Sergeant1107 wrote on Jun 17^th, 2005 at 4:54pm:


I believe another reason why alot of LE agencies use the polygraph is because money interests are involved with companies that make the polygraph.  Many of these companies and associations lobby the politicans to ensure that policies and laws stay in place so that their is always a "need" for the polygraph machine and so that their companies can continue to make money. 

Regarding the FBI's 50% failure rate for applicants, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with that except for one thing: the false-positive rate.  If polygraph "tests" were fifty percent accurate at detecting actual falsehoods (not just at measuring physiological changes in one's body, but at actually detecting deception) and also had a ZERO percent chance of rendering a false positive, then I would be more willing to support it.  Then I would be more willing to endorse the theory that so many pro-polygraph people support, that of: "It's the best tool we have and it's better than nothing."

If there was absolutely no chance of a false positive, and at least some small chance of actually detecting a lie, then I would agree that it was better than nothing.  Then it might make sense to use a polygraph as a very small part of pre-employment screening.  In that specific instance, a person who passed the polygraph might not have been telling the truth, but a person who failed would certainly have been lying.

But as soon as you allow for even the most remote possibility that a subject can tell the absolute truth and still be judged to have "failed" the test, in my opinion the entire test process instantly becomes virtually worthless.  Actually, it's worse than worthless, because people and governmental agencies will still rely on it even though it generates data which can only be considered useless.

In my opinion, the only way to look at the results of a polygraph are as follows:
- The subject "passed."  That must mean that he wasn't deceptive, or that he used countermeasures successfully, or that the machine and the examiner failed to detect his deception...  OR...
- The subject "failed."  That must mean that the subject was lying, or that he was using countermeasures and got caught, or was completely truthful but the machine/examiner interpreted the results as "deception indicated."

I think that if the results of any "test" are broken down like that most people can see that, regardless of the results, you don't really know anything more after the "test" than you did before the test.

Of course, most of this is moot since the polygraph doesn't detect lies or deceit anyway.  But even if you generously agreed to the polygrapher's claim that "people respond in known ways when they lie" the utility of a test that can render three results (DI, NDI, and inconclusive), NONE of which are rendered with an accuracy rate even approaching 100%, is zero.

Bill Crider, 
 Would you tell us please, just out of sheer curiosity, did you download and read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector before you re-took the polygraph?  

 Oh, and BTW NSAreject, there is no crime against visiting porn sites on the Interenet. Having said that, I'm certainly not trying to justify my own "perversions," as I believe everyone, every man that is, has at some point, some time downloaded Internet porn at least once or twice. 

 But to do it continuously on a daily basis, I would think falls within the realms of moral turpitude. 

 Mike_C.

Sad, very sad.  Pill popper is correct that there is a surplus of applicants.  The FBI can fail 50% of their final crop and still conduct business as usual.

Polyfool is correct that my case was an embaressment to the FBI because I had held a very sensitive position for many years in the Department of Justice.  None of my supervisors in that Agency would give the polygraph any validity and the appeal at the time would have had to go to Mr. Ashcroft to remove me from my position.   

Someone once described the Phantom Jet of the Vietnam war as an example that if you strapped enough horsepower to a brick, it would fly.  The polygraph in my instance was the brick but they could not find enough horsepower from polygraph findings to justify questioning my living life in service for this country for many decades.

Just because I "passed" my third polygraph does not mean I give any faith in its powers in pre-screening.

It saddens me so much to see when a truthful "failure" post on this site.  I know the feeling.  I hated the feeling.  I will never find a person of integrity who thinks their reputation is an acceptable casualty of "national security."

Regards

they just churn people thru it and they dont really give a damn who fails or why. they get plenty that pass.

I'm considering applying with the Feds, so I spoke with a buddy the other day--a former state trooper and now an SA with the FBI--about the FBI polygraph. 

He said the FBI poly was the absolute WORST experience of his life, and he told me he failed the first poly but passed the second. 

He said that he failed the first one supposedly due to the drug questions--although he has never used/sold drugs. 

Anyway, he passed the second and is now FBI.

KSLawDog:

You're not missing much by not being granted a FBI retest. No no one ever passes them with the exception of the poster "Fair Chance," who was already a federal agent, I believe when he failed the FBI poly? As much as you'd like a second crack at the FBI poly, the outcome would no doubt be the same. Count yourself lucky --you would probably have really taken some heat regarding countermeasures in a second test since you were accused of such during your first test. It's not easy going back for a second poly, particularly if your first experience was unsavory. I missed two days of work just so the agency could appear that it's being fair to failed applicants by offering a retest that nobody ever passes. What a crock. I'd rather have my two vacation days back.

pillpoper

How on earth did you manage to get 3 retests from the FBI?  I would kill just to get one retest?

test 1 was inconclusive, prompting an immediate retest. test #2 was the retest. Test #3 I TOOK privately with a retired FBI guy to try and figure out why i was failing, but it was the same test. That one cost me $600 so that really frosted me. the 4th one was due to a sucessful appeal to the 2nd test result.

pillpopper,

 I went through four CI polys with NSA, and "passed"
the fifth, because they stopped asking me about
hacking into computer systems.  This shit took me over
the course of 2 1/2 years, but since I went to a
different agency, I can say f'em now !  The funny
thing is, there is no record of having passed a poly;
I guess they were trying to prevent me from using it at
a different agency.  And to finially satisfy their curiosity,
as to whether I am "master of my domain", while
looking at pornography on the Internet - no, I am not !

Pillpopper,

That sucks! I thought I'd been through hell with only 2 FBI pre-emplolyment polys. To your credit, at least you had the courage to show up for additional testing--that could not have been easy (it wasn't for me.) Even if it didn't change the outcome, at least you didn't give up easily. If you don't mind my asking, how did your four polys come about? I thought the agency's hiring procedures don't afford additional testing after the second test?

well, after a year of this shit, its finally over. I failed my 4th pre-employment FBI polygraph yesterday. well, my very first one was inconclusive, but the next 3 i tanked. I have never touched a drug but dont tell these numnuts that. My blood pressure rose so i must be a doper. IF the blood pressure cuff doesnt fit, you must acquit.

I am going to make my own website detailing my experiences soon so I can tell the world my story, cause Im very pissed about it. At least I wont end up in the FBIs new $170 million case tracking system.