps the most sickening aspect of this whole sordid dilemma... whereas I consciously chose to understand and embrace the corrupt process and use it to my advantage (while remaining as absolutely honest...)" Holy Robin Shit! You consciously chose to EMBRACE the corrupt process so as to remain ABSOLUTELY HONEST? Interesting match-up and choice of words. First off, you couldn't be absolutely honest if it meant keeping your nuts from being cut off. However, I can see you giving a big hug to a corrupt process.
And then there's, "men like batman will never admit how many lives they have ruined, how many innocent people they branded as liars, how many careers they have unjustly ended, how many false confessions they have obtained...".
Well lets see, over the past 22 years I have assisted in putting a shit house load of people in jail. I guess if one was to ask them if I ruined their lives, most would answer, "Hell Yeah!" I have not kept count, no notches on the old gun handles, but I do know you could fill a big shit house, or your house for that matter Beech, with them.
I don't know if I have ever "branded" any innocent people as liars, however I do think that over the past 18 years as a polygraph examiner I more than likely have administered a few exams where someone who was telling the truth about a particular relevant issue failed. Hell, the odds alone would dictate this. So I guess one could say that I have "branded" those particular individuals as liars, but that would be giving me more credit than I deserve.
I can say, with out doubt, I have never unjustly ended anyone's career. You see Beech, at least within the world I work in, polygraph alone cannot lead to the end of a career.
Now for your last comment; one that if you made while standing within ear shot, would cause you to be suddenly sitting on your God Damn brains! Yeah ASSHOLE, your last comment in that quote really got to me! I may come across on this site like a flaming jerk on occasion, I may be quick to shoot from the hip at little pricks like you, but I have NEVER obtained a false confession! Little shits like you can fire away from a distance, making accusations like that, but as God is my witness, I'd drop you like a hanging turd if you ever made that one to my face.
I'll continue to post on this site, if for no other reason than to at least provide the Louie's with some other option or advice than to Lie Louie Lie. But as for you Beech, no more. You crossed the line shithead.
To anyone I may have offended with my language in this post, I apologize. I simply find certain accusations extremely insulting, and the one made here, by Beech Trees, more than most.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Nov 23, 2002, 05:21 PM
I can say, with out doubt, I have never unjustly ended anyone's career. You see Beech, at least within the world I work in, polygraph alone cannot lead to the end of a career.
Dear Batman,
It is obvious from your statement that you do not work for any federal agencies. The CIA, Secret Service, FBI, and others DO end a career before it starts on only polygraph results. There is no background check performed previous to the polygraph and if it is "failed" their is none following. The polygraph is the judge, jury, and executioner of many federal careers before they are even started. All of this while the NAS states that for security screening purposes, the polygraph is not effective. The Breeze has stated that his state system does things differently too. From your statement I would infer that you are only involved in criminal cases?
Regards.
Quote from: Fair Chance on Nov 23, 2002, 08:39 PM
Dear Batman,
It is obvious from your statement that you do not work for any federal agencies. The CIA, Secret Service, FBI, and others DO end a career before it starts on only polygraph results. There is no background check performed previous to the polygraph and if it is "failed" their is none following. The polygraph is the judge, jury, and executioner of many federal careers before they are even started. All of this while the NAS states that for security screening purposes, the polygraph is not effective. The Breeze has stated that his state system does things differently too. From your statement I would infer that you are only involved in criminal cases?
Regards.
Fair Chance,
You'll note that "Batman" said he has never
unjustly ended anyone's career. He's clearly only stating his opinion -- and as he has demonstrated before, he views the truth as rather malleable.
Skeptic
Skeptic,
That's what I said, I have never "unjustly" ended anyone's career. However, I have assisted in the just ending of many.
As for how I view the truth, I'm sure you're referring to my coming out of the polygraph closet when asked by Two Block if I was a polygraph examiner. When he asked that question, I answered with no qualms, and no bending of the truth. He was simply the first to ask. Everyone else just made the assumption, which I neither confirmed, nor denied. I have stated this on at least two or three occasions since. Do you need me to repeat it once again?
