Just took my first poly...

[gates21]

Hi everyone!

Well I just took my first poly yesterday for police employment, and it was nothing like I expected.
I read over the site several times and knew all the tricks, but I was unable to use them, the poly this guy gave me really threw me off.
He started by asking me a short list of questions, i.e. was I ever in a gang, was I currently in the US, did I ever commit domestic violence, etc. While he asked these questions I was identifying each one as control, etc. He then switched the machine on, and again asked me the questions. He paused for approximately 2 secs between each question, giving me no time to employ any countermeasures. He read through a whole list of about 10 questions in less than a minute! All I could do was to try to relax and breath at a constant pace throughout. He then said I did good and unhooked me. (Although he did not say I passed) .
Maybe I missed this in the book, but has anyone else experienced a poly like this?

Thanks for your interest,
gates21

[polyscam]

From what you have written, your "test" was not up to standard with the requirements of the APA of AAPP.  The exam should have been no less than 90 minutes including pre-test, in-test and post-test.  A 2 second pause between your answer and the next question according to many in the polygraph community is not ample time to record your physiological response.

If I were in your place I would document everything you remember.  Hold on to that documentation until you receive your results.  If you "passed" just hold onto the documentation.  If you "fail" raise hell.

[gates21]

Thanks for your response Brandon,

I arrived there at 10:40am, with my appointment scheduled at 11:00. When I arrived I signed a consent form, and had to fill out 1 page (front & back), with simple info concerning my personal information, and my employers for the last 10 years. I would guess I went in for the poly at around 11:15, and was done at the absolute latest by 11:35. I asked a friend who took a poly with the same company who said that they left at the most, 5 seconds between each question. I havnt received any information about whether I passed or failed, but I will let you know when I hear.

Gates21

[anxietyguy]

These jokers are known as "chart rollers" even more scary then "real" polygraohers if there is such a thing. Their findings are arbitrary at the most where you were polygraphed at. Good luck, I would ask the department why they don't use an APA certified operator if you fail. (not that I am in favor of any polygraph testing at all). Takes longer to become a barber then a polygrapher anyways(more respected and legit too!).

[Sergeant1107]

It wouldn't surprise me if individual polygraph examiners who regularly visit this site have decided to alter their "tests" a little.  From their point of view, I'm sure they see it as something that only affects examinees who try to use countermeasures, so "honest" people don't have anything to worry about.  Plus, anyone who complains about it is essentially proving that they have knowledge of the polygraph process, which they may have denied earlier.  Perhaps that's why your "test" was so brief and had such short intervals between questions.

I haven't had to take a polygraph in several years, but all four I did take included questions regarding whether I had done any research or read any books on how to beat a polygraph.  I wouldn't be surprised if examiners these days are specifically asking about visiting this particular site.  Anyone who admits to doing so can, I am confident, be assured of failing their "test."

Of course, the mere fact that examinee knowledge of the testing procedure may invalidate the test is fairly damning in itself.  Can you imagine drinking all night in a bar, being arrested for DUI on the way home, and before you have to blow into the machine the cop asks you: "Have you ever done any research into how this Intoxilyzer works?  Oh, you have?  Well, then, there's no point in giving you this test."

[nonombre]

Of course, the mere fact that examinee knowledge of the testing procedure may invalidate the test is fairly damning in itself.  Can you imagine drinking all night in a bar, being arrested for DUI on the way home, and before you have to blow into the machine the cop asks you: "Have you ever done any research into how this Intoxilyzer works?  Oh, you have?  Well, then, there's no point in giving you this test."

My position is I don't really care so much about people having knowledge of how the polygraph procedure works.  I am more concerned about some of the things we have caught them doing trying to alter the tests.  Some have admitted getting their countermeasure information here on this site.  This bothers me for the following reason.  Please allow me to make a comparison:

In my department, we have caught a growing number of applicants attempting to "beat" their urinalysis tests.  Many of the applicants we have caught trying to alter their urinalysis results, would have probably never attempted such stupidity had it not been for internet sites very similar to this one providing methods on altering their urinalysis results.  What I found once I went on the net and checked out some of those sites, was pretty interesting.  

It seems the people who run those sites approach their mission with the same sort of rightness indignation as the people who hang around here.  Each one of those sites justify the methods they teach by holding in contempt the governmental agencies who would dare to employ such "draconian measures."

To me, same cat, different spots.  

Nonombre...
  

[George W. Maschke]

My position is I don't really care so much about people having knowledge of how the polygraph procedure works....

Considering that entire rationale for CQT polygraphy depends on the examinee being ignorant of the procedure, why don't you care so much if people have knowledge about it?

How do you proceed with examinees who, during the "pre-test" phase, admit to having such knowledge?

[polyscam]

In my department, we have caught a growing number of applicants attempting to "beat" their urinalysis tests.  Many of the applicants we have caught trying to alter their urinalysis results, would have probably never attempted such stupidity had it not been for internet sites very similar to this one providing methods on altering their urinalysis results.  

Not that I want to get into a pissing contest    but the comparison between urinalysis and polygraph testing is an apples and oranges comparison.  Specific chemicals can be identified through urinalysis.  The only similarity would be that some chemicals produce markers similar to other chemicals causing a misidentification much like the physiological responses gauged in polygraph testing can be caused by a number of factors.  Unlike polygraph testing urinalysis results can be either confirmed or contested through other testing procedures such as blood analysis, hair analysis, etc.  The reason for such a difference is that drug testing in a broad approach without identifying the particular test method is firmly grounded in scientific procedure.

It seems the people who run those sites approach their mission with the same sort of rightness indignation as the people who hang around here.  Each one of those sites justify the methods they teach by holding in contempt the governmental agencies who would dare to employ such "draconian measures."

Your broad sweeping statement should be ammended.  As you are "hanging around" here, should you be labeled as righteously indignate?  Most likely, no.  I (and I suspect many others) do not necessarily hold the agencies in contempt for using such flawed procedures but I do hold in contempt the procedures themselves.

[nonombre]

Not that I want to get into a pissing contest    ...
Your broad sweeping statement should be ammended.  As you are "hanging around" here, should you be labeled as righteously indignate?  

You are right.  I should have said, "Some of the people around here."    And I do thank you for not initiating a "pissing contest," for territory marking could get messy.   However, I do maintain that the similiarities in the attitudes of the two groups of websites (anti-PG and anti-whiz quiz) to be striking.

Nonombre.
  

[nonombre]

Considering that entire rationale for CQT polygraphy depends on the examinee being ignorant of the procedure, why don't you care so much if people have knowledge about it?

How do you proceed with examinees who, during the "pre-test" phase, admit to having such knowledge?

Mr. Mashke,

I am a very new examiner, so forgive me for not being willing to expound on what I was recently taught at polygraph school.

Your answer:  Methodologies have changed.  We don't just "compare" anymore.  Therefore, we no longer care what they think they know.

Nonombre

[polyscam]

Nonombre,

I have not viewed the urinalysis site you have mentioned (or any urnialysis site for that matter).  Could you provide a link?  However, I have read information that provided urinalysis testing is "beatable" and flawed.  For example I do know herion, once metabolized, will show as morphine due to the opiate derivation both share.  Thus the use of folicular, blood and sinovial (this one is a bit extreme) examination.  Polygraph certainly does not share the same luxuries of substance screening in that it has no other "tests" to confirm or contest its resulting opinion.  Drug testing removes the human factor from its result as there is no need for opinion rendering.  The chemical markers either are detected or not detected through scientific process.  I am sure misidentifications are made and that is most likely the reason for the site you have mentioned.  From what I have read, urinalysis is the most cost effective (i.e. cheap and easy) method of substance screening.  Similarly polygraph is more cost effective (cheap and easy) than a throrough background review.

Back on topic, what is your opinion of the test administered to gates21?

[nonombre]

Nonombre,

Back on topic, what is your opinion of the test administered to gates21?

Actually, I agree with the poster who called this examiner a "Chart roller."  If the gates 21 is being accurate in his description of the exam, and if he winds up being called "deceptive," then if I were him, I would find out if the examiner is a APA member.  I would then complain loudly to the APA and to the department who administered the test.  Gee, I thought that EPPA got rid of examiners like this.

NoNombre.
 

[Bill Crider]

well, nonombre, I dont know what agency you work for but as of October of last year, the FBI isnt doing what they say you are doing in regards to scoring the test. At least if the former head of FBI polygraphy is to be believed. They still just compare the questions they are sure you are lying about with the ones they want to know about.

You are delusional if you think your test is as good as you have been lead to believe. Im sure you think this board if full of malcontents who got busted, but mostly it is full of honest people whose careers were destroyed by accusations of being spies, terrorists, drug dealers and all sorts of ridiculous things after taking your stupid test. First, read our statements on this site, then come back and tell us what you think.

[George W. Maschke]

...Methodologies have changed.  We don't just "compare" anymore.  Therefore, we no longer care what they think they know.

If this is true, then please explain how methodologies have changed such that it doesn't matter what the examinee knows. Since it doesn't matter, you shouldn't have any reluctance to explain this changed procedure of which you speak. What is the name of this new methodology, how does it differ from standard CQT methodology, what polygraph schools are teaching it, and where can we find documentation of it?

Also, if, as you say, polygraphers no longer care what examinees know about polygraphy, why do they continue to ask about this during the "pre-test" phase?

[gates21]

Just for more info I know for a fact this polygrapher and his office has been open for over 20 years. Apparently he doesn't get too many complaints to be open that long  . I'm not going to make a big deal about it until I hear back from the PD, if for some reason I do fail, (which I shouldn't), I will check back with you for further advice.
Thanks for all the help!
gates21