That agency lies about the accuracy of the polygraph?  I am shocked--shocked!  In other news, you will all be astonished to know that water is wet.

Those things couldn't tell the truth about the polygraph if you put a gun to their heads.

Before my last polygraph, I brought in a written statement to the polygrapher as to why I thought the poly was bullshit.  He read through it, (but because he had to go through the motions) said okay, and started into his "routine," explaining 98% accuracy after new studies, explaining that Gary Ridgeway didn't pass the polygraph, it was the polygraphers fault that he was over worked and missed the deception signs, (yeah, right), blah, blah blah.  I then looked him in the eyes and asked him if he could tell if I was actually lying to him.  To his credit, he answered truthfully, and said no.

I then agreed to the poly, and when he gave me the hold harmless agreement to sign, I refused, stating that since he can't guarantee that he won't brand me a liar, I won't release him of any liability.

The test ended there, with me agreeing to take the poly but refusing to release him from liability, and he refusing to test me because of it.

Quite a show when it was all said and done...

Quote:


travis, this is my first post...of many. Once I stop feeling like a dirt bag I will probably tell my story. Until then, I will continue to hold it in. 

In regards to your comment, if it makes you feel better, I was accused of illegal drug use by a FBI polygrapher recently. Unfortunately, and well documented, I have a rare neurological condition that shuts my breathing down if I take drugs. In a nutshell my brain tells my breathing that it too can relax with the rest of my body. I was almost lost to a routine surgery because they did not have an airway established beforehand. Yet by the time I was degraded and left the FBI building, I felt like I had spent years in Columbia trafficking narcotics even though I physically fear drugs...even prescribed.

Quote:


Polygraphers routinely claim their machine can detect deception.  But when confronted with the fact that scientifically, all the polygraph machine does is measure fight or flight reactions which can have many underlying causes, they play this down.  One polygrapher here even claimed it was an "overgeneralization" to claim that polygraphers use the term "deception indicated" when labeling chart reactions.  Yet the four NSA polygraphers who tested me either stated or implied the machine detects deception.  One (Mr. Lingenfelter) claimed 98% accuracy.  We have other applicants who routine report they make that claim.

They want it both ways.  Fact is, if it became common knowledge that the machine doesn't detect deception, it would lessen the utility of the test, which relies heavily on applicant gullibility.  Maybe this is why many polygraphers are purposely evasive on the subject (outside of the examination room, of course).

TC

I took a polygraph as a police officer candidate.  Their were a series of questions relating to drug use.  I was told that the polygraph indicated I was lying when I stated that I did not ever use heroin.  There were three questions relating to heroin use.  In fact I have tried marijuana only once and have never seen nor tried any harder illicit drugs.  I rarely take aspirin and never use other non prescription medications.  So much for accuracy.

Quote:


There's no way of calculating those chances. Polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis and its accuracy rate cannot be specified. In general, assuming that the examinee is uninformed about polygraph procedure and countermeasures, it's more likely that a truthful person would wrongly fail than that a deceptive person would wrongly pass. But the deceptive can pass using simple countermeasures that polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect.

My husband recently passed a polygraph and I am still unsure if he did the crime. I was wondering how effectve these are? What are the chances he lied and still passed?

Marty wrote on Nov 14^th, 2003 at 4:02am:



In a nutshell folks, this is what it is all about.  The FBI does have the right to demand honesty and truthfulness from all of its applicants.  In return, the FBI has the responsibility to show respect, truthfulness, and honesty to its applicants.  The pre-employment screening polygraph exam as used today in the FBI is without honor, ethics, or faithfulness to the Constitution of the United States.  I believe in treating people the way I would want to be treated.    The FBI wants honesty.  The FBI has to be honest with its applicants.   The polygraph is not a way to do so.

Regards.

Torpedo wrote on Nov 14^th, 2003 at 11:44pm:


Hmmm...do you suppose that, if we all take a moment and let him think, Torpedo will realize the (obvious) flaw in his own reasoning?

Well, I can hope.

Skeptic

Well done George....I gather from your exchange concerning this person's test that you DO NOT encourage countermeasures.....I am glad that you appear to have seen the light....whew, for a moment there, I could hqve sworn you had ealier (11/04)directed him to the infamous Chapter 4, which one might construe was a tacit recommendation to employ countermeasures, but given your final recommendation that he withdraw his application in lieu of attempting those hopeless countermeasures, I must be incorrect.  Hooray for you George, here is hope for you!

I agree that the ethically preferable option for CCK would have been to withdraw his/her application.

Quote:


I would not answer it. I would encourage CCK to withdraw his application as he stated his drug usage is outside of FBI limits.

-Marty

Quote:


Indeed, George, your advice was factually correct. My unease is with the implication some may take that you agreed with cck's falsification of his background to obtain employment as a special agent. I believe that detracts from your more general polygraph message.

-Marty

Marty,

How would you have answered CCK's question?

