What exactly do they ask on the LAPD polygraph

[mustbaliar]

Sergeant,

You'll never win an argument with a polygrapher.  Polygraphers sadly believe that their profession is true and just.  The multi-week polygraph training course has brainwashed and diluted their minds to such a point that they feel they can simply look at someone and detect deception.  I can remember my first "failed" polygraph as if it was yesterday.  What is so vivid in my mind was the pathetic nature in which the polygrapher tried to convince me that I was lying.  He was trying so hard to get me to admit to something, anything!  It is somewhat amusing now when I think back on it... and terribly easy to feel sorry for him.  

Good luck, atomic84.  Inform and prepare yourself as best you can.

[Sergeant1107]

Sergeant,

You'll never win an argument with a polygrapher.  Polygraphers sadly believe that their profession is true and just.  The multi-week polygraph training course has brainwashed and diluted their minds to such a point that they feel they can simply look at someone and detect deception.  I can remember my first "failed" polygraph as if it was yesterday.  What is so vivid in my mind was the pathetic nature in which the polygrapher tried to convince me that I was lying.  He was trying so hard to get me to admit to something, anything!  It is somewhat amusing now when I think back on it... and terribly easy to feel sorry for him.  

Good luck, atomic84.  Inform and prepare yourself as best you can.

I can vividly remember points from my polygraphs as well.  One of the things that stand out the most from all of them is the way each examiner solemnly assured me that they were the true "lie detectors" and that even without the machine they could easily tell that I was lying.  That must be something they are taught in school – all three of them used the same line on me.

I'm sure that when people actually are lying then a statement like that makes the examiner seem mysteriously omniscient.  However, in my case, when the examiners assured me they could, through their powers of observation, easily tell I was lying when I was in fact telling the truth, it was utterly baffling to me.  

As I mentioned, at the time I had faith in the accuracy of the polygraph, because I had never heard anything negative about it.  I was absolutely floored by this person I had assumed was an honest, ethical professional looking right into my eyes and telling me he KNEW I was lying and I might as well admit it.  I couldn't believe such a mistake was being made.  

Looking back at it now, I am not sure what to think about the examiners.  I'd like to think they were ethical people doing their best to find deceptive applicants, but it's hard for me to believe that.  

[George W. Maschke]

Countermeasures are being detected on a regular basis.  Use of them does disqualify one from further consideration in employment.  Information is good, and the postings on this site are good.  If you are informed regarding polygraph examinations and have read the Lie Behind the Lie Detector, this does not disqualify you, it makes you informed.  The point to center on is  be untruthful to the control questions and truthful to the relevant questions and you will pass your polygraph examination.  

Your assertion that countermeasures are being detected on a regular basis is unsupported by any peer-reviewed research, and undermined by the fact that in some three-and-a-half years, no polygrapher, including yourself, I must respectfully add, has mustered the self-confidence to accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge.

On the other hand, not using countermeasures is no guarantee that one won't be accused of using countermeasures. That was my experience with the LAPD (the agency with which atomic84 is applying). Ervin Youngblood, a senior polygraph operator still with the LAPD, angrily but falsely accused me of using countermeasures. Not only had I not used countermeasures, I didn't even know what they were at that time.

I wish it were true, as you suggest, that being informed about polygraphy and having read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector -- or more precisely, admitting the same to one's polygraph examiner -- would never result in retaliation against an examinee. But feedback received by AntiPolygraph.org strongly suggests that at least in some cases (if not most), it can and does.

I also wish it were true, as you maintain, that if one simply were to answer the "control" questions untruthfully while answering the relevant questions truthfully, one would be assured of passing the polygraph. If this were true, then AntiPolygraph.org's advice to law enforcement applicants hoping to reduce the risk of a false positive outcome would be precisely this -- and nothing more. But your assurances, I am afraid, are little more than wishful thinking on your part.

[Jeffery]

George,

As stated before, no one is going to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge.  It would violate the APA standards, it poses no threat to Dr. Richardson, therefore no fear of being caught using counter measures or fear of being found deceptive.  If there is no consequence, there is no fear, if there is no fear there is no reaction.  Possibly the challenge could be refered to others in the polygraph community with there being a fear or consiquence for being deceptive and using countermeasures.  The stakes would have to be high to instill the necessary fear of detection of deception and countermeasures.  How would you propose to structure such a test?   I personally would not participate in any such test.  

Could you comment on the so called "mock crime simulated tests" that the DOD conducted to bolster their claims of polygraph accuracy?

If there is no substantial fear of being caught, there is no reaction, as you indicated above.  I'd lie to see what "fear" can be manufactured in a "mock crime" scenario.

[nonombre]

Could you comment on the so called "mock crime simulated tests" that the DOD conducted to bolster their claims of polygraph accuracy?

