Oh boy, what did I cause here? I could not log on for a couple weeks and this threat gets out of control  ...

Besides the baaad feeling in my stomach: I passed!!! I was in and out within an hour and the questions were kept very general. My examiner was very nice and we chatted for a little bit (he was, like I, stationed in Kosovo). He did not really say "you passed" but if there would have been an issue, he would probably discussed the "sour question" with me. Plus he said "You did fine".

So, let's see if I get hired!

Shrek

Darkcobra,

Would that ammunition come with or without tracers?

  ???    

darkcobra,

You state ... Quote:


Based on other postings of yours that I have read, you seem sincere in this quest.  However, I'm curious what it is you do to improve yourself as an examiner in order to avoid false positives.  Have you found ways in which you can do this?  Also, when you identify these, are you reporting that information to others in your field of work so they can also avoid false positives?

Mercible

Darkcobra,

You said:  <<<The individuals that pass a polygraph while not being truthful is a minor concern for me personally, they simply beat the test for what ever reason, and this does occur occasionally, >>>

That does not make me, or I would suspect, anyone else who has been through the horror of polygraphs, to feel any better about them.

Please explain to me why I failed, or better yet, had three inconclusive, not within parameters, polygraphs when I did not lie or mis-state anything in regards to the questions asked of me?

Polygraphs are useless, and utterly unreliable.   

By the way, even though the following will no doubt sound like whining, I know the real reason I "failed" my polys.  I did not fit the proper gender and race parameters the FBI was looking for.

I am a white, married male.  Those of us who have been involved with the feds in any capacity, (I as a parole officer have frequent contact with federal personel), know that the feds adhere to very strict hiring guidelines in regards to race and gender.

Once I found out that a minority female got the IS job I applied for, I knew what was up.

The FBI, having no other way to disqualify me, used a polygraph.

That, in a word, sucks.

Darkcobra,

The quality of the poor research that the NAS panel had to deal with was largely not caused by the absence of ASTM testing guidelines (more later) nor in any way biases (against lie detection and the community that promotes its practice and is largely responsible for its allegedly supporting research) on the part of the NAS panel but by the poor performance on the part of the polygraph community that has largely produced this product.  Having talked to several members of the panel, I know that their difficulty and challenge was not to say something negative about polygraphy and the community that conducted polygraph research (this was almost unavoidable), but to find something/anything to say which might appear to be encouraging and positive.  As critical as the report was, it was only due to the graciousness of the panel members and deference to the agency that technically requested the study that it was not more uniformly scathing.  

One of the major shortcomings of the research was that (aside from the polygraph community doing screening exams without even the pretense of scientific support, i.e., a non-existent research literature) was that virtually none of the simulated-crime research had any external validity whatsoever.  Some of it, beyond the scope of this specific post, was/is quite comical in terms of the manner in which and the extent to which it sought to recreate "real life" conditions.  Such was the case with the research that was the grist of the NAS's study pool, and such is the case now.  Nothing about ASTM guidelines addresses this serious shortcoming.  This shortcoming is not a mere academic oversight but one, which if left unaddressed, will likely mask any examinee fear of consequences (real-life consequences to an examinee following having been branded a liar in a polygraph exam) and which in turn would contribute to underestimating (perhaps considerably so) the true rate of false positive outcomes in real life conditions--something that I have spoken of before and which so many on this board have claimed as being a part of their own personal experience.   I would suggest to you in terms of assuring operational/external validity that the ASTM guidelines and regulations have as much impact on polygraph research as the proverbial rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic did on iceberg avoidance and damage remediation. 

In addition to avoiding the obviously and previously discussed general bias and conflict of interest that the polygraph industry would have if involved in current polygraph validity research, I think its handling of the ASTM guidelines calls further into question its ability to be involved in such research.  It should be readily apparent to this community (and perhaps you as well as a doctoral grad student, yes?) that ballyhooing ASTM guidelines (that do not adequately address concerns about external validity) as a remedy for past poor performance in polygraph research is shall we say less than satisfactory and represents even further (although not needed based on previously mentioned general considerations) disqualifying credentials for participating in this type of research.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2005 at 10:02am:


DarkCobra, 

I will give you credit for honesty. But even 1 false positive or even 1 false negitive. Anything less than 100% accuracy, is wrong. Messing with peoples lives with a machine that is really nothing more than another persons opinion is exceptionally wrong. IF you get a criminal with the use of a polygraph then this is a good thing. But tag one innocent person a liar and deceptive then the whole process is flawed and needs to be done away with. I would not even be here if you had 100% accuracy.  Anything less is just plain wrong.
LIke the death penalty, if we execute one innocent person, then the whole process must stop. Anything less than 100% proof is just state sponsored murder. And we all know that as of late how many DeathRow inmates have been cleared by DNA  evidence and found innocent.  Messing with peoples lives and veracity without the 100% certainty again is just wrong. But if you can get a crook to confess with a polygraph, then have at it, but like all things in a free society, collateral damage to the innocent in any circumstance should never be tolerated, especially by authorities, from this a police state cannot be far away.

