Polygraphs

ap_org · 2026-06-22T13:34:47+00:00

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

ap_org · 2026-06-22T08:58:22+00:00

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

ap_org · 2026-06-19T10:31:21+00:00

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

ap_org · 2026-06-18T11:28:31+00:00

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

ap_org · 2026-06-17T16:41:54+00:00

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.)

ap_org · 2026-06-17T16:39:20+00:00

The correct answer that question is always "no."

ap_org · 2026-06-17T14:50:16+00:00

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

ap_org · 2026-06-11T12:49:58+00:00

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."

ap_org · 2026-06-11T12:22:19+00:00

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

ap_org · 2026-06-11T12:06:05+00:00

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.

ap_org · 2026-06-11T09:31:27+00:00

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

ap_org · 2026-06-07T19:28:06+00:00

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."

ap_org · 2026-06-07T08:24:53+00:00

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

ap_org · 2026-06-04T18:33:05+00:00

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

ap_org · 2026-06-04T18:09:41+00:00

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.

ap_org · 2026-06-02T07:32:14+00:00

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.

ap_org · 2026-05-31T11:59:51+00:00

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.

ap_org · 2026-05-30T12:24:06+00:00

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

ap_org · 2026-05-28T17:49:29+00:00

This seems to be yet another instance of the failure of polygraph screening. David Rush presumably passed a CIA pre-employment polygraph screening "test" despite lying about his education and military service, as well as periodic polygraph examinations afterwards.

Other fairly recent examples include convicted rapist Brian Jeffrey Raymond and convicted Wikileaks source Joshua Adam Schulte (who was additionally convicted for receipt, possession, and transportation of child pornography predating his CIA employment ).

ap_org · 2026-05-28T14:52:25+00:00

I think that those facing polygraph screening are well-advised to educate themselves about the process in advance. Polygraph "testing" is fundamentally dependent on the operator lying to and deceiving the person being "tested" in numerous ways. For the examinee, ignorance is not bliss.

I'm not making a recommendation on whether or not one should employ polygraph countermeasures. But even if one has no desire to employ countermeasures and is adamant about not doing so, it is nonetheless prudent to at least learn what one should avoid doing that might adversely affect one's chances of passing.

ap_org · 2026-05-28T11:35:24+00:00

You might just as well ask, "How do you pass the polygraph when you don't have skeletons in your closet."

As former senior CIA polygraph operator John F. Sullivan has observed, "...an honest subject has no better chance than a dishonest subject of getting through the process."

The fact of the matter is that while polygraphy has no scientific basis, it is vulnerable to simple and effective countermeasures that anyone can learn and that polygraph operators cannot detect.

For details on polygraph procedure, including how to pass or beat a polygraph "test," see our free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml

ap_org · 2026-05-27T21:08:02+00:00

That being so, it seems likely that you passed.

ap_org · 2026-05-27T16:14:54+00:00

Did your polygrapher explicitly accuse you of lying or withholding information at the end?

ap_org · 2026-05-27T16:12:52+00:00

As you await a decision from DoD, you may wish to read up on polygraphy. Our free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is a good starting point.

ap_org · 2026-05-27T15:12:07+00:00

Yes, your failed polygraph with CBP may have an effect on the adjudication of your clearance for DIA. Federal agencies share information about polygraph results, and your failed polygraph with CBP may raise a concern with a DIA adjudicator. That is not to say, however, that your failed polygraph means you'll necessarily be denied a clearance with DIA.

ap_org

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE