Honesty is better than deception

[Duc748]

I did a lot of reading about the polygraph prior to taking the FBI poly. Was I worried about the test: No. Still, I wanted as much information as possible.
So I run across this site and after reading many threads came to the conclusion that the only people in here are those that have shady backgrounds and are trying to defeat the system for their personal gain.
As a soon to be special agent, I hope that anyone that tried to defeat the poly using countermeasures with the FBI, CIA, USSS or DEA have failed. I sure as hell don't want you covering my back in the field.
If there are some of you that are truly innocent then this doesn't apply to you. But why would you attempt to deceive your employer in the first place? I didn't and I passed. As a matter of fact, the FBI polygrapher does everything in his/her power to help you get through the test, as long as you are honest with past discrepancies up front (and they aren't to serious.)
That all being said, can honest people fail the poly? I think that it is possible. However, after going through a 2 hour polygraph, I found it very accurate.
My suggestion to anyone that is going for the poly, is to be truthful and forget about this whole business of sphincter clinching, breathing wrong, tac in the shoe or biting the tongue business. Be a man and be honest. If you're not honest, I can only pray that you fail.

[therock]

Future FBI agent, I couldn't more than agree with you in the aspect that people should be honest about their backgrounds.  Yes I feel it kills the integrity of a certain LE agency when liars are coming aboard.  
What about those individuals who have put in their time and hard work with agencies such as the one you aspire to be in and come out being accused as spies and deceptive, when the simple fact is that there not.  I would think a thorough background investigation should gather up all the necessary material needed to determine one's suitablity for certain employments.  
The simple fact with the polygraph is that it truly doesn't work.  Why should an honest individual who has put in so many years of hard work i.e. school, experience, and have it all go down the drain, b/c if you fail one poly for federal jobs, your gone, no chances of getting hired for other ones?  
Another thing is that the polygraph is used to weed out applicants in certain processes.  For example there are some agencies who have their hiring preferences, e.g. Chief wanting his nephew to get hired, and there are applicants who have nothing against them that can dq them in processes, so they use this exam as the sole reason of denial of employment.  Pretty shady if you ask me.
I agree with you that LE agents should encompass the highest degree of integrity, but I for one would not want to have my dreams ruined just because of reasons beyond my control.  
Why do they allow these polygraphs admissible for hiring governmental agents, but are inadmissible in court, does that tell you something in itself.  I think the main fact is that the hiring processes and promotion processes themselves need to be revamped.  Better background investigations should yield all the results needed to determine suitability.  To be accused of being a foreign spy, or a crack addict is immoral itself.  If there are any group of individuals who have shady characters it's these individuals who make such determinations regarding this pseudoscience.  I agree poly's are great for interrogation and intimidation of criminals, but that's it.  Well there you have my opinion.

[Duc748]

therock,
    You make some valid points, and I don't neccessarily agree that polygraphs should or shouldn't be used in the hiring process, but the simple fact is, they are used.
    I guess my point here is that, lying on the polygraph is not the way to go, contrary to what this site says.    
    Let me explain my situation: I am a 9 year military intelligence veteran (not a veteran yet, sinse I'm still in) with operation experience in Operations Joint Forge/Guard, Allied Force and Southern Watch. I have dealing with outside government agencies. So because I have the clearance I have, the polygrapher had to get some additional questions. In my past, I have cheated on a test in high school (over a decade ago), been arrested for excessive speeding and spent time in jail (again over a decade ago), but have never used drugs of any kind. After giving the polygrapher all of my details, he reworded the questions to move around certain security issues, and my test I cheated on.
     If you are truely honest and are up front with the polygrapher, there is no reason for you to fail. Especially with the USSS, DEA, CIA or FBI. This isn't the local sheriffs office we're talking about with the good ole boys network going.
     Regardless of the validity of the poly (or whether or not you agree or disagree that it should be used) it's something that is required. I would suggest to everyone, not to use countermeasures, because if you do, then you have something to hide.  

