quickfix...thanks for your reply...Evan S

However it is my understanding this idea has been previously floated: an independent federal agency to conduct all federal polygraphs, including preemployment testing, post-employment security screening, specific issue, and others.

My experience with the federal polygraph was post-employment security screening (CSP), in private aerospace.  Currently retired.  So I have some knowledge.

Evan S wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 11:02pm:


It is not feasible to do so.  Different agencies perform different types of polygraphs and not all of them are authorized to do preemployment testing.  DIA cannot test NSA or CIA job applicants.  Military services are prohibited from conducting full-scope polygraphs, etc.  You are adding apples and oranges into one basket and calling them pineapples.

Additional comment:  I personally have known Mark Phillips for many years.  He did not "lose" his job.  He sought employment elsewhere after finding NRO's polygraph abuses intolerable.

You shouldn't comment on issues you know nothing about.

guitarman:

IMO, filling out an "email survey" is a complete waste of time.  Also the federal polygraph school is no longer called DACA, it's now NCCA (your polygraph office is not up to date).

And don't you think it's strange that the second polygrapher easily passed you ("a pleasant lady who did not badger me")?  Lack of consistency, not good for a "scientific" test.  (I have already asked quikfix this question, have yet to receive an answer.)

quickfix wrote on Oct 8^th, 2015 at 7:02pm:


The building I was in, had several posters on the wall from something called the Defense Academy of Credibility Assessment (DACA).   I assumed that was the organization that accredited my examiner?   

I took some time to read this web site's TLBTLD document (the Terrorism/Espionage/Sabotage exam section, in particular), and I was surprised to see that my experience might've been completely scripted from beginning to end, from the initial "we don't think you are taking this polygraph seriously" to the "you will have to come back tomorrow for a re-test".   Just about everything that my first examiner did to me was listed in the TLBTLD booklet!  TLBTLD says that "some agencies" make applicants take up to 3 polys.  Sooooooo....  I guess the answer to my main concern (was I being singled out by a jerk) is that, perhaps he was just following his script.  I wish I had read TLBTLD first!

My boss says I will be getting an email survey, in which I can "rate" my poly.  If that is true, I will make sure I explain that I felt harassed and bullied.  But I haven't gotten the survey yet.

Evan S wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 11:02pm:


The only civilized option - let's stop using this stupid thing.  Your suggestion is like saying -  "lets only allow bishops and cardinals to burn witches at the stake and not let priests do it anymore".

quickfix:

I don't think filing an IG complaint with that agency, or speaking to the supervisor and/or filling out a "customer survey sheet" is going to address the problem of unethical federal polygraphers.  It appears this is a case of institutionalized bias within this 3-letter government agency.  Perhaps guitarman's first polygrapher was under pressure to deliver a minimum number of problematic or failed polygraphs.  We know two IC polygraphers (Mark Phillips and Chuck Hinshaw) stated so, and not surprisingly they lost their jobs.  And don't you think it's strange that his second polygrapher easily passed him ("a pleasant lady who did not badger me")?

The only solution (short of eliminating federal polygraphs altogether) is to relocate all current federal polygraphers to an independent agency, with its own performance appraisals and salary reviews.  And since NCCA is supposed to train all federal polygraphs, it would be the logical agency to contain all active federal polygraphers, maybe with field offices scattered across the country.  Has this suggestion already been proposed?  Would you quickfix be willing to relocate from your current federal agency to an independent agency?

Very informative post quickfix. It is good to know that there is some oversight. Honestly, I had believed that the govt polygraphers had free reign and were not questioned.

quickfix wrote on Oct 8^th, 2015 at 7:02pm:

guitarman wrote on Oct 8^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:


A lot of your experience sounds indeed very much  like "theatre", and is reminiscent of my experience in Langley several years ago (and it appears as if you are applying to work at a similar "three-letter agency"!). 

I was also repeatedly accused of being deceptive, not taking the polygraph seriously, and not even being serious about wanting to work at the Agency.

Between that and a very sloppy BI, I now feel very fortunate that I wasn't employed by the "brave warriors" of Langley.

Your post sounds quite credible, as I have personally listened to audio recordings of polygraph exams following formal complaints.  If your description is accurate, it was not theater.  You had a rude examiner.  If this was a 3-letter agency, then he had to be a federal school (NCCA) graduate, as DoD does not hire non-NCCA graduates.  It is also possible that your examiner may have been a DoD contractor, which some of the agencies use.  Some of them are former examiners who have come back to work under federal contract, and brought their bad habits with them.  They get paid per exam, not a salary, and therefore are more concerned with getting the body in the chair then in doing a proper job.

You could have asked for a different examiner for the retest, but you are not guaranteed one.  They choose who is scheduled with you, not you.

Finally, you always have the option of filing an IG complaint with that agency if you feel you were treated unprofessionally.  Agency IGs conduct a comprehensive review, including the audio/video recording.  That's why in part, it is recorded.  The tape never lies.

Did you ask to speak to a supervisor or quality control official after either of the two sessions?  If not, you should have.  They are the ones who can address allegations of misconduct/unethical/unprofessional behavior.  Were you provided a customer survey sheet after the second session?  Some agencies provide one which are designed to elicit feedback about your experience and don't require you to identify yourself, but do identify the name of your examiner.  These surveys are reviewed at the management level.

I have some questions about how examiners prepare for an examination, and how they decide what  "strategy" to use on a particular examinee.

I went thru a counter-intelligence poly with a 3-letter government agency on Monday.   I have had a  TS/SCI clearance for years and am probably as "clean" as they come.  I was relaxed going in, and  didn't anticipate any problems.     The examiner was presumably a DACA-certified individual.

However, sitting with the examiner during the pre-screen interview, he was abrupt and rude.  He didn't  let me fully answer questions like "so tell me about your job" and "tell me about your wife and kids", he  would scribble something on his notepad and interrupt me with his next question, as if he was in a hurry.   I started to get a little frustrated, and I am certain that my agitation was noted by the examiner.

He asked some more questions, and then stopped and blind-sided me with the comment "I don't think  you are taking this polygraph very seriously".    WTF?   At this point, I was no longer relaxed.   I  suspected some theater was involved, but I was still taken aback.  Despite my efforts to try to remind  myself "this guy is just jerking with me",  I became defensive and tense. 

We proceeded with hooking me up to the machine and ran thru some test questions.  The examiner  was very disruptive,  continuously interrupting the process with comments like "you're breathing too  fast", or "you're breathing too slow" and incessantly saying "if you don't follow my instructions, we'll  never get this finished today".    I became ultra self-aware of my breathing and posture, to the point  where the harder I tried to breathe naturally and sit still, the more difficult it became.    By the time the  test began, I was pretty much a nervous fidgety wreck.   Eventually, he asked me to stop speaking  altogether, and answer my questions only by moving my eyes.

The testing proceeded badly.  After about 90 minutes, he stood up from his terminal, and got in my face  -- "Are you intentionally not following my instructions?", he said.   I tried to explain that I was sitting as  still as I could and breathing as naturally as possible, under the circumstances.  I explained that he had  caused me to be nervous when he said, before testing even began, that he felt I was not serious about  the polygraph.  His response was "You weren't serious about the polygraph then, and I'm not sure you  are even now, because you aren't following my instructions".

At this point, I become mentally disengaged - I was no longer interested in passing the polygraph, nor  was I concentrating on answering the questions, only on counting the minutes when this exam would be  over and I could escape from this jerk.   

The testing went another 90 minutes (3 hours total).  He left the room for awhile, then came back to  inform me that my test was "useless", they couldn't use any of it!   I was not surprised at all.   I was told  to come back for a re-test the next morning, which I had with a pleasant lady who did not badger me,  and I passed (as I knew I would).

So, my questions are:

1.  How much of this was "theater" and how much was genuine antagonism by the examiner?   I had  expected some "tough guy" stuff, but by the end I felt bullied and harrassed.  I had voluntarily submitted  myself to undergo the polygraph, in good faith that I would be given a fair, impartial examination.... but I  left feeling as if the examiner had made it personal, trying to "teach me a lesson" or something  

2.  If this was "theater", how is it beneficial to  put the examinee into a heightened state of anxiety?   It  seems to me that ANY anxiety at all would skew the graphs, as NONE of the physiological responses  would be "natural".    I was so tense, that I imagine that all my responses looked exactly the same on his  graphs (which was probably making him angrier by the minute).

3.  If this was "theater", how did he determine which tactics to use on me?   Was there something in my  profile that suggested that they would get better results by making me uncomfortable?  Or was it a  spur-of-the-moment call, that he made during his pre-test interview with me?   Or was my examiner  simply incompetent (which I now suspect)?   

4. Does an examiner get "dinged" for not being able to get good graphs?  Because my examiner sure seemed pissed off that he wasn't getting good graphs from me.

