Categories
podcast

Arguments in defense of the polygraph, with David Goldberg

Polygraphs are a controversial tool in criminal investigations: critics argue they’re too unreliable to trust, while proponents say that, even if they’re not perfect, they nonetheless can play a valuable role in helping uncover the truth. I talk with veteran polygraph examiner David Goldberg (www.executiveprotectiongrp.com), who has conducted more than 20,000 examinations over a 30-year career and who believes that, in the hands of a highly skilled examiner, polygraphs are far more accurate than most people realize. We discuss why he thinks innocent people should see nothing to fear when taking a polygraph, how experienced examiners distinguish deception from nervousness, how hiring processes use polygraphs, and why he sees interviewer skill—not the technology—as the biggest factor in accuracy. David talks about the granular details of how a polygraph examination is conducted, and the strategies he uses. Along the way, we explore the broader question that underlies so many debates about the polygraph and other uses of behavior analysis: when can information that’s less than 100% reliable still be useful for making important decisions?

Episode links:

Resources mentioned in or related to this talk:

TRANSCRIPT

(transcripts are automatically generated and will contain errors)

David Goldberg: “If you know you are… 100% innocent of whatever you’re falsely accused of… there’s nothing wrong with taking a polygraph test… with… a highly experienced examiner.”

Zach Elwood: “But, uh, I mean, surely you would, you would say that you’ve, you’re capable of, of making mistakes. Like, these things are not infallible, right?… my fear, which is like, well, David’s gonna, might make a mistake, and then h- what percentage, I don’t know, of what you, where you might make a bad read, but that would be, you know, first and foremost in, in most people’s minds, right?

David Goldberg: “I will say this. I have never, ever, ever, and I, and I’m proud to say this, I have never passed an individual that should not pass, okay? Meaning false positives, false negatives. And I’ve never failed a person that should never fail…”

Zach Elwood: That was a clip from my talk with polygraph examiner David Goldberg, who operates in Virginia with the business name Executive Protection Group. This is the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zach Elwood. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com. 

In a 2024 episode, I talked to Leonard Saxe, who has researched the polygraph and is highly critical of it. I thought it would be good to balance that talk out and talk to one or more professional polygraph examiners, to see what they say in defense of the polygraph. This talk with David comes after a recent talk I had with another polygraph examiner, Brad Beeler, who worked for the Secret Service. I like hearing why people believe what they do, and I always find that I learn something. After all, I don’t pretend to be an expert in most of the areas I cover on this podcast; I’m not in law enforcement and am distant from these discussions. I’m always learning, basically. 

I’m someone who would almost never voluntarily take a polygraph. But note that I said “almost never.” After talking to David, and thinking more about it, I can imagine some scenarios where I might decide to take one. For example, if I were in a civil case where actual evidence was in short supply, and I thought that I would likely fare better than an opponent would at a polygraph examination, I would consider it. This would largely be about other people’s perceptions of the polygraph and how I might benefit from the results, and not due to my own perceptions of its value. It would also relate to something David explained to me: that the best polygraph examiners have strong interview and interrogation skills, and so could theoretically testify as to their view of the overall interview results, and not just about the polygraph results.

I also do believe that, even if the polygraph is obviously fallible, I can see that its use as a tool to pressure people to talk can be a good thing. That use of the polygraph can be controversial, of course, but just to say that I can see there are pros and cons there, and why people can disagree. 

I think, as with a lot of arguments about uses of analyzing behavior, the controversies and disagreements around the polygraph aren’t so much about the polygraph itself, but about the foundational question of: when is information that isn’t 100% reliable useful? In some environments, like in low-information game environments, even information that has slightly-above-chance reliability can be highly useful; in other environments, like in investigations where you need to prove someone’s guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt even a clue that you see as 95% reliable might be worthless. 

Talking to David gave me greater insight into the arguments and perspectives of polygraph examiners, so I found it a valuable discussion. And I want to thank David for coming on and sharing his views, especially because he knows that I’m a bit skeptical about the polygraph. 

And there’s a lot I still don’t know about the polygraph: how accurate can it be in the hands of highly skilled practitioners vs less skilled practitioners? What are the trainings and certifications practitioners get and how can they help separate good and bad practitioners? Many practitioners claim to be highly skilled, but what is the objective evidence for that? How exactly is it tested? What exactly are the changes they are seeing in the various measurements… the galvanic skin conductance, the breathing, and the pulse information, that give them clues? I understand that the galvanic skin conductance is considered by far the most useful signal, but how much more useful is it, and how high variance and random is that signal exactly? (on that topic, I have a past episode where I talk with Chris Moyer about what galvanic skin conductance is actually measuring) 

Here’s a little more about David: 

He is an advanced board-certified polygraph examiner with more than 30 years of criminal justice and investigative experience and over 20,000 polygraph examinations. A former FBI task force member, he has testified as an expert witness in numerous state and federal court cases and has worked with organizations including the FBI, NCIS, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Department of Justice. He is the only polygraph examiner recognized by the Navy Defense Counsel Assistance Program as an expert witness for cases involving U.S. Navy personnel. David has his own podcast called Inside the Polygraph. 

That’s just a little bit of information from David’s extensive professional bio, which you can read more about at his Executive Protection Group website, which is at executiveprotectiongrp.com

Okay here’s the talk with David Goldberg

Zach Elwood: Hi, David. Thanks for joining me. 

David Goldberg: Thank you. 

Zach Elwood: Yeah, really glad you reached out to me. Uh, really appreciate you taking the time. Uh, maybe we could start out with how you got into this line of work. 

David Goldberg: I got into this line of work, um, through my law enforcement career. I was a detective, and I saw a lot of need to get that kind of training.

I was, uh, in homicide and then in sexual assault. Um, and so I wanted to expand my career, and I saw that there was a lot of old, older, um, examiners, and I was newer. So I wanted to become a polygraph examiner and enhance my, my skills. And so I kept applying, and finally I was able to get accepted, and then I went into, uh, the schools.

And then, um, as my training proceeded, I became a polygraph examiner on the police department, um, along with my detective, um, investigative work. 

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Is there a lot of, uh… To, to become a independent polygraph, uh, uh, examiner, does, does that require a lot of, uh, certification, and does it vary by state by state for that kind of work, do you know?

David Goldberg: It does. You’re talking, uh, as a private polygraph examiner- Yeah, private … you’re talking about? Yes. Yeah. Yes. You, it does by state by state. Um, there is a minimum qualification that you have to have. Um, I will tell you that the better qualified examiners do come from law enforcement, and the reason why is because they’ve have a variety of investigative work that they’ve handled.

When you have examiners that go just from no criminal background, no law enforcement background, they’re limited in reference to how they can interview or the type of examinations that they can really resolve for individuals if they’ve never really truly been involved in a investigation. So it really limits those kind of private examiners.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Do most people who become private examiners, do most of them come from the law enforcement background? Is that fair 

David Goldberg: to say? Yeah, usually they, they usually do. Um, after retirement they may say, “You know what? I, I really enjoyed doing this in law enforcement, so I want to now expand and go into the private sector.”

However, I will tell you, it does take a lot in reference to becoming a private examiner versus your typical law enforcement examiner. Hmm. And we can get into that later, and I can tell you why. 

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Um, I, I’d be curious, uh, would it be possible for you to talk about what your- What kind of jobs you get and what your typical day-to-day looks like in general?

David Goldberg: A- absolutely, yeah. I mean, typically I get phone calls constantly, nonstop. Um, because the reason why I got into the private part of polygraph examinations was Everyone, everyone, um, thinks that polygraph examinations was only for those that were either criminally arrested or under investigation. And so people didn’t know back in the ’90s when it really got prevalent and didn’t know and think, “Well, you know, I, I have a big issue.

I have a problem I wanna prove. How can I prove my, either my innocence or prove that someone is, you know, lying on me or whatever? How can I prove this?” And so I saw the biggest need out there privately that I wanted to go and once I retire, I wanted to open this up and show that every single person, whatever issue you have, no matter what, can be resolved through a polygraph examination.

And so that’s one reason why I opened my business 24 and a half years ago, almost 25 now. And the calls that I get, you name it, um, Zachary, I have helped and resolved for an individual. So they range from infidelity, child sexual abuse, an individual who has been molested when they were a child, they’re now adults, and they wanna prove that it happened because either a family member didn’t believe ’em back then, and now they wanna prove that Mom or, or, you know, Grandmother should have believed them back then, and now they, they’re old enough to say, “Look, I just wanna prove to you that you were wrong.

You should have protected me back then, and I wanna prove my truthfulness that I was abused as a victim,” and so they’ll come here. Or I get so many, so many false allegations against someone that they want to come here and prove that they are not what someone’s saying that they are with divorce, custody matters, child sexual abuse, theft, even college plagiarism.

You, you just named the, the gamut and I’ve resolved for someone. 

Zach Elwood: So it’s, uh, yeah, I mean, what comes to mind for me is, I don’t know if you followed that, uh, poker scandal where- Mm-hmm … a, a prominent poker player, Garrett Adelstein, had, uh, accused this player named Robbie Jade Lew of cheating, and then Robbie w- went and got a, um, a private polygraph to help, you know, show- Right

her, um, that she was not lying. That’s what came to mind. Do, do you s- so I, I’m gathering that it’s a lot of people just trying to make a public statement or convince certain other people of, of their innocence or, or that they’re s- telling the truth. That’s, that’s a large part of, of what it seems to be.

Not even directly related to a court case necessarily. 

David Goldberg: Correct. Not- Yeah … not directly related to either an investigation or you’re being charged, although I do that But it can be anything. I mean, even issues between mom and a child or a family member, you know, when… A- and I’ve had this before, where a family member has passed away, and then other people come into the house, and now all the items are starting to be stolen before they could be even divvied up.

And now another family member is accusing so-and-so of stealing, let’s say, Mom’s, you know, cherished ring, and it was supposed to go to the other sister, but the sister is now accusing them of stealing it, and they never stole it. Mom gave it to them. And, and, you know, now they have to prove that Mom gave her the ring, and she didn’t steal it after Mom passed away.

I mean, it, it just, you know, it can be a total, pardon my language, a shit show for a lot of people, but they have no way of proving it because either the person has passed away or these allegations against someone, so that’s what happens. 

Zach Elwood: So, um, I’m curious, uh, how much do you see The practice of a polygra- polygraph examiner, how much do you see it as just good interrogation or interviewing technique, and how much of it do you see as, like, reading the, the readings, the technology, if, if that makes sense?

David Goldberg: Yeah, it does, and I’m glad you asked that. I mean, and, and it goes really hand-in-hand with your excellent podcast with Tim Levine, um, when he said, um, and I, and I even wrote down a note, and he said, “There’s truth bias, and then there’s verification.” And in reference to what I do versus a lot of polygraph examiners, and you even, I think you even mentioned it, is y- that it’s used as an interrogation tool.

That may be so when it comes to sometimes law enforcement purposes. I do not do that. Everyone has in life, everyone has a story to tell. Everyone. There are two sides to every single story that someone has. One side’s always gonna be more truthful than the other. Doesn’t mean that the person o- on the other side is not telling the truth.

It just means one is always gonna be telling more of the truth than the other. What I use the polygraph test for is I’m going to verify your story and whether everything that you tell me, everything, is absolutely, completely true. And so your question was is how much is it in reference to interviewing?

Absolutely, that is the number one key, the number one key to a polygraph test with an expert examiner, is the interview process. There’s three phases to a polygraph, three phases, and you have a pre-test interview phase, you have the actual examination, and then you have a post-test interview phase. The number one key to the examination is the pre-test interview, so that’s gathering all this information, making sure that that examiner is well prepared prior, and then when you interview that examinee, the person that you’re gonna be testing, you gather every bit of that information from them, and then you formulate the proper questions to verify what they’re saying is absolutely, completely true and they haven’t left out anything.

Zach Elwood: Um, so it obviously polygraphs are, you know, a controversial topic because we know that they’re far from 100% reliable. They’re not admitted in court and such. How do you, how do you see the overall usefulness of polygraphs given that they are, you know, they can have false positives, they can have false negatives?

How do you, how do you view the usefulness of, of them given that? 

David Goldberg: And I, I like that you said that. Well, there is a myth, and I say a myth even though, yes, the, the Supreme Court has ruled polygraphs are not admitted in court. However, I will tell you that polygraphs can be and have been, and I have been deemed an expert and have been sworn and testified in a court of law, multiple courts of law, and testified with polygraphs.

Polygraphs can be utilized and admitted into a court of law on a case-by-case basis, and have been used in reference to certain kinds of cases. And what is admitted into a court of law is not the charts that you just spoke about earlier. What’s admitted is, is the polygraph report that’s generated by the examiner.

It is what is said and done through the examinee and through the examiner, and it is based on, it’s sort of like a deposition. So depositions are entered into a court of law. So the pretest, everything in the pretest can be admitted into a court of law And so then what happens is it’s, you’re, as the examiner, the examiner on a limited basis testifies and can testify, uh, on his professional opinion and what was said and done in the interview process.

And I’ve done that. 

Zach Elwood: So are you, are you saying, and sorry, are you saying that you’re testifying more as like an interviewer/interrogator versus like this is just what the results of the test said? So are you, are you basically more testifying about like, “This is what I believe based on how the interview went”?

Does that make sense? Or… 

David Goldberg: Yeah, yeah. I mean, I’m not saying, you know, uh, it’s not bias. It, it is, it is, I guess you could say, based on everything that the interview went through, and then a- based on the testing and the testing results. Now it’s up to the attorney, okay, obviously, and then usually it’s between both attorneys that agree on allowing it in, okay?

‘Cause that’s how it gets in. It has, it has to be both parties have to agree on the report to get in, and then the judge has to determine what parts of that report gets in. Mm. And then that’s what I get, that’s what I would testify or, or an examiner would testify In court. And that’s what I’ve done multiple times 

Zach Elwood: So, uh, w- what does that te- what does your, uh, testimony usually take the form of?

Is it, is it, is it as confident as like, “I believe this person was lying,” or, “I believe this person is telling the truth,” or is it… Do you give it like a, a spectrum- Yeah, 

David Goldberg: there’s no- … of 

Zach Elwood: grading or how 

David Goldberg: does it- Yeah, there, yeah, there’s no scores. There’s no scores, okay? There’s no… Because as you know, that’s where, that’s where it gets convoluted and says, “Well, scientific would say this,” or, “It’s not scientifically 100%,” as you said, but nothing in this world is even scientifically 100% right now, or reliable.

‘Cause anything that’s human, you know, based is not 100%. 

Zach Elwood: Right. You’re, you would say, y- yeah, y- you would say- Right … human- So- … eyewitness testimony isn’t 100%, 

David Goldberg: et cetera A- absolutely. Absolutely. So what, so how it is is they, they obviously question me about, you know, my experience. They, it, ask me about the process and then they ask me the basis of the interview.

Did you have an opportunity to question Mr. So-and-So? I did. What did, what did Zachary say in the interview? Well, Zachary was there for alleged to have done X, Y, and Z. And what did Zachary tell you? Zachary told me the following. And based on your experience, based on everything that Zachary said, what is your professional opinion?

My professional opinion would then have said that he was open, honest, didn’t hesitate, and was completely, you know, thorough with everything. Now, the defense attorney can come back and say, “Your Honor, that’s speculation. That’s, you know, whatever,” you know. However A lot of times the judge will either say, and, and it, it’s up to the judge, the judge will s- sometimes say, “No, I’ll, I’ll let, you know, Mr.

Goldberg continue,” or, or will say, you know, uh, “Overruled,” or whatever. But a lot of times it gets in, and a lot of times the judge wants to see the entire report along with, along with the other party, meaning the other, uh, party attorney, okay? So a lot of times, and this is what I tell people all the time, all the time, I say this, if you know you are, and I say 100%, but if you know yourself, you’re 100% innocent, 100% innocent of whatever you’re falsely accused of, whatever you’re falsely charged with or whatever, there’s nothing wrong with taking a polygraph test if, with a, with an experienced, highly experienced examiner.

If it comes back and you have passed that exam, and I’m not saying to go find any, you know, Joe Blow down the street, cheap examiner or whatever, because w- we can get into that later, but I’m talking about one that has credentials everywhere, like myself, and you get an examination that’s absolutely through the book, APA qualified, everything, and you pass, and you take those results to your attorney, it is now up to your attorney to present those facts to the prosecution if you’re being charged or you’re being under investigation.

I will tell you a lot of times, a lot of times if you’re under investigation and you’ve taken a qualified examination, there’s probably, probably 8 out of 10 times a lot of these investigations are dropped and, and it goes nowhere, and you’re not charged because you’ve taken a qualified polygraph. And they o- sometimes will say, “You know what?

Let’s go offer the, the other party, the alleged accuser, let’s, you know, further investigate.” And we find out that now that you’ve taken one, the person that’s accusing either wants to say, “Yeah, never mind, I drop it,” or the, the other, the prosecution says, “You know what? We’re gonna further investigate. We might find someone.”

I just had one like that just last year where they charged someone for murder- The attorney said, “My client is so adamant that he did not do it, wasn’t even there. I want my client tested.” He came to me, he tested, he absolutely 100% passed, and he had an alibi. I tested the alibi, the person that was his alibi, she passed.

They presented it to the police, they verified everything, and guess what? The prosecution dropped it, and they found the right person that actually did the murder. So if it wasn’t for the polygraph test, they probably would not have further the investigation, would have put and charged him, and who knows what the, you know, judge or jury would have found, and there would have been an innocent man locked up for something he didn’t do 

Zach Elwood: And, and sorry, I feel like you partially explained this, and sorry if I wasn’t getting it, but when you’re giving your…

Like, say you give your final report, and they use that in some way, how much of that do you, do you… How much of your take is just about, like, leaving out the polygraph results and just your take on how, uh, forthcoming they were on your, and your take on your overall, you know, assessment of, of their, uh, transparency, and how much of it is, like, directly related to, like, it spiked on this question, if that, if that makes sense?

David Goldberg: Yeah, it does. We’re, we’re not allowed, we’re not allowed to talk about the scientific part of the polygraph. 

Zach Elwood: Mm. 

David Goldberg: So we can’t say it spiked, or we can’t say- 

Zach Elwood: Okay. So it’s more an overall assessment that you’re giving, like- Correct … including, like, your take on the overall interview- Correct … process. 

David Goldberg: Correct.

Correct. 

Zach Elwood: Right. So I guess, I, I guess I would… I mean, I’ll t- I’ll, I’ll be honest, like I said in my notes to you, it’s like, if I was accused of something, my current thought is, like, I would never volunteer for a polygraph, but I know y- you, you feel different. But the reason I think that is, or at least how I feel about now, is I would just be…

I don’t, I don’t see an upside because it’s like, especially feeling like I’m a pretty nervous person- Right … so I would feel like, I would be afraid that there’s no upside in the f- in the sense that like, well, if I pass it, it’s not like it gets accepted in a court anyway, and then if I fail it, everybody thinks I’m guilty, right?

So I, I, um, but I’m curious how you would respond, ’cause I think that’s how a lot of people would, would view it. 

David Goldberg: Right. So let me expl- And I’m glad you say that, Zachary. Yeah. So let me explain th- that part to you. Every, and I get those calls every single day. Every day, “Hey, can you fail if, uh, if you’re nervous?”

Or, “Can you fail if you take, um, ADHD medication?” Or any kind of medication, high blood pressure medications. And I absolutely tell them, “No, no, no.” Okay? So absolutely not. Anxiety, nervousness is not going to affect your results on a polygraph test. And any kind of medicine, medication you take is not going to affect the results with, and I’m gonna say this and I’ll say it over and over again, with a highly qualified polygraph examiner because they know, and they should know, what they’re reading and what they’re seeing when they test an individual.

Now, you’re going to be nervous. If I put, even if I put myself on, and I’ve taken many, you’re nervous when you go because it’s not a natural phenomenon to sit in a chair, having to sit still, having attachments on your chest, on your stomach, on your hands, on a forearm, and you’re n- a- and, and told to answer the questions that have already been formulated, and you’re nervous about these questions.

And a perfect example is what you just said, Zachary, is, “I’m nervous that I hope this bonehead who’s testing me, or I hope this good guy or good girl who’s testing me is not going to ruin my life.” Okay? So yeah, you are nervous. Th- absolutely. But what the examiner is supposed to do prior to the time they hook you up, they are supposed to relieve that anxiety level to a point where you are not really at that high level of anxiety when you first came.

You’re supposed to be at maybe a little bit of a, a- anxiety level where you’re just a little bit nervous because you know you didn’t do it, okay, b- of what you’re being accused or what you’re being investigated or charged, but you’re just a little bit nervous, but you have no fear of failing because you know you didn’t do the issue that’s being tested.

Zach Elwood: But, uh, I mean, surely you would, you would say that you’ve, you’re capable of, of making mistakes. Like, these things are not infallible, right? So it’s kind of like, m- I think a lot of people would come back to that m- my fear, which is like, well, David’s gonna, might make a mistake, and then h- what percentage, I don’t know, of what you, where you might make a bad read, but that would be, you know, first and foremost in, in most people’s minds, right?

David Goldberg: Well, I’m gonna say this. Am I perfect? No one is perfect. No one’s perfect, a human being. However, I’m gonna tell you this, and I will say this. I have never, ever, ever, and I, and I’m proud to say this, I have never passed an individual that should not pass, okay? Meaning false positives, false negatives. And I’ve never failed a person that should never fail.

What I may have done is maybe given them a lower score when they should’ve gotten a higher score or may have given them a higher score that they shouldn’t have gotten as high a score, but they still passed, and they still failed. And I verified everything that they have said is absolutely either truthful or they’ve been deceptive.

Th- and I don’t do what a lot of people do. And when I say a lot of people do, my interviews are so extensive that I’m going to verify everything that’s said and done. And here’s the other caveat People don’t just fail polygraphs based on being a pathetic liar. You fail because you’ve withheld information that’s being asked of you.

That means that if I asked you hypothetically, let’s say you’re taking this test, and it’s a hypothetical, and I say, “Zachary, why were you late for this appointment?” And you tell me, “Well, I was late for this appointment because traffic was really bad on the interstate, and I got lost, and I couldn’t find your building.”

That’s all true. Let’s say that’s all hypothetically true, okay? So now I’m getting ready to formulate the questions. Were you late for this appointment because traffic was bad on the interstate and you got lost on, uh, you got lost finding the building? And you answer yes. Well, now I start seeing some serious reaction to that question.

You’re not lying, but guess what you for- failed to tell me. Prior to coming and getting lost at the building and traffic was bad on the interstate, you stopped off at your favorite gas station, whether it was 7-Eleven, Shell, Wawa, or whatever’s near you, to get, fill up gas because you needed gas to return back home, and you got your favorite beverage, whether it’s a Red Bull, it’s a, you know, whatever, energy drink or soda or water, and you failed to tell me because that also put you a delay coming to the appointment.

So when I asked you why you were late and you only told me traffic was bad on the interstate and you got lost finding the building, that was not a lie. You absolutely 100% told me the truth. You failed to tell me everything, which caused you to show a very strong reaction to the question I asked you, and the question was, “Why were you late for this appointment?”

You didn’t tell me everything, so you failed that question because you didn’t tell me everything, which means you withheld information. So you didn’t lie. You’re not a pathetic liar. You just chose, “Well, I didn’t think he needed to know I went to the 7-Eleven because it was irrelevant to him.” It was important to me, but it was irrelevant.

But that’s not what I asked you. And so people fail a lot of these exams because they withhold information, and that’s why they fail. 

Zach Elwood: Uh, I’m– I guess it goes without saying that y- you’re v- you would say you’re very confident in your u-use of the technology. H-How, how much do you think a skilled practitioner’s use increases their accuracy and, and reading abilities in these areas?

Like, say, s- pick somebody out of a phone book versus using, um, your, y-your, uh, using you, how much do you think your skills are above an average polygraph examiner, if that makes sense? 

David Goldberg: I think an average polygraph examiner is an average polygraph examiner, which means you have to work your way up. I think in any, any profession, I mean, you have average attorneys, right?

And then you have outstanding attorneys that, you know, know the law backwards and forwards. You have average mechanics, and then you have mechanics that can listen to that little ding that’s going on and, you know, or the clack, clack, clack, and tell you, you know, what it is. So I think you start off, like I started off, as your graduate from polygraph school, and then you worked your way up, and then you build your skills over time, and then you became that expert because you f- fine-tuned all your, your, your issues or your, your, you know, scorings and your formulation of questions and your perfect interviewing skills.

And I think that’s how you become not average, but you become expert, and then you just don’t do the same testing over and over and over again. There are some examiners that just do nothing but pre-employment all their career, and then they’re expected to then say, “Okay, hey, I j- I hired you because now, you know, my child’s been molested,” you know.

Yeah, can they do that kind of testing? Absolutely, because it’s the same kind of, meaning polygraph test, okay? You, I can teach you right now how to run a test, okay? It’s not hard. When I say hard, it’s not hard to, you know, run the knobs, you know, and stuff o- of, uh, of the instrument. However, reading the, uh, charts and formulating the proper questions to get proper reactions and responses, that’s where the expert comes into play.

Because when you don’t formulate proper questions and you get wrong responses, you could ultimately ruin someone’s life, and I’ve seen that many times. 

Zach Elwood: Hmm. It seems like the other, um, the other criticism of the polygraph would be the, the opposite direction, where it’s like people would suspect or worry that, um, you would have a bias to, uh, you know, go, uh, say that somebody who hired you is telling the truth, right?

That, that, that’s a fear. Um, or, or even that, you know, even if you read somebody who’s claiming some, like, childhood abuse, it’s possible that they’ve convinced themselves it might be, like, a false memory kind of thing, and so there’s also the fear that maybe even if they believe it, it doesn’t mean much. D- I’m, I’m curious how often…

Maybe there’s a, like, a metric for, like- How often d-does somebody, uh, a, a polygraph examiner find somebody that hired them, uh, fi- g- their findings go against that, that person, if, if that makes sense? How do, how do you, how do we judge, you know, the, um, reliability in those areas? 

David Goldberg: I love that question. I love it, and I get that question probably every single time I have to go to court.

All the time. “Well, you’re a hired hand.” And I say, “No, I’m not.” And I’m not, and I will tell you this, that I w- I have never Again, pass someone just because someone has hired me and I’ve never failed anyone just because a client has hired me to test someone else. Absolutely not. My credibility is too high for that.

My license is too important. I, that, that’s ridiculous to me. Um, so absolutely not. But you under- 

Zach Elwood: but you understand the fears though, that the, 

David Goldberg: the, the perception But that, but no, but, but here’s what I’m gonna say. That has happened, and that does happen, so I’m not gonna say it doesn’t. Okay? Um, I would be, I would be, um, un- incredible I- if I didn’t say that that doesn’t happen.

There are examiners out there, okay, um, that if you pay them e- nou- enough, they’re gonna give you a quick, cheap, dirty exam, and then, you know, you’re gonna get the results that you want, okay? Um, and then you got very, very outstanding examiners across the country that would absolutely not do that, ever, okay, and would kick you out the office i- i- if you were bribed or whatever.

Um, so yes, is there, does that happen? 100%. I think that happens in, uh, almost, a lot of professions. Um, and so I think where that, where that question comes into play would be is your credibility, your experience, and the professionals that have hired you in the past, and the cases that you’ve done to prove that you would never do something like that.

Mm-hmm. And I think, you know, other examiners that may not have the experience or whatever, you know, that can come into play elsewhere. 

Zach Elwood: Well, it’s, it sets up an interesting dynamic where theoretically the more negative reviews you have from clients, uh, you know, might, might actually, uh, you know, uh, might actually pr- show that you’re, uh, trying your best to, uh, be objective or something.

It sets up a weird … Because, you know, it’s, it goes against the incentives for, uh, uh … But I guess then again, maybe many, you know, on the other side, people that know that they, they, they themselves are guilty probably wouldn’t hire many, uh, polygraph examiners themselves. Uh, so maybe that there’d be not many people that would even self-select to take a polygraph that would be guilty.

I don’t know the, how that would work, but, um- 

David Goldberg: No, no. People that, everyone want, everyone tries to take a polygraph if, if, even when they’re guilty. They- 

Zach Elwood: Like, even, even in the, even for a private, the- 

David Goldberg: E- even- … ex- excuse you … even, even when they’re guilty. Right. Even when they’re, and when I say guilty, even when they have something to hide, people take polygraph tests for, for many reasons, for many reasons.

Um, one- Depending on the examiner, and, and I’ve had… and I can tell you a story, but, um, they think that either they are smarter, more intelligent, that they can beat the polygraph test, that’s number one, or beat the polygraph examiner, that’s number two. Number three is they feel that they are such a great, um, person that they can hide their, their deception, that they can beat the, uh, the exam, and so that’s why they take it.

Okay? So that’s why a lot of the people that lie or deceive or hold back information, that’s why they take it because they, they wanna look at you just like the poker face, look at you and say, you know, “Hey, I got four aces,” and they’re… It’s called bluffing. So people bluff, gaslight, the new li- the new word, you know, gaslighting, whatever.

It’s the same thing. So they go and they, first thing out of their mouth is, “Well, I’ll take a polygraph test.” So the other party goes, “Great. I’ll find someone.” And they find someone and they go, “Oh, crap,” you know, but now they have to do it. Th- in reference to the, the bad reviews or the negativity, I will say this.

I hear this a lot from a lot of people. Um, those that have bad thoughts or bad or negative thoughts about the polygraph test, it’s two, two reasons for that, and I say that maybe three, but two, two big reasons. One, they either have absolutely flat out lied and failed, and now they’re angry because they got caught and it’s ruined whatever they went there for.

Or two, and I say this because I’ve seen it and I’ve helped a lot of people, they are innocent. They went to go get a polygraph test. They got bad results and it ruined their life, or they went to go get their dream job and they didn’t get it, and now they have a bad taste in their mouth about polygraph tests and they now say, “Polygraphs are bullshit, pseudoscience.

No way. I wouldn’t take it if my life depended upon it.” And that’s why. But those that have taken a polygraph test and ha- has truly helped them in life, whether they’ve gotten custody, whether they’ve been free from incarceration, not gotten charged, you know, gotten out of a, an abusive relationship or whatever the issue is, you’re not gonna hear anything negative about a polygraph test from those individuals or their clients or their attorneys because it has helped them and it has elevated them more than you can possibly imagine.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Um, yeah, I’m tr- I’m trying to process my views. Uh, and sorry, this is just kind of me thinking through it now, but, um, I mean, I’ve, I’ve mostly seen the use of polygraphs not as something… Th- this is my own view. It has been my view. Mm-hmm. I’ve mostly seen them as not something to trust for getting at the truth, but as something that can be a valuable tool for, like, pressuring, uh, persuading people to speak more forthrightly.

Like, I’ve seen that interrogation footage, for example, like people that seemed pressured to, uh, be more forthright based on use of a polygraph. But I think you, you and others would argue that, no, it is a valuable tool for getting to the, to the truth. That, that, I think that’s what you would say. And, and I think the way you’ve described, um, using it, using your testimony as partially just, like, an interrogator/interviewer testimony, it almost makes me think, like ‘Cause I could see the value of, uh, of getting like say I wanted to prove I was, uh, innocent of something, I could see hiring just like a, a well-known investigator, uh, interviewer to say, “Interview me and give y- your take on, uh, how truthful I was.”

So I, I can, I can see your point about the testimony of like I think this b- this person is being forthright based on my views of how the, the interview, uh, the polygraph session went. But i- I, I guess, uh, I guess what I’m saying is the, the, the pure interrogation interview process seems more reliable to me than the, uh, the polygraph part of it, if that makes sense.

Um, and that’s, that’s just kind of like my, my trying to summarize my current view of things, but I’m curious if you have anything to respond to that take. 

David Goldberg: No, and I agree w- I, I agree with what you’re saying and, and you’re right. Has the polygraph been used as an interrogation tool, and has it been used to manipulate or intimidate in reference to scenarios in that kind of realm?

Absolutely, 100%. I’m not gonna say- 

Zach Elwood: And to be clear, and to be clear, I’m not even saying that that’s necessarily a bad thing because if it’s not- Right. 

David Goldberg: Right … 

Zach Elwood: if it’s not getting false confessions, then it, it’s theoretically- Right … yeah, yeah. 

David Goldberg: Absolutely. 

Zach Elwood: Yeah. 

David Goldberg: A- a- and that’s why it’s, a- and that’s why it’s considered a very valuable tool in that kind of situation to a certain extent.

And like you just said, as long as it’s not used for false confessions or false admissions- 

Zach Elwood: Like too mu- as long as it’s not like really being extra pressured or something, right? Yeah. 

David Goldberg: Right. Yeah. However, this is what I’m going to say though, and, and I can really ask you. In your life, okay, whether you were a teenager or even in your adult life, have you ever ha- been falsely accused or had any rumors thrown at you anywhere, okay, about anything, okay, even o- on, you know, a podcast or anywhere that you s- were adamant and said that was wrong?

Zach Elwood: Yeah, I’ve, I’ve dealt with a few things like that. 

David Goldberg: O- okay. And it was your word against their word, word. Am I correct? 

Zach Elwood: Mm. I mean, there was other evidence in the mix, but, you know, that was one 

David Goldberg: part of it. Okay, so you had, you had some evidence. All right. Yeah. That’s fine. But there are some times that people just have their word against your word, and what I call them is he said- Yeah

she said cases. 

Zach Elwood: Exactly. 

David Goldberg: He said, he said cases. 

Zach Elwood: Yeah, which are very tough to deal with, yeah. 

David Goldberg: Without a doubt. Yeah. And when you don’t have anything else, anything else- I will tell you this, that the polygraph is probably the main evidence that someone can take that’s going to have for them, if they are telling the truth, that’s going to elevate their status, their integrity, and their truth over someone’s word of mouth.

Because what you’re going to have after you take a polygraph test is you’re going to have a document, a document that can be used in a legal setting, which is going to show what was said, the questions that were asked, and the results and the professional opinion versus, versus what the other party is just saying because they don’t have any other tangible evidence to prove otherwise.

Zach Elwood: Um- 

David Goldberg: And so- 

Zach Elwood: Yeah, 

David Goldberg: go- There’s nothing… Go ahead. 

Zach Elwood: Oh, no. Go, go ahead. Yeah. 

David Goldberg: I’ll just say there’s a lot of statements out there, uh, and, and, uh, and, uh, it’s true. Is there anything that can prove truth or lies? Uh, you know, and the quest- and the answer is The polygraph doesn’t show lies, and it doesn’t show truthfulness.

What it shows is your responses and reactions to information that you’re trying to withhold and deceive, or reactions that you’re not reacting because you’re telling the truth to the questions that are asked, and that’s what’s determined on the polygraph. The old, the old, uh, l- thing was called, it was called the lie detector.

It, it really never detected lies or truth. It was just, that’s what it was called. It’s called the polygraph. Poly means many, graph means charts. Okay? So we take many charts, okay, and we test you on many different questions based on the issues at hand to look at the responses that you give, and if you’re absolutely deceiving us, lying to us…

Because people do lie. I mean, you- I don’t care what they say, people lie for all kinds of reasons. You lie, and you deceit people, and you deceit for many reasons. One, you’re trying to protect yourself, you’re trying to protect others, you’re trying to elevate yourself. Okay? You’re trying to gain something that you don’t deserve to gain.

There, there’s lots of reasons why people lie and manipulate. People tell the truth to get out of trouble. They tell the truth to help themselves, to help others. Okay? And so, and they wanna prove their innocence, and their integrity, and their honesty. And so when you, when, when a examiner formulates the proper questions, and I mean proper, okay?

Not convoluted, not stupid questions, but direct questions that deal with the issues at hand, you’re gonna get the proper responses to either a truthful person or a deceitful person, and that is how the experienced examiner is going to know whether that person is telling the truth or is being deceitful 

Zach Elwood: Uh, well, you’ve made me wonder something in this, which I don’t know the answer to, i- which is, are there, do there exist people…

in like a he said, she said kinda case, or he said, he said, whoever, somebody said, somebody else said something else. In those cases, private cases, are there people you can go to that are just known for being good investigators, good interviewers that, that th- both parties can agree, like, “Hey, this guy’s gonna interview us both,” like polygraph, n- no polygraph involved, just doing good investigative interviewing techniques.

Are there people you can go to to do that as well? And do y- and if so, well, I guess that’s a question. Do you know, do th- do those people exist? 

David Goldberg: You talking about just interviewing people and not testing to ver- to validate what they say? 

Zach Elwood: Yeah, because, you know, it’s known that skilled interviewers, skilled interrogators can do a lot with kind of drawing out, uh, you know, inconsis- inconsistencies, uh, getting, you know, getting angles of, of questioning that might yield valuable information.

I’m just wondering if apart from the polygraph, if there’s even this class of people that do that work, um- Yeah. Yes. Why not? … just from the interrogation kind of angle. 

David Goldberg: Yeah. I’m one of them. I don’t… There are times that I don’t even have to test. 

Zach Elwood: Yeah. That’s, that’s kinda what I’m, I’m wondering. So- Yeah … but I’m wondering if- Y- yeah, I, ’cause it seems to me like that’s a big- But those-

part of the, of the, of the value that you’re offering, right? 

David Goldberg: Th- those people, yeah, absolutely. But- 

Zach Elwood: Yeah … th- 

David Goldberg: those, those people are skilled interviewers or interrogators. They work for the CIA, they work for the FBI, they’re hostage negotiators. Um, those are very skilled interviewers and interrogators, okay?

They go through many, many, many hours, I mean, many hours. I mean, I was a, a former hostage negotiator, crisis negotiator. So you go through many, many, many hours of interviewing individuals- 

Zach Elwood: Right … 

David Goldberg: and knowing the ins and outs of an individual. And when I say the ins and outs, you know, I’m not talking about body language, you know?

I mean, I’m talking about why someone would actually say something, why someone- Right … would, would, would, you know, what the meaning behind someone that says something. 

Zach Elwood: Right, and what, and what it means when they’re not answering your question, when they kind of misdirect it or whatever. Correct. These kinds of things, right?

Correct. Correct. 

David Goldberg: Yeah. And so those skilled interviewers are absolutely probably, and I will say if they have the skills of that and they become an examiner, they are probably the finest examiners out there ever, ever. Because, and like I said, because they don’t use the polygraph like the average polygraph examiner that just uses it and hopes that, “Okay, I’m going to hope to find the person that is telling the truth,” or hopes that he’s lying, and then worries that, “Okay, I, uh, maybe I hope I did right.

I hope, you know, I didn’t mess this guy’s, you know, life up.” Those skilled interviewers just use the polygraph to verify what they’ve already gained in the interview process, and that’s what they use it for. 

Zach Elwood: Or, or theoretically they’re just- Like you said, theoretically they may not even be using the polygraph, but they may just be using really sound questioning techniques.

Like if they, if they get a vibe, like no matter what the polygraph says, I can imagine situations where they’re like, “Well, the way that person answered just didn’t make sense. I’m gonna keep going on that, um, line of questioning,” even, you know, even apart from the polygraph. Right. I c- I could imagine. I, I guess what I, I guess what my big learning is, which I didn’t really know before this, is the amount to which you and other polygraph examiners would say, you know, “A big part of what we do is the skill in interrogation.”

I guess that w- r- that, that, that’s my main learning, I would say. 

David Goldberg: Yeah. I, I, and I, you, you, you keep using the word interrogation. I guess in, in- 

Zach Elwood: Or interviewing … 

David Goldberg: i- i- interviewing. Yeah, 

Zach Elwood: yeah. That’s 

David Goldberg: a more- Interrogation, interrogation is when you’re really getting in that person’s ass, interrogatory- 

Zach Elwood: Yeah … 

David Goldberg: when you’re really, and you’re basically- I’m 

Zach Elwood: just u- I’m using it, uh, I’m using it as synonymous- I’m-

with interview, which some people do- And, and I- … but I get that 

David Goldberg: there’s a- I understand that … yeah, yeah. But you’re really getting into that person’s ass, and you basically have already called them a liar. M- my, my polygraph test is so, so different, and, and why I say it’s so different, not that it’s better, not that I am the best of the best of the best.

You know, what I’m saying is, is I, I’m just saying that mine are different because, one, it’s non-judgmental. I don’t care if you come in here, and it’s a f- it’s a couple, and you tell me that you have cheated, and you’ve cheated with, you know, 20 prostitutes, and your significant other doesn’t know it. Thank you very much.

Okay, y- you now have admitted that you’ve cheated with 20 prostitutes. I hope that you’re, you didn’t cheat with 21. I’m now gonna see if it’s verifiable that it’s 20, and if it is, congratulations, you’re now going to pass. And, and I’m gonna tell you this is what passing means, and a lot of people don’t really understand.

Passing doesn’t mean anything but two things in life when it comes to polygraph. One, you’ve told the examiner 100% everything that’s truthful, and the examiner has verified it, or you passed because the questions that were asked you didn’t do, and you passed because you didn’t do what’s being asked of you 

Zach Elwood: Oh, so you’re say- are you saying that, um, like putting up obstacles and not answering the questions is a, is a form of, you know, can, can really- Correct

mess up your re- Oh, yeah … yeah, like you’re not being for- you’re clearly not being forthcoming at that level, yeah. 

David Goldberg: Correct. Correct. Yeah. And so people, what hap- and, and a lot of times examiners, a- and I’ve, I’ve, I’ve helped a lot of people with this, but a lot of times examiners get what’s considered inconclusive results Inconclusive results, and I’ve said this, you go and you take a polygraph test, you go and you sit down, and you go and you take a polygraph test.

When you walk through those doors of that polygraph office to that examiner, you know, you know when you walk into the doors, you know whether you’re telling the truth or whether you’re lying for the issue that you’re there for. It is up to the examiner, it is up to the examiner once you’re ready to be tested, it’s up to the examiner at the end of that test to determine whether you’ve told the truth or whether you have been deceitful.

If the results come back inconclusive, you still sitting there, you haven’t changed any. You’re either the truthful person or you’re the deceitful person, but if the examiner comes back and says it’s inconclusive, basically what’s that saying is the examiner shrugs his shoulder and goes, “Well, I don’t know.

Uh, I’m not sure.” You know? Right. “We have to retest you,” or, “Hey, can you come back tomorrow and pay another $500?” Or, you know, I mean, so it, it does an injustice to a lot of people, and I will tell you this, nine out of 10 times truthful people, truthful people get a lot of inconclusives because the examiner did not formulate the questions properly, did not interview proper enough.

And when people leave the offices with inconclusive results, the examinee and the client, if they come, if, if a client comes together or if it’s just an examinee, they walk out with what if, what now, or oh my God, and especially, and I, and I feel sorry for a lot of these people because what happens when you go for your dream job, when you go for that ultimate dream job, you know?

Oh my God, I’ve been working for a hole in a year and a half for the FBI, Secret Service, ATF, you know, Border Patrol. I’m ready. I, I busted my ass. I did good on the interview. I did good on the PT. I did good on everything, and now the final step is this polygraph test, and I get an inconclusive. And they either say, “We have to retest you,” or they say, “We’ll get back with you,” and then they come back and they say, “Thank you, but there’s, you know, better qualified candidates.

Thank you very much.” That’s just- Hm … not fair. It’s just not fair. That’s where the bad taste in people’s mouths come in and say, “F the polygraph. It sucks ass, and I hate this,” and that’s what happens. 

Zach Elwood: Or I guess that’s, but it’s, I guess inconclusive’s still better than getting a false, uh, you know, fail, uh, s- It is

yeah, yeah. 

David Goldberg: It is. It is. Yeah. But it’s still, it’s still what if. 

Zach Elwood: It’s unclear to me how these things actually work. Like say, you’re, you’re doing it for a job, and I’m sure it varies place by place, but how often will they just completely reject a can- h- how, how much will different organizations or departments completely reject a candidate based on a, you know, a fail, uh, uh, of the polygraph versus are some organizations maybe, you know, more accepting of, of fails and it’s just one element in the, in the list of things?

Do you have any takes on that? Maybe it varies too much to say. I don’t know. 

David Goldberg: So how many fail, you mean? 

Zach Elwood: Well, no, more like what, how big of a factor is it like, say, for law enforcement or, or various government agencies or even private sector, how big of a factor is it to fail a test? ‘Cause I’d imagine some places might say, “Well, you, you, you, you got a fail on this test, so that completely precludes you from getting hired.”

Whereas I imagine some other places might be like it might just be one… They, they might look past it if all other things look good, in other words. Oh, 

David Goldberg: no. Oh, no. Oh, 

Zach Elwood: no. A, a fail is, is, is really- A fail 

David Goldberg: is a fail and you’re done You’re done- 

Zach Elwood: You are done … in most places. Like, including- Done … including private sector, many places.

Absolutely. So any place that u- any places that’s using a polygraph for, for hiring, it’s fair to say that almost all of them, if you fail, you, you, you’re done. 

David Goldberg: If you’re going for pre-employment polygraph tests- Yeah … the pre-employment polygraph test is a screening test, and what they do for screening tests, they screen for your honesty and your integrity.

And so it is a plethora of questions, and I’ve done many of ’em. Um, what they test you for is for past criminal history, past drug use, past, um, pornography use. Um, i- if you’re going through the federal, um, agencies, they’re gonna see if you’re, you’ve done any, um, you sold any secrets to the, uh, foreign governments, you know, h- have you, you know, anything of that kinda nature.

You know, secrets, you know, stuff like that. So, um- They, they base it on every, every agency bases on a packet that you fill out. Okay? And the government has a very big packet. Okay? And so other agencies have smaller packets, but you fill it all out prior to the polygraph test. Background check is done, and then you fill this packet out, and you answer it to your best of your ability.

The examiner gets it ahead of time and reviews it, and then reviews it with you, and then goes over it, you know, line by line by line and says, you know, “Is there anything you’ve left out?” “No.” You know, “Is everything correctly?” “Yes.” And then it’s based on when they test you, you know, have you intentionally falsified any information in your, you know, p- your pre-employment questionnaire packet.

You know, the answer would be no. You know, have you committed any serious undetected crimes, you know, uh, within the last, you know, whatever, you know? Or have you, you know, committed any crimes undetected, you know, serious crimes undetected or any 

Zach Elwood: crimes- Used hard drugs. Yeah, then whatever it is- 

David Goldberg: Yeah. Hard, yeah, yeah

you know Other than, other than what you’ve told us, you know, or what you’ve listed, have you done any other illegal, you know, narcotics, you know, not told to this examiner? Stuff like that. 

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. 

David Goldberg: When you take that test, and let’s say you show a reaction to it, to whatever question it is, they’re gonna give you…

They give you three tests on the same question. If you show the reaction on all three tests, that’s why you’re given three tests, if you’re show, if you show that reaction on all three tests, there’s… It’s a no-brainer. There’s a reason why you’re showing it. It’s, if you’re not showing a reaction to the other ones, but you’re showing a reaction to that one specific question, something’s there that’s troubling you.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. 

David Goldberg: The examiner’s going to ask you, “Hey, what’s troubling you? Why are you showing a reaction to the drug question, you know, other than the marijuana you admitted to?” You know, “What, what other hard drug have you used?” Or, “When’s the most recent time you used, you know, marijuana or whatever?” I- if you say, “I, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, you know, you’re crazy.

You know, you’re a stupid examiner,” or whatever, okay, well, we’re gonna check and get it quality controlled. And then when they say, “No, you failed. Thank you.” You get a letter in the mail saying, “Thank you, but you, you failed.” You know, your, your, your application process is not gonna be going any further.

You’re done. So you’ve wasted that entire year process going through whatever, and you’re a done deal. 

Zach Elwood: I mean, I’d imagine that when it gets to people being angry about, you know, being angry at polygraphs, I imagine, you know, ’cause there’s gonna be some percentage of people that fail that test even though they were being truthful, right?

Like, there’s gonna be- Oh, 

David Goldberg: yeah. Oh, 

Zach Elwood: yeah … I mean, so, but, but I guess, you know, it’s kind of… It reminds me of, like, taking, like I took, I recently took a, a, a hiring, a pre-hiring test from a large software company that was basically like a personality test, right? And if you fail it, then you’re not gonna be able to get hired there for, like, whatever length of time it was.

Right. But, you know, so that’s theoretically… Like, when I took it, I was like, “Oh, there’s a chance I might be very angry at, at these people if I- … if I fail their personality test,” right? 

David Goldberg: Right. 

Zach Elwood: But that’s their prerogative to… You know, even if the test, even if we know the test is not perfect- Right … that is their test.

If they think that test is weeding out, you know, 90% of people that they don’t wanna hire, even if they know it’s making… If even if they know it’s not perfect, they, they are able to do that. They can justify doing it, right? Even if it leaves a bad taste in people’s mouth, like say I ha- I, I mean, I ended up passing it, but- 

David Goldberg: Sure

Zach Elwood: I, I, I didn’t like the test no matter what. But if I had failed it, I would’ve been especially bitter about it. But, you know, I would’ve had to make peace with, like, well, this is just how they’ve decided to set up their testing. But I’m just, yeah, I’m interested in the, the edge cases of, like, you know, when people take that test and they, they’re told they failed it, and they’re like, you, you know, the implication is you lied.

And they’re like, “I didn’t lie. I just, you know, that’s just how the test went.” But that, that’s just what I- Right. 

David Goldberg: And I- 

Zach Elwood: Yeah … 

David Goldberg: that happens a lot. And a lot of people do call me a- and say, “Oh my God, I failed. I don’t know why I failed. I was telling the truth.” And I, I say this to a lot of people. When that happens, one, it’s either they may not have lied, they may have reacted to that question because here’s how it works, and I say this to a lot.

The polygraph is also based on memory And when a question is asked of you, you may say and spit out your mouth, “No.” However, the brain is very powerful. The brain will remember something, and then your phys- Right … then your physiology- You might have some 

Zach Elwood: association with the 

David Goldberg: question … right. Then your, right, then your physiology will react to that question, and then that physiology will then display that you’re showing deception.

