# Why do so many folks suggest a polygraph test?



## pplwatching (Jun 15, 2012)

I didn't want to hijack another thread with this, but in that thread someone recommended a polygraph test. Polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable, especially in emtional situations. Folks here seem to recommend them pretty often anyway. Is there a reason that I'm missing?


----------



## Numb in Ohio (Oct 31, 2011)

In my opinion, sometimes they may "threaten" with it.. just to see if that person will come clean... when you say you are wanting them to have one. 

Pretty much the way some use filing for divorce... a scare tactic


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

pplwatching said:


> I didn't want to hijack another thread with this, but in that thread someone recommended a polygraph test. Polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable, especially in emtional situations. Folks here seem to recommend them pretty often anyway. Is there a reason that I'm missing?


It is a good Idea to have two or three polygraphs tests from different polygraphers. 

The way the poly is read and interpreted is very important to the accuracy. 

Also, yes and no answers tend to give the best result. 

For example did you meet her on such and such date. 

Are you still seeing her, now. 

Have you talked to her since DDay. 

If you say did you love her the answer will likely be difficult to read because the cheaters likely did LOVE something about her, at least in the moment, even if it was only the flattery, and this will make him appear to be lying even though he may not love her like he loves the wife. 

Still, the reaction to a poly is very telling. 

An honest person will typically not resist it. If the cheater resists it, they have something to hide, IMO. 

For my part, after extensive research, the best way to catch a cheater is to hire an experienced detective. 

You can keep costs down, by waiting until you are suspiscious of the cheater going out somewhere ad then on that day ask a detective to follow the cheater. 

This way you are only billed for him following the cheater on high suspicion days.

BTW: a poly can cost anywhere from 200 to 400 dollars.


----------



## Badblood (Oct 27, 2011)

I had my ex take a poly and it was very rewarding. Polys are quite accurate about factual information, so it's all about the questions you ask, and the manner in which you ask them. What a poly does , is give you a base of concrete information, to use in making your decision whether to R or D.


----------



## pplwatching (Jun 15, 2012)

Polygraph tests are so unreliable that congress passed a law against them in many public situations. The National Research Council produced a report casting them in a very unfavorable light. The National Academy of Science doesn't like them. As far as being a "scare tactic", what if the spouse agrees to take one and it yields a false positive, which happens as often as not?


----------



## pplwatching (Jun 15, 2012)

Badblood said:


> I had my ex take a poly and it was very rewarding. Polys are quite accurate about factual information, so it's all about the questions you ask, and the manner in which you ask them. What a poly does , is give you a base of concrete information, to use in making your decision whether to R or D.


Whether or not your ex had an affair, the polygraph test probably had a 50% chance of being accurate. I don't know how much of your situation you have posted here, so please forgive my ignorance. If that test is the only information that you based your decision to divorce on, then you may very well have condemmed an innocent spouse.


----------



## wiigirl (Jun 14, 2012)

Proof of the truth...








_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Unsure in Seattle (Sep 6, 2011)

I don't get the polygraph thing, either. I guess I can see the value as a scare tactic, but they are notoriously unreliable. Real life is not the Maury Povich (or your fave trash tv host) Show.


----------



## lordmayhem (Feb 7, 2011)

pplwatching said:


> Polygraph tests are so unreliable that congress passed a law against them in many public situations. The National Research Council produced a report casting them in a very unfavorable light. The National Academy of Science doesn't like them. As far as being a "scare tactic", what if the spouse agrees to take one and it yields a false positive, which happens as often as not?


This question comes up every few months and there's someone like you arguing against them. If they are so unreliable as you say, then why are polygraphs required for the higher government security clearances? Why are polygraphs required for applying for most law enforcement agencies? 

You know what's MORE UNRELIABLE than polygraphs? Eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is a hell of a lot more unreliable, yet its allowed in courts. You've never actually taken one, have you? I've taken two of them. Only what you've read on the internet. And we all know that if its on the internet, its gotta be true.


----------



## pplwatching (Jun 15, 2012)

lordmayhem said:


> This question comes up every few months and there's someone like you arguing against them. If they are so unreliable as you say, then why are polygraphs required for the higher government security clearances? Why are polygraphs required for applying for most law enforcement agencies?


Polygraph tests are not used in that way. When someone "fails" a polygraph test, the areas in question are passed to background investigators who do the real determination. The investigation may focus on areas indicated by the test, but it's the investigation itself that determines whether a clearance is granted or an applicant is hired. At least that's the way it works for security clearances.

My guess is that if a spouse "fails", the polygraph is treated more like the jury rather than just an indicator.


----------



## skip76 (Aug 30, 2011)

pplwatching said:


> Polygraph tests are so unreliable that congress passed a law against them in many public situations. The National Research Council produced a report casting them in a very unfavorable light. The National Academy of Science doesn't like them. As far as being a "scare tactic", what if the spouse agrees to take one and it yields a false positive, which happens as often as not?




A piece of advice, don't believe everything you read. Seeing it first hand it is unbelievable what they do.


----------



## blueorange (Jul 2, 2012)

I am seriously considering one, even just to scare him, etc. I have found a company that does voice analysis over the phone and it is supposed to be accurate and is accredited by the better business bureau. I dont know. I was wanting to ask questions like if has he ever had sexual relations with a woman since we have been married, then ask if he has had sexual relations with a man since we have been married, have you ever had sexual relations with a man, period... since there is actually a question as to both of those right now that I may never know the truth to.


----------



## lordmayhem (Feb 7, 2011)

pplwatching said:


> Polygraph tests are not used in that way. When someone "fails" a polygraph test, the areas in question are passed to background investigators who do the real determination. The investigation may focus on areas indicated by the test, but it's the investigation itself that determines whether a clearance is granted or an applicant is hired. At least that's the way it works for security clearances.
> 
> My guess is that if a spouse "fails", the polygraph is treated more like the jury rather than just an indicator.


Wrong, they ARE used in that way. You can pass the BI but if you fail the poly, then you aren't going any further in the hiring process and you in the case of security clearances, it may be suspended. And I've been in a situation where we've been polygraphed and come to find out later that it was for a different reason than what we were told. But I can't say more of course.


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

pplwatching said:


> Whether or not your ex had an affair, the polygraph test probably had a 50% chance of being accurate. I don't know how much of your situation you have posted here, so please forgive my ignorance. If that test is the only information that you based your decision to divorce on, then you may very well have condemmed an innocent spouse.


I would suggest that you shouldn't throw out numbers like 50% accurate. 

The accuracy of the test is not black and white like 50% or 99% or 1%. It all depends on the people, the situation, and the questions asked.

For clear cut questions: Are you still meeting up with X, are you having sex with X - you get answers you can work with. 

For vague questions: Are you willing to stay married if Y changes, are you going to be loyal forever - you don't get good data.


----------



## MrDude (Jun 21, 2010)

pplwatching said:


> Polygraph tests are not used in that way. When someone "fails" a polygraph test, the areas in question are passed to background investigators who do the real determination. The investigation may focus on areas indicated by the test, but it's the investigation itself that determines whether a clearance is granted or an applicant is hired. At least that's the way it works for security clearances.


So I have been taking them all these years when an investigation was not due for no reason?


----------



## pplwatching (Jun 15, 2012)

lordmayhem said:


> Wrong, they ARE used in that way. You can pass the BI but if you fail the poly, then you aren't going any further in the hiring process and you in the case of security clearances, it may be suspended.


In the Department of Defense, the written policy is that failing a polygraph is not enough to deny or revoke a clearance. There must be evidence that corroborates the issue brought to light by the polygraph exam. That information comes either from the applicant during the interview or from other sources during the background investigation. 

There is an exception to this. The Secretary of the service (Army, Navy, AF, NSA) can personally decide that a clearance should be denied or revoked because of uncorroborated information from a polygraph.


----------



## skip76 (Aug 30, 2011)

pplwatching said:


> Polygraph tests are not used in that way. When someone "fails" a polygraph test, the areas in question are passed to background investigators who do the real determination. The investigation may focus on areas indicated by the test, but it's the investigation itself that determines whether a clearance is granted or an applicant is hired. At least that's the way it works for security clearances.
> 
> My guess is that if a spouse "fails", the polygraph is treated more like the jury rather than just an indicator.


i get tired of arguing all the time. all of the above is due to laywers "proving" them invalid in a court. if you don't want to use one, i don't give a crap. i do not see the point in trying to come here and convince people not to use them. i am arguing for the use of the tool as a way to help people out of a difficult situation. trust me i will use any and every tool i need, whether congress says it is good or not. turn on c span and take a look at congress. a bunch of out of touch loons. once again i have seen it in person and you will not change my mind.


