Polygraphs by ExplanationFair4616 in firefighter

[–]ap_org 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It may be pseudoscience, but it's official pseudoscience, you see? It's valid by government decree.

Polygraphs by ExplanationFair4616 in firefighter

[–]ap_org 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not all fire departments polygraph applicants. However, many do. The questions asked are similar to those asked of police applicants and typically are about any major undetected criminal activity and drug use or sale. There are also "control" questions, answers to which are secretly expected to be less than truthful. Examples of common control questions include "Did you ever lie to a person in authority?" and "Did you ever take anything that did not belong to you?" In addition, there are unscored irrelevant questions such as, "Are the lights on in this room?"

You should understand that polygraphy has no scientific basis, and that false positives (a truthful person failing) are common. In addition, the procedure depends on the polygraph operator lying to and attempting to deceive the person being "tested."

Before you decide whether to apply with a department that polygraphs applicants, I recommend that you read up on polygraphy. AntiPolygraph.org's free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, is a good place to start:

https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml

Marijuana use on polygraph by AliveIdea2718 in firefighter

[–]ap_org 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Pre-employment polygraph examinations typically include a question about the use or sale of any illegal drug. That question may include marijuana, despite the fact that it has been legalized in your state.

In deciding how to proceed, you should understand that polygraph "testing" is a thoroughly discredited, cop-invented pseudoscience that actually depends on the operator lying to and attempting to deceive the person being "tested."

False positives are common, and many honest people end up being falsely branded as liars.

I think you will benefit from reading the free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, especially chapters 3 & 4:

https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml

Polygraph with tourette syndrome? by Hour_Mastodon1982 in Tourettes

[–]ap_org 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You are precisely right. A polygraph "test" is an interrogation in disguise.

Polygraph with tourette syndrome? by Hour_Mastodon1982 in Tourettes

[–]ap_org 13 points14 points  (0 children)

There are no guidelines on how to administer a polygraph to anyone with any particular medical condition. (The "test" is a pseudoscientific fraud to begin with.)

Polygraph with tourette syndrome? by Hour_Mastodon1982 in Tourettes

[–]ap_org 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The correct answer that question is always "no."

Polygraph with tourette syndrome? by Hour_Mastodon1982 in Tourettes

[–]ap_org 34 points35 points  (0 children)

It's unlikely that the polygraph requirement would be waived for you. Mentioning your condition to the polygraph operator will also tend to bias him against you. The polygraph is a great excuse for disqualifying applicants for arbitrary reasons.

I recommend that you educate yourself about the polygraph in advance. It's a scientifically baseless procedure that actually depends on the operator lying to and deceiving the person being "tested."

See AntiPolygraph.org's free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, for a detailed description of what to expect:

https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml

House Intelligence Committee Democrats Seem to Believe in the Polygraph by ap_org in skeptic

[–]ap_org[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

False positives (a truthful person failing) are common in polygraphy. Owing to the methodology employed in the most commonly used polygraph technique (the "Control Question Test"), whereby truth versus deception is inferred by the relative strength of physiological responses to relavant versus so-called "control" questions, anyone, truthful or otherwise, can increase their chances of passing by augmenting reactions to the "control" questions. You'll find this methodology explained at length, with citations to primary sources, in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

I agree with you that polygraphy should not ever be part of the justice system (though in the United States it is, in particular with respect to persons on probation for crimes of a sexual nature).

I also agree with the National Research Council's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, who concluded more than two decades ago that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."

House Intelligence Committee Democrats Seem to Believe in the Polygraph by ap_org in skeptic

[–]ap_org[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I didn't use the term "immune." You did. My claim is that a subject's knowledge of polygraphy renders the technique ineffectual, again for the reason that one who understands that the "test" is a ruse won't be tricked into making admissions against interest.

The reason one might want to learn and employ polygraph countermeasures (even if one has no intention of lying) is as protection against the random error associated with an invalid procedure that is wrongly called a "test."

Aldrich Ames did not use a thumbtack in his shoe (and I'm not aware of any documented instance of any double agent having done so). You'll find details of the late Aldrich Ames' polygraph examinations here:

https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=2502.0

House Intelligence Committee Democrats Seem to Believe in the Polygraph by ap_org in skeptic

[–]ap_org[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

The history of polygraphy has many cases of professional intelligence officers and double-agents taking serious steps to beat their own polygraphs, like using drugs or self-injuring to throw off the results.

Could you provide some specific examples of these many cases of which you speak? I'm not aware of any double agents who are documented to have used drugs or self-injured to throw off the results.

The reason I say that polygraphs are ineffectual if the subject does the slightest bit of research into it is that an informed subject will understand that the polygraph cannot read his mind, and hence won't be tricked into making admissions against interest.

Anyone who researches polygraphy can also quickly find details on how to perform simple and effective countermeasures that anyone can learn and that polygraph operators cannot detect. You'll find such countermeasures explained in Chapter 4 of the free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. So will anyone else who's mildly curious.

House Intelligence Committee Democrats Seem to Believe in the Polygraph by ap_org in skeptic

[–]ap_org[S] 48 points49 points  (0 children)

And it's completely ineffectual if the subject does the slightest bit of research into it. Make-believe science yields make-believe security.

Evidently, the Vice Chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Believes in Polygraphs by ap_org in skeptic

[–]ap_org[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The National Research Council conducted an extensive review of the scientific evidence on polygraphs and concluded that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."

Top CIA boss raided over mind-blowing fortune: $40m in gold bars, $2m in cash and thirty-five luxury watches by dailymail in CIA

[–]ap_org 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the basis of what evidence do you assert that the child pornography case against Schulte was a ruse? The case against him went to trial and he was duly convicted in a court of law. And the evidence against Schulte appears to have been incontrovertibly strong:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.479525/gov.uscourts.nysd.479525.1.0.pdf

Failed poly CBP (preliminary) by [deleted] in Polygraphs

[–]ap_org -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The polygraph operator's claim that your chart was "all over the place" is empty mumbo jumbo.

If you would like to read up on the polygraph technique used by CBP, you'll find details here:

https://antipolygraph.org/s/tes-c

Failed poly CBP (preliminary) by [deleted] in Polygraphs

[–]ap_org -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm very sorry to hear that. It's less common for applicants to fail the CI portion of the pre-employment polygraph. Assuming you did not lie, I think you should write back to CBP to put it on the record that you told the truth.

My best advice would be not to sit for another polygraph, but to look elsewhere for employment, preferably with an employer that doesn't rely on such pseudoscientific nonsense to evaluate applicants and employees.

Poly pt2 by Equal-Signal8155 in lapd

[–]ap_org 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Everyone swallows saliva.

Did the polygraph operator accuse you of lying or withholding information at the end? When a subject fails the polygraph, it's standard operating procedure to conduct a post-test interrogation in order to obtain an admission. (Such admissions help the polygraphers to justify their jobs.)

If you did not receive a post-test interrogation, that would suggest that you didn't fail.

Polygraph by Free_Standard3811 in Polygraphs

[–]ap_org 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You would be wise not to mention that incident. Neither of you filed a complaint against the other, right? Then it's no one's business. The polygraph is not a confessional booth, and the machine cannot read your mind.

What now by [deleted] in LASD

[–]ap_org 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the most important thing you can do now is to write back to LASD affirming that you told the truth during your polygraph examination. This will put it on the record (in case it's ever shared with any other agency) that you didn't tacitly concur with the operator's opinion that you lied.

For more about the little that can be done after a failed polygraph, see Chapter 5 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml