CLASSIC EXAMPLE!!

[Steven]

Check this out my fellas.....I took a poly recently....Did not lie told truth, but I have not experimented with drugs in my life.  I guess my examiner did not believe me.  After the "test" was complete I was sat down in a separate room for like 5 minutes then I was asked to come back in exam room.  Then this "tester" interrogated me for about 30min. saying that the blood pressure went skyhigh when asked about using drugs like marijuana.  I was harped on for ever,,,all they wanted was for me to say, ok I have smoked pot...But I stood my ground and did not lie to them and say I did when I did not.  I have been around the stuff many times, but did not smoke it.  ANyways, I was never showed my charts and if I did lie, wouldn't I sweat and heart rate go up and breathing rate too?  I was just told that BPress went up.  We will see what happens next.  Good Luck to all and just be honest.

[Skeptic]

Check this out my fellas.....I took a poly recently....Did not lie told truth, but I have not experimented with drugs in my life.  I guess my examiner did not believe me.  After the "test" was complete I was sat down in a separate room for like 5 minutes then I was asked to come back in exam room.  Then this "tester" interrogated me for about 30min. saying that the blood pressure went skyhigh when asked about using drugs like marijuana.  I was harped on for ever,,,all they wanted was for me to say, ok I have smoked pot...But I stood my ground and did not lie to them and say I did when I did not.  I have been around the stuff many times, but did not smoke it.  ANyways, I was never showed my charts and if I did lie, wouldn't I sweat and heart rate go up and breathing rate too?  I was just told that BPress went up.  We will see what happens next.  Good Luck to all and just be honest.

It depends.  If you lied, you might not have reacted at all.  Or, for that matter, if you told the truth you might have reacted in any number of ways.

Ah, the wonder that is the "polygraph".

Skeptic

[George W. Maschke]

Steven,

You concluded your message with the following words of advice: "Good Luck to all and just be honest."

I agree that applicants for positions of public trust should be honest with regard to the relevant questions asked of them in the course of a pre-employment polygraph interrogation. But as you know if you've read Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, the most commonly-used polygraph technique is actually based on the assumption that everyone -- even applicants who will be hired -- will be less than truthful with regard to the so-called "control" questions. In fact, the more candidly an applicant attempts to answer these questions in the "pre-test" phase, and as a consequence feels less anxiety when answering them during the "in-test" phase, the more likely the applicant is to fail!

If you haven't yet appealed your polygraph results in writing, it would be a good thing to do so promptly, instead of just waiting to see what happens. See Chapter 5 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for further suggestions in this regard.

[Catwoman]

I took my poly today..It was awful. I get there,,the polygrapher explained the procedure, not very well.  After that he reviewed the questions with me prior to the test. I was honest as i have nothing to hide.  I have not done anything to disqualify me out of a police job. I did some drugs when i was younger so i admitted to it, as i has previously admitted on my employment application.  He asked me if i have ever done drugs, i said yes, then it got weird because he wanted to know how many times...so i said to him that i did not remember. then he said 10, 20, 30 times so i said i guess about 10 times. He then hooks me up to the machine and asked me the same questions that he had reviewed with me, and again he asked if i have ever done drugs so i said yes. he then asked if i had been honest about my drug use. I said yes. He does this twice and stops the machine...At that point he said to me well something is wrong here because you are not telling me the truth about your drug use, so i said to him that i was being honest, he said to me well let's review the questions again because you are showing a strong reaction to that question. How many times have you done drugs? at this point the machine is not on...so i said to him about the times that i already told you..that was not good enough for him.. so he is pushing me to think hard about how many times i did drugs..so i said to him i was not keeping track of the times that i smoked pot, i don't remember but if 10 is not the number do you want let's be safe and try 20.  i was very upset at that point.  he starts the machine again and starts the test again for the third time..after he finishes he says to me that was a whole lot better..the moral of my story is that the test is humiliating and i will never do it again no matter who is offering what job..it is not worth it..it is demening and demoralizing, specially if you are telling the truth. Well i don't know if i passed it or not..he led me to believe that i did because he schedule me for a psychological exam.

[DEPUTY BEAR]

Catwoman,
Don't let the poly get you down. If you did pass and you are trying to get a job in LE, then get use to having your feathers ruffled. In many instances it is a thankless job. You will put your life on the line for the community and then the community will turn around and sue you. What you need to learn to look at is the final outcome, the bottom line. If you can't handle that kind of pressure then maybe you should look into another line of work. I am only saying this because it can get worse. Imagine yourself on the witness stand being questioned by a defense lawyer, it is much worse than that little polygraph thing you went through.
Good luck and remember, water under the bridge.

[Anonymous]

Catwoman,

Under no circumstances should you forget about your polygraph experience and allow it to become simply "water under the bridge" as Deputy Bear as suggested.  If you do, you contribute to the likelihood of somebody else going through the same experience that you described as awful.  Although as a new recruit (assuming you are applying for a law enforcement job) you may not be able to set things right and it likely would be unwise for you to even attempt to do so, always keep your experience in the back of your mind and when the time is right and you are in position, do your part to end this nonsense.

[Batman (Guest)]

Catwoman,

I would venture to say the reason your polygraph seemed so "demeaning and demoralizing" was simply because you were not telling the truth when initially asked how many times you used marijuana.  You went with 10 times figuring you have made the admission, but a little damage control can't hurt, when you knew that wasn't true.  You should have gone with 20 to start with and maybe the initial polygraph results would have been different.  Bottom line is, you took a gamble and lost.  No point in blaming the polygraph examiner, or the procedure.  Just take a good look in the mirror if you want the real reason why this process was so humiliating.

Batman

[Anonymous]

Batman,

This standard "Was it 10 or 20 times experimental drug usage?" line of questioning that occurs during a polygraph screening examination is largely utter nonsense.  Generally, at the time young people are involved with their drug experimentation, the event is insignificant, no one is counting the number of times or determining whether two puffs on the same joint is one or two uses, and when asked about that activity the better part of a decade later, the person can and will legitimately say they don't have an accurate recollection of the number of times.  It is only when the issue is forced during a polygraph examination that the issue of deception arises.  This is polygraph-generated deception if there ever was.  A polygraph examination, which tries to force an issue for which there is no memory, is ludicrous and should never be performed.

It is not surprising that this is one of the most abused and falsely accusatory aspects of pre-employment polygraph screening programs.   It is largely akin to asking the average adult coffee drinker in the population whether they had one or two cups of coffee on Tuesday three weeks ago and then telling him/her that he is lying when he indicates he doesn't know or when he chooses one of the forced alternative answers.  This sort of testing even violates the precepts of those who believe polygraphy has some validity but cannot be used to test that which is not remembered.  Get real, Batman...Once again, you draw way way to much conclusion from so so little evidence...

[Batman (Guest)]

Anonymous,

Thanks for replying for Catwoman.  I guess you have assumed the mantel of "Everyman's Spokesman".  It must be great going through life with rose colored glasses, no body ever lies, and anyone who accuses someone of doing so is.....what?

When it comes to drawing too much conclusion with too little evidence, I can't hold a candle to you.  On what do you base your conclusion that Catwoman' drug usage was over a decade ago?  You make a generalization regarding this, however does your generalization apply to Catwoman?  Why do you asssume Catwoman's drug usage was an insignificant event?  Again you apply a generalization to her specific situation?

On the other hand, I made absolutely no assumptions.  Catwoman stated she had told her examiner she used drugs no more than 10 times.  She was administered and failed a polygraph examination pertaining to that.  She then stated she used drugs no more than 20 times, and she now believes she passed the polygraph examination, and may have since she has been scheduled for further processing.  So, was she telling the truth when she limited her drug use to 10 times?  She states she picked 20 times for the subsequent polygraph examination to "be safe".  She was offered the opportunity to be safe during the initial polygraph test, however she went with 10 (not so safe).

You want to argue the validity of polygraph testing.  Fine, hopefully you will find someone to argue with.  I simply point out the obvious regarding some of the posts on this site.  Not everyone tells the truth all the time, not even Batman.  Catwoman was simply untruthful about the number of times she used drugs.  If it makes you feel better, let's say she was "inaccurate" in her recollection of her own illegal drug use.

Batman

[Anonymous]

Batman,

Although I have not assumed the role of everyman's defender, you seem to have assumed the role of everyone's accuser.  I have merely pointed out that you are entirely unhindered by a lack of evidence in any given situation you might choose to pontificate regarding.  I make no determination about ground truth with regard to Catwoman or others that you so recklessly, routinely and cowardly (anonymous message board posts) accuse.  With regard to the scenario I painted regarding the time of drug usage (if any) to the time of polygraph examination, it was clearly not put forth as necessarily representing Catwoman's situation but as a realistically and frequently occurring and confounding one.  

Nowhere in Catwoman's account does she admit having lied to anything.  Her comfort level may well be nothing but a reflection of the misrepresentations of her polygraph examiner and his encouraging her to make statements about that which she has clearly (and from the beginning) said she does not remember and was guessing about.  Because of the memory issues referred to, a realistically probable lack of any initial awareness of the number of occurrences (drug usages), and any vagueness that might be associated with what a given usage might be, I find this form of polygraph screening to be more baseless than most applications--probably only trailing polygraph screening connected with sex issues in terms of being worthless (this latter application for differing reasons) and fraught with the sorts of abusive accusations you seem to enjoy entertaining and amazing us with.

[Deskbound]

 

I have to disagree, Anonymous.  

About 5 years ago, during a pre-employment polygraph for a le position, I went through hell.  I left the room about 4 hours later literally in tears.  I havn't cried like that since I saw titanic.  I was repeatedly accused of being deceptive in the area of drug usage.  Now, I have never used illegal drugs.  I have never even taken a drink.  However, I have used drugs illegally.  In other words, I have used other peoples pain meds on very rare occasions, or another's anti-biotics, etc. etc.  Not a lot, just once a year or so.  Oh, and I admittedly have had a swig of nyquil when I was really only a bit sick and didn't really need it.  ANYWAY.......I failed that test miserably.

Recently, I was informed that I was being considered for a government law enforcement agency.  after tests and interviews that spanned a few months, I was told that I was selected and that I would be undergoing a polygraph.  I immediately experienced flashbacks of the pain and anguish that I had experienced before...literally, one of the worst experiences of my relatively long life.  Anyway, the days went by and THE day got closer until it came.  I didn't sleep for 2 days before, for fear that the same thing would happen again, a false positive and bitter accusations.

I had decided that I would tell EVERYTHING this time....(see above).....BUT, the polygrapher was totally different.  He explained that there are a bunch of things that we all do that are questionable in life, and that if I told him all of those things, we would be here all day.  So, he said, use your common sense and I want you to think of "important" things.  

Anyway, it was fast, relatively painless (even with the "surprise" third party visitor from D.C. that just happened to be in town that day, which really bothered me) and I passed.  The clinching questions, I think, that they ask, besides the supposed "control" questions, was the "Have you been truthful in all of your responses with me today?" and, " did you plan on being deceptive at all today?"  I think that those are catch-alls that might nab someone who slipped through on drugs or foreign contacts.

I guess the point of my post is...catwoman was RATIONALIZING her answers.  I was too during my first test.  The machine doesn't know when your rationalizing or not, it just detects physiological changes as they occur during specific questions (asked about five times each in random order to weed out accidental or random physical reactions).
The "I smoked week ten times" response was an attempt to rationalize usage that she thought MIGHT have been more, but was gambling on the lower number.  the maching picked it up, as it picked up my "nyquil" usage idiscretion.

Anyway, I think a lot can be said about the quality of the polygrapher, as well.  Mine were two totally different animals, and I think that made a difference for me, as well.

Also, Catwoman's attitude seemed very defiant.  Sort of like she resented having to pinpoint exactly how many times she smoked pot.  Well, the number is important in law enforcement circumstances, for obvious reasons.   I think that attitude carries across, too, as not the most desirable.  But, she passed, so all is well.

for what its worth.

[Mark Mallah]

Catwoman's particular situation should not distract us from the excellent points made by Anonymous.

Though not as eloquently, I made these same points during my polygraph interrogation.  Needless to say, the interrogator was not impressed.  For what seemed like several hours-- and was probably at least 2 hours--my polygraph interrogator and I were going back and forth on the precise number of times I had tried marijuana almost twenty years before.  Was it 3 times or 4 times, which one was it, he demanded?  Was the last date of use 1977 or 1978?  Total idiocy, and when you think about it, a pathetic performance.  Meanwhile, a few blocks away, Agents Robert Hanssen and Earl Pitts were gathering information for their Russian handlers.

More to Anonymous' point, even polygraph proponents say that in order for the test to work, you have to have a clear memory of events.  And as we all know, memory is most clear when it pertains to events that are the most poignant and dramatic, not occasions that we hardly give thought to once they're over.  

[Catwoman]

I did not lie when i admitted to using marijuana ten times..i honestly did not remember that day, and i don't remember now..Now is all water under the bridge but, that made me a non believer about the poly..It is full of trickery, control and manipulation. I am amazed that after I said that i had used marijuana 20 times he told me that the reading on the device was much better. I said 20 because he was not happy with ten. He was demanding a specific answer and i did not have one to give. I was nervous when i said ten but i was shaking when i said 20 because i was not sure and, he was presuring me to give and answer. If he would have said that i lied when i said that i had used marijuana 20 times i would not have known what to do next. I probably would have said 30.. To date i don't know if i passed or not, but i guess that i will know pretty soon. Taking a poly and being a law enforcer are two very different things.   This test was part of a transfer/reinstatement application..I have been a police officer for two years in a different department and i was looking to move to a department closer to my house. As tough as the job is, the poly was still a pretty bad experience. The amount of times that i used marijuana I think is totally irrelevant and proves nothing.

[George W. Maschke]

Anonymous writes in part:

It is not surprising that this is one of the most abused and falsely accusatory aspects of pre- employment polygraph screening programs.  It is largely akin to asking the average adult coffee drinker in the population whether they had one or two cups of coffee on Tuesday three weeks ago and then telling him/her that he is lying when he indicates he doesn't know or when he chooses one of the forced alternative answers.

Another analogy to which many might personally be able to relate would be asking, "Did you ever drink an alcoholic beverage while under the legal age?" and when a person replies, "Yes," demanding that he/she pinpoint precisely how many times. I suspect many would encounter the same quandary that Catwoman has described.

Deskbound,

I don't think it's at all clear that Catwoman was rationalizing her answers, or that your undisclosed occasional use of prescription drugs not prescribed to you was the cause of your initial polygraph unpleasantness. You also wrote something that I think reflects a misunderstanding of how the polygraph technique "works":

The clinching questions, I think, that they ask, besides the supposed "control" questions, was the "Have you been truthful in all of your responses with me today?" and, " did you plan on being deceptive at all today?"  I think that those are catch-alls that might nab someone who slipped through on drugs or foreign contacts.

Remember that the polygrapher actually expects the subject to experience considerable doubt with regard to the truthfulness of his/her answers to the "control" questions. So the question, "Have you been truthful in all of your responses with me today?" doesn't "clinch" anything at all! Such questions are typically used as "sacrifice" relevant questions, and are not scored. (They can also be used as a form of "concealed control" question in a technique called the "General Question Test" that outwardly appears to be a Relevant/Irrelevant "test.") For more on polygraph procedure, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

[Skeptic]

Anonymous,

Thanks for replying for Catwoman.  I guess you have assumed the mantel of "Everyman's Spokesman".

And judging  by your comments to Catwoman and others, you've appointed yourself "Everyone's Conscience".  Careful, Batman -- it can sure hurt falling off that moral high horse.

Skeptic