PD applicant has a question...

[PBR]

Hey all.  I'm applying for my first LE position and am in need of some advice from those in the know.  I'm taking the application process very seriously, and stumbled onto this site while researching the polygraph portion.

Honestly, I have nothing to hide.  I'm on the up and up except for a little pot expirimentation three years ago that is within the requirements for the dept.  The problem is that I've spent a lot of time around the suburban drug culture.  Laughing and joking about scoring some coke or meth is kind of a running joke with some of my close friends, band-mates and co-workers.  Although I honestly have no desire to ever touch the stuff, I must admit that I've led other people to believe that I have in the past.  Stupid move, I know, but it's hard to fit in to the alt. rock scene without a "yeah, I tried it" story.

Anyway, I feel guilty about it, and I have a hard time believing that the machine will be able to distinguish the guilt I might feel over EXAGGERATING my drug use in the past with a bald-faced lie when I say "no" on the drug questions.

Would you (hopefully a polygrapher or two will read this also) suggest that I disclose this during the pre-test interview?  Will they allow for a stupid mistake and work with me or will they take my story as a lame attempt at a cover-up?  Has anybody else ever gotten themselves into this kind of situation?  Any input would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks

[George W. Maschke]

PBR,

Polygraphers would no doubt advise you to disclose anything and everything that might possibly be of concern to you. After all, it is their job to get admissions. But be aware that by admitting to a polygrapher that you've exaggerated your drug use to friends and colleagues, you will likely raise his/her suspicions and may well increase your chances of "failing" the drug-related relevant questions.

I think it would be prudent not to volunteer what you've discussed above to your polygrapher. For tips on reducing the risk of a false positive outcome, see Chapters 3 & 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

[Ray]

PBR,

I would suggest that you discuss your concerns with your polygraph examiner for the following reasons.  

First, if your exaggerations regarding your drug history are a concern or if you feel like you may be hiding something from the examiner, you are very likely to have problems with a drug related question.  

Secondly, your drug history (exaggerations) may very well come to light in a background investigation.  If you have previously failed to explain yourself during the application process, you may receive an unfavorable review.   By explaining yourself to the examiner you have at least provided a reasonable explanation for your BI to work with.

George's suggestion that you lie during the application process is only going to come back and bite you in the end.  

The majority of people who follow this website's advice have significant issues (drugs/crime/national security) that they are attempting to hide.  What you've described hardly qualifies as a significant issue or an "admission."  

Good luck!

[George W. Maschke]

PBR,

Ray (who is a polygraph examiner) provides a timely illustration of another reason why I think it would be unwise to volunteer what you've discussed here to your polygrapher. He writes, among other things:

George's suggestion that you lie during the application process is only going to come back and bite you in the end.

But I didn't suggest that you lie. I merely suggested that it would be prudent not to volunteer the information you posted here. Just as Ray wittingly or unwittingly misrepresented my remarks (even though he had them in front of him in writing), so too might your polygrapher misrepresent any statement you make regarding having exagerrated your illegal drug use to friends and colleagues.

I agree with Ray that your exaggeration of your drug history might come to light during the course of a background investigation. If it does, then that would be the appropriate time to mention it. Hopefully by then you'll have passed the polygraph, which should help bolster (in the mind of the agency with which you're applying) your contention that your claims to friends were untrue.

Ray also claims:

The majority of people who follow this website's advice have significant issues (drugs/crime/national security) that they are attempting to hide.

Ray cannot possibly know this to be true. No statistical data exists in this regard; indeed, compiling such data would be well nigh impossible. Ray's assertion is a baseless smear.

Because polygraph lie detection has no scientific basis and results in many truthful persons being falsely accused of deception, it is in the interest of everyone facing a polygraph "test" to educate him- or herself about this pseudoscience and to do that which is possible to minimize the risk of a false positive outcome.

[Ray]

George (who has never successfully completed a law enforcement application process and been hired) said:

But I didn't suggest that you lie. I merely suggested that it would be prudent not to volunteer the information you posted here.

PBR, I take it back George didn't technically tell you to lie however, he advised you to intentionally omit information during your application process.  It's a game of semantics George likes to play.  It's kind of like saying, "I didn't LIE to the police department about xyz....I just didn't VOLUNTEER the information."    

You be the judge PBR.  How do you think a PD would view this information if it came to light in a background investigation without a prior disclosure?  Will they think you simply forgot to "volunteer" information or will they think you were attempting to lie to them?  Why leave it to chance?  

agree with Ray that your exaggeration of your drug history might come to light during the course of a background investigation. If it does, then that would be the appropriate time to mention it.

PBR, George is wrong here.  It's always better to disclose ANY potentionally damaging information prior to it being discovered in a BI.  Do it George's way and you MIGHT get a chance to explain yourself...then again you MIGHT NOT get that chance.  

PBR I didn't want this to be a debate with George.  I really am trying to give you advice that will help you reach your goals.  Again, good luck!

