Quote:


I took his comments about not "believing" to be more along the lines of not "absorbing" which was clearly the case. His earlier comments indicated some surface knowledge about PL controls but certainly not a deep or intuitive understanding. Given his comments to the examiner about actually posting here, I would expect this thread would almost certainly be reviewed post test. Given his specificity, there's a good chance they were aware of it in advance.

Fascinating in any case.

-Marty

Anonymous,

Assuming your security clearance is granted, you can expect to be subjected to the ritual of polygraph screening on a regular basis so long as you continue to work on NSA contracts. If you disbelieve the information that is provided here on AntiPolygraph.org, you might wish to consult the report of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, The Polygraph and Lie Detection. I think you'll find it to be consistent with that which is provided here.

Anonymous,

Thank you for updating us on how your polygraph examination went. Based on your account, it seems likely that you passed.

In evaluating your experience, bear in mind that you actually left yourself no choice but to adopt a "complete honesty" approach, including telling your polygrapher about your post here, since you posted enough specific detail to allow yourself to be identified. That you were polygraphed by the NSA polygraph unit's technical director is circumstantial evidence that you were, in fact, so identified.

It is heartening that your having posted here has apparently not resulted in retaliation. Your telling the NSA that you "didn't believe anything about anti-polygraph" (whether or not such is actually the case) may also have been helpful.

The questions you described suggest that you were indeed subjected to a Relevant/Irrelevant "test." As I mentioned earlier in this message thread, this is the standard technique used by the NSA for screening purposes. 

In this technique, the irrelevant questions (like, "Are you sitting down?") were not to "see what [your] level was for telling the truth." They are not scored at all. Instead, reactions to relevant questions are compared to each other, and the polygrapher looks for a "conspicuous, specific, and significant" reaction to a relevant question over multiple chart collections (question series). You'll find this technique discussed at greater length at pp. 115-19 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Well, anonymous. I find your comments and explanation reasonable. Thanks for the clarification.  You may well have been fortunate in getting an R/I. While not considered as reliable as the CQT, it would be more appropriate for someone exposed to some detail about the CQT.

Again, good luck and best wishes that you passed.

-Marty

I guess I was tired of people saying how bad off I was going to be because I gave the correct date so I started to cover it up a bit.  After posting that I wanted to edit it out but I am a guest and can not.  I do understand your concern though.  I also don't like knowing that its that easy to find out who someone is based on a small bit of information.  I guess the statements the people were making about it made me feel like a idiot so I was trying to make myself look better.

I learned multiple languages in school but I will be doing Java development for the contracting company if I get the clearance.  I am learning unix adminstration on my own time as well.  I havn't read much about R/I from this website so i'm not sure about that.  He asked questions like are you sitting down to check and see what my level was for telling the truth and then questions that had to do with something important to the national security.  I have been a pretty good person growing up so the test wasn't really all that nerve wrecking for me as it might be for someone else.  I did have problems keeping myself from swallowing.  When I was driving to the NSA I was singing in my car and I did have a cough attack 20 minutes from the NSA.  Not sure if thats the reason for so much reaction there or not.  I felt better as the tests went on though.

Quote:

While I admire the "complete honesty" approach I must point out that you earlier said:
Quote:


Please note the test date was also Sept 12 in your original post. Your own words suggest "Human Subject" may have been correct. Perhaps you have another explanation?

-Marty

Congratulations! I also like your decision to be completely open with them.

I've heard it's somewhat unusual for NSA (used to be No Such Agency) people to grant permission about much of anything they do.

I'm curious. Since you indicated you honestly answered all the questions and showed no discomfort I'm assuming you got a "R/I" type test. I think Skeptic has also indicated they use an R/I version at NSA. Is that your take as well?

BTW, what programming languages and systems do you like best?  Me, I like C++ but I've heard good things about Java and VB.NET.

-Marty

Hi, I took my test today and I think I did pretty well.  It started out with asking me what I knew about polygraph tests.  From there I told the truth about the sites i've visited and I even explained about this post.  I explained to him that I didn't believe anything about anti-polygraph and went to other sites that were for polygraph tests as well.  My goal was to find good information about what i'm in for.  I am a programmer and I usually like to research before I start coding.  I guess I did this here too and it did turn in to a pretty big thread and debate.  From there he started telling me about the machine and how it works.  Since you guys are experts you know this already but I had two left finger sensors, two stomach sensors and a right arm sensor.  The guy who did my polygraph was very friendly and polite.  He went over the questions and I answered honestly to every question.  I did have a problem with swallowing.  Some reason my body would want to swallow every 5 minutes or so.  A few sessions in I got better at controlling my swallows and he said I was doing great.  He then asked me if I was ok with the questions and I was.  There was only one time he had to ask if there was a problem with a question.  That question was "Were you born in MD?"  The reason is because I happened to have a problem swallowing during the question so we redid it and everything ended up alright.  He left the room for about 5 minutes towards the end and came back in hinting that I passed but did not come out and say it.  He then talked to me some more about the new job I was getting and walked me to the NSA visitor entrance.  Towards the end he told me his name and that he was the Technical Director and told me I can use that information while posting about my polygraph experience.

