Beginning the process...

[Manus_Celer_Dei]

I'm currently at a certain point in the application process for employment at a federal agency, although I cannot divulge which one nor how far along I am for obvious reasons (although - as will be soon equally obvious - it is some time before the requisite polygraph examination).

I came to this website because, being curious about what to expect from this specific point in the employment process, it presented itself as one of the few websites that appears to delve into the nature of the polygraph examination with any significant depth. I have read Dr. Maschke's The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and have also read quite a few of the posts here on this message board. It's apparent that the difficulty of finding concrete information concerning the examination is probably caused in part by how polarized opinions are about it, although Dr. Maschke definitely has presented, throughout his book and these forums, a great deal of studies (which, not coincidentally, generally support his viewpoint concerning polygraphy).

After my careful reading of all that is presented here, including the opinions of the several admitted polygraph examiners, I have come to the following conclusions myself:

-Successful polygraphy, with regards to the detection of deception or truthfulness, is predicated on a subject producing a psychologically-conditioned, specific response (BFB as measurable by the polygraph) to a specific stimulus (lying).

Now, maybe others here can correct me if this assumption is wrong or too simplistic. If it isn't, though, then certain issues concerning the validity of examinations must necessarily come into play:

-If a subject is not properly conditioned to produce the desired response to the stimulus, then the test will not be successful (from a strictly objective viewpoint; either a reading with no bearing on nor relation to reality will be made, or the examiner will have to deem the examination inconclusive).
-If a subject produces the response in question to a stimulus or stimuli other than that which is relevent to the examination, then the test will not be successful.

Also, it seems that the actual conditioning being discussed basically boils down to producing a measurable, if temporary, anxious or fearful state in a lier.

Do advocates of polygraphy hold that this response is impossible to overcome? I find it difficult to believe that a subject could not forseeably counter-condition him or herself to not "fear the examination", or not allow him or herself to be conditioned as such.

Secondly, is it not possible that other stimuli could produce this reaction as measured by the polygraph? These stimuli do not appear to be "controlled for" in any classically scientific sense (and yes, I am well-aware that there are questions called "control questions", but I am also well-aware that, per my education and training, these are not classic control variables in that the examiner does not have control over possible values -i.e. responses - nor the ability to keep their effect constant).

In any case, after reading the information given on this site (amongst others), including that given by those who administer polygraphs, I am left to wonder what basis in science, if any, the polygraph could have. It seems, by polygraphers' own admission, that it is dependent on the ability of examiner to condition the subject correctly and confidently in the knowledge that no extraneous stimuli could also possibly cause the desired response. Unfortunately, the polygraph does not seem to measure the efficacy of any supposed conditioning, but simply the presence of the response.

I, as of now, am not intellectually satisfied with the polygraphic procedure and feel that there's more "art" to it than should be present in a process that can be used to have summarily deleterious effects on individuals. Now it is left to me to decide how best to approach it so as to ensure a "passing" result. Time to put my education to good use! I'll keep you guys updated with how it goes.

[Zending]

Manus,

Hi, I just recently took two Polygraph tests within two days for local law enforcement agencies. I can easily tell you that I was nervous during both of them, and though I do not have my results from either of them, I feel confident that I passed. My advice to you is simply tell the truth. Whether or not you want to employ countermeasures is your own choice, but I can cofidently tell you that I did not use any for moral and ethical reasons. I simply have nothing to hide, and I want to prove that to myself and the polygrapher without "cheating" or the use of deceptive techniques. If you have any questions about my Polygraph experience feel free to IM me at MACH2000 on AIM, or e-mail me at grath_xandar@yahoo.com. Thanks, and good luck with your tests, I hope it all works out for you.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

I agree with Zending. If you read all of the crap posted and claimed by the anti-polygraph people, you may very well not end up passing the test, but either being discovered attempting countermeasures, which can be easily interpreted by the examiner as a lack of integrity, or you'll just screw up by making certain questions more important in your mind simply because others tell you they are. Give it a shot the right way, Manus. Your chances are better. You are right that the polygraph is not perfect, and there is indeed an art involved in the case of a skilled examiner. But don't buy into everything on this website that is written by people who have no experience conducting polygraphs, but who failed the polygraph and then got their so-called expertise second-hand.