Fair chance,
I can not state specifically the agency for which I work. I can tell you that not all federal agencies employ the use of polygraph exactly the same. The agency I work for does not utilize polygraph as a part of its applicant screening, nor is it used in any part of the hiring process. I am not involved exclusively in the use of polygraph in support of criminal investigations, however that is one of two major aspects of how I do use it.
I am not being coy in how I respond to you, however I do admit to being somewhat evasive, only in that there are limitations as to how much information I can provide in this type of forum.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Nov 24, 2002, 07:43 AM
Skeptic,
That's what I said, I have never "unjustly" ended anyone's career. However, I have assisted in the just ending of many.
As for how I view the truth, I'm sure you're referring to my coming out of the polygraph closet when asked by Two Block if I was a polygraph examiner. When he asked that question, I answered with no qualms, and no bending of the truth. He was simply the first to ask. Everyone else just made the assumption, which I neither confirmed, nor denied. I have stated this on at least two or three occasions since. Do you need me to repeat it once again?
Actually, that's only one example. Another can be found in your post yesterday at 04:29, clearly and deliberately quoting Beech Trees out of context regarding his polygraph exam in order to claim that his advice was not "sincere and credible" enough. All things considered, I think Beech handled that rather well -- in most circles, that's considered very dishonest.
Skeptic
Quote from: Batman on Nov 24, 2002, 07:43 AM
Fair chance,
I can not state specifically the agency for which I work. I can tell you that not all federal agencies employ the use of polygraph exactly the same. The agency I work for does not utilize polygraph as a part of its applicant screening, nor is it used in any part of the hiring process. I am not involved exclusively in the use of polygraph in support of criminal investigations, however that is one of two major aspects of how I do use it.
I am not being coy in how I respond to you, however I do admit to being somewhat evasive, only in that there are limitations as to how much information I can provide in this type of forum.
Batman
Dear Batman,
I respect anyone's right to privacy on this website and I do not expect you to provide more information then you feel comfortable with. Your employment is not as important to me as your arguments concerning polygraph use.
My exposure to the "art" of polygraph has only been in pre-screening employment and I feel that is was nothing short of a fiasco. I am trying to keep an open mind to polygraph usage for other areas but many polygraph operators are adamant about its high accuracy concerning prescreening which I know not to be the case. Their poorly construed logic hurts any validity that the polygraph might have other uses for.
Thank you for responding to my comments.
Fair Chance,
I would venture to say that polygraph is not unlike any other tool used in any other profession. It is by no means perfect, it was not intended to be the end all, and when misused or "asked" to do things it was not designed for, problems arise. However when properly employed as an aid to the investigative process it has a tremendous amount of utility.
Skeptic,
You may which to refer to my post as quoting Beech Trees out of context, however the point was evident, he prefaced several of his comments with "I lied..." What he lied about was not relevant to the issue at hand. The fact that in his post he admitted to lying at least as many times as quoted certainly has to bring into question his credibility. I'm sure if I had made such admissions in a post you would have jumped on it fairly quickly to discredit me, would you not?
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Nov 24, 2002, 06:35 PM
Skeptic,
You may which to refer to my post as quoting Beech Trees out of context, however the point was evident, he prefaced several of his comments with "I lied..." What he lied about was not relevant to the issue at hand. The fact that in his post he admitted to lying at least as many times as quoted certainly has to bring into question his credibility. I'm sure if I had made such admissions in a post you would have jumped on it fairly quickly to discredit me, would you not?
Batman
As a rule, I make every effort to respond to/use other people's comments in context -- that includes yours.
I may not like what you say and/or disagree with it vehemently, but I will not knowingly hack up your writing to change the meaning.
Skeptic
Quote from: Batman on Nov 24, 2002, 06:35 PM
Fair Chance,
I would venture to say that polygraph is not unlike any other tool used in any other profession. It is by no means perfect, it was not intended to be the end all, and when misused or "asked" to do things it was not designed for, problems arise. However when properly employed as an aid to the investigative process it has a tremendous amount of utility.
