Should I tell the truth?

[WannaBeCopper]

Hi,

I've read on the internet that the best thing to do is tell the truth when it comes to taking the lie detector test. I would like to be a cop but I'm embarrassed of something I did 3 years ago. I have smoked marijuana scarcely for a few years. I'm open to admitting that truthfully but I once called an escort service (prostitution).

I read that they might ask this question? Should I tell the truth or lie?

[pixkbi]

if you lie and get caught either in the polygraph or background you can kiss your career goodby.. on the other hand if these behaviors are outside the minimum standards tell the truth and get on with your career.. if you lie and get caught your credibility in Court will be non existent

[WannaBeCopper]

If the polygraph test is 'junk science' how can they know the truth? how can I get caught in the polygraph?

[Sergeant1107]

If the polygraph test is 'junk science' how can they know the truth? how can I get caught in the polygraph?

Regardless of whether you think you will get caught, you should tell the truth because that is the ethical thing to do.

If you become a cop are you going to obey the law and follow proper procedure when you think you will get caught doing otherwise, or will you obey the law and follow proper procedure all the time because it is the right thing to do?

[WannaBeCopper]

I don't think that something I did 3 years ago (once) should be in public domain. I wasn't a cop then. And it shouldn't count against me today. I'm not the same person.

[pailryder]

WannaBeCopper

Is the person you are now strong enough to be honest about the person you used to be?

[Sergeant1107]

I don't think that something I did 3 years ago (once) should be in public domain. I wasn't a cop then. And it shouldn't count against me today. I'm not the same person.

No problem.
Just have the strength of character to tell the agencies to which you are applying that you don't believe things you may or may not have done in the past have any bearing on who you are today.  They will not agree with you, but if you truly believe what you wrote (and are not just rationalizing because you are too irresponsible and immature to own up to mistakes you may have made in the past) you should be okay with being denied a job so long as you stick to your pricincples.

Or you can just admit that you are wrong and that past behavior can and often does impact a person's current morals and ethics.  If you can admit that and you can accept responsibility for choices you made in the past you will be better off, regardless of whether you land the job you want.

[Glavlit]

If the polygraph test is 'junk science' how can they know the truth? how can I get caught in the polygraph?

Some of the documented official known instances of a polygraph interrogation/exam being successfully "beat" were in the cases of highly skilled operatives of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS)/Hauptverwaltung Aufklärung (HVA), and the Dirección General de Inteligencia (DGI). There might be other occasional occurrences, but in terms of the historical record, those two main key entities were alleged to be successful at "beating" it in an intentional, pre-planned and consistent manner. Remember, the actual instrumentation phase (when you are actually hooked up to the polygraph) is but a small component of the total examination/interrogation session.

The point I am trying to make to the original poster is that you are nowhere near that playing field, knowledge base, or skill level. So your best course of action is to be totally honest and to tell the whole complete truth, and nothing but the whole complete truth, and you shall be set free (you will feel better about yourself).

The interrogator/interviewer is experienced and is not a fool. Try to intentionally lie and you will be caught and blacklisted for life from all future possible law enforcement and security agency employment positions. If you tell the truth, the worse that could happen is that you might be delayed for a bit longer, but you will not face the risk of being blacklisted for life for dishonesty and attempted deception.

Do as you wish, but remember, you won't be the first, not the last, to be caught and fail...and ultimately it's all a test of loyalty and reliability, with your decisions reflecting highly on your ethics and reliability/security.

[George W. Maschke]

If the polygraph test is 'junk science' how can they know the truth? how can I get caught in the polygraph?

Some of the documented official known instances of a polygraph interrogation/exam being successfully "beat" were in the cases of highly skilled operatives of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS)/Hauptverwaltung Aufklärung (HVA), and the Dirección General de Inteligencia (DGI). There might be other occasional occurrences, but in terms of the historical record, those two main key entities were alleged to be successful at "beating" it in an intentional, pre-planned and consistent manner. Remember, the actual instrumentation phase (when you are actually hooked up to the polygraph) is but a small component of the total examination/interrogation session.

One doesn't have to go to spy school to learn how to beat a polygraph. Polygraph countermeasures are as simple as polygraph methodology is simplistic.

The point I am trying to make to the original poster is that you are nowhere near that playing field, knowledge base, or skill level. So your best course of action is to be totally honest and to tell the whole complete truth, and nothing but the whole complete truth, and you shall be set free (you will feel better about yourself).