DarkCobra your missing the point here. Lets extrapolate this beyond countermeasures and studies. The role of the examiner is to get the subject to believe that the machine works, instill doubt, fear and anxiety. And if successful the polygraph responds to the persons physiological reactions. But without the doubt, fear and anxiety its just another printer that draws wavey lines. I know it doesn't work, the examiner tried his damnest to try and get me to respond, and all it did was draw lines. It really pissed him off... because he couldn't get me to respond to the stimuli. hmmmm  best he could do was say NO  ( no opinion ), He did try a post exam chat but shut him down there too.  Once the fear is gone ... you and your examiner types have no power what so ever.  Best part is ... Still got the job ..... and doing well. 
So bottom line ... study is valid ... and the proof was proven in a real life scenario.    Don't you just love it.

Darkcobra,

You write in part:
Quote:


With regard to ASTM, any adherence to its standards merely assures some degree of uniformity/reliabilty  (everybody doing the same thing).  And because most forms of polygraphy (lie tests) are not specifiable tests but unspecifiable and every-exam differing interviews, even this function is questionable on anything but cursory analysis.   Unfortunately whatever the function of ASTM guidelines and review, it has precious little to do with everybody doing the right thing or that which is valid and  that which guarantees any degree of accuracy.  With regard to any referenced but unspecified studies in progress, I hope that you realize there is a place for the polygraph community in such studies and several areas that this community and those funded by the polygraph community (government polygraph programs and the various trade organizations representing this community) should most definitely not be involved with.  It is quite fair and appropriate for trained polygraphers to be involved in conducting polygraph exams within a study but it is altogether improper for this group of people (anybody in the aforementioned interested groups, not just the participating examiners) to be involved in the programming of subjects (have any knowledge of ground truth with regard to subject guilt status) and to conduct analysis of the data.  The polygraph community obviously would not exist if polygraphy (in its various forms and applications) were found to be invalid.  Such a conflict of interest makes this community completely unacceptable for carrying out many of the roles in an overall research project.  As has been said before, any lessening of this kind of research rigor would be tantamount/analogous to putting the tobacco industry in charge of lung cancer research and would make the results/conclusions drawn/significance of any such studies candidates for immediate disregard.

Quote:


George,

I believe that this site has been a wealth of information concerning polygraph pre-screening procedures as related to the FBI.  Information is now readily available.  We hear from many people who have not successfully "passed" an exam but how many have used the knowledge gained here to "pass" an exam and never post.  The FBI does not know either.


I am not concerned about "false positive" test because the applicant will still be required to pass a background adjudication the old fashioned way the FBI did things before the polygraph was introduced in the applicant process.  Moles could beat the old system and the addition of the polygraph will not stop them in the new system.

The FBI does not document facts other than polygraph results to blacklist an applicant and ruin their reputation and future federal careers.  Appeals are for face saving value only.  This is such a waste of tax payers and loss of good applicants.

Regards.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2005 at 6:33am:


Darkcobra2005,

This is something that all people on this site could probably agree on.  I believe audio and visual recordings combined with polygraph results would be key to providing a data base which could be submitted to a completely seperate scientific.

I knew I was telling the truth, the examiner was "convinced" by either personal bias or complete misinterpretation of the charts that I was not truthful (or using countermeasures which I was not).  The group of "experts" in Washington, D.C., concurred with the examiner. Yet, on appeal, I am found "within acceptable parameters" on the third exam.  Without such recordings, how can any quality control be exhibited to document the problems?

Until such recordings become common place, I will always be suspicious of exams "held in secrecy" and this will always detract from any acceptance concerning polygraph exams from posters on this site who are against pre-screening polygraphs like myself.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2005 at 9:22am:


On the basis of what evidence do you make this allegation? Please be specific.

It is true that DOE scientists and engineers had serious concerns about the validity of polygraphy, and that this influenced Senator Bingaman to press the Department of Energy to fund this research review. But the Secretary of Energy at the time, Bill Richardson, was himself a polygraph supporter who had himself ordered the expansion of DOE's polygraph program.

Quote:


Fair Chance,

The NAS report does not characterize polygraph screening as being "better than chance." That characterization was made (at p. 214) with regard to specific-incident "tests" and with an important caveat that polygraph advocates prefer to ignore (that the subject population be untrained in countermeasures -- a condition that is in practice unverifiable):

Quote:


For discussion of the above, see pp. 27-29 of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

propoly5822 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2005 at 12:48am:


propoly5822,

The National Academy of Sciences conducted a review of the scientific evidence regarding polygraphy. That mission is evidenced in the very name of the panel that conducted the review: the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph. To my knowledge, no one has represented the NAS report to be anything other than a research review. This does not invalidate or in any way detract from their conclusions.