Quote:

The problem is that cck has already indicated he is outside of the FBI's acceptible drug usage range. While I believe his stated useage is long enough ago as to not matter, it is not my call - or his call - it's the FBI's call.

Fair Chance, this in no way excuses the FBI for use of marginal "science" in screening or the excesses and abuses polygraphers inflict on the innocent. There is little so painful as being accused falsely.

-Marty

Marty,

CCK asked me whether he/she should "write a beneign statement that perhaps [he/she] did more drugs than previously stated, but that it was so long ago [he/she] can't be sure?" I would have been lying had I stated that doing so would be in his/her interest.

Marty and Ray,

I have never advocated circumventing any rules on an application.  My complete honesty approach put me through the wringer plus an extra wash cycle and rinse.  I read George's opinion to be one that any change, no matter how slight, could be interpreted in the worst way possible and not put into context (as compared to a a court of law with a jury and defense lawyer to argue your case).   

Marty, you know me never to advise anyone to not tell the truth but I think this one might be in a gray area.  When in the room with the "polygraph pro", there are no witnesses or records to clarify statements or explainations.  Misinterpretations are easy to come by and become part of a lifetime permanent record. 

Regards.

Always look out for no.1!

Marty,
I interpreted George's statements in the same manner; encouraging cck to lie in order to better his chances of gaining employment with the FBI.  Perhaps George would care to clarify his statement.

Quote:

This comes very close to encouraging an FBI applicant to lie, or rather to continue lying, in pursuit of a career. While one may argue with the specific criteria an agency selects for itself, I don't like the idea that a future FBI agent may have lied about a material job requirement to get hired. I certainly don't expect you to encourage this, George.

-Marty

It is worth noting that the intended audience for the FBI Polygraph Unit's calculated lie about the accuracy of polygraphy is their fellow special agents and other Bureau employees.

The FBI Polygraph Unit is worthy of the contempt of all FBI employees for whom the motto, "Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity" is not merely an empty slogan.

Thanks very much. I'll re-read chapter 4.

As I mentioned before, the question about betraying the trust of a loved one is a probable-lie "control" question. The polygrapher's spiel about betrayal of loved ones being a first step on the road to espionage is delivered in an attempt to make the question appear to be a relevant one.

I am not aware of the FBI using only one probable-lie "control" question in pre-employment polygraph examinations. Other commonly used "control" questions include, "Did you ever lie to a supervisor?", "Did you ever steal anything from an employer?" and, if it is determined during the "pre-test" that you drink alcoholic beverages, "Did you ever drive while under the influence of alcohol?"

Countermeasures to the Relevant/Irrelevant technique are briefly discussed in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Note also that, based on feedback received by AntiPolygraph.org, it seems that in most cases, FBI applicants who are offered a "re-test" usually fail the second time, too, and are sometimes additionally accused of countermeasure use. It seems likely that FBI polygraphers expect those who have failed an initial polygraph to have researched polygraphy. They may be suspicious of those who deny having done so. Thus, it might be prudent, in the context of a "re-test," to adopt the "complete honesty" approach discussed in Chapter 4 of TLBTLD.

George:
Thank you for your input. I'll need a bit of prep time, but I'm going to take the test again. Could you please answer just a few more questions so I'll know how to deal with it?

Is it possible that the question about betraying a loved one's trust could be relevant? The only reason I question it is that the polygrapher emphasized that he was only talking about significant breaches of trust, no white lies and such. He also said they used that question as a criterion for hiring because spies tend to betray their loved ones first on their road to espionage.  Maybe I'm still naive to their tactics and the polygrapher was just playing me. If it is a control question, it's not a very good one. I don't think many people (other than those who've had affairs and such) would register a strong reaction. I wouldn't, which would skew the reactions of my relevant questions. 

Second question is, if it is a known-lie control question, would a test have just one? The other non-relevant questions were "Is your last name XXX? Is your SSN XXX? Do you live in XXX?" If I were to try to beat the test, would I manipulate a response to those questions also or only the one about trust?

Also, I understand how to manipulate for a known-lie test. How would one respond to a relevant/irrelevant test? 

Thanks in advance for your answers and for the service you provide with your website.

CCK 

CCK,

For future reference, to start a new topic, go to the forum in which you want to post, and click on the "Start new topic" text in the upper right hand portion of the message board page.

With regard to your questions:

1) I think it would not be in your interest to write a statement admitting that your drug use actually exceeded that which you previously admitted. You would be disqualified, and your admission to having lied in your application would become a matter of permanent record (in your FBI HQ file) with long-term consequences for future government employment, even outside the FBI.

2) Yes, like other polygraph techniques, the relevant/irrelevant technique can be beaten, but based on your description, this is not the technique that you encountered. The question,  "Have you ever betrayed the trust of someone from your inner circle of trust?" is very clearly a probable-lie "control" question.

From here, it seems to me that you now face an ethical choice between 1) contacting the FBI to withdraw your application (or perhaps simply doing nothing) and 2) contesting the polygraph results, requesting a "re-test," and attempting to pass the second time. This is a choice you'll have to make on your own.