[Drew Richardson]

Duc748,

There are several logical inconsistencies within the body of your last post...unfortunately beyond the time which I can devote a response to.  But let us address your note title, "Honesty is better than deception."  The use of countermeasures by an innocent polygraph examinee has nothing to do per se with either honesty or deception.  The same answers will be given to the questions asked during the exam regardless of the use or lack thereof of countermeasures.  The use of countermeasures by such a person rather is to affect the outcome of a polygraph exam, i.e., more likely assure a correct (honest, if you will) result, that of non-deception indicated having been rendered by the polygraph examiner.  This activity (utilization of countermeasures) is not only advisable but unfortunately one I deem necessary due to the nature of the error involved in the process.  As a growing countless number of individuals who visit this site can attest to, polygraph error negatively impacts the lives of innocent examinees.  The only way this situation can be remedied is for either those who presently give polygraph (screening) exams to cease and desist from so doing or for examinees to adequately prepare themselves and to take those actions (i.e., polygraph countermeasures) necessary to protect their welfare.  Your devotion to your country's security needs is no doubt quite admirable, but your blind faith in its (including the federal agencies you specify) ridiculous tools equally astonishes...Drew Richardson

[Mortified]

Bottom Line:
Polygraph is inaccurate.  
Innocent people are accused of lying.
Guilty people can fool the "system" and get away with it.
Therefore, relying on it to "weed out" risky people is stupid.

Think about it.  If there was a device that could accurately tell if someone was lying, we would not need a justice system.  There is no science in poly. Instead, it is a voodoo process that relies on fear and intimidation and is not accurate.

[Drew Richardson]

Duc748,

I neglected to compliment you on your choice of career.  Having served 25 years as an agent of the FBI, I can appreciate something of that which awaits you.  As has been said by many of my age and status (now retired from the Bureau), I am envious of you in terms of the opportunities and life/work experiences that await you.  That having been said, I will simply encourage you to hone your critical thinking and analysis skills and to do so quite apart from the bureaucratic doctrine and policy(ies) that you will soon be a part of.  Although I would not advise you to demonstrate this critical thinking too early in your Bureau experience (during your training and early career), do not let the development of those skills go wanting and don't let that which you have developed wither and die in the midst of functioning in a para-military organization.  The Bureau, your case-work, and the American people will best be served if you can maintain well  developed independent-thinking skills.... Best wishes and good luck, Drew Richardson

[MissionPoly-ban]

Duc748...

Here is the problem that many of the people who frequent this site are facing:

They once took part in activities that are AUTOMATIC grounds for disqualification from the testing process for every and any Law Enforcement agency, regardless of the proximity of the incidents to the time of testing.  

For example, a person who was a stoner, crack-head, or serious thief as a young adult will automatically be rejected from the testing process as soon as this information is conveyed in pre-test interview--rejected and ejected.

The true problem lies in the fact that Law Enforcement agencies cannot assure themselves that the person who "once was,"  "isn't today."  They can't determine whether or not the person that once was a crack head will go back to his old ways.

Background investigators and Civil Service Board members don't really have a way of truly knowing whether or not a person has ultimately changed...even though the person being investigated may have turned around his or her life in the greatest of degrees.

This unfortunate aspect of the testing process FORCES--yes, FORCES--candidates who were serious trouble-makers in the past (assuming they didn'g get caught for anything serious) to lie and use countermeasures.  To tell the truth and claim that they are a changed person will only lead to rejection and disqualification...regardless of just how truly changed they are.

Duc748...if you can't see where I am coming from than you truly lack a good understanding of the way the testing process works.  People who have truly changed from the horrible ways and problems of their past have no other alternative.  The truth will only set them free--free like a bat out of hell from the testing process.

I am one of those people who did some stupid things in the short past,  but have changed as a person.  Consequently, I am forced to lie and use countermeasures on the polygraph test (I already have done it successfully).  To tell the truth of my concealed problems of the past would be my end.

But I can say this with the utmost of sincerity:  You better hope like hell that you have someone LIKE me covering your back.