The reason that the NAS panel did not consider the vast majority of the American Polygraph Association's "more than 1,000 research studies" is that they did not meet even the minimum standards of scientific rigor.

The APA complains that it "was not invited to participate in any of the deliberations, nor consulted to provide responses to many questions raised in this project." The fact of the matter is that no outsiders were invited to participate in the NAS panel's deliberations, and any such participation would have been inappropriate. However, the NAS held a series of public hearings that were open to anyone who wished to attend, and the public was also invited to send relevant information. Apparently, the APA chose neither to attend the hearings nor to provide any relevant documentation.

But it would be wrong to say that the views of the polygraph community went unrepresented. Senior members of the polygraph community gave presentations at the NAS polygraph committee's public hearings (which were also well attended by representatives of various federal polygraph programs) and had the advantage over polygraph critics of being able to give presentations at hearings (at DOE and CIA) that were closed to the public.

Dear Darkcobra2005,

This is not the first thread to get lost after discussion.  The discussion is civil and the points are valid.  I recognize that you have the opinion that the NAS study was tainted for the same reason I feel that studies supplied by the DODPA and APA are tainted.

This does not change the fact that ALL polygraph procedures should be recorded.   This can protect both the polygraph examiner and examinee.  Why the foot dragging?   A standard DVD can now record 6 hours easily and does not require much more storage than the actual physical paper tapes.  Certainly it is not a cost factor since DVDs are now down to under $0.50 a piece and almost all computers can burn them.  The camara equipment is less than 5% of the cost of the polygraph equipment itself.   

Bottom line,  it gives the "appearance" that the examiner has something to hide when a recording is not made.  I have not heard of any applicant in the pre-screening process that would object to such a measure.

Regards.

Dear Propoly5822,

With your comments noted, why do so many agencies, specifically, the FBI, use the pre-screening polygraph which was recognized as better than chance but far below "perfect"?   Why will the agency not record video or audio of the proceedings?   

The NAS stated that reliable research into polygraph usage on specific incident testing was questionable because it lacks independent review.  The parties involved have an interest in the outcome of the research.  The fox cannot watch the henhouse.

That being said,  I am upset by the use of any machine which has questionable factual research (either way, pro or anti) used to determine the integrity of any applicant.  This decision is not subject to background investigation to confirm factually the allegations.

False allegations by this machine used as it is in pre-employment screening has ruined lives and reputations.  The ends do not justify the means and I do not find the effectiveness worth the "cost of acceptable casualties of war."  These are United States Citizens who are protected by the Constitution.

Regards.

I continually note the anti folks talking about just what the NAS sudy was all about.  I have to tell you that they are wrong.  I am going to "paste" a response in here from the American Polygraph Association....now admittedly, it is from the APA, but it is accurate, and even dark cobra has it wrong.  I invite anyone to correct me if I am wrong, but what thwe NAS did was NOT a scientific study by any means.  Take a look:

APA response to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report 

The American Polygraph Association (APA) recognizes the efforts of such a prestigious body as the National Academy of Sciences in the work performed in exploring questions associated with the detection of deception.

We wish to note that the APA was not invited to participate in any of the deliberations, nor consulted to provide responses to many questions raised in this project. The APA proudly counts among its membership, well qualified and highly regarded academicians who routinely conduct and publish research in peer reviewed publications and who would have eagerly contributed to this project. Perhaps in a follow-up assessment, the NAS or a similar body will look to the largest international organization in the detection of deception field for answers to some of the important questions in such an inquiry.

It is important that the public be aware that in their published report, the National Academy of Sciences did not conduct any new or original laboratory or field research on polygraph testing. Their effort was confined to a review of the research on polygraph testing and in particular to that which pertains to personnel screening. In doing so, the academy relied on only 57 of the more than 1,000 research studies available.

The NAS panel and the APA recognize that the field of lie detection is a difficult one to quantify or measure in terms of real world effectiveness. As the NAS so clearly reports, real world conditions are difficult if not impossible to replicate in a mock crime or laboratory environment for the purpose of assessing effectiveness.

As a result, a paradigm for research into the validity and efficacy of lie detection has always been, at best, a difficult challenge. We further agree that a lack of resources over the past decades has hampered more meaningful research, particularly in the security and applicant screening arena.

It must be addressed; however, that the NAS report does not adequately recognize the many successes of polygraph in both the criminal specific arena and in National Security. Polygraph testing admittedly not perfect, has been and continues to be an extremely valuable tool. We firmly believe that continued scientific research will support our position; therefore, we welcome the NAS recommendation for additional research and greater innovation in the field.