Batman
Dear Batman,
I find it refreshing that you admit to the polygraph's shortcomings as well as trying to assert its strong points. I have not found any polygraph proponent that is giving me less than 95% accuracy when the polygraph is used on specific issues cases. The NAS states that with subjects tested who did not know any thing about the polygraph, its accuracy is well above chance (I would submit chance to be 50%) but well below perfection (100%). I believe that it would be reasonable to calculate the median of these two numbers and arrive at 75% accuracy with a subject who does not have any polygraph knowledge of the test or expected outcome. These numbers are only applied when specific issue test since the NAS study completely found pre-screening to have no more than chance accuracy.
How are polygraph operators coming up with more than 75% accuracy which the NAS seem to define as the norm?
I ask this question because I agree with your analysis that no scientific test is 100% but all others test have clearly defined margins of error which the testers readily admit which leads to credibility of the test. The polygraph proponents would like everyone to believe that they are close to 100% accurate.
Again, thank you for responding to my previous opinion.
Fair Chance,
I have mentioned, in a previous post, that I believe the accuracy of polygraph is an extremely difficult thing to measure. I base this opinion primarily on the fact each examinee is extremely different. The examinee, coupled with the investigative case facts, is the greatest variable in each and every polygraph examination, therefore, in my opinion; each exam has to stand on its own as to accuracy. I believe the accuracy can only be measured against the known truth, which has to be based on the investigative case facts. For example, if three people are polygraphed regarding a theft, two pass, and one fails and confesses, then it is safe to say that each exam is 100% accurate, or confirmed. The failed exam is confirmed by the confession, and the two passed exams are therefore confirmed as well. If the failed exam does not confess then one can still say this exam still confirms the others, however not with as much confidence. If an examinee takes and fails a polygraph on a criminal specific issue, does not confess, however investigative case facts, independent of the polygraph, also implicate the examinee then again one can say it is confirmed, however again not with as much confidence has a failed exam coupled with a confession. I know this feeds right into the argument put forth that the polygraph is simply an interrogation ploy that succeeds only on the naive, however there are many times it is administered to help narrow a suspect pool, as well as better identify a suspect. This is where the utility of polygraph comes into play as it relates to criminal specific examinations administered in support of criminal investigations.
Again, the accuracy of these exams, in my opinion, can only be based on some level of independent confirmation, whether it is a confession, or other investigative information. I feel much more comfortable using the phrase "confirmed exam" as compared to "accuracy". This is based on my 18 years of experience as an examiner, knowing both the strengths and weakness of the technique.
To answer your question, I put no more credence in any examiner's claim of a 95% accuracy rate as I do in the NAS report of better than chance (maybe 75%). I really believe each exam has to be looked upon separately as it relates to the known investigative case facts.
I'll now sit back and wait for some on this site to tear apart my answer to your question.
Batman
Quote from: Batman on Nov 26, 2002, 06:48 PM
I'll now sit back and wait for some on this site to tear apart my answer to your question.
Batman
Dear Batman,
I am not a headhunter. I asked a question and you answered it. You believe that the polygraph is misdirected in its use for pre-screening and screening employment. Thank you.
I do not have enough knowledge or experience with other forms of polygraph use to render an opinion on anything else about the polygraph. I do hope that you videotape and offer the examinee any information concerning the exam as the Breeze has stated to me earlier in my discussions with him.
I will keep an open mind to future research concerning polygraph and your opinions.
Regards.
The truth is that the truth hurts. If you have been clean, and are serious about a career in law enforcement, this is a very simple answer. Is their any proof of your past drug use? If not, don't under any circumstances devulge any information reguarding your past drug use. As for the polygraph, alot of police agencies do not give them, I would first apply to those.
Stay away from state and larger agencies. ;D
Louie,
You want to be a Cop and All this debate..for what? I am not in LE, but my god...what are you thinking??? You are on a complete pipe dream..Forget the polygraph..that's easy..But, how many people would your future employer have to talk to find out you were a hardcore drug abuser..Unless you think that the drugs you used were not hardcore..From my high school days, I can still remember the partyers...from the Stoners to coke addicts..People remember for a life time..3 Years?? You are wasting your time!! As it should be..You might POSSIBLY..in say 5 years qualify for a K-mart security guard..But the thought of a recent druggy patrolling our streets??? It takes many people years and years of programs just to stop the obession with drugs..You turn 18, start shaving and now what to be a cop?
Peter