As you can see, Manus, I have come back to edit my post. The reason for this is because I re-read yours. Forgive me if I'm jumping to conclusions, but you really do spout typical anti-polygraph jargon with the best of them on this website. You do not come across as a casual reader who is about to take a polygraph and just stumbled on this website and read the book. Either you are much more informed than the average future examinee--informed with a lot of bias as generated on this website--and you are amazingly able to recite it with the tongue of a well-studied "anti-" after merely reading it, or you are one of George's cronies in disguise. I hate to jump to conclusions because it makes me look bad when I'm wrong, but please convince me that I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, my advice still stands.

[Sergeant1107]

Give it a shot the right way, Manus. Your chances are better.

I failed three out of four polygraphs despite telling the truth and not concealing any information on any of them.  I had never even heard of countermeasures at the time and obviously didn't attempt any.

So, in my experiences the chances of passing a polygraph by "giving it a shot the right way" are about 25%.

What are the chances of successfully using countermeasures to pass a pre-employment polygraph?  I don't know, and by definition there aren't any polygraph examiners who know either.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

What are the chances, indeed? I can't claim to know. All I can claim is that examinees who get caught are sometimes caught, thereby ending their application process.

Sergeant, if you were one of the false positives, I'm sorry to hear that. There, you have an apology from a polygrapher. I don't see how it will make much of a difference to you, but at least one polygrapher is willing to accept that the false positive does exist, although we still believe it is rare. Little consolation when you are one of the rarities, though, isn't it?

[George W. Maschke]

I, too, followed LBCB's advice and "gave it a shot the right way." I didn't do any research into polygraphy. I simply went to my polygraph appointments with the FBI and LAPD and answered all questions truthfully. The result was that my FBI polygrapher falsely accused me of deception while my LAPD polygrapher falsely accused me of using countermeasures. At the time, I didn't even know what countermeasures are.

LBCB speaks in general terms of "crap posted and claimed by the anti-polygraph people," yet hasn't pointed out any specific statement in the The Lie Behind the Lie Detector he believes to be false or otherwise misleading, let alone provided any documentation that such is the case. By contrast, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is well-documented with references that skeptical readers may check for themselves.

LBCB further suggests that the information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector should somehow be disregarded because the authors "have no experience conducting polygraphs." While it is true that Gino Scalabrini and I are not polygraphers, we are perfectly capable of reading and comprehending the polyragaph literature, to which one finds ample references in our book. Just as one needn't be a phrenologist to critically examine the pseudoscience of phrenology, one needn't be a polygrapher to investigate the pseudoscience of polygraphy.

[Manus_Celer_Dei]

I have no current plans to use the countermeasures outlined in TLBTLD, but I have not ruled out the possibility. Much like Dr. Maschke has said, I haven't seen any indication by the several polygraph examiners here that the basic information describing the process of an examination in the book is false.

I don't necessarily have anything to hide, but I can easily see how a completely honest individual may have issues in "passing" an examination while those who make no or false admissions may succeed.

My main issue is that in researching polygraphy, I may have effectively poisoned the well, so to speak, and removed much of the psychological pressure that is necessary for the examination to produce results. Polygraphers may not agree, but I am confident that any individual, given sufficient time and desire, can mentally overcome any previously existing conditioning, and can easily resist further conditioning/suggestion as well - especially if they are fully aware that there is an attempt to do so. Given this, I believe that I could seriously lower the ability of a polygraph examination to measure any supposed degree of "deception", if I wished to do so.

