Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 4 post(s).
Posted by: NSAreject
Posted on: Apr 17th, 2005 at 6:11pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
CoolDude29,

  Sounds like another polygrapher.  I've been through
10 years of dealing with the NSA and their amaturish
polygraph process.  Yes, they do use the polygraph as
a way to weed out undesirables; it is used as an
excuse, when they can find no other reason.  Their
polygraph cannot be review, or challenged - what do
you think that says ?   This site is extremely
informative, and I wish I had found it earlier.  I'll let you
in on a little tidbit - I knew of atleast two people, who
had Secret and TS clearances pulled, because they sat
for NSA polygraphs.  They were probably ignorant of the
fact (not informed by their FSO/SSO security officers),
that they risked all, by failing the polygraphs.  Our
"trusted" security folks (i.e., NSA) lies and deceives
trusting applicants. I hold TS/SCI with the DoD, and have
never sat for a polygraph, with them...
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Apr 17th, 2005 at 8:12am
  Mark & Quote
cooldude29 wrote on Apr 17th, 2005 at 12:33am:
...

Granted I understand the polygraph is not a fool proof test, and granted there may be times where innocent people are somehow proved to be lying because of a faulty test.


The National Academy of Sciences found polygraph screening to be completely invalid. Given the CIA's reported pre-employment polygraph failure rate of 75%, there can be little doubt but that many are being falsely accused of deception and wrongly disqualified based on this voodoo science.

Quote:
YET....the reality of the application process with all intelligence agencies is that you have to pass the polygraph.  THEREFORE, this site causes nothing more than people to be paranoid and fearful of the application process.


Your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise. Even if your conclusion were true (which I dispute), it is not the logical consequence of your premise (which is essentially true, though to the best of my knowledge, employees of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, like other State Department employees, are not subject to polygraph screening).

Now, as to your conclusion that "this site causes nothing more than people to be paranoid and fearful of the application process," while this may be the case for some individuals, I think that for most people, gaining information about an unknown process that one faces helps to put one's mind at ease. While there are legitimate reasons to fear an invalid polygraph screening procedure that eliminates 75% of applicants, I think most CIA applicants will be glad to know when they are accused of deception after their first polygraph session and scheduled for one or more "re-tests," it isn't necessarily the case that their charts were scored as "failing," but rather a part of a routine procedure whereby most applicants are initially accused of "having problems" and then subjected to one or more "re-tests." Moreover, by learning about polygraph procedure and countermeasures, CIA applicants can reduce their chances of becoming false positives.

And importantly, I think it behooves CIA applicants to be forewarned that they may be interrogated about the most intimate details of their sexual behavior. I think that individuals considering working for the CIA are much better off deciding in advance just how intimate a relationship they are willing to have with their government, rather than having to make a snap decision whether to answer such personal questions when "ambushed" with them in the polygraph suite.

Quote:
This site in reality likely does more harm than good.  The best advice I can give you in regard to the application process is try your best, know your shit, and let the chips fall where they may.


Could you provide any evidence to support your assertion that this site "likely does more harm than good?" Your "best advice" to other CIA applicants seems to be that they remain wilfully ignorant of the hiring procedure. However, I don't think you have made a compelling case in support of such advice.
Posted by: polyscam - Ex Member
Posted on: Apr 17th, 2005 at 7:35am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I didn't find this site until after I had endured a poly test.  I wish I would have so I would have known what to expect.  The purpose of this site is not to cause paranoia or fear, rather to provide information.  The only ones I know of that are paranoid and fearful of this site are the polygraphers themselves.  They even get downright childish about it.  You are correct in stating that it is a process that has to be endured.  Why not "arm" yourself with information?  Being ignorant is no way to be prepared.

Quote:
Granted I understand the polygraph is not a fool proof test, and granted there may be times where innocent people are somehow proved to be lying because of a faulty test.


It happens more often than polygraphers will admit.  My opinion is that the polygraph is used in employment screening to "weed-out" those applicants that meet requirements but the agency has no other reason to disqualify.
Posted by: cooldude29
Posted on: Apr 17th, 2005 at 12:33am
  Mark & Quote
Just a heads up to everyone about this site. 

I applied to CIA about a year ago.  I was successful with the application process, ending up in DC for final interviews, yet did not receive a job offer in the end.  Regardless it was a great experience, and I encourage everyone who is interested in serving your country to apply.

In doing searches for the application process in regard to CIA I came upon this site.  I would encourage everyone who reads the postings/advice/information on this site to keep an EXTREMELY open mind.

Granted I understand the polygraph is not a fool proof test, and granted there may be times where innocent people are somehow proved to be lying because of a faulty test.

YET....the reality of the application process with all intelligence agencies is that you have to pass the polygraph.  THEREFORE, this site causes nothing more than people to be paranoid and fearful of the application process.  If you have to take a test, then why work yourself up over it.  Its a process that you have to deal with regardless of how you feel or think about the test. (If you have that much to hide, then its best you dont apply)

This site in reality likely does more harm than good.  The best advice I can give you in regard to the application process is try your best, know your shit, and let the chips fall where they may.

Sincerely,

A Previous CIA Applicant
 
  Top