Want To Beat A Lie Detector Test?

[LeoGold]

Low Tech Ways to Beat the Polygraph Naturally

Interesting how experts believe in the "power" of polygraph to ferret out the truth and non-truths shared by a potential job candidate, or crime witness. Causing an inconclusive reading might be in your best interest.

Altering the results of a polygraph test, among many employers considered the gold standard, can be just as easy as altering your blood pressure and heart rate. A few ways to do that:

* Alter your breathing patterns during questioning.
* Think about things that excite or frighten you.
* Bite your tongue.
* Elicit a small pain response by inserting a tack or nail in
your shoe near your toes and pressing down when
asked a control question.

Full article here:
http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polyg...e-Detector-%29

[Milton Bradley]

I took a single polygraph test once in an attempt to move up the corporate ladder.


After the test, the tester calmly shook my hand, and informed me that he had never seen anybody make his machine freak out the way I did. Oddly, I was passed over for that potential promotion.


In hindsight, i would rate the polygraph right up there with peeing in a bottle to get a job, a huge mistake. Essentially you are just volunteering to remove your own Fifth Amendment protections by incriminating yourself, guilty, or not. ( Testing is a scam, and bad science, and has been proven to be nothing more than government subsidized propaganda.


I wont even consider working for a company that insists upon such small minded policies any more. Being a man of principle, I would rather starve in the streets than give them the satisfaction of dictating what I can do with my time when I'm not on the job.


Polygraph testing ( and drug testing ) are for fascists.

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree Milton, well said.

[Chaossaber314]

I do find it interesting that while polygraphs are not admissable in a court of law that most (read: All) federal agencies require one in the admittance process.

[Osborn F Enready]

Hypocrites from the word "go".

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Polygraph testing ( and drug testing ) are for fascists.

Perhaps so, but if you've got nothing to hide, then why not just submit to testing?

[jose]

why not just submit

[Jimmy the Pro]

If there's nothing to hide, then just go for it. If you don't have anything on you, there's no point in not cooperating.

[Osborn F Enready]

Ohhh idle.........

Just comply, and you won't get hurt... and you won't *%# in their mouth either, right?

LOL

To comply is to give it sanction, to subscribe to the mentality. I won't, on principal.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: ldmaniac Perhaps so, but if you've got nothing to hide, then why not just submit to testing?

Who is wrongly assuming I have nothing to hide?


Even though that is completely beside the point.


The point is, in a free country, why would I voluntarily negate my own Fifth Amendment rights to some faceless corporation which I'm sure does not have my best interest at heart?


Sorry, my point stands, drug testing is for fascist wanna be dictators.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Who is wrongly assuming I have nothing to hide? Even though that is completely beside the point. The point is, in a free country, why would I voluntarily negate my own Fifth Amendment rights to some faceless corporation which I'm sure does not have my best interest at heart? Sorry, my point stands, drug testing is for fascist wanna be dictators.

Okay look, you're not giving up your right completely, because you still have privacy. The fact that you now have less should not give you the reason to complain, and here's the reason. Rights are not absolute. What I mean is that no right must always be given precedent in any given situtation. If this were true than certain claims would never go to court, because the court deals with a conflict of rights.

Think of it this way, I yell fire in a crowded building. Now I have the right to free speech, but others have the right of safety. Because the right of saftey of others is more important than my First Ammenment rights, I must concede to the safety of others. The same is true here. Those who instigate these tests are normally doing it for the saftey of others (I can't see why any one else would take the time to do this for other reasons). Thus your right by the whatever Ammendment you claim it to be, must be surpressed for the safety of others.

If you need an actual example. Take the right to property. I must have my property, yet I pay taxes. Taxes! the government is taking my bloody money that I have worked to earn! I have a right to my money. But wait, if this is for my safety and stablility (which is the main goal of taxing people) then I should supress that right.

Rights aren't absolute, by submitting you are supressing the right for safety of others and yourself. Besides, you did not fully give up privacy. It's not like because of this you no longer have privacy.

[Osborn F Enready]

Idle said: Okay look, you're not giving up your right completely, because you still have privacy. The fact that you now have less should not give you the reason to complain, and here's the reason. Rights are not absolute. What I mean is that no right must always be given precedent in any given situtation. If this were true than certain claims would never go to court, because the court deals with a conflict of rights.

I say:
Rights are indeed absolute if YOU choose to defend them as such. Rights can only be exercised or given up, by those who posses them.

Idlemaniac said: Think of it this way, I yell fire in a crowded building. Now I have the right to free speech, but others have the right of safety. Because the right of saftey of others is more important than my First Ammenment rights, I must concede to the safety of others. The same is true here. Those who instigate these tests are normally doing it for the saftey of others (I can't see why any one else would take the time to do this for other reasons). Thus your right by the whatever Ammendment you claim it to be, must be surpressed for the safety of others.

I say:
So you are citing "time and place" laws?

Where was the discussion of time and place concerning individual liberties, individual rights subversion, or fraud?

Idlemaniac said: If you need an actual example. Take the right to property. I must have my property, yet I pay taxes. Taxes! the government is taking my bloody money that I have worked to earn! I have a right to my money.

I say:
Exactly.

Idlemaniac said: But wait, if this is for my safety and stablility (which is the main goal of taxing people) then I should supress that right.

I say:
Possibly, if YOU THE INDIVIDUAL DEEM IT NECESSARY IN YOUR BEST INTRESTS.

I do not. I see none of this claimed security, nor stability. Instead I see growing instability brought on by empire expansionism, American exceptionalism, Nationalist propaganda, as opposed to non-biased information with which to base MY OWN views as an individual.

