Scared out of my mind by this website.

[T.M. Cullen]

Quote:
So then are you saying I SHOULD admit that I'm aware of countermeasure techniques and controversies surrounding the use of the polygraph? I wasn't going to say the second statement. I just wanted to know whether or not the fact that you know about a site like this and the existence of a Book/PDF file like the one on this website is a potential disqualification or in some way casts a shadow of doubt over how honest you will be judged to be. Does it?


^ I would still like an answer to this if you have time.

Ghon,

At this point maybe you should take pailryder up on his advice to go to a prosite.  I recommend "The Polygraph Place" http://www.polygraphplace.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi

 There would be two advantages:

1.  Get their point of view for comparative purposes, just realize that they make their living off the polygraph, and are just as biased as we are, albeit in the opposite direction.  Be sure to take them to task if you don't understand their responses or you don't think they are giving you the full story about the polygraph.  Sometimes you have to probe "both sides" to get a feel for who is giving you the straight dope.  For example, if you bring up the topic of CMs, they will probably claim they can easily detect them.  Then ask them how they could possibly detect someone biting their tongue, or doing difficult math questions in their head when being asked questions.

2.  If your polygraph operator asks you if you've researched the polygraph, you can THEN tell them in good faith you've been to BOTH anti and PRO sites in an effort to educate yourself on the topic.

3.  I still recommend you read the National Academy of Sciences Report http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369 (especially the "conclusion" section).  At the request of congress, they examined what few peer reviewed studies were out there which met adequate standards for scientific research (only 57 out of 1,000 studies available), as well as industry standard operating procedures and practices, then reported their assessment to congress.  So if you want an QUALIFIED and UNBIASED opinion concerning the likely accuracy and scientific validity of the polygraph by a prestigious body of scientists (and anyone sked to take a polygraph SHOULD), read it.  Sometimes that if better than getting caught up in a polarized debate on a topic of interest.

At any rate, please come back after your test and let us know how it went.

Good Luck,

TC

[Ghon]

Ghon

Examiners assume educated subjects google and find these sites.  The information available at these sites can be useful, but the problem is the overwhelming amount of information spun to support one point of view.  I estimate it would take a year for the average person to read and understand what is presented at this site alone.  You are asking people who hate polygraph to tell you what polygraph examiners think.  They think they know, but they do not.  Their reasoning is colored by their hate.  I can tell you that there is no single point of view in our community about this question.

I find it interesting that you say this about them, yet the presence of that quote in your signature clearly suggests that they must be right about something.

I suggest you pose your question on a pro site and see what examiners, the ones who really know, have to say.    

Such as?

[Ghon]

2.  If your polygraph operator asks you if you've researched the polygraph, you can THEN tell them in good faith you've been to BOTH anti and PRO sites in an effort to educate yourself on the topic.

So let me give you an example. The question is, "Are you aware of any resources that oppose/criticize the use of the polygraph and/or provide countermeasures to 'beat the system' so to speak?"

My answer:

"Yes."

Is that a fail, an inconclusive, a deception indicated, or a pass?

At any rate, please come back after your test and let us know how it went.

I am years away from taking a polygraph. I am still in college. I came here, primarily because I read a statement by someone who 'went to college to work in intelligence' and once they went through college and got their degree, it turns out they were SOL and got f'ed out because they failed a polygraph. That concerns me very much because i'm taking the academic route right now.

Lastly, i don't mean to be offensive or anything, but was that statement about you working in real estate and writing pornographic novels in jest or being serious?

If it's true that you're doing that simply because you failed a polygraph at a federal agency, then I think some people need to be put behind bars.

[T.M. Cullen]

I am years away from taking a polygraph. I am still in college. I came here, primarily because I read a statement by someone who 'went to college to work in intelligence' and once they went through college and got their degree, it turns out they were SOL and got f'ed out because they failed a polygraph. That concerns me very much because i'm taking the academic route right now.

I must be mistaking your from somebody in another thread.  But GREAT!  Most people come here AFTER failing the polygraph after having gone in the examination room believing in the popular myth of it's accuracy.  So you have one leg up.  You've got time to research it.  

Read TLBTLD and the NAS report.  Then go to the Pro-site I mentioned and see what a "snow job" you get there.  

Lastly, i don't mean to be offensive or anything, but was that statement about you working in real estate and writing pornographic novels in jest or being serious?

I retired from the military in Hawaii as a Chinese Linguist having held a TS/SCI for 20 years working in the SIGINT field.  Hawaii was one of the main duty stations for a person in my field and I managed to acquire some rental properties over the years.  So the bit about managing real estate is true.

Of course the porn ref was in jest.  I may be a dirty old man, but I am not a perve.  Remember, it is poloygraphers who employ one way mirrors!  