So what happens is, is if I ask you, “Have you ever committed a serious undetected crime?” And you’re saying, “No,” but now your brain’s remembering you when you were, let’s say, 19, and you were with your friends, and they carjacked, or they, they, they, they, they stole candy at the c- you know, inside the 7-Eleven.

Right. But you waited in the car. Then they came in and go, “Look at how much candy we stole.” But you didn’t go in there, but you didn’t tell your, the background examiner, or you didn’t tell the, you know, background, the examiner itself. And then in the application, you said, “No,” now your brain’s remembering.

What’s happening is, is you’re reacting to that. That’s why you’re showing it. And what happens is, when the examiner asks you, and you go, “No,” and then they say, “You sure?” And then you go, “Oh. Oh, man, I forgot to tell you, when I was 19, a bunch of my buddies went into the 7-Eleven and said, ‘Let’s do a raid.’ And I stayed in the car and said, ‘I’m not doing it.’

They were all drunk. They stole a bunch of candy.” And then, you know, had you told me, I would’ve then changed the question up and said, “Other than what you told me, have you committed any other serious crime?” And that’s why you failed. 

Zach Elwood: I mean, I guess my fear is, like, in that situation, I would just keep triggering the thing because I have such a guilty conscience or I’m nervous, you know?

I w- I, I just, I, I, I… My fear would be y- in that situation, y- after you’re like, “Anything else besides that?” I’d be like, “No,” and it still shows up, uh, officially on the test. But here’s, but here- And I’d be like, “I, I don’t know why it’s doing 

David Goldberg: that.” Right. But here, but here’s what I’m saying. That’s where the examiner comes into play.

By the time we are ready to test you, I should have elicited everything out your memory and out your mouth so that when I’m ready to test you, there shouldn’t be anything that that memory elicits a response to. Which means I tell you this, I’ll say, “Okay, Zachary, when I ask you if you’ve ever committed any other crimes, that means have you ever been with anyone when you were a teenager, when you were an adult?

Did you, did your friends go into the 7-Eleven and steal a bunch of candy? Did you go into the high school and trespass? Did you go on the golf course and, you know, urinate when you guys were drunk?” Anything of that nature, and you go- I would just, I, I- … “Oh, that’s so funny. Yeah, I did.” 

Zach Elwood: I just, I feel, I, I just feel like I would have an endless association of things that are, that are, like- But, and that’s fine

vaguely related, vaguely related to- Right … criminal 

David Goldberg: activities. And that, and that’s fine. And so what happens is, and this is what happens, after a while, after a while- The examiner is going to either tell you, “You know what?” Thank you. You’re super honest. That’s enough. Don’t worry about it. Now we’re talking about serious crimes: murder, rape, robbery, arson.

Did you ever do any of that kind of crimes? And you would say, “No.” And then I would say, “Are you absolutely sure?” And you would say, “Absolutely. No way would I ever, ever do any of that.” So then the question would be, “Other than what we’ve talked about, did you ever commit any of the serious crimes we also discussed?”

And then you would say, “No.” You would do absolutely fine, and that’s how that works. That’s why I’m trying to say is, a lot of times people do fail because the examiner’s either not explaining it enough, they wanna make it quick, and, you know, ’cause the exam- a lot- it’s a human thing. Sometimes examiners are tired, cranky, they’ve had, you know, it’s- they’ve worked all…

You know, you might come in and you’re the last one of the day, you know? And hopefully the examiner is not exhausted, and the examiner really wants to help you get through this, but, you know, it’s just human nature sometimes. 

Zach Elwood: Well, it sounds like you have a lot of, I mean, you have a, clearly have a lot of, uh, faith in the accuracy of the, of the readings.

Uh, whereas, like, I think some people would say, “Well, how ac- how accurate is that, really?” If it’s, you know, if it’s gonna show a false positive some percentage of the time. But it sounds like you would be, you, you’re pretty confident in, in being able to read the, the devices in those situations. 

David Goldberg: I do, and I also get it quality controlled, which means I’ll send my charts to another experienced examiner to verify what I’m seeing, and if he tells me, “Hey, I’m seeing something different,” I’ll say, “Let’s go over it.

What am I, what are you seeing?” Or whatever, you know? Mm-hmm. And that’s, that’s, that’s the difference. There are some examiners that just say, “You know, this is what I’m seeing, and here, have a good day.” And then when they get… And, and a lot of times people are, get what they get, and they send it to me, and I’ll read it, and I’ll say, “Oh, my God, you should not have failed,” or, “You should have passed.

What is, what, what did they send you?” You know? And, and yeah. So I, I do a lot of consultations on, for clients as well and say, “I’m so sorry that this happened to you.” 

Zach Elwood: Hmm. I mean, from the flip side, I, I would imagine if I was, if I was guilty of a major crime or trying to defeat some polygraph, uh, for job hiring or, or otherwise, I mean, I would think my, my main strategy would to try my best to seem forthcoming, maybe even mention a few associated things.

But if they kept pressing me on, like, you know, “We’re seeing something. Are you sure you’re telling the truth?” I would, I would just try my best to be like, “I have no idea why that’s happening.” Uh, but it sounds like you would say if I was doing that, if I was trying to deceive the polygraph examiner- Trying my best to be like, “I, I just don’t know why it’s doing that.

I’m t- telling you the whole truth.” S- you, you would say that you could see through that based on, you know, the, based on the, the technology and y- and your, and your skills? 

David Goldberg: Yeah. I mean, people are going- if you’re gonna try to manipulate it, you’re gonna do it. It’s just like a person that’s gonna commit a crime, you’re not gonna stop them.

They, they, they already know they’re gonna commit a crime. It’s that simple. So if someone’s gonna come and try to manipulate a polygraph test, then now it’s on that examiner to better be on his game or her game and better be able to observe everything and be able to make sure you know what they’re doing.

And if they’re gonna manipulate, they’re not gonna manipulate at the end. They’re gonna try to manipulate you in the very beginning in the interview. Okay? You know, and it’s that simple. I mean, you know, a, a, a narcissist does what? A narcissist tries to control everything. A narcissist tries to make you their friend and tries to control the, the narrative and stuff like that.

So you know, that, that’s how an examiner really, who’s trained, knows what’s going on, you know? So- 

Zach Elwood: Do they have any, uh, do they have any… It makes me wonder, do they have benchmarking kind of things for like getting accreditation where like some, you know, it, it m- might be, it could, seems like an interesting business to, uh, rate, you know, to send kind of people that where you know the questions ahead of time or the polygraph, uh, person doesn’t know the answers obviously, but to do like a benchmarking, uh, judgment of, of different polygraph examiners’ skills.

I don’t know if that’s a thing 

David Goldberg: No, there’s not. Yes. Yeah I wish there was, but, uh- 

Zach Elwood: That, that’d be… That seems interesting. 

David Goldberg: Yeah. I wish there was, because I will tell you that there are examiners out there, you know, that are really bad and have a bad past. Um, some are, are, are just horrendous. Um- Right … but there’s nothing that can be done.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. 

David Goldberg: Um, and, you know, people, a lot of times people look for the cheapest, you know? 

Zach Elwood: Right. 

David Goldberg: A- and I, and I get that when it comes to finances. I get it, you know? However, just like I tell everyone, you get what you pay for, and I’m not gonna go look for a heart surgeon that’s doing surgery outside of a van down by an alley.

I’m gonna go look for a heart surgeon that has the most, you know, credentials and, and has the most years of experience versus someone that’s gonna do, you know, plastic surgeon, you know, that’s super cheap in a, you know, above a bakery. You know, I’m, I’m just not gonna do that, but people do, and they get those kind of results, and then they, they wonder why.

So- Yeah … you know, I tell people, “Do your due diligence, do your research, and, and, and find, find the right, proper examiner.” And there are examiners out there, but you just got to find them. 

Zach Elwood: Yeah, it seems like that’d be an interesting kind of side business is, like, coming up with a test to test the polygraph examiners and making that public or something.

Be an 

David Goldberg: interesting- Well, there is, there i- there is… Uh, we do get tested. I mean, there are advanced, uh, certified examiners. Mm-hmm. 

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. 

David Goldberg: And, and, and there are, and then there are examiners that, you know, you have to go through… You do have to get, uh, ongoing training. Um, but there are a lot of examiners that don’t do, um, yearly, uh, training at all, but- Mm

it, it doesn’t take their, um, credentials away. And there’s examiners that are not licensed. There are some states that don’t ask you to be licensed. 

Zach Elwood: Right. It varies a lot, just like it varies- Correct … with lawyers and such, too. Yeah. 

