Quote:

Once again,

Thank you Mr. Richardson for your concise and articulate opinion.

Regards.

Touche

Re: your subject "judge, jury, and executioner"

Haven't you seen enough posts to respond or, are you (like) PolyLawMan "hit and run"? He says the government has "0 tol"
of being lied to. I wonder what he thinks about the government constantly lieing to us? The ones who pay their lieing salaries.

Mark,

Best Wishes and Happy New Year.  You are quite correct in the assessment that you made in your last post.  I was told a number of years ago by a member of a well known quality assurance (more about that notion shortly) program that his group never over turned a DI call by the original examiner to a NDI result (would occasionally change to INCL) but would occasionally completely overturn a NDI original examiner call.  

Aside from this prejudicial practice, the term quality assurance in the polygraph world generally indicates less than applies with other practices.  What is generally reviewed is question choice and polygraph scoring (along with basic instrument operation and chart notation).  Unfortunately these two areas are not the weaknesses of control question test polygraphy which in turn, unfortunately, are not and can not be meaningfully addressed by existing quality assurance programs.  With regard to what is done...polygraph scoring is relatively reliably (albeit not accurately) done--it is fairly easy and routine for a group of beginning polygraph students to be able to score polygrams arriving at similar qualitative and quantitative endpoints.  Very little is gained in this area by review of senior polygraph personnel.  With regard to question formulation, the process for relevant questions is rather simple minded.  The elements of the crime are simply presented in interrogatory form, i.e., for a bank robbery a logical relevant question would be "Did you rob the bank?"  As David Lykken would say, hardly rocket science  Control question selection is largely a matter of choosing from a list of approved questions for various subject/investigative areas, again hardly a difficult task requiring a great deal of oversight.  

I believe the reason polygraph "quality assurance" programs are largely meaningless is that the real problem with probable-lie CQT is the lack of a theoretical basis for the test in the first place (i.e., fear of consequences vs. fear of (lie) detection mechanism discussed elsewhere) and a lack of scientific control.  Even if the first problem did not exist, the inability to objectively and quantitatively describe when a control question has been "set" and when the proper balance for relative affect for control and relative questions has been achieved for a given examinee prior to polygraph examination, makes quality assurance as presently practiced an exercise in futility.  And once again, even if this latter problem did not exist (along with the basic theoretical considerations), those polygraph programs that do not audio/video tape examinations provide no conceivable opportunity for quality assurance programs to accomplish this(ese) needed task(s).  For all of the above considerations, I find little quality control in present polygraph quality assurance/quality control programs.  Currently utilized methodology does not allow for it.  Best Regards...

The polygraph examiner is, for all practical purposes, the judge, jury, and executioner because his or her decisions will never be overturned.  Unless it is to adjudicate a matter to greater disadvantage to the subject than the polygraph examiner recommended (e.g. the examiner said the subject was truthful, "quality control review" says deceptive).

But "quality control review" will NEVER deem a subject truthful who the polygraph examiner said was deceptive.  And no amount of investigation, no matter the dearth of evidence to corroborate the polygraph, will ever result in a renunciation of a polygraph examiner's finding of "deception indicated".

Can anyone prove me wrong?

Skeptic wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 10:27pm:


Thank you, Skeptic, that is truly my point.  I went through 10 months of testing, applications, screening, and interviews.  In 2 days, it was all over -- all in the polygrapher's chair.

I told the truth; however, my polygrapher was biased against me.  He was told by the Agent conducting my PSI that I had omitted all of my foreign contacts on my application.  Consequently, my polygraper labeled me a spy and failed me for reasons of National Security.

Of course I didn't omit my foreign contacts -- they were not supposed to be listed.  The Agent doing my PSI made a huge mistake and it cost me my polygraph -- and a whole lot more.

So, touche, is it fair that I should fail for these reasons?  Is it fair that the FBI polygrapher can fail me, erase almost a year of hard work, and most important, post his findings on my PUBLIC RECORD with the FBI so that no other gov't agency hires me?  Don't say that won't happen, because it already has.

Judge, jury, and executioner is well justified in my case.

Chris

Quote:


Fair chance,
It should be noted that several federal agencies, including I presume the FBI, make use of so-called "quality control" systems that supposedly call for taking the final judgement of pass/fail out of the polygrapher's hands (I know you've become aware of this first hand).  Thus, it may be more accurate to say that the polygraph testing system as a whole is judge, jury and executioner.

However, it should also be noted that polygraphers, as has been conclusively demonstrated, can cause almost anyone to "fail" a polygraph at will.  

Thus, the issue is a little nebulous, but I think we agree on the basics: the polygraph is given weight completely out of proportion to its ability to actually judge a candidate's trustworthiness and suitability to a position.

Skeptic

touche wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 1:02am:

Dear touche,

As of today in the current system, the FBI does not do any investigation before a polygraph.  The FBI will not corroborate any negative findings found during the polygraph interview.  There are no formal appeal procedures and it is not videotaped for examination for possible procedural flaws or examiner bias.  Any negative "interpretations" never get to an adjudicator.  It is not inappropriate to state that the polygraph examiner is the "judge, jury, and executioner" of integrity and career of an applicant for any additional federal opportunities beyond the original FBI application.

Regards.

Touche

How about two out of three. The polygrapher is certainly the judge and jury. The executioner is the #+%@! who wields the axe to cut the applicant off based on the judge and jury's "assumption, NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE" that the applicant is a liar. This is why I advocate a lawsuit, if the applicant told the whole truth, to make them prove their charges. I say again, if he didn't tell the truth, he should walk out the door with his tail between his legs and do something else. It still boils down to ONE person holding the livelyhood, and future, of the applicant in his/her hands. This is wrong. There should, at least, be a background investigation to prove the polygrapher's charges.

touche wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 1:02am:


Indeed they should. If I were, I would be constantly recommending to my superiors that the polygraph should be scrapped and polygraphers reassigned elsewhere in counterintelligence.

Quote:


It wasn't my intent to say either way.  I was responding to a one-liner with one of my own

Skeptic

I guess those polygraph guys should be relieved that you are not the comptroller.  It was noted however that you chose to avoid my comment about judge, jury and executioner.  And you say that polygraph folks are less than honest?  Fingers point in both directions.

touche wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2003 at 11:17pm:


I would think you'd want to pay them not only based on how much responsibility they bear, but also how well they meet those responsibilities.

That being the case, I wouldn't be eager to deal out the raises

Skeptic

C'mon Mr. Stein, have you never heard of the job that ajudicatorts are expected to perform?  I do not mean to tossing the "blame" over to them, but to say that the polygraph examiner is the judge, jury and executioner is a bit overstated.  But hey, wait, perhaps with all of this responsibility, maybe the polygraph examiner should be asking for a raise.  I do not mean to be "snippy", biut you DID ask for it.

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 11^th, 2002 at 11:40pm:

Breeze,

What I meant was, "why have an application process when the polygraph determines eveything in one small step?"

Polygraphers are the judge, jury, and executioner for applicants.  Does it matter if the applciant has gone through almost a year of screening prior, or if they just walked in off the street?  They will still be subject to a very fuzzy "test."  It is assumed that they are lying, whether they were a prior LE officer, distinguished military veteran, or begging for change on the street corner.  This type of screening is assinine.

Since the polygraph really doesn't take in to account the applicant's background (although that isn't what the applicant is told),  why not do it first?  The FBI could save tons of money on paperwork and trips to interviews if they just eliminate the "scum" out of the applicant pool right off the bat.

And, polygraphers need more work to do -- you said it yourself:
Quote:
 
Maybe if you had more to do, you could find a way to make the machine truly work.

I know, I know, it works fine.  You and all your polygraph buddies tell yourselves that at your polygraph meetings you go to.   More like perpetuating a lie for self-preservation, I think.

But that's my opinion.  Oh, and the NAS, too.  But we don't count.

Chris

"Shitty Rogers,"

The FBI uses a probable-lie "control" question "test" for pre-employment polygraph screening. Bureau polygraphers assume that all applicants -- even those the Bureau would hire -- will be less than completely truthful in answering the "control" questions.

In fact, the polygraph process will tend to screen out those most willing to make admissions against interest, because the more candidly an applicant answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely the applicant is to fail. By contrast, the applicant who perhaps makes a few minor admissions with regard to the "control" questions, but then blatantly lies in response to them (and as a result experiences heightened anxiety) is most likely to pass.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT YOU LIED...NO MATTER HOW MINOR IT WAS.....IF YOU WILL LIE NOW....WHAT ABOUT LATER IN YOUR CAREER WHEN YOUR LOOKING AT A WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSED BY YOU OR A FELLOW OFFICER...WILL YOU LIE THEN TO PROTECT YOUR JOB JUST LIKE YOU DID TO GET IT....OMITTING A FACT IS AKIN TO LYING

Quote:


Breeze,

I really don't want to get into answering an ongoing series of interrogatories, but I'll answer for now:

1) I'm not in a position to know if any other agent triggered similar results.  I was told "no".

2) It never became a specific issue exam because there was never a specific incident, just a vague, nebulous, amorphous, and absurd charge of unauthorized contacts with Israeli intelligence.  No names, no dates, no information compromised, nothing specific.  It was never fleshed out because there was nothing to flesh it out with.  The FBI's position essentially became, "we can't figure out the details of your espionage, therefore it's your job to tell us in order to resolve the case."

I suspect the reason for the fury was that I "failed" several polygraphs, thus "confirming" each time that I must have been lying.  But if you've got a faulty test, you can "confirm" it 800 times with the same result, yet it's still wrong.

Also note that after my investigation, Earl Pitts and Robert Hanssen, both FBI Agents, were caught.  It is possible that the FBI believed that I was the spy they were looking for.  If that is the case, reliance on the polygraph cost us several years and untold damage.

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 12^th, 2002 at 12:13am:


In their recent exhaustive investigation of the available literature, the National Academy of Sciences seems to have come to a very different conclusion.

Quote:


You have admitted that you do not see all of the polygraph resolutions in your department, so it's very possible what you do see serves to reinforce an existing bias.

This is precisely why double-blind studies are used for scientific studies.  They are, quite simply, far more reliable.

Quote:


While this is entirely possible, my subjective impression of most of the regulars to this site is quite a bit different.  Frankly, I find your point-of-view jaded and cynical.

Skeptic

Mark
Sorry it took me awhile to respond to your well written post, I am indulging myself with staying logged on to this site as I look up from more meaningfull work!
I have a couple of degrees, and am not usually confused, but I am not sure what you mean when calling me a cultural relativist. My personal politics aside, I am saying that there are well researched, opposite studies to support both views.  I have read much of each and see good points.  So, when there is no universal truth, one has to choose dont they- if they wish to be effective and not merely theoretical? I have chosen based on my observations and experience, which I believe is greater than many who post here.
So, my anecdotal observations of a rapist for example being called DI, confessing and closing a case are stronger than reading here how an applicant was not given due consideration.  I think some who post here are truthfull, but many others are selfish blamers that lack maturity, and want to blame an object for lack of success.  Many undoubtably would not of been hired even with an acceptable polygraph.  Of course to limit my hate mail, this is only my opinion.
But lets change the subject if you will.  You said that you were acused during a screening exam.  A couple things trouble me;
1) Does any agent with similiar results trigger an identical use of resources? If not, why you?
2) You mentioned you took almost every test known to man, surely the investigation became specific at that point.  If it was specific, what were the results of your numerous additional polygraphs? And if you will say, what was the issue?

Chris
I dont think I've called you a liar, low life or wannabe, but Ill have to check since my honesty gets questioned around here. (but interestingly, only here)
I think I reserve criticism for writers that want to be LE one day, fail a test through thier own shortcomings, then want to denigrate the profession.
Are you polygraph trained? Looking through the APA standards, I dont see where using the tool as a ruse is on the syllabus.  I have talked to old time polygraph operators that said much the same as you: that the device was more of a prop to illicit a confession.  This arguement is still made by the anti folks here, even though in my opinion it is without merit.
But lets talk about your question. "Why have an application process?" . Are you suggesting that everyone applying for sensitive positions of great trust and access should be taken at face value? what utopian perspective is this.  Im sure I just do not understand you (happens often) and you are not advocating making hiring decisions based on a resume' alone (or even background check).
And dont read too much into the FBI making conditional offers prior to polygraph, a quick view of ADA rules will inform that if medical questions are to be asked (and they will be) a conditional offer must be extended.  Such offers are largly worthless as future employment indicators, as you know.
Thank your father for his long service, he worked in better and more effective times!
I admit, I have not read your story but will when I can.

Dear Breeze,

I may be entering this discussion late, but I think my point applies.

You say that "many applicants lie."  That may be true, but I didn't.    My story is the truth, and if you haven't already, I suggest you read it.   

You may want to lale me as an angry "LE wannabe."  Do so if you wish, but beforewarned - my father spent 27 years in LE.  I know the system.

As far as the pro-polygraph, anti-polygraph debate, believe it or not, I am split.  There is a time and a place to use the polygraph.  It is a powerful interrogation tool, but should only be used to interrogate.  It will help bring out a confession where there is something to confess.  Many times my pather put a suspect on the poly, and many times he got a confession.  Although, in NY, the preferred method for getting confessions was the phonebook, window, and unloaded weapon.  But the polygraph proved and continues to prove itself a useful interrogation tool when there is reason to interrogate.

I disagree with the use of the polygraph as a pre-employment screening device.  Polygraphers are trained to use the machine to intimidate and bully confessions out of suspects.  Why then does the Bureau treat applicants (who have proven themselves enough to recieve conditional employment) like suspects?

The polygraph is used in pre-employment screening to gather discriminating information that would not be listed on the application and may not be uncovered in a background investigation.  And in some cases, the polygrapher gathers that information, pats himself on the back for not letting low-life scum linto the Bureau.  But these methods force a polygrapher, in order to be successful, to find faults with every applicant.  Why then have an application process?   

In my case, the polygrapher was going on supposition and erroneous information given to him by another agent.  And I failed because of it.  I never lied, and I never made any "admissions" regarding the national security issues for which I was deemed deceptive.  But when it was all over, the polygrapher still pats himself on the back.

And now I'm the low-life scum. 


Chris

A2
Point not taken.  I spend little time here and have taken to posting sporadically.  Is this a waste of time?.....probably.  My interest here is to point out the very real, and I believe serious ethical considerations in much of the "advice" presented here by those around the periphery of LE polygraph.
I do not agree with being limited by those who have failed what I believe to be an important information gathering process.  Of course, I also accept the fact that our agency puts more effort into the process, and is not involved in the numbers game, with an endless stream of applicants. (I have already spoken of this)
So I just do not see the abuses that are so frequently talked about here, even if they may exist to some extent.  Since I know abuse in hiring processes extends to several problem areas, I dont single out the polygraph as a tool of oppression.  Unfairness exists in many forms.
I may have a focused and realistic outlook to applicants since I have been involved in the Academy process.  Many applicants have been found to have committed crimes undetected by the background, by polygraph interview alone.  These applicants were just as adamant ( re: their innocence)as some of the posters here when confronted with DI results until eventually revealing why it was that they failed.
Call me a jerk for pointing out the obvious:
Many Applicants Lie.
I fear Grizzly bears and Great white sharks.  If polygraph goes away tomorrow, not only will my paycheck be unaffected, but I will continue business as usual.

Breeze writes in part:

Quote:


If the antipolygraph crusade is such a "waste of time," then why are you wasting so much of your time here? Seems like you're terribly afraid it just might succeed. 

Breeze,

The remark wasn't meant for propaganda, It was a joke. Hope you took that way.

I only mine in Alaska from May to middle Sept. I want no part of 24 hr. darkness where the temp. reaches 0 below. I may be crazy but I ain't dumb. However, next year I hope to get a big moose. I saw one this year with shovels big enough with which to mine. They do have blacktails there also.

I hunt whitetails in So.Central Missouri and Okla. And I doubt that it was as big as your mulie.

Since these boards are ment for polygraph discussions, I will refrain from using them for this type of personal message. Just thought I would lighten up the discussion. Hell Santa Clause is near and he may be wanting to polygraph me to see if I have been good.

I will take this opportunity to wish all a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS and a better year next year. Yeah,, that includes you Breeze.

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 10^th, 2002 at 12:09am:


It is a source of ongoing frustration for me that you seem to dismiss any and all anti-polygraph sentiment as being anecdotal and personal in origin.  I originally came to this site having never taken a polygraph (but having a psychological education that informed me of the polygraph's flaws).  I considered the evidence, read what studies and reviews I could, and came to the conclusion that the device doesn't do what its purported to do.

Even now (after voluntarily ending my candidacy for the NSA position I was trying for), I have no idea whether I truly "passed" or "failed" my polygraphs.  I do know that they were among the more unpleasant experiences of my life (despite answering all questions truthfully), but for all I know I would have gotten the job for which I applied.  I voluntarily withdrew my application in part because of the extremely negative experience I had, one which I was unexcited about repeating every five years or so. However, my criticism of the polygraph remains that it is demonstrably inadequate (by scientific, not anecdotal standards) for the tasks to which it is routinely put.  That criticism would remain the same regardless of how my polygraphs had gone.

As an aside, I would like to mention that I am sorry you find my comments to you so content-free and derisive.  I tend to value truthfulness very highly, and feel you have been rather dishonest with several comments you've made, relying on the quantity of words in your posts to deflect criticism rather than correcting or withdrawing your words.  It is this dishonesty with which I have a problem, much more than any position (pro-or otherwise) you have on the polygraph.

Breeze, I've argued politics online extensively for more than six years.  I've seen pretty much all of it: well-formed arguments, dishonesty, ideologues, out-and-out lies, etc.  I know bullshit when I see it, and few things bother me more.

I respect your position on the polygraph, even though I disagree with it and your stated rationales for holding that position.  It's a number of your ad hominem statements that I have found reprehensible.

Skeptic

Quote:


Exactly. It's anecdotal, just as some of the successes trumpeted by the pro-poly side.

Quote:



I'm surprised to see you, a conservative Republican (?) take this very relativistic position, that anyone can back up anything they want with a study.  You're essentially saying that no study has any real value, because whatever it says, someone else can do a study that says the opposite.  It's a very short trip from this position to one of moral relativism and cultural relativism, e.g. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Quote:


You can't say that a failed polygraph or being subjected to agency abuse is not enough for you, then put such primacy on one's own experiences.

I do trust my own experiences and observations, but know that they are not enough to arrive at a determination of the truth in a matter such as polygraph validity or invalidity.  Just as the fact that I "failed" a polygraph does not mean that the polygraph is invalid, if I "passed," that would not mean that it is valid.


Quote:


You must be thinking of another case, because there was no fallback accusation in my case of mishandling classified information.

Quote:


Ain't that the truth.