TC

P.S.  If you are years away from taking the polygraph then you shouldn't even be hypothesizing about imaginary conversations with polygraph operators that may or may not happen at some point in the distant future.  And if I was young like you, I'd take Jack Nickelson's advice in "One flew over the coo-coos nest"  I'd be:  

"Chase'n skirts and bang'n beaver!"  

[Ghon]

Read TLBTLD and the NAS report.  Then go to the Pro-site I mentioned and see what a "snow job" you get there.  

Will do.

I retired from the military in Hawaii as a Chinese Linguist having held a TS/SCI for 20 years working in the SIGINT field.  Hawaii was one of the main duty stations for a person in my field and I managed to acquire some rental properties over the years.  So the bit about managing real estate is true.

So while China is stealing every last one of our country's secrets, someone in a position to help guard against that is barred from serving..

P.S.  If you are years away from taking the polygraph then you shouldn't even be hypothesizing about imaginary conversations with polygraph operators that may or may not happen at some point in the distant future.  And if I was young like you, I'd take Jack Nickelson's advice in "One flew over the coo-coos nest"

I don't know what you mean. If you meant to say that the polygraph will be 'out of use' by then, I seriously doubt that. I would put no more than 5 years on the timeframe of when I'll be taking a polygraph, and I doubt so many agencies and branches of service are going to abandon the use of it. Oh, also, was the example I put forth a pass, fail, inconclusive, or deception indicated?

[Ghon]

Oh, also, was the example I put forth a pass, fail, inconclusive, or deception indicated?

Please...

[pailryder]

Ghon

You are unlikely to be asked if you are "aware" of antipolygraph sites or countermeasures.   You may be asked if you have "used or attempted to use" countermeasures, or you may be asked nothing at all.  The majority of examiners never mention cm's, especially after they detect their use.  Of course if Mr Cullen is correct and your examiner is unable to detect such clever tactics as tongue biting or mental math, then you have nothing to fear but fear itself.

[T.M. Cullen]

http://books.google.com/books?id=USg-j9esZagC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=polygraph++%22detecting+countermeasures%22&source=web&ots=eM1Vd4CZW3&sig=ZYxhGwxqdFI04xiymgXP_kjPxHE&hl=en&ei=gPiLSemGOIKOsQP_g_z-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Sorry about the long link.

Only the first couple of pages pertains.

Like I said, you have to know WHEN and HOW to use CMs.  If you pucker your butthole like you're trying to eliminate a tortoise shell,  when they ask you if your name is XXX,  that probably won't be of much help.  Some studies claiming that CMs do more harm than good, and makes a person more likely to fail, do not really take the level of proper CM usage on the part of the examinee into consideration.

There is NO  field studies that empirically prove that CMs in general work or don't work, or that polygraphers can detect them.  I think that iis the drift in the above link.

TC

[Ghon]

What exactly is meant by 'pucker your butthole'? I noticed it in George's statement as well. What role does your rear play in a polygraph examination?

[George W. Maschke]

What exactly is meant by 'pucker your butthole'? I noticed it in George's statement as well. What role does your rear play in a polygraph examination?

It means constricting the anal sphincter muscle. It's a technique that can be used to produce a reaction when asked a control question, increasing the likelihood of passing a probable-lie control question test. For reasons explained in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, AntiPolygraph.org no longer recommends this countermeasure method.

[Ghon]

Thank God, I don't want to do anything with my ass in a polygraph exam.

There's already enough to worry about. Seriously, I am not handling this well. I'm losing sleep, I'm getting angry and worried. My hands shake just reading some of the stories here. I don't like the idea that all this education is just going to be for nothing because of this machine.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

I think you're missing a fundamental point though, LieBabyCryBaby.

Not everyone who has posted here about how one of you guys ruined their life had even known about this site prior to being branded a false positive...I guess it would be relevant to mention that one of those people is the creator of this website.

Do you honestly think the host of this website knew 'countermeasures' prior to taking the polygraph? No. His crusade against them didn't begin until he got dealt a bad hand. So you can't tar them all with one brush. Sure maybe reading some CM info might increase the chances one could fail.

That's irrelevant though... one because that's not the only circumstance it can fail and two because it's not even the countermeasures that worry me. What worries me is the fact that my chances of being accepted into any government intelligence agency is basically a coin toss. A 50% chance. Not based on my record or the accuracy of what I say, but because a polygraph expert saw me 'tap my fingers' or 'sweat a little bit' then that means I shouldn't be hired. I'm sorry, but that's just a lot of you know what.

The polygraph is not perfect. But it is much better than a 50% chance.  Some people call it a "lie detector." It doesn't detect lies. All it does is show what is going on inside you when your are asked and you respond to a particular question. But when you consistently respond to the same question many times, something is definitely going on inside you with regard to that question. Only YOU can answer what that is.