[George W. Maschke]

Duc748,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, and welcome to the AntiPolygraph.org message board. I noticed your earlier post to the PolygraphPlace.com message board, and I would have posted a reply there except for that that message board, which is run by polygraphers, is censored, and polygraph critics like myself are not permitted to post messages there. This message board, by contrast, is uncensored. Unlike the good people at PolygraphPlace.com, we don't fear contrary viewpoints.

I agree with the sense of the title of your post, "Honesty is better than deception." In fact, based on what you've written here, it seems our backgrounds are not dissimilar. I suspect that you, too, once subscribed to an honor code not to lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. I don't claim perfection, but I still do my best in my daily life to live up to that commitment. Too often, those who adhere to this code in their youth forget it in their later years.

With that in mind, let's move on to polygraph "testing." You write that you "did a lot of reading about the polygraph prior to taking the FBI poly." I'm not sure just what you read, but if you did your homework, you should be aware that "control" question "test" (CQT) polygraphy (the kind relied upon by the FBI and other federal agencies for polygraph security screening) is theoretically dependent on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving the person being "tested." Polygraph "testing" relies on deception not in a minor ways, but in a fundamental ways. The polygrapher must lie to and deceive the subject from beginning to end. In short, polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. If this comes as news to you, see Chapters 1 & 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Honesty is better than deception. But honesty is a two-way street. The FBI applicant who reports for his polygraph "test" will in each and every case be lied to by his/her FBI polygrapher, regardless of whether he/she decides to be honest with the polygrapher.

You, my friend, were lied to by your FBI polygrapher. He falsely led you to believe that he expected you to answer all questions truthfully. He didn't explain that he secretly expected your answers to the probable-lie "control" questions to be lies (or that you'd at least feel considerable doubt about the truthfulness of your answers, and that he expected that that doubt would create physiological reactions that he could compare to your reactions to the relevant questions), even after all the admissions you made. You see, the FBI (like other agencies) fully expects that every applicant who passes its pre-employment polygraph examination has been less than honest during the polygraph examination! If you have any doubt whatsoever about this, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources referenced there.

In fact, CQT polygraphy is inherently and perversely biased against the most conscientious of applicants, because the more honestly one answers the probable-lie "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail!

This being the case, I submit that it is not unethical for truthful applicants to use polygraph countermeasures to protect themselves against the very real possibility of a false positive outcome.

AntiPolygraph.org exists not to help liars beat the system, but to help protect the innocent against the fraud that is polygraphy.

If you have done your homework, you know damned well that polygraph testing is a pseudoscientific fraud that fundamentally depends on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving each and every examinee. In the case of polygraph security screening, the vast majority of those thus lied to and decieved are honest, law-abiding citizens. You say that honesty is better than deception. Are you, my friend, willing tolerate lies merely because of the rank of those who are telling them? When I swore not to lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do, there was no caveat about the number of stars on the shoulder boards of the liar, cheat, or thief.

[Duc748]

George,
    Actually the polygrapher did not lie to me during the entire process. There was no stim test, and there were only 3 control questions. He told me up front that the test was not perfect science which is why he did 6 runs. Unlike a lot of people, I've been working with FBI agents, who happen to know the polygrapher, and told me the guy is up front with all applicants.
    I had no reason to lie, and therefore did not and didn't need nor want to use your countermeasures.
    I would equate using countermeasures to cheating in school. You only do it if you know you can't pass it truthfully.
    I also look at it this way...if you lie to the FBI then you are untruthful. Doesn't matter how you look at it, you've lied. If you can lie on the polygraph and feel comfortable about it, then who's to say you won't lie in the future. Would you plant a gun on a guy you just shot (thinking he had a gun), to cover up that you made a mistake to save your hide? You're basically doing the same thing by trying to cheat the polygraph. Trying to save yourself.
    I do admit that honest people may in fact be passed over because of the polygraph. I can't say for certain, as I've only had this one. Would I ever want to take a poly again? Hell no!!!
    And as for the comment: AntiPolygraph.org exists not to help liars beat the system, but to help protect the innocent against the fraud that is polygraphy. I think you're fooling yourself if you really believe that. That may be your intention, but I doubt it's really the case.

Duc748,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, and welcome to the AntiPolygraph.org message board. I noticed your earlier post to the PolygraphPlace.com message board, and I would have posted a reply there except for that that message board, which is run by polygraphers, is censored, and polygraph critics like myself are not permitted to post messages there. This message board, by contrast, is uncensored. Unlike the good people at PolygraphPlace.com, we don't fear contrary viewpoints.

I agree with the sense of the title of your post, "Honesty is better than deception." In fact, based on what you've written here, it seems our backgrounds are not dissimilar. I suspect that you, too, once subscribed to an honor code not to lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. I don't claim perfection, but I still do my best in my daily life to live up to that commitment. Too often, those who adhere to this code in their youth forget it in their later years.

With that in mind, let's move on to polygraph "testing." You write that you "did a lot of reading about the polygraph prior to taking the FBI poly." I'm not sure just what you read, but if you did your homework, you should be aware that "control" question "test" (CQT) polygraphy (the kind relied upon by the FBI and other federal agencies for polygraph security screening) is theoretically dependent on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving the person being "tested." Polygraph "testing" relies on deception not in a minor ways, but in a fundamental ways. The polygrapher must lie to and deceive the subject from beginning to end. In short, polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. If this comes as news to you, see Chapters 1 & 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Honesty is better than deception. But honesty is a two-way street. The FBI applicant who reports for his polygraph "test" will in each and every case be lied to by his/her FBI polygrapher, regardless of whether he/she decides to be honest with the polygrapher.

You, my friend, were lied to by your FBI polygrapher. He falsely led you to believe that he expected you to answer all questions truthfully. He didn't explain that he secretly expected your answers to the probable-lie "control" questions to be lies (or that you'd at least feel considerable doubt about the truthfulness of your answers, and that he expected that that doubt would create physiological reactions that he could compare to your reactions to the relevant questions), even after all the admissions you made. You see, the FBI (like other agencies) fully expects that every applicant who passes its pre-employment polygraph examination has been less than honest during the polygraph examination! If you have any doubt whatsoever about this, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources referenced there.

In fact, CQT polygraphy is inherently and perversely biased against the most conscientious of applicants, because the more honestly one answers the probable-lie "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail!

This being the case, I submit that it is not unethical for truthful applicants to use polygraph countermeasures to protect themselves against the very real possibility of a false positive outcome.

AntiPolygraph.org exists not to help liars beat the system, but to help protect the innocent against the fraud that is polygraphy.

If you have done your homework, you know damned well that polygraph testing is a pseudoscientific fraud that fundamentally depends on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving each and every examinee. In the case of polygraph security screening, the vast majority of those thus lied to and decieved are honest, law-abiding citizens. You say that honesty is better than deception. Are you, my friend, willing tolerate lies merely because of the rank of those who are telling them? When I swore not to lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do, there was no caveat about the number of stars on the shoulder boards of the liar, cheat, or thief.

[George W. Maschke]

Duc748,

You wrote:

Actually the polygrapher did not lie to me during the entire process.

Did your polygrapher explain to you what a probable-lie "control" question is, and that he didn't expect your replies to these questions to be honest? If so, he was not following the protocols taught at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, which is responsible for the training of all federal polygraphers. The FBI agents who told you that this polygrapher is "up front with all applicants" are either ignorant or were lying to you. The polygrapher who is "up front with all applicants" is not performing his job to standard, will get no admissions, and won't last long as a polygraph examiner. Again, if you have any doubts about this, read Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and then please tell me whether:

a) you believe anything we've written there regarding polygraph procedure is untrue;

b) you find the kind of institutionized dishonesty that polygraph screening represents to be morally defensible;

c) if you do find this officially-sanctioned fraud acceptable, how long you think the charade can continue?

I also look at it this way...if you lie to the FBI then you are untruthful.

Again, I remind you that the FBI assumes that every applicant who "passes" the "test" has been less than truthful in his or her responses to the probable-lie "control" questions. This procedure is in-principle designed to pass through people who would lie to the FBI cover up a mistake.

