Upcoming Poly- Have questions

[sackett]

Sackett.... any comment on my last post?

What could I possibly say that would have any impact?

Sackett

[Lethe]

okay so bringing a list of 15-20 stupid things i've done / taken / lied about is not a good idea?

I will use no counter measures, i will be 100% honest and if i fail, i guess the police department didn't need me after all. My background investigation would likely put any BI to sleep. I plan to tell the examiner things ive never mentioned to anyone in my life.

I guess we will see. Generally i am a very calm person. Hopefully I won't be collateral damage, as i really would enjoy a new career in law enforcement.

Understand that the examiner is going to try to get you to lie.  While he doesn't absolutely need you to lie, he's like you to do so and will try to get you to do so.  You're going to hear something like the following in the pre-test phase:

Anonymous000, if you've ever lied to get out of trouble or if you've ever broken any traffic law then you're not the sort of person we want in law enforcement.  Who wants a police officer who lies to get out of trouble?  Or who wants a police officer who himself breaks traffic laws?  Of course, no one does.  So, if you have ever done these things, you cannot be a police officer.  

We furthermore have studies that show that people who have ever disappointed a loved one do not make good police officers.  So, if you have ever disappointed a loved one we will conclude that you will not make a good police officer and you will not get a job.

So, tell me, Anonymous000, have you ever broken any traffic law?  Have you ever told any lie to get out of trouble?  Have you ever disappointed a loved one?  If you have, you cannot be a police officer!

This is, of course, all ridiculous.  The purpose is not to find out if you've done the things mentioned, it is assumed that you have because, indeed, if you're human you almost certainly have done these things. The purpose of this spiel is to make you lie or, at least, to make you feel damned anxious about your position when answering those questions.

You have two choices.  You can play along and pretend that you won't get the job if you tell the truth.  That is called "make believe," but may well result in you passing.  But then, you'll have told a lie to get a position of trust.  You need to figure out if you can deal with that and if it's worth it to you.

Your other option is to do what you claim you will do: be 100% honest.  Tell them that you have broken traffic laws, as they may already know if they've reviewed your driving records and you've ever had a ticket. He'll act shocked--shocked!--that you've broken traffic laws (prepare yourself for the bad acting) and will demand all the details.  When and where has every incident of traffic law violation taken place!  You'll mention those that you remember, or a few of them, and the polygrapher will act angry, probably shaking his head at what a horrible human being you are.  He will then ask if there are any other traffic violations to report.

The basic idea behind this is that if they demand to know when and where every traffic violation you ever committed was performed and you can't remember every time you broke a traffic law in all the tens or hundreds of thousands of miles that you've driven (as if anyone could), you will think you can't be a cop.  Your reactions to those questions will therefore be stressed and can be used as a comparison for the relevant questions about drug use and the like.  

Now, you might wonder how you are to lie when you know you're expected to lie, or why you should feel anxious when you know you're supposed to feel anxious and won't really face any consequences for having broken traffic laws.  Why should you take this polygrapher seriously when he is making such ridiculous statements?  Never fear, and don't worry that you know how the polygraph really works.  You see, polygraphers assure me that knowing how it works does not diminish its accuracy at all!  

Some people will try to convince you that the accuracy will suffer if you are informed of how it works.  They will ask you why polygraphers cloak their methods in secrecy if there is no reason for such secrecy.  They will suggest that there is a reason polygraphers tell the ridiculous lies, and that reason is to increase the accuracy of the exam.  Don't listen to those people.  There is, polygraphers assure me, no real reason for the silly lies they tell--they certainly don't increase accuracy at all!  

Anyway, tell the truth on the relevant questions.  Period.  

You can either lie or tell the truth on the comparison questions.  Polygraphers also assure me that it doesn't matter if you lie or tell the truth on the comparison questions, it's all the same to them.

If you pass(ed), good luck with your career!  If you fail(ed) you're either a bad human being or spent too much time listening to people who don't like the polygraph.  Sucks to be you.

[notguilty1]

Sackett.... any comment on my last post?

What could I possibly say that would have any impact?

Sackett

I don't know.... your the expert I thought I was finally having an intellgent converstaion with you.
I can say from direct experience that Poygraphs don't work.
If you have no further comment about this case i put foward I can't say I'm surprized.

[pailryder]

NG1

More properly you can only say, from your direct experience, the polygraph you took failed to accurately classify you.  The polygraph industrial complex recognizes the problem with false positive results, but to significantly reduce them, would increase the false negative rate, a trade-off deemed unacceptable to LEA's.  

[T.M. Cullen]

..........The polygraph industrial complex recognizes the problem with false positive results...........

Polygraphers routinely claim 95-98% accuracy, and that false positives are not a problem.  They make this claim both publically, and during tests to bolster belief in the test by the public at large, and test subjects in particular.

TC

[pailryder]

Mr Cullen

It is difficult for any examiner to know exactly his own accuracy rate, as in so many cases ground truth is never resolved to a certainty.   Like you, I would be inclined to view claims in excess of 95% as wishful bs.  And, I have had my share of both confirmed false positives and false negatives.

[sackett]

Yes, but if you had the wisdom of george, cullen and others, you would know Pailryder, that anything which is not perfect and without error can not possibly be a scientific test; and therefore must be discarded by all humankind...  

Sackett

[T.M. Cullen]

It is difficult for any examiner to know exactly his own accuracy rate, as in so many cases ground truth is never resolved to a certainty.   Like you, I would be inclined to view claims in excess of 95% as wishful bs.  And, I have had my share of both confirmed false positives and false negatives.

Then there a lot of polygraphers out there spreading BS, starting with Trimarco.  Thank you for being honest.

Our thesis here at AP, is that is more or less a necessity for polygraphers to dupe people into believing the test is so accurate.  And  that it is precisely the innocent, naive, law abiding people who are the most likely to come up FP.

Our goal here is to dispel this accuracy myth.

TC

[notguilty1]

Yes, but if you had the wisdom of george, cullen and others, you would know Pailryder, that anything which is not perfect and without error can not possibly be a scientific test; and therefore must be discarded by all humankind...  

Sackett

See Sackett ..... You had me believing for a moment that you may accually want to intelligently discuss this but..... as usual you have to resort to remaks that point to your close minded ingnorance and utter disregard for the opinions, experiences and statements of others.
But though I have strayed from my original advise to you ... here it is again..... Keep talking, you are the best anti polygraph poster we have here and it seems like, you can't help yourself    
BTW, TM Cullen was making a correct observation of the Poly industry claiming 95-98% accuaracy I was told exactly that too.
Oh and thanks Pailryder for your comments seems like you have something constructive to add to the disscussion.  

[notguilty1]

NG1

More properly you can only say, from your direct experience, the polygraph you took failed to accurately classify you.  The polygraph industrial complex recognizes the problem with false positive results, but to significantly reduce them, would increase the false negative rate, a trade-off deemed unacceptable to LEA's.  

Yes, I can only directly speak for my own case, however I have read much about people that have experienced the same thing.
The original respose that I got from people like Sackett was that I must be with holding something!!
So what I hear you saying is the "test" is as good as the odds are that its accurate which can't really be established.
Leading to the fact that it cannot be relied upon to detect any measure of truth or deception.
It's best use, as I see it is a tool to get confessions and even that has been shown to be unrealiable in many criminal cases.

[George W. Maschke]

Yes, but if you had the wisdom of george, cullen and others, you would know Pailryder, that anything which is not perfect and without error can not possibly be a scientific test; and therefore must be discarded by all humankind...  

Sackett

Jim,

It's not the fact that polygraph testing has an error rate associated with it that makes it unscientific. No one is making such an argument, and it is intellectually dishonest of you to suggest such. You're merely setting up a straw man to knock down.

Here's what the National Academy of Sciences concluded regarding the scientific standing of polygraphy (at pp 212-13 of The Polygraph and Lie Detection):

Polygraph Accuracy Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.

Theoretical Basis The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.

Research Progress Research on the polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner. Polygraph research has proceeded in relative isolation from related fields of basic science and has benefited little from conceptual, theoretical, and technological advances in those fields that are relevant to the psychophysiological detection of deception.

Future Potential The inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy.

[pailryder]

NG1

The fact that many LEA's use the techniques mostly as a confession wedge, does not negate legitimate use for detection of deception.  Many agencies with that mindset have changed to some form of voice analysis for a faster wedge.  The PCASS seems to me to be the polygraph industry's answer to the challenge of VS.

In the private field we are have less interest in confession and thus less need to inflate expected accuracy, though many still do, as old habits are hard to break.  

The fact that many anti's seem unwilling to grasp, is that there is a need for independent credability asscessments in our society.  We can and should argue over who is to do them and how, but the need is there.

If polygragh were banned tomorrow, it would not change what I do, just how I do it.  The credability asscessment that includes a psychophysiological component is more reliable than one which does not.

[notguilty1]

NG1

The fact that many LEA's use the techniques mostly as a confession wedge, does not negate legitimate use for detection of deception.  Many agencies with that mindset have changed to some form of voice analysis for a faster wedge.  The PCASS seems to me to be the polygraph industry's answer to the challenge of VS.

In the private field we are have less interest in confession and thus less need to inflate expected accuracy, though many still do, as old habits are hard to break.  

The fact that many anti's seem unwilling to grasp, is that there is a need for independent credability asscessments in our society.  We can and should argue over who is to do them and how, but the need is there.
If polygragh were banned tomorrow, it would not change what I do, just how I do it.  The credability asscessment that includes a psychophysiological component is more reliable than one which does not.

Pailryder,
We can agree on this and the anti's (at least the ones I read) do not dispute the "need" for any scientific test we just point out the inaccuarcy of polygraphs. I agree ...... find a proven scientific test that accually does what it claims, in this case detect deception and it can be an awsome tool that can be vital in ALL areasof society.
Imagine the uses: Politics, Criminal investigation ( and admisability in court), jurors etc etc.
Fact is the current Polygraph is so inaccurate that it does little to help in any way. I know this first hand since if the police could use the (fasle) results of my Polygraph I would be arrested.
Ultimatly, you cannot use snake oil in place of a proven scientific test and expect not to be called on it because, as you say the need is there and this is all we have now.

[pailryder]

NG1

I have been a polygraph examiner for more than twenty years and the next polygraph examiner that I meet who introduces himself to me as a scientist will be the first.  We are speaking of interview and interrogation techniques.  People evaluating other people based on an interview that may or may not include the collection of psychophysicological data.  More than ever we are research driven and try to learn from and fit in with other discplines.  The last time I checked the Am Poly Assoc membership I counted members from 43 other countries.  Why did the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute change its name to the Defense Academy for Credibility Asscessment?  New techniques are coming faster than ever, they will not be called polygraph, but all will require some level of person to person interaction that may never be completely scientific in the way a chemistry experiment is.  

[T.M. Cullen]

I've been telling people for quite some time that the polygraph is nothing more than an interrogation, and not a test for truthfulness.  It requires the interrogator to PURPOSELY lie about the accuracy of the machine to "trick" the test subject into volunteering information.  If the person tested KNOWS the examiner is lying, he/she will not be intimidated into making insignificant statement in response to relevant test questions which the unscrupulous examiner can blow out of all proportion to fail the person.  They will NOT be intimidated!

If the person tested knows that the statement:  "Look, you are reacting to that question.  That means you are being deceptive.  We want to help you, but you are going to have to open up to us.", is a lie and a come on, they will be less likely to fall for the con.

And NOT falling for such a con should not disqualify an applicant the hiring committee is "hot to hire".  It could, however, be of some use to an investigator doing a BI.  Problem is, once a fail or inconclusive is pronounced, the application process if over.  No BI, no follow-up.  So they end up moving to Shanghai, or Shenzhen to work in the private sector within easier access to foreign CI operatives.

TC