Upcoming Polygraph.

[jcw123]

I'm going to be taking a polygraph exam for a law enforcement position soon.  I was just wondering if anyone could throw me a few pointers on keeping calm and passing with little to no lying.  Thanks for any help!

[George W. Maschke]

You'll find detailed information about how to pass a polygraph "test" in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF):

http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

Note that the "control question test," the technique most commonly used by law enforcement agencies for pre-employment screening, assumes that even "honest" applicants that the agency would like to hire will lie when answering the "control" questions.

[Torpedo]

JCW123, just something for you to consider in your quest to become a law enforcement officer (LEO). You mention wanting to "keep calm witj little or no lying", assuming I am correct, you recognize that there are things in your background which you wish you had not done, but you also recognize that you cannot "unring a bell".  Despite what you will read here, I encourage you NOT to engage in any effort (no matter what they call it) to artifically alter the outcome of your polygraph examination. If the anti-polygraph people are as confident that you can engage in countermeasures and "beat" the polygraph (another argument entirely), I am equally confident that if you do that the chances are that you will be caught ( I might be your examiner) are high, albeit not absolute, but you have to ask yourself if you really want to take that gamble.  If you have engaged in any behaviors that you THINK might be disqualifiying, tell the examiner about it.  If it exceeds the "tolerance" level for that department (they do vary), the examiner will tell you and that will be the end of it.  If you do engage in any efforts to alter the outcome and are caught (it does happen George), your integrity will be questioned and your future as a LEO will forever be ended.  Those who run this site vehemently disagree with me (as is their right to do), but I personally think there is something very positive about  telling the truth if you want to carry the badge and belong to the brotherhood of the thin blue line.  The choice is yours my friend.  May you choose wisely.

[George W. Maschke]

Torpedo,

You write, among other things:

Despite what you will read here, I encourage you NOT to engage in any effort (no matter what they call it) to artifically alter the outcome of your polygraph examination. If the anti-polygraph people are as confident that you can engage in countermeasures and "beat" the polygraph (another argument entirely), I am equally confident that if you do that the chances are that you will be caught ( I might be your examiner) are high, albeit not absolute, but you have to ask yourself if you really want to take that gamble.

The fact that no one in the polygraph community (including yourself) has exhibited the confidence to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge (701 days and counting) is strong evidence that your collective confidence in your ability to detect countermeasures does not equal Dr. Richardson's confidence that CQT polygraphy is vulnerable to countermeasures that you cannot reliably detect.

You also write:

Those who run this site vehemently disagree with me (as is their right to do), but I personally think there is something very positive about  telling the truth if you want to carry the badge and belong to the brotherhood of the thin blue line.

This is baseless slander. Those who run this site (Gino Scalabrini and myself) agree that law enforcement applicants should tell the truth regarding relevant issues. But we also know that truthful law enforcement applicants face a signficant risk of being falsely branded as liars and wrongly disqualified based on the pseudoscientific quackery that you and your fellow polygraph operators practice. It is in the interest of anyone facing a polygraph interrogation to educate him-/herself about this invalid "test," including ways of protecting oneself against the random error associated with it.

[Guest]

DUMP THE GIRL AND DO THE RIGHT THING BE HONEST!@

[warble]

You'll find detailed information about how to pass a polygraph "test" in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF):

http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

Note that the "control question test," the technique most commonly used by law enforcement agencies for pre-employment screening, assumes that even "honest" applicants that the agency would like to hire will lie when answering the "control" questions.

Very insightful. What is especially interesting is that the testers themselves must lie to administer the test. They cannot accept honest answers. For example, when they ask if a person has ever stole from an employer everybody must say yes. Everybody has taken home that pen, piece of paper, left early, or whatever. It is impossible for the honest person to answer no to this question unless they just happen to forget an event or misunderstand the question.

Regardless, the tester in their use of trickery will ask specifics in order to get a confession. This of course should be illegal and protected under the 5th amendment. An honest person of course might reply that a paperclip was stolen. The tester then claims that this kind of theft is not what is meant by the question, or they will try to throw in disqualifiers.  Note how the tester compounds the lie when in fact the correct answer 99% of the time is that yes I have stolen from my employer. There should never be a need for any confession.
 