I am mostly concerned now that my examination will not reflect reality. I realize that most polygraphers do not view their profession/practice as an exact science, but I personally would find it intractably disingenious to make any statements about the truthfulness of any individual to whom I had administered the exam. A confession may be extracted (which is an altogether different issue from a psychological viewpoint), but if none is given, I cannot fathom how polygraphers are capable of claiming presence of deception or countermeasures. The anecdotal evidence here typically feautures polygraph proponents claiming high percentages of accuracy - but I feel there is likely an extraordinary amount of selection and confirmation biases at play.

One must only look to Aldrich Ames to see that polygraphs can be beaten, even in cases of massive deception. And of course when asked how he beat them, he simply stated that he did what his Soviet handlers had instructed: he relaxed - something which I plan to do as well.

EDIT: I just saw that LBCB commented on my post in his edited post and stated that I am likely a "croney" for the anti-polygraph movement.

I cannot prove that I'm not. This is the internet, and I'm anonymous. What you choose to believe or not is ultimately at your discretion.

I am indeed currently in the hiriing process for a federal agency. I knew nothing of polygraphs except what the typical, generally-educated person would know i.e. they measured several biological functions that were correlated with the act of lying. After researching over the past few days in preparation for what to expect, I arrived at the conclusions I have now. There is very little information on the internet concerning the subject that does not carry with it some motivation of either substantiating or calling into question the polygraph examination's efficacy. However, the consensus of research, and the admissions of polygraphers such as yourself, point to it being a method of interrogation and not a scientific test.

I am simply weighing in on the topic by siding with my fellow academic colleagues, and agreeing that, according to my initial study of the matter, there is far too much room for an examiner to introduce biases or be required to interpret nondefinitive results for the practice to be accepted as scientifically sound.

Keep in mind that a process' basis (or lack thereof) in science does not necessarily mean that it should or should not have a place in the real world. I will not say that polygraph examinations are no better than a coin toss. I believe that under ideal conditions, polygraph examinations are likely to produce statistically significant results. However, there is at least one important caveat: both the examiner and the examinee have broad abilities to surreptitiously influence results to act for or against a certain conclusion with absolutely no way to determine the reality of the situation, thus meaning that ideal conditions may not occur at a satisfactory rate.

Interrogation has a place. But it is not science. And interrogation can be beaten, withstood, or simply disregarded if an individual possesses the psychological fortitude. I am going into my examination fully in the knowledge that I am going to be interrogated, but also in the knowledge that the polygraph can only measure that segment of reality to which it was designed, and the intrepretation of that reality once again falls upon an imperfect human mind.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Yeah, guess that confirms my suspicions. I don't believe you are simply a law enforcement recruit. You talk just like one of the regular anti-polygraph posters on this forum. In fact, you sound very much like someone I know from this forum. Hmmm. . .  That reminds me: anyone seen Digithead lately?      You have an interesting choice of names, by the way:

Manus celer Dei "the swift hand of God."

[fatman1955]

Manus, you will soon see how you really feel about the polygraph after you take it. If you pass you will swear by it being accurate. If you fail it although you told the truth you will loath it.  There is no credible science involved in the polygraph. Please also do not assume it is an art. Voodoo and reading palms is an art and just as accurate. The polygraph is an interrogation tool and you are your worst enemy when you take the test. It starts doing the pre interview and I would caution you to be careful what you say because your works may come back to haunt you. When the test starts, remember the polygraph tester is not your friend. His/her job is to get an admission of guilt out of you. If for some reason he/she just does not like you that may be enough to fail you. If they don't like a reading on the chart you must be using countermeasures and you will fail. The best advice that can be given to you is to get a good night sleep, take the test and hope that when your employment coin is tossed it lands on heads with you getting the job. The more advice you get about how credible or not credible the polygraph is will ultimately sabotage you. Since the test is not recorded it will be your word against the tester if you fail. If you fail, you be the judge of the appeal process. With that said, I wish you all the luck on the test. It really makes no difference in the end if you are pro or anti-polygraph until you take the test.

