Common polygraph myths

[polyfool]

Two Block,

I was VERY confused during the verbal assault on my character. Since I had been completely honest, I didn't know what to believe. I thought it may have been some sort of additional testing or that something had really gone wrong with the test. While my examiner said horrible things about me, I was busy trying to defend myself and convince him that I had told the truth. It's hard to keep up--the put-downs and slams are flying so fast. I have a fair amount of patience, but I had been pushed so far with the insults, that at one point, I almost completely lost my temper and felt a strong urge to curse at the examiner and tell him exactly what I thought of him. However, the little voice inside my head told me that no matter what had gone wrong with the test, cursing at the examiner couldn't possibly help. I took the high road and even though my examiner treated me like a piece of trash, I exercised restraint and was respectful to him at all times. That doesn't mean, however, that I didn't give him some back. I challenged him, even putting him in the hot seat, at one point. Looking back, not losing it and not allowing him to get the best of me satisfies me. It wasn't easy to maintain my composure, resisting the tempation to tell him off. By the time I left the examination room, my examiner was really worked up and bent out of shape. He definitely earned his money that day, if there is such a thing when it comes to polygraphy.

[Onesimus]

Myth #8 -- People shouldn't complain about the polygraph test since few things in life are 100%

One can just imagine a polygrapher coming home from a test with a 50% and using this excuse on their parents -- few people scored a 100% on the test, so there is no reason to complain about their score.

Of course, the list arguments of against polygraph testing doesn't end with the (valid) complaint about its poor accuracy.   It also includes, for example, the foolishness of allowing people who are paid to lie, harass, and use bad technology to evaluate the suitability of applicants.  Given that we expect people charged with protecting our national security to be truthfull, respectfull, and technologically savy, why on earth do we allow people who choose to get paid to do the exact opposite of these things to tell us who is a good person and who is a bad person?


Additional note on myth #6 -- during one of my exams (second with this agency), my polygrapher insisted that I must tell her something to explain why I responded to one of the questions.  I refused to do so, since I had nothing relevant to say about that question.  She said that she had to fail me unless I confessed something.  It appears that polygraphers will do anything to beef up their utility and accuracy statistics -- if the applicant confesses something, then they can claim the test was accurate, if they don't then they must fail.  Few people won't come up with something to confess in this situation.  I confessed nothing, so I failed the question, but was still able to pass it during my next (third) examination.

During this exam (second) I mentioned to my polygrapher that I know people who have made up stuff to appease an examiner, but my concerns were dismissed.  Others lied to appease the polygrapher and passed, I held on to the high moral ground and failed.