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

skip76 said:


> i get tired of arguing all the time. all of the above is due to laywers "proving" them invalid in a court. if you don't want to use one, i don't give a crap. i do not see the point in trying to come here and convince people not to use them. i am arguing for the use of the tool as a way to help people out of a difficult situation. trust me i will use any and every tool i need, whether congress says it is good or not. turn on c span and take a look at congress. a bunch of out of touch loons. once again i have seen it in person and you will not change my mind.



Exactly. I am not a police man, but they require you to take a polygraph test as a cadet. Ask the right questions.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## pplwatching (Jun 15, 2012)

skip76 said:


> I do not see the point in trying to come here and convince people not to use them


I'm not trying to convince people not to use them. I asked why people use them. They cost money and are unreliable. The answer so far appears to be that they are a useful tool to use to get a spouse to come clean on their own.

If someone wants to dispute the reliability or how they are used, I dont' see why I can't respond.


----------



## lordmayhem (Feb 7, 2011)

CleanJerkSnatch said:


> Exactly. I am not a police man, but they require you to take a polygraph test as a cadet. Ask the right questions.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:iagree:

I had to take one when I was applying to become a police officer, and just about every agency/department requires one.


----------



## dymo (Jan 2, 2012)

pplwatching said:


> In the Department of Defense, the written policy is that failing a polygraph is not enough to deny or revoke a clearance.


If polygraphs are so unreliable, why would the DOD use them in the first place? Aren't they just a waste of money?

The reason why rules like this are in place is not because polygraphs don't work, but because they aren't fool-proof. It doesn't mean they have no value.


----------



## pplwatching (Jun 15, 2012)

lordmayhem said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I had to take one when I was applying to become a police officer, and just about every agency/department requires one.


Yes, they are required. My point is that the test results are not used to determine if you are hired. That decision is based on someone doing the legwork to determine the truth. 

In an affair situation, you already suspect the person and a poly doesn't change that. How many people say "they passed a polygraph, so they must be telling the truth even though my gut says they're not?"

I am not disputing that they are required. I am saying that if we are going to follow what these agencies do, then we'd also have to hire an investigator to find out if what the polygraph indicates is true or not.


----------



## pplwatching (Jun 15, 2012)

dymo said:


> If polygraphs are so unreliable, why would the DOD use them in the first place? Aren't they just a waste of money?


They use them to determine areas where more attention might be required during the background investigation.


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

pplwatching said:


> I'm not trying to convince people not to use them. I asked why people use them. They cost money and are unreliable. The answer so far appears to be that they are a useful tool to use to get a spouse to come clean on their own.
> 
> If someone wants to dispute the reliability or how they are used, I dont' see why I can't respond.


There is a worry about throwing around numbers like 50% reliable and statements like above "The cost money and are unreliable" - These are strong evaluations of the polygraph without backup.

The facts are: 

1- That many federal and state and private organizations DO pay for, require, and use Polygraphs 

2- No one is asserting they are truth extractors. 

3- Agencies are counseled to use them as part of their investigation into a person and not the sole piece of evidence. Notice however, they are not prohibited from using them at all. If it was pure hogwash they would be banned btw.


----------



## lordmayhem (Feb 7, 2011)

pplwatching said:


> Yes, they are required. My point is that the test results are not used to determine if you are hired. That decision is based on someone doing the legwork to determine the truth.


They why are polys done AFTER the BI?


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

I only agree to use the polygraph as a method of getting a confession. 

The confession can happen when you tell them they have to take one. Or when you tell them you have scheduled one. Or when you are driving to the appointment. Or when you are in the waiting room waiting for the test. 

I don't know what the odds are, but I guess 75% confess before ever taking the test.

If they don't confess and they take the test, then that wouldn't be good. If they pass the test, you think they tricked the test. If they fail, they tell you that the test was wrong.


----------



## lordmayhem (Feb 7, 2011)

SadSamIAm said:


> I only agree to use the polygraph as a method of getting a confession.
> 
> The confession can happen when you tell them they have to take one. Or when you tell them you have scheduled one. Or when you are driving to the appointment. Or when you are in the waiting room waiting for the test.
> 
> ...