If there is no substantial fear of being caught, there is no reaction, as you indicated above.  I'd lie to see what "fear" can be manufactured in a "mock crime" scenario.

Jeff,

You have identified the most significant problem in laboratory polygraph research.  In many cases, the researchers do try to make the mock crime "real" to the participants (In one study, the Isrealis actually convinced some police recruits they had in fact commited a real crime, and if caught on the polygraph were going to get thrown out of the police acadamy.)

However, in the U.S. we cannot go to the extremes they can in other countries (These are called "human use" issues.) So, we use other methods like financial awards, etc.   It is not the best possible approach, but sometimes you do the best you can with the hand you draw, so to speak

Regards,

Nonombre

[polyscam]

Nonombre,

This would seem to go back to the specific issue versus screening examinations argument.  At least with the lab experiements there is some base known truth at hand.  With the screening exams there is not such a luxury.  For the false-positive examinee there is no way to disprove what cannot be legitimately proven.  In contrast there is no way for the examiner to disprove what has been proven by a false-negative examinee, at least not by the polygraph.  With lab tests and real-life specific issue tests a bit more can possibly be proven due to ground truth having been established.

I think it all goes back to the utility versus validity argument.  Do polygraph examinations have utility?  You bet.  Do they have validity?  Well I guess that depends on whose opinion you seek and what research you trust by looking at the motivations behind the research and the researchers themselves.

[George W. Maschke]

George,

As stated before, no one is going to accept Dr. Richardson's challenge.  It would violate the APA standards, it poses no threat to Dr. Richardson, therefore no fear of being caught using counter measures or fear of being found deceptive.  If there is no consequence, there is no fear, if there is no fear there is no reaction.  Possibly the challenge could be refered to others in the polygraph community with there being a fear or consiquence for being deceptive and using countermeasures.  The stakes would have to be high to instill the necessary fear of detection of deception and countermeasures.  How would you propose to structure such a test?   I personally would not participate in any such test....

Darkcobra2005,

Specifically which paragraph of the APA standards prohibits a member from accepting Dr. Richardson's challenge?

You suggest that no meaningful analog (laboratory) test of a polygrapher's ability to detect countermeasures can be constructed. I disagree with that notion. Charles Honts has conducted experiments along these lines and published his results in peer-reviewed journals. His results indicated that even experienced polygraphers could not detect countermeasures at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.

I think it is abundantly clear to the neutral observer why not even one of the 3,000+ polygraphers operating in the United States has accepted Dr. Richardson's challenge.

...I can assure you that I have observed numerous individuals using the countermeasures proposed on this site and they have admitted to using them, I don't need per review when I get admissions, I know they have used the couner measures, I confront them and they admit to the use of them.

The fact that you have accused examinees of countermeasure use and received admissions does not establish your ability to actually detect countermeasures. (By detection I mean identification at better-than-chance levels of accuracy.)

How many of those whom you have accused of countermeasure use, and who made no admission, were in fact innocent of such? You have no way of knowing.

How many of those whose charts you scored as "no deception indicated" in fact used countermeasures to pass (whether or not they answered the relevant questions truthfully)? Again, you have no way of knowing.

Considering the absence of any research evidence whatsoever suggesting that polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures, the fact that polygraph screening is without scientific basis, and that many law enforcement agencies, including the LAPD, have pre-employment polygraph failure rates on the order of 50%, I think many applicants will conclude that using countermeasures to avert a false positive outcome is a reasonable survival strategy.

Please do not read this as a accusation against you or your integrity or honesty.  I truly believe that you have been wronged by polygraph, and I cannot fix that.  I can only strive to not treat any person in the manner you or others report they have been treated by polygraph examiners.  

I don't take any offense at your arguments, and hope you take none at mine, either. But please understand that the unfair treatment I have experienced as a result of polygraph screening stems from the inherent unreliability of polygraphy. I have no evidence that my FBI and LAPD polygraphers engaged in any willfull misconduct. Had you conducted my polygraph examinations, the results may very well have been the same.

If you don't want to cause others the kind of harm that I, Sergeant1107, mustbaliar, and many other truthful individuals have experienced, you need to follow the example of FBI Special Agent Leroy Chan and get out of the business of polygraph screening.

[polyscam]

Darkcobra wrote:

All research can be scewed, and some is.  The research currently being done by good researchers is guided by ASTM standards and is valid research.  ASTM sets up the research and monitors it, they are not interested in polygraph, they are a research institute that insures research is done properly to meet their standards.  

They say figures don't lie, but liars can figure, so you are correct in stating that some of the research is flawed on both sides, not just one.

Nice to see you back.  It's been a while since we've talked.

I think you are correct in your assertation that all research can be skewed.  The ATSM has established standards for testing in many areas.  Why, though, would research on the part of the ATSM outweigh that of the NAS?  Both are recognized and respected organizations.  Again, I think it falls to the question of which research project benefits the ones who are looking for the benefit?  As you are aware very little research has been conducted regarding employment screening polygraph examinations.  The reason is that ground truth cannot be established without admission on the part of the examinee.  That ground truth can be questionable as well.  As pointed out by respected scholars such as Dr. Lykken, employment screen accuracy cannot be directly correlated to specific incident accuracy...two different fruits because of the lack of or inclusions of ground truth.  Until research can prove otherwise, I think it unjust to continue the pre-employment screens.

Also, the other matter which we discussed at length has come to a conclusion.  I cannot say that I am satisfied with the result, but it is what it is.

[Jeffery]

Jeff,

You have identified the most significant problem in laboratory polygraph research.  In many cases, the researchers do try to make the mock crime "real" to the participants ...   It is not the best possible approach, but sometimes you do the best you can with the hand you draw, so to speak

Regards,

Nonombre

So what I am hearing is there is no good way to scientifically validate polygraphics, but we (society) rely on bogus or (the best hand we got) scientific studies to back up a process that has hurt the lives of untold thousands.  

Sure, you can engage in self-congratulation for the hundreds of crooks you may have caught through bluffing them into confessions during a polygraph interrogation.  You may have brought these bad guys to justice, helping the lives of their innocent victims.

But the people falsly accused and whose lives were damaged due to bogus polygraph tests were innocent too.

[Jeffery]

Brandon,

All research can be scewed, and some is.  The research currently being done by good researchers is guided by ASTM standards and is valid research.  ASTM sets up the research and monitors it, they are not interested in polygraph, they are a research institute that insures research is done properly to meet their standards.

They say figures don't lie, but liars can figure, so you are correct in stating that some of the research is flawed on both sides, not just one.  

"The old research was bad, but now the new research is good. Trust me."

Is that basically the argument you are making?  For a profession that professes to be after the truth, this is pretty poor.

DarkCobra, why donn't you engage in your own research and take Dr. Richardson's challenge.

[Sergeant1107]

So what I am hearing is there is no good way to scientifically validate polygraphics, but we (society) rely on bogus or (the best hand we got) scientific studies to back up a process that has hurt the lives of untold thousands.

Jeffery,
It does seem that the argument is a bit circular:  The polygraph is accurate because we know it's accurate because we polygraph people and sometimes they admit to things.  In other words, the anecdotal evidence submitted by the polygraph examiners themselves in which they relate their success stories in catching liars with the polygraph proves that the polygraph is useful and accurate.

The next logical question would be: Is there any anecdotal evidence suggesting the polygraph is not useful and accurate?  The answer, of course, is "Yes!"  The stories of many of the people on this board would qualify, as well as the stories of many, many other people who have been labeled "deceptive" despite an utter lack of actual deception.

What is it that makes the anecdotal evidence of the polygraph examiners, who after all have a vested interest in the polygraph's continuing use, more valid than the anecdotal evidence submitted by people like myself?  I have no idea.  

Other than the fact that I believe it is an injustice to use such a flawed process which does not really determine truthfulness or deception, I have no real personal stake in getting the polygraph thrown out.  I have already (luckily) passed one and gotten the job I was seeking.  

Looking at it objectively, I would think that an account like mine would hold much more weight than the account of any polygraph examiner, simply because of the lack of personal consequences to me if the polygraph continues as it is or is banned from use.

[George W. Maschke]

The APA prohibits individual polygraph examiners from participating in public displays of polygraph such as Dr. Richardsons Challenge.  (without APA sanction).

I could find no such prohibition in the American Polygraph Association's bylaws. Might you be mistaken about this?

[polyscam]

Is Ed Gelb a member of the APA?  I ask becuase he publicly displays polygraphy on the television program "Lie Detector."

[Sergeant1107]

The APA prohibits individual polygraph examiners from participating in public displays of polygraph such as Dr. Richardsons Challenge.  (without APA sanction).  

Perhaps it is just me, but I find this interesting in and of itself.

I recall many posts on this board by polygraph examiners which assert that examinee knowledge of the polygraph procedure is irrelevant – even a knowledgeable subject can be accurately polygraphed.  

I cannot think of any scientific test where knowledge of the testing procedure would possibly invalidate the test.  I also cannot think of any reason for the APA's prohibition except to prevent knowledge of the testing procedure from becoming available to the public.

I would guess that in cases like Ed Gelb on the TV show, the ground rules were laid down in advance as to what would be shown and what would not, and that is why it was apparently acceptable to the APA.

[George W. Maschke]

I have been looking into the idea of applying to the LAPD, what exactly are the questions they ask on the polygraph....

A listing of the questions asked on the LAPD pre-employment polygraph is now available. See the discussion thread, LAPD Polygraph Questions Disclosed.