The point is that the only honest answer is yes "EVERYBODY" has stolen from his or her employer in some form or another. For the tester to claim that a stolen paperclip or whatever isn't relevant is a lie. Thus we find the corrupt nature of the test to begin with.

[warble]

JCW123,
I am equally confident that if you do that the chances are that you will be caught ( I might be your examiner) are high, albeit not absolute, but you have to ask yourself if you really want to take that gamble.

This is an absolute lie. When you examine how these tests are administered you will learn that the examiner will always try to mislead you if not outright lie to you. The more experienced they are the more deceptive they are.

 Even now this person is using scare tactics to make you nervous. The person is threatening you with getting caught if you use countermeasures. If these tests were accurate these liars would not feel the need to threaten you at all. Note that it is routine these liars to threaten a subject prior to a lie detector test.

Finally, if you gamble it is only in taking the test without knowing the lies that will be told, and failing to use countermeasures. Remember, these liars have the power to destroy innocent people and think nothing of falsely labeling them liars. They know this is true or they would not have their victims sign all kinds of release forms to limit their liability.

Don't be stupid. Learn the test and practice the countermeasures.

[Twoblock]

Warble

Get ready for a 16" salvo from the port side of the poly battleship. You were awful hard on'em. They will probably label you an Iraqi subversive. I would have used Al-Queada, but I can't spell it. I'll bet they will tag you with something if they are not too hurt to respond. Ha.

[Joe_Nobody]

Interestinng....  its the 15th and still no rebuttle from the "Polygraphs are good crowd"... I would especially have expected Torpedo to have responded since multiple people pretty much caled him a liar  

Hmm maybe this is yet another indication that when people arm themselves with knowledge and information then those that would spread misinformation cease to be an issue.

Joe

[Twoblock]

Joe_Nobody

They are probably busy running charts on beginning of the year applicants that know countermeasures and they are taking a lot of time trying to guess who is applying them.

[anonymous]

No offense, Torpedo, but you sound just like the NSA
polygraphers; the crap about just telling your examiner
everything,  and that they are only concerned about
major crimes.  Well, they don't tell you that everything
goes back to the Defense Security Service.  It seems
like polygraphers are "stamped out"; they all sound the
same.  They are dishonest and manipulative...

[Joe_Nobody]

ROFL,

Unfortunately Torpedo hasnt got that excuse... since he or she has posted in other threads as recently as the 13th that i can see  

Joe

[Torpedo]

Dear "Nobody"....how fitting!  Ho hum, the reason I choose not to respond is for no other reason than many of you with nothing to say and offers of misdirected suggestions on how to "beat" the polygraph....bore me....say something meaningful and I might (only if it pleases me) enter back into your dicussions.  Many of you are showing your ignorance...and I choose to let you ramble and show your true colors to those who read from this site. Itr is truly a shame though because some show some promise in wanting to engage in meaningful discussion...not many, but some.

[Joe_Nobody]

Funny you would choose to regail us on how you choose not to respond ... yet you still havent rebutted the claims that your information is false  

If this was a different type of web board I would call you a troll since you really do just seem to be attempting to Sow deceit and mistrust with no real fact to back it up.

Oh and dont wait up night for me to try and find something that would "Please you"  since I am an honorable and truthfull person I doubt I could find anything quite that base.

Hows that for "Boring misdirection" LOL

You want meaningful, stop sparing with me and speak to the information posted by others on this thread that directly called what you said false...  Cmon back up your blather with something other than misdirection and deceit  .........  No???  well thats not surprising.

Joe

[Ray]

George,

You write:

This is baseless slander. Those who run this site (Gino Scalabrini and myself) agree that law enforcement applicants should tell the truth regarding relevant issues.

In TLBTHLD ON pg.115 you say, "But in response to the relevant questions, you should make no admissions whatsoever."  Sounds like a lie by omission to me.

You further explain in your "book" what examiners look for in terms of body language/verbal responses from both truthful and deceptive examinees.  If you encourage truthful responses to relevant issues, why is there a need for this section?