While I think that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical obligation to answer relevant questions truthfully, it should be noted that the primary technique used for pre-employment polygraph screening is based on the assumption that everyone, even people that the polygraphing agency would like to hire, will be less than completely truthful when answering the so-called "control" questions. In fact, the "total honesty" you advocate makes a false positive more likely, because the more honestly one answers the control questions, and as a result exhibits weaker physiological reactions when answering them, the more likely one is to fail.

The interrogator/interviewer is experienced and is not a fool.

Any interrogator/interviewer who believes in polygraphy is indeed a fool.

Try to intentionally lie and you will be caught and blacklisted for life from all future possible law enforcement and security agency employment positions. If you tell the truth, the worse that could happen is that you might be delayed for a bit longer, but you will not face the risk of being blacklisted for life for dishonesty and attempted deception.

While I agree that WannaBeCopper should be candid about his background, the outcome of any future polygraph screening "test" to which he may be subjected has no direct correlation with whether or not he has told the truth.

Do as you wish, but remember, you won't be the first, not the last, to be caught and fail...and ultimately it's all a test of loyalty and reliability, with your decisions reflecting highly on your ethics and reliability/security.

CQT polygraphy by its design (the built-in bias against the truthful that I mentioned above) can be expected to screen out the most honest applicants while favoring those who will most blatantly lie when answering the control questions. Whatever polygraph screening may be, it is no genuine test of the examinee's loyalty and reliability.

[Glavlit]

George,

I do understand where you are coming from and cannot refute your points from a purely technical perspective. However, I do believe we are coming from somewhat different, but nonetheless important viewpoints. You are referencing technical points based on controlled ideal experiment type scenarios.

I however am talking about the real-life implementation of the art of polygraphy in a pre-employment type complex environment. Here are a few additional practical points that would reduce the significance of the accuracy/validity side of the technical machine/procedure debate:

1. The pre-employment polygraph is a holistic process taken as a whole, so for example out of a five hour interview session the subject would only be hooked up to the machine for about 20 minutes, and only at the end.

2. The charts alone do not decide the outcome; the interviewer/examiner submits a recommendation of whether a subject should continue on with processing, based on a holistic global overview and professional opinion of multiple factors, and of an overall impression; not because of any specific technical chart data. In other words, it is more subjective art, than science, just like a standard job interview.

3. The polygraph can be best used as a tool, akin to a magnifying glass, so help identify and zoom in on areas that might need to be looked at closer, and be further investigated. Thus, it is an invaluable tool for pre-employment screening purposes.

Can you name any other screening tool that has been as effective at uncovering and flushing out information about applicants?

Of course, different agencies and departments would use different procedures and methodologies, but the above were just a few points to keep in mind, which would apply to some of the agencies, at least some of the time.

In conclusion, the polygraph is just a toolset, just as a notepad and a pen are just tools, and in the hands of a seasoned interviewer, the use of this toolset does produce results, and does save money in the end; which is why it continues to be employed in sensitive domains.

[George W. Maschke]

Glavlit,

Polygraphs may be useful for eliciting admissions from the naïve and the gullible, but such utility is lost once the examinee understands the lie behind the lie detector. As we can assume WannaBeCopper does or will.

The polygraph instrument is not a tool. It's an interrogational prop. As retired FBI scientist and supervisory special agent Dr. Drew Richardson has put it, polygraph examiners are involved in the detection of deception to the same extent that one who leaps from a tall building is involved in flying.

WannaBeCopper should be candid about his background because it's the right thing to do. Not out of misplaced fear that he might be caught by the polygraph. Or by the bogey man.

Oh, and whether or not he chooses to tell the truth to his polygrapher, his polygrapher will lie to and otherwise attempt to deceive him about polygraphy. In every polygraph examination, there is at least one liar in the room: the polygraph operator.

[Glavlit]

Well you sure do bring up a good point in terms of the apparent paradox during the polygraph examination. It is true that the test seems to be most effective on the naive subject. It is also true that some of the narrative employed and descriptions given during the early phases of the examination are not only scientifically inaccurate, and overly simplistic, but when carefully and logically examined in their totality, some of the things that are said and explained in the early part of the procedure can actually be found to logically contradict things said or explained in the latter parts of the examination.

I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that an educated subject, both in terms of academic and polygraph specifics, could become quite insulted, if not annoyed, by many of the items in the narrative passed off as "facts" or truths. In fact, I can imagine the possibility of some narratives or explanations being so simplistic, factually inaccurate, and totally misleading, that an educated subject might actually become very annoyed and quite hostile during the commencement of the procedure. So instead of rapport being established, what you get is a feeling of hostility. I don't think anyone enjoys being essentially belittled and lied to.