My point has nothing to do with the subject of countermeasures, to which this thread has detoured.  It also has nothing to do with why a "false positive" is a possibility, although a very slim one. My point is that when a person gets all caught up in "this question is a comparison" and "this question is a relevant," I think they make the relevant questions MORE relevant than they would otherwise be if they had just gone through the test without worrying about all that stuff.

The advice on this website can hurt you more than it can help you.  There's some good stuff on here, but there's also pure drivel on here, much of which is posted here by non-polygraphers, phonies, and self-proclaimed experts.

The polygraph isn't perfect, and there IS an extremely slim chance that you could end up as a "false positive."  But I believe that chance is much, much smaller if you don't screw with your own head by following the advice of people who failed a polygraph. I've passed multiple polygraphs myself, and I am a polygrapher. Trust me more than George and all these phonies on this website.

[meangino]

he polygraph is not perfect. But it is much better than a 50% chance.  

Wrong, LBCB.   I took 2 polygraphs.  My answers were the same both times.  Yet, I was deemed "deception indicated" on the first one and "no deception indicated" on the second one.  There it is, a 50% chance of passing.

Of course, the complainant involved had zero credibility.  It baffled me when the polygrapher accused me of lying.  Nothing that she alleged was true; everyone involved with the investigation realized that.  Even the FBI dicks (I don't mean penises; as Rowan and Maartin said, look it up in your Funk and Wagnals if you don't know what it means) agree she was not credible, but (I) "must have been hiding something."  OK, if I were hiding something, what in the world was it?  The FBI dicks didn't know because there was nothing to hide!

Mr. Maschke is correct about so-called "lie detectors," they are junk science and nonsense.

The polygraph isn't perfect, and there IS an extremely slim chance that you could end up as a "false positive."

Well, I agree with your first point   and strongly disagree with your second one.    Polygraphs are like a coin toss, 50% heads (no decption indicated) and 50% tails (deception indicated). I know it's a small sample size but I know from my personal experience that a polygraph's outcome is a 50/50 propisition.

[T.M. Cullen]

It doesn't detect lies. All it does is show what is going on inside you when your are asked and you respond to a particular question.

Every polygraph operator I dealt with claimed it detected deception.  Where they lying?   How do you then explain use of the phrase "deception indicated"?

But when you consistently respond to the same question many times, something is definitely going on inside you with regard to that question. Only YOU can answer what that is.

But deception is only one.  There are other reasons why a person nervous system could register a "defensive" reaction.  In fact, if a person had been repeatedly told he was lying on a given question when he/she wasn't,  his nervous system could just as easily react to that question.  And a consistent reaction simply means he/she is consistently "reacting", whatever the underlying reason is.

Don't believe me, read the quote below from Dr. Zimbardo.  Still not convinced, NAS report said the same thing about there being NO direct connection between an F3 reaction and "decption".  It's just a huge supposition.  That's why you need to badger, cajole or otherwise harrass the examinee until he/she gives you something you can twist, take out of context, or blow out of proportion, to prove your theory that the consistent reaction means "deception".

My point has nothing to do with the subject of countermeasures, to which this thread has detoured.  It also has nothing to do with why a "false positive" is a possibility, although a very slim one. My point is that when a person gets all caught up in "this question is a comparison" and "this question is a relevant," I think they make the relevant questions MORE relevant than they would otherwise be if they had just gone through the test without worrying about all that stuff.

I think the FIRST THING a person would be well advised to do is:

Know at both conscious (through study and learning)  and subconscious levels that reactions on the machine don't mean a thing.  The more one learns about what the polygraph machine actually does, and it's true limitations,  the less afraid of it they will be.  I mention "subconscious" above because it is at that level that "reactions" are produced.

Know also, that who process is nothing more than an interrogation disguised as a test.   And that the polygraph machine is just a prop.

This is just the opposite of most examinees.  Most believe (mainly from the "pop" culture) that the polygraph is extremely accurate and scientific.  That is the polygraph claims the machine "indicates" deception,  then "shoot!  there must be something I did!  What the heck could it be?  Better start talking!"  This is JUST THE OPPOSITE way they should be thinking!

[Sergeant1107]

The polygraph is not perfect. But it is much better than a 50% chance.Some people call it a "lie detector." It doesn't detect lies. All it does is show what is going on inside you when your are asked and you respond to a particular question. But when you consistently respond to the same question many times, something is definitely going on inside you with regard to that question. Only YOU can answer what that is.

So, "something" is going on inside you when you consistently respond to the same question many times?  Gee, that sounds scientific...

Supervisor: "Was the subject deceptive or truthful?"  
Polygraph Examiner: "He was something!"
Supervisor: "Well done!"

If only the examinee can answer what the "something" is, why do examiners score the charts?  Why do they determine if deception was indicated or not?

Common sense indicates that polygraph examiners make a determination based on what they think.  They do not leave it up to the examinee, and there is no way for the examiner to truly know if their guess is accurate or not.