[PBR]

Thanks to the both of you for replying.  I'm going to go with my gut and disclose my concerns during the interview.  I have nothing to hide, and I hope a little bit of past self-inflating hype can be forgiven.  I'll say this though.  If I do this thing straight up and then get tagged as a lier, I'm going to be a bitter, bitter guy.

[Marty]

Thanks to the both of you for replying.  I'm going to go with my gut and disclose my concerns during the interview.  I have nothing to hide, and I hope a little bit of past self-inflating hype can be forgiven.  I'll say this though.  If I do this thing straight up and then get tagged as a lier, I'm going to be a bitter, bitter guy.

I would probably do the same. No job is worth sacrificing your integrity for - even though the poly examiner is being deceptive. Just don't become bitter if you fail. False positives are not uncommon so don't take it personally.

-Marty

[Ray]

Marty,

We all know George questions the integrity of  polygraph examiners.  So let me ask you this, does George's suggestion that PBR "not volunteer" information (I call it a lie by omission) call into question George's integrity?  Based on your statement to PBR one might make that assumption.

[Marty]

Marty,

We all know George questions the integrity of  polygraph examiners.  So let me ask you this, does George's suggestion that PBR "not volunteer" information (I call it a lie by omission) call into question George's integrity?  Based on your statement to PBR one might make that assumption.

Hi Ray,

It's not just George. Polygraph's own literature describes processes of misdirecting and flat out lying to examinees. Now I do not believe examiners are malicious but that they justify their duplicity with the belief that it provides a more accurate exam. It probably is better than the older R/I poly. It is also a technique that works against the most honest - especially if the examiner does a poor job of picking controls that the examinee will at least squirm on.

While I personally wouldn't use CM's I don't really see anything more problematic about George's advice to use CM's prophylacticly than a polygrapher's control sensitization.

And George's site provides accurate information about the polygraph. Oddly, this is the area I have the most problem with since I think once someone (who is innocent)  understands polygraph they are more likely a false positive if they do not use CMs.  But is this George's fault - or that of the polygraph profession?

Ray, there has to be something that works better without compromising the ethics of everyone involved.

-Marty

[Drew Richardson]

Ray,

You write in part:

...We all know George questions the integrity of  polygraph examiners....

If the issue is deception (versus generalized integrity), the issue is well beyond George's personal belief. Several years ago now (how time flies when you're having fun), while part of an exchange with a polygraph examiner, I offered the following thoughts on this message board regarding deception on the part of a polygraph examiner who conducts probable lie control question tests.  I believe those considerations to be true today as I did then.

...
Examiner:

You say in part:

"...Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview.  Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process.  The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago.  This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement.  Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here..."

     You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions.  For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph "examiner" deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as "...examiner lies during the conduct of an interview..." and list certain of those deceptions.  Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement.  Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:

(1)      A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects.  In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.  

(2)      The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.  

 
(3)      Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.

(4)      Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.  

 
(5)      Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.

(6)      A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.


(7)      The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...

This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation.   You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers.  Agreed.  I would suggest for your consideration the following points:

(1)      The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.

(2)      The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers.  On what basis would you extend this "license to lie" to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?

...

You raise the issue of examinee deception and perhaps allude to the ethics of countermeasure use.  I would be happy to discuss those issues with you if you will first address point by point the issues I raise about examiner deception in the aforementioned quote.  I maintain that examiner deception is first (occurs in the pretest before an examinee is likely to be deceptive), occurs most frequently (each and every time a probable lie control question test is administered independent of whether an examinee is deceptive), is not trivial but quite substantive (the test outcome depends upon it), and lastly but surely is quite comical (requires widespread public ignorance and universal bluff to carry out--perhaps the most important function of this site is not to provide a venue for complaint but to diminish such ignorance.)  

[I-SMELL-BS-2]

Drew, it seems to me there is much more complaining than educating going on here.  And by the way, how about a report on your brain fingerprinting "lie detector" machine.  Have you perfected it yet?  

[Marty]

Drew, it seems to me there is much more complaining than educating going on here.  And by the way, how about a report on your brain fingerprinting "lie detector" machine.  Have you perfected it yet?  

ISBS2,

Improve our education then. Please provide URL's to sites with more accurate, detailed, information on polygraph.

-Marty

[I-SMELL-BS-2]

ISBS2,

Improve our education then. Please provide URL's to sites with more accurate, detailed, information on polygraph.

-Marty

Farty, I'm not here to educate or complain.  I am simply providing a service by pointing out obvious bullshit.  There is so much of it on this site that I really haven't the time to do anything else.

[Marty]

Farty, I'm not here to educate or complain.  I am simply providing a service by pointing out obvious bullshit.  There is so much of it on this site that I really haven't the time to do anything else.

ISBS2,

Service? What service?

I guess George's detailed polygraph facts both bother you and leave you little outlet other than rather childish prattle. Sad.

-Marty

[I-SMELL-BS-2]

ISBS2,

Service? What service?

I guess George's detailed polygraph facts both bother you and leave you little outlet other than rather childish prattle. Sad.

-Marty

There you go again Farty, adding to that tremendous pile of bullshit.  Sad.