I do admit that honest people may in fact be passed over because of the polygraph. I can't say for certain, as I've only had this one.

This website was created by people who went in and told the truth on their polygraph examinations and were wrongly branded as liars. Perhaps you won't believe  that honest people can fail a polygraph "test" until it happens to you, but you might consider Drew Richardson's 1997 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Until his retirement last year, Dr. Richardson was the FBI's senior scientific expert on polygraphy. He testified that polygraph screening "is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity" and that "because of the nature of this type of examination, it would normally be expected to produce large numbers of false positive results (falsely accusing an examinee of lying about some issue)."

This being the case, it is only prudent for honest people to do what they can to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. You write:

I would equate using countermeasures to cheating in school. You only do it if you know you can't pass it truthfully.

You make a false analogy. To begin with, a polygraph "test" is not a genuine "test" at all: it has no scientific basis and no validity. Using polygraph countermeasures to protect oneself from the risk of error is not the same as lying with regard to the relevant issues, and there is every reason for the honest but informed examinee to employ them. It is because of the significant risk of a false positive outcome that Professor David T. Lykken concludes at p. 277 of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998):

...if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven countermeasures rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards...

Finally, you wrote:

And as for the comment: AntiPolygraph.org exists not to help liars beat the system, but to help protect the innocent against the fraud that is polygraphy. I think you're fooling yourself if you really believe that. That may be your intention, but I doubt it's really the case.

Your reasoning here is flawed. AntiPolygraph.org indeed exists for the purpose of protecting the innocent from polygraph abuse. That's why we created it. That's why all the information on this website is provided for free. We're under no illusions regarding the fact that the information provided here may also be helpful to liars seeking to beat the system, but that can't be helped, and we make no apology for it.

[MissionPoly-ban]

Duc748

If you can't understand why people like myself--people in situations like mine--are forced to lie within the realm of the testing process,  then I would have to conclude that you have poor judgment.  

You seem to be MISSING THE POINT that people who were once involved with disqualifying behaviors and activities--but who are now TRULY changed people,  and intend nothing but good--have no other choice but to lie and use countermeasures on the polygraph.

Tell me...as a god damned human being,  do you really feel that it is fair for a person who did wrong in the past to be ruined as far as aspirations towards a career in law enforcement?  

The fact is that a reborn person who has changed for the good will be automatically disqualified if they reveal that they were involved heavily with drugs, or stole something over a certain amount in value (etc).  

This aspect of the testing process is simply not fair...I hope you agree.  People shouldn't be damned for life.

Do you still feel that a person should just go ahead and tell the truth knowing that they will automatically be disqualified?
Or do you suggest that they shouldn't even bother trying to start a career in law enforcement?

If your answer to either of the above questions is yes, then you, my friend, are a totally irrational and unreasonable person.

You seem to be entirely missing the point that good-hearted people who made mistakes in the past are left with no option other than concealing the truth if they are striving to work for a law enforcement agency.

I'm getting sick of repeating myself to you over and over.

Go buy yourself a heart,  go over (for the second time) what I just posted, and understand where I and others like me are coming from.

As for your belief that you weren't lied to during the course of your polygraph examination,  you are clearly clueless as to the theory behind the control questions test polygraph exam.

The whole damn test is based on you believing a lie.  

Let me put it to you in simple terms:

THE EXAMINER EXPECTS YOU TO BE LYING ON THE CONTROL QUESTIONS.  HE OR SHE MAKES YOU BELIEVE THAT CONTROL QUESTIONS ARE SERIOUS ISSUES,  WHEN THEY ARE NOTHING MORE THAN WAYS TO GET YOU TO DEFINITELY LIE DURING THE EXAM  (TO CREATE A REACTION OF WHAT YOUR BODY IS LIKE WHEN YOU ARE LYING).  THE EXAMINER ULTIMATELY TRICKS YOU AND PLAYS GAMES WITH YOU IN ORDER TO SCORE THE RESULTS.

Simply put,  if you believe that your examiner didn't lie to you during your exam, then either your test was a figure of your imagination, or you just have no idea of how the test works.