David Goldberg: Right. Right. 

Zach Elwood: Um, so yeah. Uh, uh, do you think, uh, with your knowledge of the polygraph, do you think you’d be able to defeat it?

David Goldberg: I saw your question that you asked that. Um, but here’s what I’m gonna say, and I say this to a lot. I don’t think you can- no one can beat the instrument itself. Okay? It is very really rigid and, and, and researched and, and the instrumentation itself. What I think people beat, and I’ve seen it and I, I have and gone against other examiners and I’ve ha- ha- in, in many realms, you beat the examiner.

I think people beat the examiner. So if you go and you get an inexperienced examiner, you can beat that examiner, but you don’t beat the instrumentation. 

Zach Elwood: Huh. 

David Goldberg: And so the question that you ask, can I beat the polygraph test? No. If I went to an examiner that was extremely qualified and I was there to lie, I think they would find out that I was lying.

And if I was telling the truth, they would know that I was telling the truth. But if I went to an inexperienced examiner that didn’t know what they were doing, or they were lackadaisical or could care less, I betcha I could probably beat them in that realm. 

Zach Elwood: So y- y- your stance is that it’s mostly u- user error, like even for like the Aldrich Ames, you know, the well-known like, uh, double agent, uh, spy kind of people that- 

David Goldberg: Well, that, that, that wa- that was based on human error.

I mean, he was not some super in- intelligent, you know, person that could manipulate the polygraph. It was hi- his was because he took so many polygraph. After a while it’s habitual, you know. And, you know, you walk into there and they go, “Hey, Ames.” And you go, “Hey, John.” And you go, “You know what we gotta do?” And you go, “Yeah, 

Zach Elwood: let’s-” So they’re not really, they’re not really trying, you’re saying.

It’s just a, yeah, they’re 

David Goldberg: not even- Yeah, they’re just- 

Zach Elwood: Yeah … 

David Goldberg: they weren’t really, and when I say trying, they are doing their job. 

Zach Elwood: Right. 

David Goldberg: But it, it was more or less like, “Eh, you know what we gotta do. We, I, you know, you hate it, I hate it, but, you know- Right … we gotta get through this.” 

Zach Elwood: Just a bureaucratic- So let’s, let’s-

thing they’re doing and not a, not an actual investigation, you’re saying. 

David Goldberg: Right. Let’s get this done and, and, and they put him on, they asked him the same questions over and over and over again. And, you know, they looked at the charts probably quickly enough and said- … “Yep, I don’t see anything really major here.

Have a good day. I’ll see you in, in, in five years, or three years, or six months,” or however, you know, many he took. And then after a while when they started really starting to get information, that’s when they said, “Let’s, let’s see what, what’s going on, and let me see these other polygraph charts,” and, and then that’s what happens.

And I think- … what happens is when other, like when celebrities and other people take these polygraphs- A lot of times do I think that they passed? I think they passed, okay, when they say they passed, but I also think that it’s also based on the examiner that they found or hired, and in reference to the way the questions were also asked and, and not asked.

So, you know, a perfect example, I even said this on, I think, one, one of my podcasts or TikToks, um, y- in reference to the, um, the current investigation on the Busby, I think, um, case out there. Um, the, the actor, I think, that’s being accused of molestation or whatever. He took a polygraph- Oh, what’s 

Zach Elwood: the name? Bu- 

David Goldberg: I think Busby.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. I don’t know. 

David Goldberg: I think his name… A- anyways, he’s in Hollywood, but he said he took a polygraph test. But the way he said he took it was, and it was based on multiple children, and i- in order for you to pass, you have to, hopefully, and I don’t know ’cause I didn’t see the charts and I don’t know, but in order for something like that, you have to take multiple exams and it be- have to be, each victim has to be on one exam.

You can’t put them all together. 

Zach Elwood: Oh, is it Busfield? So- Is it that one? 

David Goldberg: Yeah, Busfield. Oh, okay. That’s the one. Yeah, yeah. Busfield. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Busfield. 

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. 

David Goldberg: So he, you know, he’s being accused of not just one, but multiple, so if he took a polygraph test, he better have taken a polygraph for each individual victim, not just lump it all together.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. 

David Goldberg: So, you know, and if he did, that’s great, and he passed, that’s wonderful, but, you know, you, you just don’t know, you know… And personally, and this is another thing, even though he said he passed, if I was the attorney or if I was him, I would’ve said, “These were the questions I asked.” I would’ve thrown it out immediately, but, you know, not just saying, “I passed.”

There’s a difference between really throwing it all out and, you know, just saying you passed. 

Zach Elwood: Okay, thanks, David. Do you wanna add anything else be- before we go? This has been great. 

David Goldberg: Uh, let me see real fast. Yeah. Let’s see what I wrote. Anything I wrote. Uh- Not, yeah, you just asked for some stories, but that’s about it.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, I think, uh… I mean, I think we’ve… I think we probably went far enough. That’s all right. Very few people will make it to the- That’s fine … to the very end. But I think we’ve- Had fun … you know, I, I think the anecdotes- Like- … are, aren’t that important … how I did? So, yeah. 

David Goldberg: Uh- Did I, did I change any… Did I change your mind when I said I’d shock you?

Did I shock you any? 

Zach Elwood: Oh, no, I don’t think shock me, but you know, you made me see things. I can understand your perspective more. Uh, so that’s, that, that’s always what I’m interested in is like, uh, ’cause it’s hard for me to understand what people’s perspectives are in these spaces ’cause I’m not close to it.

So I understand- Sure, sure … your, you know, and we’re off the record here. Uh- Okay … but, uh, so- 

David Goldberg: Would you take, would you take one now? 

Zach Elwood: Unless you want us to be on the record. Sorry, did you want us to be still- No, no, no, I’m asking you Oh, 

David Goldberg: oh. No. No, I’m asking you, would you take one now? 

Zach Elwood: Oh, if I was innocent and trying to prove- 

David Goldberg: Yeah

like- Would you take one now? 

Zach Elwood: I, I gotta say I’m still, that, that hasn’t, uh, changed. Oh, it 

David Goldberg: hasn’t changed you? Okay. 

Zach Elwood: But I, but I see your point of view, though. Like, I, I still would have the same fears, though. But, you know, um- Well, 

David Goldberg: everyone would. 

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Everyone 

David Goldberg: would. 

Zach Elwood: I just, I just… I, I’d rather just try to prove my innocence based on, like…

But it makes me wonder too, like, to your point about, uh, getting skilled interviewers, investigators to, to just look into things. I, I’d be, I, I, I’d be more likely to just hire someone that just, like, will ask me and somebody else the questions and do the investigation work, you know? Like, like even inclu- But here’s what happens

including non-interviewing stuff, right? Like, if there’s something else to it. Right. 

David Goldberg: Right, but here’s what happens. The other party normally doesn’t want to be interviewed, and the other party doesn’t want to have anything to do other than give their story. So now, again, it’s all about- He said … he said, she said.

Yeah. So now even, so when even if you did go that route just to get interviewed, then that’s even better because now you’ve gone that extra step to prove, and now they just gave a story. You gave a real full-blown interview. 

Zach Elwood: Yeah. 

David Goldberg: That could be you. 

Zach Elwood: No, I mean, I see your, uh, I see your perspective. That, that’s why I think it’s helpful is, like, I can, I can start to see why one would do that and why you think it’s a good thing.

I just, I just, uh, I… and I still think it’s a valuable thing for, you know, leaving aside the accuracy, I still think it’s a valuable tool for, like, the pressuring, uh, people to cough up information. Uh, but yeah, I still have the, uh- But it, it is. It is … I still have the fears on that front. 

David Goldberg: It’s in the high 90s.

The accuracy rate is in the high 90s now. Before, it was in the 80s, now it’s in the high 90s. 

Zach Elwood: Well, that’s assuming, I guess, too, a very skilled practitioner and, like, how they’re doing and yes. 

David Goldberg: Correct. Correct. Correct. 

David Goldberg: If anyone ever needs me for whatever, whether they wanna ask me a question or whether they want me to actually help them in a serious matter, they can find me at www.executiveprotectiongrp.com, and they can find my information on that website. And my phone number and my email address is on there, and I have a podcast called Inside the Polygraph, um, with David Goldberg. And they can ask me anything, and I will be more than happy to assist them in any, any location that they are around the world. 

That was a talk with polygraph examiner David Goldberg. You can learn more about David at his Executive Protection Group website, which is at executiveprotectiongrp.com

This has been the People Who Read People podcast with me, Zach Elwood. Learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com.