[digithead]

Yeah, guess that confirms my suspicions. I don't believe you are simply a law enforcement recruit. You talk just like one of the regular anti-polygraph posters on this forum. In fact, you sound very much like someone I know from this forum. Hmmm. . .  That reminds me: anyone seen Digithead lately?      You have an interesting choice of names, by the way:

Manus celer Dei "the swift hand of God."

At least you know your Latin, but manus is not me. Religion is not my thing, I'm one of those godless academics, remember?

Plus sockpuppets are not my style...

But George can verify the different IP addresses if you want evidence of your false positive as I only post from school and home...

I'm also  buried with writing semester papers and grading final exams so I don't have time for long posts...

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Oh, there you are, Digithead. Nice of you to stop by. You certainly have plenty of time, despite your academic duties, to peruse the various topics on this forum and respond very quickly to the implication I made.

You should agree, though, that Manus definitely speaks with the trained tongue of the well-versed anti-polygraphite (you like that word?) rather than the typical unlearned curiosity of a law enforcement applicant who just recently stumbled onto this website. That is why I assume, perhaps erroneously, I admit, that he/she is a wolf in sheepskin.

[Manus_Celer_Dei]

Yeah, guess that confirms my suspicions. I don't believe you are simply a law enforcement recruit. You talk just like one of the regular anti-polygraph posters on this forum. In fact, you sound very much like someone I know from this forum. Hmmm. . .  That reminds me: anyone seen Digithead lately?      You have an interesting choice of names, by the way:

Manus celer Dei "the swift hand of God."

I created a long post to respond to you again, but the server ate it. Instead of retyping it completely, I'll brush across my most salient points:

-I don't know who Digithead is.
-I may well be more educated than a typical examinee. I use jargon because I'm academically and professionally familiar with its use, not because I have seen it on this or other websites.
-I, as a matter of curiosity, character, and professional courtesy, do as much research as I can to understand what future employment entails, including the hiring process itself. I feel to not do so is both unwise and a bit of an insult to a prospective employer.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Manus,

If what you say is true, I stand corrected, despite my continued suspicions. Your education is apparent, and if you are indeed simply a law enforcement recruit who just began researching the polygraph, then your command of the anti-polygraph jargon makes you something of an enigma. Carry on then.

[Manus_Celer_Dei]

Continuing, since it seems the server is having problems with my long posts:

-Polygraphy appears to be a form of interrogation, very much dependent on examiner skill to create a certain psychological atmosphere and the susceptiblity of the examinee. As such, skilled examiners are either very talented, or very well-trained. But this also means that the results of the test can be influenced by an examinee, either consciously or unconsciously, to be inconclusive or to veer away from reality.
-Since I now likely know too much about the process to be the ideal examinee, I need to decide whether actively or passively subverting any possible psychological conditioning is a good idea. I am positive I have it well within my means to do the latter, at the very least.
-I appreciate and have taken into consideration your and Zending's advice. I feel it is by no means bad advice.
-If I am misinformed about any points I have made, please tell me. I'm here to learn, prepare, and react - not to tear a practice down from its foundations.

[Twoblock]

Manus

It appears that you are getting there. I would think that the more you know about the polygraph, the reason for the stim test, etc., the more likely you are to pass by telling the truth. If you are unfortunate enough to draw a punitive polygrapher and he gets in your face with loud accusations and cursing, just tell him to unhook you and you will return when he has joined the human race and will treat you like a man. He has no right to do this. This type of behavior is nothing but a ploy to jack you up and , hopefully, extract some kind of confession. If you have the ability to do so, just remain calm and answer the questions calm. As others on this board have said, "knowledge is power".

LBCB may not agree with what I have said even though he doesn't appear to be the punitive type. He believes he is good enough, and maybe he is, that he doesn't have to resort to that stuff.