In conclusion I do not know if I pass but I feel good about the test.  I'll let you all know the official results as soon as I get it.  100% honesty was the way I approached this test and forum post.

Quote:


As I've said elsewhere, I guess this means we'll have fewer cases of spying.  We'll just have to wait and see.  Somehow I doubt it.

In the short term, increased reliance on the polygraph could be seen as a setback.

In the long term, it just means there are more and more opportunities for people to discover what a fraud this technique is.

Quote:



Could be.  Doesn't matter though.  You guys are focused enough that if it were an attempt to thwart your efforts it wouldn't have worked anyway.  You guys are so dedicated and smart that the Fed/Gov is increasing its reliance on PDD by leaps and bounds.  Good luck anyway.

Quote:

While it's possible for a polygrapher to identify someone who provides enough unobfuscated detail of their situation, the converse is essentially impossible. That said I have little doubt there has been numerous ad hoc attacks on antipolygraph.org. This is likely effective to some degree as people have a predisposition to believing authority figures and confusion is the polygraphers friend.

Interesting that polygraphplace chooses to censor their forums so heavily but given their craft's charateristics it probably can't be any other way. Too bad. If there was a technique that wasn't itself deceptive and provided truth discrimination I would sure like to pursue it and help it succeed.

-Marty

He has something to hide, else he would not be here.  After all they call it a "lie " detector, not truth detector.

In any case, if he passes, he's using some knowledge gained here.

Jonnlaw

He has something to hide, else he would not be here.  After all they call it a "lie " detector, not truth detector.

In any case, if he passes, he's using some knowledge gained here.

Jonnlaw

I talked to a friend of a friend and he said no one that fits this description of anonymous is even taking a test.  Hes prolly just a examiner which is trying to get the people who visit this post to think twice about antipolygraph.org. This is just what I heard and might not be 100% accurate but im just giving you a heads up.. I'd ban his ip or something

Quote:


This quote is especially odd.

Am I the only person who smells something fishy about this whole thread?

Let me put it this way -- I'll be shocked if "Anonymous " DOESN'T report passing his exam with flying colors, and will reiterate his faith that people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from the polygraph.

Reminds of that cartoon where people are exiting an x-rated movie, and a man is embarrassed to be seen by someone he knows, so he says:

"I don't watch these things myself; I'm looking at who else is here watching this stuff."

Anonymous
Quote:

Of course if the examiner reads your posts here and informs you that visiting this site is a sign of "questionable" moral character, you can always ask him "Well, what were YOU doing there???

I'm sure everything will work out.  I will be sure to let you know how I do on the test.  If they know I posted here well good for them.  I'm a reliable American and only took this job to help my Country.  If things don't go well I will just find a different job which doesn't have as much benefit for my Country.

Thanks for the information, you did scare me a bit about the polygraph but now I just don't care.  I am just going to go in and give them the answers to the questions they ask.  If they ask me how much I know about polygraphs I will let them know i've been to a few websites about polygraph tests but never really got in to reading in detail about them.  If they ask which websites I will tell them i've been to all the websites which came up on google.com.  If they have a problem with me searching the web then the job wasn't right for me in the first place.  Also if the person thats going to do me reads this well i'd like to say hey, ill see you soon..

I have stopped reading information about polygraphs except for this thread and some of the for-polygraph websites.

If you make any damming admissions,  be aware that
they will be sent to DIS for your final Top Secret 
determination, but of course, they won't tell you that.
They may tell you that they are your friend, unified
against the agency, or they will play the SOB role.  The
agency must attract people with secretive backgrounds,
so this unhealthy cycle is just perpetuated, and is what
those applicants are used to.  This is the unhealthy 
cycle of typical abusers (e.g., spousal/child abusers).
At least for the DSS/DoD clearances, there are a number
of steps, plus appeals, that the clearance determination
can go through, but for the SI part, there is never any
explanation, just dead silence.  For the DSS/DoD 
clearances, the investigators never hound, or lie,
to you, and it is ALWAYS best to be honest with them
(if not, they will get you on personal conduct).  For the
SI clearance, you have someone who is deceptive and
hostile, so it makes you wonder about working for a 
place like that...

Quote:


It would appear Antipolygraph.org is more than willing to back up its faith in countermeasures. I understand you're new to this site so you might not have noticed it yet, but Dr. Richardson has setup a challenge (on the main page) to the polygraph community that hopes to prove that countermeasures are not detectable. Furthermore, I believe it's fair to say that the burden of proof now rests on the polygraph community to present evidence that countermeasures are detectable, and not ap.org to prove that they aren't, since this site has provided research to support its claim (i.e. studies by Dr Honts) and is willing to demonstrate the veracity of that claim through Dr. Richardson's challenge. 

Members of the polygraph community, on the other hand, have provided absolutely no evidence to support their claims other than "just take our word for it."

I would not try and convince anyone here, especially you, that everyone in polygraph can detect CMs.  Obviously some of the folks here have claimed to use them successfully, any proof of that?

Guest,

The National Academy of Sciences did not find the polygraph community's claimed ability to detect countermeasures to be credible. Why should we?

Quote:


Plenty.  Do you need any? 8)