Sackett,

Well, I think you reported four polygraphs before having problems.  Now I can't speak for your examination, but I think your hypothesis of naivete is a little off.

They said I was having trouble with one of the questions right from the start (after the first chart).  I had lunch with 3 other candidates tested that day and they all reported the same thing.  They probably tell everyone they're having problem in an effort to get them to "open up".

I can not speak of a particular test of which I was not involved.

So in your expert opinion, is being untruthful or withholding information the only possible reason for a ANS "reaction"?  Rather than anger, fear, frustration for being called a liar even though you're telling the truth....etc.

No.  I suppose a diagnosable mental disorder could also explain it...

You kind of glossed over that one.

No, I didn't give the answer you were looking for.

Maybe Ejohnson has an answer for that.

My fingers are too tired to continue this!

Sometimes it is not a confirmable or refutable issue.  Are you suggesting that, for example, you report on an application you never smoked marijuana.  You take the examination and fail, specifically to marijuana use.

Just because I fail the pot portion of the test doesn't mean I was lying.  You can tell the truth and STILL FAIL.  All you can say is that my ANS "reacted".

I have already addressed this.  It is up to the readers to decide.

That is exactly why polygraph is used.  There are many things in a person's life that can be corroborated through a background; however, there are many more that can not.  Hense the applicability of polygraph... 


You are talking in circles.  You said the polygraph can't tell for sure whether one is telling the truth.  

No, don't think so.  I never said polygraph was a lie detector...

So, there are many things in one's background that can't be corraborated, so we need the polygraph, which can't really show for sure (by your own admission) that the subject is telling the truth?

Maybe we need to bring Edgar Cayce back from the dead.

FYI, I have undergone two comprehensive backgrounds and pre-employment polygraph examinations.  Yes, I was scared.  Yes, I was nervous.  Yes, I was (completely) honest and yes, I was hired.


FYI, I passed a SBI when I entered the service, held a TS SCI for 20 years, passed 4 periodics BI updates, passed a polygraph at NSA after retiring (told the truth), failed a polygraph at NSA five years later (was telling the truth).  So what does that prove:

You can PASS the test when telling the truth.
You can FAIL the test while telling the truth.

But not when withholding information.

No valid examination process has interrogations between charts. Ever!

First they they went over  my application, then explained what the CI questions mean, hooked me up, turned on the voodoo box and conducted the 1st test.  Stopped and looked at the chart, said I was having trouble with the "foreign contacts" question.  Tried to get me to explain why I would have trouble with it.  Turned the player piano on again and did it again.  Stopped, said I was still having trouble....ad naseam for two freaking days!  Each time trying to get more info.

Like an idiot, even though I knew I had had no elicit foreign contact (and they explained what that meant in great detail), and after two grueling days, they were able to get me to question my own veracity.  IOW, got me to think, even though in my CONSCIOUS mind, I knew I was answering truthfully, maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me.

"maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me" doesn't sound like you were completely truthful.  I'm not suggesting you were lying, but if there is any chance you withheld, then you would naturally have problems on the testing.

This is VERY similar to the COERCED FALSE confessions police get people to make all the time.

I have seen the same shows, movies, etc.  I will tell you for me, I have never taken a false confession, ever!

No, reaction in a significant and consistant manner indicates information that has been withheld (and/or lied to).  By the time the test begins, the issue has been covered well enough not to be a threatening issue, unless of course they're withholding something.  


A consistent ANS reaction still is not proof they are lying or withholding.  It just means the question is consistently bothering them. 

I've already discussed this.

In my case, it was because I knew it was THAT question (foriegn contacts) that they were having trouble with.  Which, pissed me off, cuz I was telling the truth.  And might stop me from getting the job I am extremely qualified for...etc.

What they did, was keep changing it, during the interrogations between tests you said never happen, to read:  "Other than what you already told me, have you ever had an illicit contact with a foreign contact..."   But these were just the 1st, 2nd, 3rd...permutations of the original question.  I guess some people can DESENSITIZED that way, but I couldn't.

Further, inter-chart interviewing concerning a specific subject is inappropriate at best.  But I can not speak to your experience, I wasn't there, nor was I responsible for your test.

Incidently, the "scuttlebutt" at the NSA is that if the hiring committee really want's you, whether a new applicant, or an existing employee doing a "periodic", they will test you, test you, test you, test you, test you....until you finally pass.

Nepotism, buddy considerations, friends of friends, dynastic desires, etc, that's the "scuttlebutt" at every dept.

Gee, that should make the nation feel secure!

I know many federal examiners and yes, it should make the nation feel more secure.

I specifically do not allow the examinee to tape the process because once they leave the polygraph suite, I no longer have control of it's release or dissemination. 


Wouldn't want the subject to walk away with any documentation, would we?  

No.  Wouldn't want testing information to be misused, manipulated, falsely misrepresented, etc before the truth can come out...

I make the tapes for judicial or official use under discovery and by personnel who have some inclination to the polygraph process.  I do not want any examination cut and paste by a disgruntled examinee only to be reviewed in the court of public opinion concerning a topic (i.e. polygraph) which most people don't understand (and whose understanding may extend only to to watching "The Recruit" or "Meet the Parents") and in which I have no feedback or means to explain the proceedure and protocol.

Oh please!  Doesn't work the other way around, huh?. 

No, it doesn't!  I've explained that.

Bedsides, polygraphers have NOTHING TO HIDE, anyway.     Like those taped coerced false confessions you see on TV from time to time.  

Do not believe everything you see on TV, or the internet for that matter...

The  point I am trying to make to people is that a polygraph is an INTERROGATION.  The polygraph machine is just a prop used to intimidate.  If you go in naive, like I did, believing "just tell the truth, and the machine will show you are being truthful.  Ya got nothing to hide of fear":  You can GET SCREWED!

Well, I think you reported four polygraphs before having problems.  Now I can't speak for your examination, but I think your hypothesis of naivete is a little off.

Better to go in with the attitide, that machine can't tell if I am being truthful.  TELL THE TRUTH, and DON'T LET THEM TELL YOU YOU ARE LYING WHEN YOU AIN'T!

My fingers are too tired to continue this!

".....I can tell when a person is withholding information concerning a specific topic when that topic, by virtue of the pre-test interview is made significant. "

For certain?  I can see where you might SUSPECT somebody is withholding info, but I don't see how you can know for sure.

that's because you do not understand the entire process.  You understand the mechanics of the testing, but not all the principals.  It is easy to apply a small amount of information to a process then attack what you do not understand.  It's ALL about that which is withheld, not necessarily lied to.

That's what the NSA polygrapher thought I was doing, but I wasn't.  They were suspicious about some translation work I did for an embassy official. He suckered me into translating a 20 page regulation from his home country for free.  They just couldn't believe it.  Thought I was passing secrets or something.

I can't answer for anything that is outside my control or knowledge.

Wouldn't it be better for a trained INVESTIGATOR to check something out like that, rather than screw a qualified candidate because of "hunch" you have.  

Sometimes it is not a confirmable or refutable issue.  Are you suggesting that, for example, you report on an application you never smoked marijuana.  You take the examination and fail, specifically to marijuana use.  B/I's can't find anyone in your past that can establish it one way or another, so your word alone should be the deciding factor?  Sorry, I disagree.  That is exactly why polygraph is used.  There are many things in a person's life that can be corroborated through a background; however, there are many more that can not.  Hense the applicability of polygraph...

Would you want an investigator conducting your polygraph?

No!  I want an investigator conducting my background check and a polygraph examiner conducting my polygraph examination.  FYI, I have undergone two comprehensive backgrounds and pre-employment polygraph examinations.  Yes, I was scared.  Yes, I was nervous.  Yes, I was (completely) honest and yes, I was hired.

I'm glad you mentioned the "pretest".  That, and the interviewing (INTERROGATING) between chart gazing,  is where people screw themselves.  

No valid examination process has interrogations between charts. Ever!

So what do you do if you test and test and keep getting a reaction WITHOUT A CONFESSION?  My polygrapher did the following:

Let out a big sign when looking at the chart.  Dramatically, got out of her chair, walked out from behind her desk, picked up a chair that was against the wall (thought she was gonna throw it at me), put the chair in front of me, sat in front of me knee2knee, then started yelling at me.

What do you do Mr. Sackett, when a guy keeps professing his innocence (you can't coerce an admission out him), yet that troublesome squiggle mark (which is outside of "acceptable parameters")  keeps showing up.

I talk with them and try to figure out the problem.  Almost everytime we find it, retest and they pass.  It's really an amazing and accurate process, when done right.

Does a "reaction" necessarily mean he is lying.  Maybe he is reacting cause that's THE QUESTION YOU KEEP SAYING HE'S HAVING TRUBS WITH EVEN THOUGH HE'S BEING HONEST.  I mean, that alone is enough to get somebodies ANS to get agitated!  

No, reaction in a significant and consistant manner indicates information that has been withheld (and/or lied to).  By the time the test begins, the issue has been covered well enough not to be a threatening issue, unless of course they're withholding something.  In that case, no amount of preparation can prepare them.

Oh, yeah, and why don't polygraphers allow the test subject to tape the test for their records.  If it's all on the "up and up", that is.  

I have taped every test I have conducted since 2000, for my protection and theirs.  I specifically do not allow the examinee to tape the process because once they leave the polygraph suite, I no longer have control of it's release or dissemination.  You've seen the press cut and paste interviews to intentionally sway the viewing audience?!  

I make the tapes for judicial or official use under discovery and by personnel who have some inclination to the polygraph process.  I do not want any examination cut and paste by a disgruntled examinee only to be reviewed in the court of public opinion concerning a topic (i.e. polygraph) which most people don't understand (and whose understanding may extend only to to watching "The Recruit" or "Meet the Parents") and in which I have no feedback or means to explain the proceedure and protocol.

Sackett:

I wasn't impuning your integrity by suggesting that the days that have gone by since Mr Richardson issued that challenge somehow was important, I was just wondering that if you were so good at "chartgazing" you might want to take up the challenge and put the issue to rest.

I explained why in my previous posting.  I thought I was clear.

One thing I have noticed here, is that polygraphers have pretty thin skins.  I was nothing but polite and respectful in my post, but yet you felt the need to be sarcastic.  THAT, also shows the readers here who has what dog in the fight.

Of course we're thin skinned.  People on this board are attacking our profession without having any more than a cursory understanding of the sciences that go into polygraph, what would you expect?  BTW, my sarcasm was addressed for the purposes of my analogy since I did not want to assume anything about you.  Therefore, I used the car wash analogy as it is innocuous and non-offensive example.  I didn't mean to insult, but didn't want to really insult by assuming anything.

Sackett, you just happen to be the polygrapher de jure, who comes here to try to discredit this website.  But, because  you and others cannot back up your arguments, you eventually go away.

n.p.c., I haven't tried to discredit anything, just open eyes of those who would read this board and blindly believe everything written here.  Then, believing what they read, enter an examination room like mine and screw themselves out of a job or their freedom, then wonder what happened... 

Why would I go away?  Most have been respectful and as long as that remains I fear nothing written here.  I must admit though, it is sort of like a debate between the democrats and the republicans. Each side has their opinions and there is little chance either side will change.  I am not here for you or the rest of the "usualy suspects", I am here for the curious and to present an alternate understanding of the process where I believe it is best applied.  Com'mon, do you really want me to go away...?

For instance, the statement you made in the "Sick" thread that a person who was "abnormally distracted" is not a good candidate for a polygraph.  That statement of course, means that anyone who has been arrested or is a suspect in a murder or other heinous crime is not a good candidate to take a polygraph, which others here state that the shining light for polygraphy is it's use in criminal investigations.

Polygraph requires an examinee to be mentally and physically healthy at the time of the examination.  Accusations, false or not, are naturally stressful; however, they are not abnormally so and would not prevent an examination.  Nice try at extending the conversation.  Of course, if these type of allegations were causal to abnormality, then no examination would ever take place since every examinee would be abnormally distracted.  And, no examinee would ever pass, since they would be abnormal, right?  Then why do many examinee's pass?  It is certainly not that they implemented the techniques outlined in TLBTLD!  But then again the extinction of polygraph IS the purpose of this board, right?!
 
Everytime this happens, of course, polygraph on the whole looks stupid.

Your opinion and certainly entitled to it.

Carry on my misguided, trade school graduate friend...Keep posting your opinions, and I will keep posting mine, and we WILL let the readers judge for themselves.  I am not going away.

 Please return to you dissertation, I'll return to my "chartgazing" 

BTW, I'm pretty good at it... Hope not to see ya, professionally anyway.

Sackett  

digithead,

I never said ALL NAS members were subjected to the screening process.  But, many are!  Name one?  There are many scientists who, while working for various universities are contracted to the US government and because of their work are not listed as such.  Sorry you must not be on the mailing list.

Just because everybody involved in the meta-analysis of a selected portion of polygraph research were not reported as helping to author it does not mean they were not influential or involved in the findings (perhaps purposefully to avoid that appearance of conflict; but I'm not a conspiracy theorist).

You have your opinion.  Fine.  As an examiner, I have mine.  I know it works well.  Pefectly, no.  BUT, it's better than leaving it to "your" word...

The research was "below the level of funding of..." does not mean, except in your albeit humble opinion, "crap."  However, I do believe much of the research about the uselessness of polygraph is in fact, as you put it, "crap."

I believe you have your right to your opinion.  I suggest you go to polygraph school, apply your knowledge then write me.  Your opinion would change.

Al,

would that be the same National Academy of Science (NAS) who rather than reviewing ALL material regarding polygraph reliability and validity, simply selected "certain" research to conduct a meta-analysis which in and of itself seemed to be selected to prove their hypothesis?  Was this the same NAS study by "scientists" who themselves were being subjected to the very pre-employment and periodic security screening tests they were condemning?  The very same NAS members (not all of course) who when the DOE abated screening tests as a result of that report resulted in multiple security violations through laziness, misconduct and/or negligence to such a degree the program had to be reinstituted?  

A slight conflict of interest, I believe.  I (personally) see their report as I would fat people writing a report condemning McDonald's for selling fat filled products while they hold their convention at the local Burger King and receiving BK stock options in exchange... These minor details conveniently ommitted when citing their findings.

BTW, I am all for finding a better "mousetrap."  Some thought CVSA was it, it is not...  Got any suggestions? Then invent it!  But for now, polygraph is the best we have.

Sackett

P.S.  BTW, how's the food at Leavenworth?