There are no other explanations.

[Duc748]

George,
     My control questions weren't ones designed for me to lie. They were "known truth" questions. And there were only 3 of them. Do you live in blank state? Is your name so and so? Are you blank years old? The answer was yes to all three.
     I can only stress this: the polygrapher was working with me and around my profession. I passed the poly using truth. I've shown it can be done and therefore people need to be aware that being truthful will not damn you, as it has been posted on this site.

Netnin: I responded to your foul language filled private post already. There is no need to discuss anything with you further.

[G Scalabr]

Duc 748,

Like George, I also welcome your decision to join the discussion
.

That all being said, can honest people fail the poly? I think that it is possible. However, after going through a 2 hour polygraph, I found it very accurate.

Just because you "passed," it is foolhardy to generalize your own single experience to everyone. The fact remains that the polygraph has not been proven by peer-reviewed scientific studies to be better than chance.

Your argument is analogous to stating that the Ford Pinto was a well designed car because you drove one that got hit in the rear and you lived to tell about it. I'm sure that quite a number of Pintos were hit in the rear and did not explode. Nonetheless, this does not change the fact that a tremendous and disproportionate number of them did. The vehicle was an engineering disaster and responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of innocent people.

The reason you have received such hostile responses from a number of others is because you have done the equivalent of going to a message board run by families of those who have died a fiery death in poorly engineered Pintos to offer up the argument of I drove a Pinto once and got bumped from behind and I'm still alive. The Pinto is a perfectly safe vehicle."

The fact remains that with both the Pinto and polygraph situations, there is irrefutable independent evidence that there was/is a problem. A single anonymous Internet post created by someone who admits to having friends that knew his polygrapher is hardly convincing when weighed against peer-reviewed scientific studies.

[Duc748]

Gino,
    I was expecting to get flamed. That being said, my point of posting was to also show that honest people can pass the test. If you were like me and have never taken the test before, go onto the internet, then find a site like this that tells people to lie, because honesty will kill you on the poly, blah blah (run on sentence)... it can scare people. They may have nothing to hide, but now they doubt whether they should use these counter-measures.
    It's not neccessary to use the counter-measures (IMHO) if you know you have nothing to hide. You can pass the test.
    I only brought up the fact that I know agents, who know the polygrapher, because I wanted to find out if the polygrapher was a straight up kind of guy. They say he is, and I believe them.
    Unlike Netnin, I'm not here to throw around insults and foul language. I'm throwing in my point of view on the whole process.
    Here's what Netnin sent me via instant message:
"You are a totally unreasonable piece of fucking dog shit.
Are you one of those people who has been absolutely and totally brainwashed by society?  Be a fucking individual you god damned piece of fucking crap."
    As you can see, unfortunately, these are the type of people that can be attracted to your site.
    By the way, I actually did read chapters 3 and 4 of your book, just to get a sense of what this site was about. I found it interesting reading. Although polygraphs may not be completely scientific, I think you'll see technology advance and new "polygraphs" will come on line. i.e. pupil dialation.

[George W. Maschke]

Duc748,

You wrote:

My control questions weren't ones designed for me to lie. They were "known truth" questions. And there were only 3 of them. Do you live in blank state? Is your name so and so? Are you blank years old? The answer was yes to all three.

These "known truth" questions are not control questions. They are irrelevant questions, and are not scored. But by DoDPI doctrine, the polygrapher is to falsely explain the purpose of these questions to the subject. Here is the textbook lie that is to be told to the subject:

The final diagnostic questions you may hear are ones you will answer truthfully so that I can see how you are responding when you tell the truth. It will be obvious that you are telling the truth....

Again, these questions are actually not scored at all, as you would know if you had read Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector more carefully.

Now you say that those three irrelevant questions were the only "control" questions your polygrapher used. It is conceivable that he used a Relevant/Irrlevant technique for your "test." But I'm curious. You mentioned that you admitted to cheating on a test in high school. What question brought that up? And how did your polygrapher re-word it after your admission?