:iagree:

I've read them on other sites. The WS will mainly agree with taking a poly as a bluff because they think that their BS won't actually go thru with it. But when they see the BS actually paying for/making the appointment, they back out of it, or confess on the way to the appointment or have the parking lot confession.


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

Im sure the kids at www.doccool.com would recommend their members to AVOID taking a poly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CleanJerkSnatch (Jul 18, 2012)

lordmayhem said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I've read them on other sites. The WS will mainly agree with taking a poly as a bluff because they think that their BS won't actually go thru with it. But when they see the BS actually paying for/making the appointment, they back out of it, or confess on the way to the appointment or have the parking lot confession.


Seen it before.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Count of Monte Cristo (Mar 21, 2012)

pplwatching said:


> I'm not trying to convince people not to use them. I asked why people use them. They cost money and are unreliable.


If you feel this way then by all means don't take one or require your significant other to take one.

(I'm curious, have you been cheated on -- or cheated on someone?)


----------



## MaritimeGuy (Jul 28, 2012)

My position is that if you distrust your partner enough you feel the need to ask them to take a polygraph test than that lack of trust in and of itself is reason enough not to be married. Whether or not you have proof of it why would you want to live your life with a spouse you feel in your heart is capable of cheating on you?


----------



## dymo (Jan 2, 2012)

pplwatching said:


> They use them to determine areas where more attention might be required during the background investigation.


And is this not just as applicable in the case of infidelity?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

pplwatching said:


> Polygraph tests are so unreliable that congress passed a law against them in many public situations. The National Research Council produced a report casting them in a very unfavorable light. The National Academy of Science doesn't like them. As far as being a "scare tactic", what if the spouse agrees to take one and it yields a false positive, which happens as often as not?


It is not that they are unreliable, it is usually that the polygrapher is unskilled. 

They use polygraphs in high-security clearance governmenatal positions, but they only use and hire very skilled polygraphers. 

Just cause someone was trained to be a doctor doesn't mean they are a good one. The same goes for polygraphers and any other profession.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

MaritimeGuy said:


> My position is that if you distrust your partner enough you feel the need to ask them to take a polygraph test than that lack of trust in and of itself is reason enough not to be married. Whether or not you have proof of it why would you want to live your life with a spouse you feel in your heart is capable of cheating on you?


Once a spouse cheats, they become a known liar and deceiver. 

To distrust a cheater forever is quite normal and a protective measure. Only a fool would ever trust a known liar and deceiver.

One can still R but not trust. 

I think not trusting is a good thing because most cheaters use their trusting spouse's trust against them. That is how they cheat without getting caught for so long. 

I only found out because my spouse was outed by an anonymous person. Perhaps the OW, but I don't care who it was the information was precise and accurate. 

Not trusting doesn't indicate the marriage can't recover. It means the faithful spouse finally realized that they never should have fully 100 percent trusted anyone ever, not even their spouse.


----------



## Badblood (Oct 27, 2011)

pplwatching said:


> Whether or not your ex had an affair, the polygraph test probably had a 50% chance of being accurate. I don't know how much of your situation you have posted here, so please forgive my ignorance. If that test is the only information that you based your decision to divorce on, then you may very well have condemmed an innocent spouse.


Dude, did you have a legitimate question? You have started a thread that you already have formed an opinion about, in order to do what? Argue? If you already believe that Polygraphs suck, then what is the point? Every poster who has found them useful , you've argued with. I don't like arguing , for the sake of arguing. So I'll bow out.


----------



## donny64 (Apr 21, 2012)

lordmayhem said:


> This question comes up every few months and there's someone like you arguing against them. If they are so unreliable as you say, then why are polygraphs required for the higher government security clearances? Why are polygraphs required for applying for most law enforcement agencies?
> 
> You know what's MORE UNRELIABLE than polygraphs? Eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is a hell of a lot more unreliable, yet its allowed in courts. You've never actually taken one, have you? I've taken two of them. Only what you've read on the internet. And we all know that if its on the internet, its gotta be true.




They are used in governmental situations because there is a larger false positive error rate than there is a false negative. They really don't much care about the false positives if it will help weed out a majority of the truly positives.

I've seen a number of them given on cases of mine as a witness. I've taken them as part of testing process for LE jobs and in my work. I will never subject myself to one, now that I'm in the civilian world, be it from a spouse or employer. I would never subject my spouse to one and have any confidence in the results. That is NOT TO SAY I might not "schedule" one and use the fear of it, along with other investigative techniques, to make sure I was getting as close to the truth as possible with a lying spouse. 

The fear of it is a far greater tool to get to the truth than the information gathered from it, IMO.

If you've taken two of them and passed, and were hiding nothing, you're in the "lucky majority". Fact remains there is a substantial "unlucky minority" that are subjected to these tests, "deception" is "indicated", and they're telling the truth as they believe and know it to be. I've taken about a half dozen of them. One was "DI" or "Deception Indicated". Another was "inconclusive". I was not being deceptive, and in fact passed the test on a second go around. 'Splain me that if they're so wonderful.

If they're so wonderful, why are "clench sensors" and other "activity" sensors needed, and being added all the time? Twenty years ago, the machines did not have these...yet at that time they were still considered "accurate". If they were "accurate" then, why the need for additional sensors? A machine so "accurate" it can be foiled by a tack or rock in the shoe, or by clenching your butt at the right time. Sounds legit to me?

The one I "DI'd" on, the examiner went through the normal control questions. Then when the real questions came, he had me close my eyes for the duration of the test (first time I'd experienced that). Any idea how unnerving that is being hooked up to a machine, in a strange room with a stranger and being told to keep your eyes closed for 10 minutes? Let me tell you...quite. And I'd already undergone a few of them with no difficulty. And on top of it you can't shift in your seat, move your feet, move your hands. Really? 

The examiner's capability can largely determine the "accuracy". Hope you're not getting the guy at the bottom of the class as your examiner....


----------



## MaritimeGuy (Jul 28, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> Once a spouse cheats, they become a known liar and deceiver.
> 
> To distrust a cheater forever is quite normal and a protective measure. Only a fool would ever trust a known liar and deceiver.
> 
> ...


I fully agree only a fool would trust a known liar and deceiver. I also understand the person who cheats typically uses the trust of their spouse to get away with it for as long as they do. Isn't that all the more reason to split though? They've knowingly taken advantage of the one person they vowed before god, family and friends to love and cherish for the rest of their lives. If that's not a deal breaker I don't know what is.

I'll have to agree to disagree with you on this. My position is without trust you do not have a marriage. Marriage should be a lifetime of joy and sharing...not a life time of fretting and constantly checking up on someone to confirm they're not cheating. I'm not saying I don't think you can't save a marriage where there has been an affair but only in instances where there is hope at some point of being able to re-establish trust.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

MaritimeGuy said:


> I fully agree only a fool would trust a known liar and deceiver. I also understand the person who cheats typically uses the trust of their spouse to get away with it for as long as they do. Isn't that all the more reason to split though? They've knowingly taken advantage of the one person they vowed before god, family and friends to love and cherish for the rest of their lives. If that's not a deal breaker I don't know what is.
> 
> I'll have to agree to disagree with you on this. My position is without trust you do not have a marriage. Marriage should be a lifetime of joy and sharing...not a life time of fretting and constantly checking up on someone to confirm they're not cheating. I'm not saying I don't think you can't save a marriage where there has been an affair but only in instances where there is hope at some point of being able to re-establish trust.


I agree with you. I filed for divorce. 

I do think, however, even if one reconciles, they need to realize that trusting the cheater 100 percent will never again be possible. 

Trust can be regained but the blind naive type of trust is lost forever. 

The affair destroys the innocence of the Betrayed spouse, and IMO, that is a good thing. 

IMO, and I may be wrong, in order to reconcile both parties need to accept that the original trust will never be regained 100 percent.


----------



## Shaggy (Jul 17, 2011)

MaritimeGuy said:


> My position is that if you distrust your partner enough you feel the need to ask them to take a polygraph test than that lack of trust in and of itself is reason enough not to be married. Whether or not you have proof of it why would you want to live your life with a spouse you feel in your heart is capable of cheating on you?


Then how do you deal with the situation where there's been an affair, the WS has claimed not to be in contact, or claims it was only friends?


----------



## MaritimeGuy (Jul 28, 2012)

Sara8 said:


> IMO, and I may be wrong, in order to reconcile both parties need to accept that the original trust will never be regained 100 percent.


You may be right but I don't want to believe it.  I want to believe in happily every after. Life is too short not to be happy.


----------



## MaritimeGuy (Jul 28, 2012)

Shaggy said:


> Then how do you deal with the situation where there's been an affair, the WS has claimed not to be in contact, or claims it was only friends?


If in your heart you don't believe her what is the difference whether she's lying or telling the truth? Are you prepared to live the rest of your life with that rot in your gut? 

You can not prove she didn't have an affair...you can only ever prove she did. Just because you can't find evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. So you keep searching until you find evidence she cheated...or you keep searching. I can't accept that as a way to live.


----------



## Sara8 (May 2, 2012)

MaritimeGuy said:


> You may be right but I don't want to believe it.  I want to believe in happily every after. Life is too short not to be happy.


I again, agree. That is why after a false six month reconciliation, i filed for divorce.


----------



## Racer (Sep 24, 2009)

pplwatching said:


> Polygraph tests are so unreliable that congress passed a law against them in many public situations. The National Research Council produced a report casting them in a very unfavorable light. The National Academy of Science doesn't like them. As far as being a "scare tactic", what if the spouse agrees to take one and it yields a false positive, which happens as often as not?


Something to remember is the criminal courts are different. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt." is important. So a 5% false positive is too much doubt to be accepted as proof in criminal court. Yet if memory serves me right, CIA, FBI, etc. all still use it to screen for security clearances and employment.

I wouldn't recommend it for those who are just suspicious. I'd recommend it for those who are fairly confident their spouse is lying to them and just need a bit more 'push' to remove any doubt the wayward is giving them. There are a lot of curbside confessions made before the poly... that isn't uncommon.

And no, I didn't. Unfortunately, there are like 3 questions you can ask and they can't be all that complex. I know my wife had PA's and EA's... I just don't know the extent and it is difficult to phrase a quick question to get an accurate reading. I can't just ask "Have you let another man touch you?" because she's already confessed and the question needs to be yes/no.


----------



## Locard (May 26, 2011)

Because you are completely ingnorant of polygraphs and how the work. That is why.


----------



## pplwatching (Jun 15, 2012)

Count of Monte Cristo said:


> (I'm curious, have you been cheated on -- or cheated on someone?)


No. I work in an industry that sometimes requires them. I have associates and friends who've had experiences with respect to reliability.



dymo said:


> And is this not just as applicable in the case of infidelity?


I don't see how it is. If a person suspects a spouse of cheating, it would seem to me that they'd want to look for proof no matter what the test says so why bother with the test? How does anyone know if they've gotten a bad result, however unlikely? I'd worry that a false positive, even if it's unlikely, might lead to a breakdown of the marriage, but I can see MaritimeGuy's points.



Badblood said:


> Dude, did you have a legitimate question?


I apologize for offending you. That was not my intention. I started this thread to avoid hijacking other threads where people suggest polygraph tests. In hindsight I can see that my word choices in my reply to you were very poor. I am sorry for that, and I apologize.


----------



## bahbahsheep (Sep 6, 2012)

Mah just forget about the poly test. The intention is good - to gain some sort of objective evidence of your partner's degree of honesty but that is not the right way to approach any situation in a relationship.

Besides, I have done the more stringent lie detection test before (in brain MRI scanner with perspiration electrodes on my fingers etc) and got away with it so whats the point?


----------



## Badblood (Oct 27, 2011)

So the consensus is that the experience and acumen of the examiner, the type of factual questions asked, are critical to the success of the test? I can see that. I felt that it had real value in giving me a handle on the "nuts and bolts", of my ex's affair. I didn't have the examiner ask if the affair took place, I already knew the answer. It told me the who, what , when and where, the why I never cared about.


----------



## bahbahsheep (Sep 6, 2012)

Badblood said:


> So the consensus is that the experience and acumen of the examiner, the type of factual questions asked, are critical to the success of the test? I can see that. I felt that it had real value in giving me a handle on the "nuts and bolts", of my ex's affair. I didn't have the examiner ask if the affair took place, I already knew the answer. It told me the who, what , when and where, the why I never cared about.


yes exactly, but what the polygraph does not tell you are the details of the lie - what when or where is this affair happening. 

Too vague to use as it dsont identify the source of the problem in the relationship


----------