Idlemaniac said: Rights aren't absolute, by submitting you are supressing the right for safety of others and yourself. Besides, you did not fully give up privacy. It's not like because of this you no longer have privacy.

I say:
Yes, actually YOU DO GIVE UP YOUR PRIVACY entirely.

Did you know in some states, if you piss dirty on a urine test, there are NO LAWS regarding how that information must be handled? Did you know if your boss had a hard=on for you, he could publish those results in the newspaper? Where is the privacy?
You gave it up when you AGREED to pee in a cup. You AGREED to be ASSUMED GUILTY, until PROVEN INNOCENT, and by a flawed, insecured method, no less.

Change of opinion?

[Chaossaber314]

I can see the principle in not taking a drug test or polygraph because you believe that it invades your privacy, but why in the hell would you take a drug test knowing that you were going to fail it?

Frankly, if someone is that stupid they deserve to have the asshole boss who prints an advertisement in the paper about that person's failure.

[ima9rd]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I can see the principle in not taking a drug test or polygraph because you believe that it invades your privacy, but why in the hell would you take a drug test knowing that you were going to fail it? Frankly, if someone is that stupid they deserve to have the asshole boss who prints an advertisement in the paper about that person's failure.

If someone thinks that the drug is out of their system, then why wouldn't they?

Look at it from an employer's prospective. Why would you want a worker who would have a mental disadvantage due to their choice to use an illegal substance? Wouldn't you want the best person for the job?

[Osborn F Enready]

ima9rd said: Look at it from an employer's prospective. Why would you want a worker who would have a mental disadvantage due to their choice to use an illegal substance?

I say:
Why would you PRESUME GUILT, before having reason to believe so?
If a worker shows poor performance, and you believe it is due to drugs, there is a VALID issue.

ima9rd said: Wouldn't you want the best person for the job?

I say:
I have known drug users that work circles around non-drug users. Drug use does NOT mean a person is less capable, or less able to do ANYTHING unless they are CURRENTLY under the influence, correct?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: ima9rd If someone thinks that the drug is out of their system, then why wouldn't they?

My drug of choice stays in ther system for a considerable amount of time. ( Again, my whole objection is to the potential employer controling my "free time". If I am forced to abstain for a prolonged period of time to pass the test, then I have a legitimate grievance.

Quote by: ima9rd Look at it from an employer's prospective. Why would you want a worker who would have a mental disadvantage due to their choice to use an illegal substance? Wouldn't you want the best person for the job?

Obviously they already thought I was was the best person for the job, hence the request to be tested.


You are assuming a "mental disadvantage" solely because the chemical tracer remains in the system, but which may not impair the person testing positive. Like all of the bad science surrounding this issue, Im certain that the government ( the military was test run for this propaganda war, and provides all of the "facts used to implement this on society ) cited no unbiased sources to prove this particular point. ( Virtually all of the "facts" used to build the governments database against drugs has been proven false through independent testing, and the information can be found at American Civil Liberties Union, and at Drug War Facts


Then there is the issue that the results they get are actually accurate. They have never even attempted to test all of the substances a human could possibly ingest to show a possible false positive. ( Like Ibuprofin has been known to cause a false marijuanna positive, and how poppy seeds show up as heroine abuse. ) The science surrounding this issue is shakier than the concept the philosophy of mandatory testing is built upon.

[Kuroko]

I hate needles, not petrified hatred, (well used to be) but I actively curse the person who takes my blood, ESPECIALLY if it is for a job on grounds of testing for illicit drug use.

My reasoning?
I have not said no to drugs for 21 years to have some one doubt my stance against drugs at the last minute or instead at the end of my time frame actively refusing drugs or all kinds.

o.0 sound stupid yet?

If I have nothing to hide then I shouldn't be a afraid, but that's the point I'm not afraid of them finding any thing, that's insane, I'm afraid that for these tests they have access to a part of me which has been kept pure and now they want to test it, I dont' know, it's wierd to explain, it's like, I respect my blood so much, too much to sacrifice it to simply prove my purety from illicit drugs or even disease, which regretably I have been tested for (stupid house mortgage). That's in a giving blood situation, recieving injections.. I hate how un-natural it feels to have some thing under my skin, an intrusion as un-natural as any thing else I know.

A lie detector test? I would make it my duty to ruin that machine and the operators day, indeed a person capable of doing that obviously has had practice, or has reason to practice, or indeed reason to use those methods to hide some thing.

I cannot very well ask to see my employers finances to ensure that my employer is able to pay me to our agreed amount, so why is it my employer can test me for suitability to work under it?

You get what you pay for? then you must pay for what you get.
Karma.. two employers of mine have gone bankrupt or close to it, I'm not saying because of this reason, but there are indeed connections between thier reasons

[Osborn F Enready]

I feel your pain Kuroko.

It a bitch when guilt is assumed, and innocence must be PROVEN.

[ima9rd]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have known drug users that work circles around non-drug users.

Yes, but this does not take in to account the legal ramifications of possession, which could leave the employer without and employee, and no time to find a replacement before they lose that employee.

However, I did not say that I agreed with the statements, I was merely supplying the other side of the arguement. I have avoided drugs all my life as well, and do not like being presumed guilty until proven innocent.

[Fonceai]

The funny thing is that the jobs that require a lie detector or urinalysis are positions of security or trust.

If this is part of the climb up the corporate ladder, then there is usually a significant shift in pay scale. Not necessarily a raise, just entering a different scale.

Right now, if someone offered me a $10K-$15K per year raise to pee in a cup and answer questions about where I've lived and what I did 10 years ago, I'll do it.

If you can tell me you'd turn that down on principle, I'd laugh in your face.

Come on, people. How paranoid do you have to be? Relax, shut up, take the test, piss in the cup, and take the money.