So the ethical question is: If the interviewer thinks it is alright to misinform and essentially lie to the subject, then would it not be more likely that if this "game" becomes transparent, then rapport would be impossible to establish, and in fact the subject would me more likely to be less intent on cooperating and being friendly, due to this perceived personal insult brought on by the procedure itself? It's as simple as the tit-for-tat principle, a measured response in kind to a measured stimulus (a repayment in kind).

[WannaBeCopper]

I read the lie behind the lie detector.

From what I understand, if I'm totally honest I could risk failing. I also read that the interrogators won't know the truth unless I admit something to them and that admission could be used against me.

"Damaging admissions" will make me fail. I don't see the point in talking about something I did once 3 years ago that could be turned around to make me look like the wrong person for the job.

There are many examples of this in The Lie behind the lie detector.

"I called an escort once when I was drunk"

Could be

"Frequently calls prostitutes and takes part in illegal sex acts, sleeps with animals, too. " or something else that could hurt my chances.

Ethically I should be honest and I will be about past marijuana use. But If I can swallow this one, I rather do that. Don't see why something that happened in my sex life should go on the record. Isn't this the point of this website? to help people not get screwed by lie detector "tests"?

[WannaBeCopper]

If the polygraph test is 'junk science' how can they know the truth? how can I get caught in the polygraph?

Some of the documented official known instances of a polygraph interrogation/exam being successfully "beat" were in the cases of highly skilled operatives of the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS)/Hauptverwaltung Aufklärung (HVA), and the Dirección General de Inteligencia (DGI). There might be other occasional occurrences, but in terms of the historical record, those two main key entities were alleged to be successful at "beating" it in an intentional, pre-planned and consistent manner. Remember, the actual instrumentation phase (when you are actually hooked up to the polygraph) is but a small component of the total examination/interrogation session.

The point I am trying to make to the original poster is that you are nowhere near that playing field, knowledge base, or skill level. So your best course of action is to be totally honest and to tell the whole complete truth, and nothing but the whole complete truth, and you shall be set free (you will feel better about yourself).

From what I read in the The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, it's not very difficult to use countermeasures.

The interrogator/interviewer is experienced and is not a fool. Try to intentionally lie and you will be caught and blacklisted for life from all future possible law enforcement and security agency employment positions. If you tell the truth, the worse that could happen is that you might be delayed for a bit longer, but you will not face the risk of being blacklisted for life for dishonesty and attempted deception.

How do you know they are not fools? They can't tell a lie from the truth no better than the machine could...

Do as you wish, but remember, you won't be the first, not the last, to be caught and fail...and ultimately it's all a test of loyalty and reliability, with your decisions reflecting highly on your ethics and reliability/security.

You sound like an interrogator who is trying to implant fear. You sound like people in George's book who promise that they can tell the truth when they really can't.

Are you an interrogator?

[Glavlit]

I read the lie behind the lie detector.

From what I understand, if I'm totally honest I could risk failing. I also read that the interrogators won't know the truth unless I admit something to them and that admission could be used against me.

"Damaging admissions" will make me fail. I don't see the point in talking about something I did once 3 years ago that could be turned around to make me look like the wrong person for the job.

There are many examples of this in The Lie behind the lie detector.

"I called an escort once when I was drunk"

Could be

"Frequently calls prostitutes and takes part in illegal sex acts, sleeps with animals, too. " or something else that could hurt my chances.

Ethically I should be honest and I will be about past marijuana use. But If I can swallow this one, I rather do that. Don't see why something that happened in my sex life should go on the record. Isn't this the point of this website? to help people not get screwed by lie detector "tests"?

This site is a discussion forum on various topics, including polygraphy.  It is designed as an outlet for fostering open discussion, and for promoting educational initiatives about such otherwise "mysterious" topics.  It is not meant to help job applicants cover up their past misbehaviours and misadventures.

If you 'truly' intend on going forward with intentionally lying and purposefully trying to hide real physical events from your past when directly asked about such real physical events; then you will be caught in the end.  The end result will be you getting essentially blacklisted from all future law-enforcement positions.  There is always more than one way to skin a cat; you eventually getting caught trying to hide your past has really nothing to do with the accuracy or validity of the polygraph.
 
I'm trying to help you help yourself not get banned from all positions in the future.  The irony of the situation is that you are planning to take actions that you think will help you get hired, but it is this very act of intentional deception that you are planning, which will seal your fate in the end.  They know people are not perfect and have made mistakes (and they allow for that), so what they really want to see is whether you can be trusted to tell the truth about yourself and your past (honesty and integrity); that is the real test and the true requirement that you must have.