We agree with the panel’s conclusion that although there may be alternative techniques to polygraph testing, none of these alternatives outperform, nor do any of them yet show promise of supplanting the polygraph in the near term.

We further agree with the NAS finding that expanding research efforts be directed at detecting and deterring major security threats, including efforts for improving techniques for security screening. We believe polygraph testing now provides satisfactory detection and deterrence, enhanced research efforts; however, will certainly expand our capacity to improve efforts in those areas. The APA will continue to conduct and support research within its limited resources; however, we must look to other sources, perhaps including the Federal Government to allocate the resources needed to fully accomplish the specific research challenges offered by the NAS. The APA stands ready and willing to work with such sources to bring the recommendations of the NAS to fruition.

darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2005 at 8:23pm:


Nonsense. The members of the National Academy of Scientists' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph were selected not only on the basis of expertise in their fields of research, but also based on their lack of conflict of interest. Before their final appointment, the public was invited to comment on their suitability. To the best of my knowledge, none were challenged.

Why should your opinion (as a non-scientist with a vested interest in polygraphy) regarding the scientific underpinnings of polygraphy be accepted over the opinion of these disinterested, eminently qualified scientists?

darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 1^st, 2005 at 7:04pm:


The National Academy of Sciences disagrees with your assessment, concluding at p. 213 of its report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection:

Quote:

Dark Cobra,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your last question.  I am on the road and have not been (nor will be for the next few) very cyber-connected over the past few days.  You write in your last post:

Quote:


The point is that there is no scientific control in the various kinds of commonly used lie tests.  The RI technique doesn't even pretend to have it; the various forms of PLCQT fail miserably at providing it.  The concealed information test (CIT)/Guilty Knowledge Test is the only polygraphic format with a sound basis for practice and which presently offers any form of meaningful control.  I won't repeat the example I previously gave from the physical sciences (chemistry/toxicology) which represents one of a whole host which could be sited and is so standard in these communities as to go without saying.  Unfortunately such is not the case with the current customary practice of lie detection.

I KNOW FOR SURE THAT THE CONTROLS QUESTIONS DIDN'T BOTHER ME AT ALL. KNOWING WHAT I KNOW NOW I WOULD HAVE BEEN AND PROBABLY PASSED MY POLYGRAPH!

I KNOW FOR SURE THAT THE CONTROLS QUESTIONS DIDN'T BOTHER ME AT ALL. KNOWING WHAT I KNOW NOW I WOULD HAVE BEEN AND PROBABLY PASSED MY POLYGRAPH!

darkcobra2005 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2005 at 7:35am:



Cobra:
How do you know that I am uncomfortable with the control questions? You don't know me--would have just met me literally minutes before asking me controls, but yet, you can read my mind and know that I am uneasy about them?

Darkcobra,

In a nutshell, (scientific) CONTROL = (scientific) CONTROL.   COMPARISON = pseudoscientific intangible unreasonable (as to underlying assumptions) unverifiable nonsense (whether an examinee "cooperates" (lies on cue to a comparison question) to further a silly polygraph paradigm or not) and is no substitute for scientific control.  It is time the polygraph community realizes that it has a responsibility to provide scientific control within its experiments/"tests" or pack its collective bags, pack up shop, and figuratively go home.

Dark Cobra,

So, if an examinee doesn't follow the examiner's lead and answers his control questions truthfully is that seen as being uncooperative? How is the examinee to know that he is being uncooperative if he is instructed by the examiner beforehand not to lie? Wouldn't the uninformed examinee believe he is being cooperative by answering ALL questions truthfully?  Also, wouldn't examinee knowledge of control questions impact the polygraph procedure? For instance, if the examinee knows the tester doesn't care about certain questions why would he react to them?

Shrek,

Keep in mind that Dark Cobra is giving you advice based on how he conducts polygraph screening. Examiners can be very different from one another and bias could very well play a role in whether you pass or not. I don't think many examinees go into pre-employment screening situations with bad attitudes, after all, the applicant is trying to score a job and the interview process is in full swing. The fact that you are apprehensive may be a good thing. I was way too laid back about mine, thinking I had nothing to worry about since I had nothing to hide. 

Dark Cobra,

Could you elaborate on what you mean by following the examiner's lead? Do you mean that even though he may threaten Shrek with consequences for lying, he should hold back on divulging information when the examiner acts like certain behavior or actions would be considered horrible, thus keeping him from getting the job? What does it say about someone who is willing to withhold information and go along with anything an examiner says just to make himself look better in order to land a job? It seems the government would be better served by those individuals exhibiting a higher degree of courage and honor by being honest, despite the examiner's attempt to lead them down a path. That would seem like the kind of person not easily influenced by pressures and therefore, least likely to be a security risk.