5. Finally -- can an examinee request a new examiner before the testing begins?   In hindsight, I feel like  I should've stopped and requested a new examiner, at that moment in the beginning when he accused  me of not taking polygraphs seriously.    His comments showed that he had already formed an opinion  of me, which I believe poisoned the entire exam process.

The short answer is *both*.

The examinee's demeanor usually changes under mental exertion, and the charts look, well, flaky. That is to say the tracings do not resemble those of normal reactions. 

I am the first to admit that a polygraph "test" is a crapshoot, but so is the application of countermeasures.

If you have already taken two polygraphs, there are two blueprints of your physiological reactions (presumably without CMs). The sudden appearance of previously unseen "noise" on any subsequent charts will certainly be a big red flag.

Dan Mangan wrote on Dec 16^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:

...when u say the difference can be noticeable, do u mean on the chart or only their demeanor?

Quote:


It's the human animal. If it were left to a computer, then it would not be so. Years ago, in an effort to show a long time girlfriend that I would be honest with her, I admitted to having sexual relations with someone she knew. Instead of being embraced as a "new-age-honest-in-relationships" man, I was cast aside like a pair of old worn out shoes--"a man of few words is often wisest."

But thank you for confirming what I've suspected and read about all along: the polygraph is biased against people who have naturally guilty consciences and produce a false positive, even if they are being completely honest.

So the alternative is to just lie and say that I don't know much about the polygraph?  Why would it reduce my chances of passing if I'm being honest?

In my estimation, telling the polygraph operator everything as described in your second most recent post will reduce your chances of success from roughly 50% to about 15%.

I cannot speak to responses from individual LE polygraph operators I've never met, but I'm inclined to think that, after making your polygraph knowledge disclosure --  including your impressive reading list -- you may hear something like this:

"I'm very glad you told me that, Mr. Dough. I understand your concerns. Trust me, you'll be in the best of hands. Now just relax and follow my instructions."

In answer to your latest question... Yes, from what I've seen, the polygraph still "works" -- at least it does in most cases when there's something substantial at stake -- even though the test subject knows about polygraph theory and procedure. 

And also, would the polygraph still "work?"  I mean, I know when you ask me if the lights are on in the room it's irrelevant, when you ask me if I've ever lied to someone in authority it's a control, and if I've ever had sexual contact with a minor, it's relevant.  Even if I'm not trying to engage in countermeasures, there's nothing I can do to NOT think about those questions and their relative importances.  Thanks!

I have a question for you.

I have been polygraphed twice, both full scope lifestyle polys for law enforcement.  Part of a pre-screening process.  I passed the first one although the screener said "your breathing sucks," whatever that means.  The second one I failed because the examiner concluded that I was lying about my sexual history and drug use.  I was outraged because I told the truth, am an honest person, and had nothing to hide.  Despite the fact that my sexual history is difficult to talk about with a complete stranger with authority over me, but whatever.

As a result, I started investigating the polygraph to learn more about why someone who was completely honest might fail.  I learned a lot.

So, here's the question.  If ever I get polygraphed again, what do I tell the examiner?

My gut reaction is to simply say that I know about the polygraph.  I've been polygraphed twice and failed once despite being honest.  I've read the Lie Behind the Lie Detector, the NAS report on the scientific validity of the polygraph, Doug Williams' book "How to Sting the Polygraph," as well as the DOD and DOJ polygraph manuals.  I know about the "calibration" test they do at the beginning.  I know that the "control" questions are really irrelevant and that the other questions are a mix of relevant and actual control questions.  I know that the polygraph is not admissible in court except in certain circumstances.  I know that the use of the "butt pad" is a tantamount admission that squeezing your sphincter produces results.  I also know that the Chinese and the Russians-- themselves no slouches in the intelligence field-- don't use it because they think it's bunk.

I would then tell the polygraph operator that I am being completely honest in order to clear things out of the way and that I have no intention of attempting any kind of countermeasures, and want to pass the test the "legit" way.  Not being aggressive or combative, but showing what I know and trying to be honest.

How do you think he would respond?

Thanks.

Evan,

In my last reply to you I mentioned concealed information testing.  The following link will take you to a recent publication dealing with the use of the central nervous system in a concealed information paradigm to assess group association.  Although they were not, these series of examinations could've been performed/presented as you suggested… Regards...

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnins.2014.00410/abstract

In addition to what Drew Richardson said, I offer the following...

1. The quality of synthesized speech has been lacking. It might be better now, but for years it was criticized by some members of the polygraph community as not being natural sounding enough. A legitimate criticism is that the artificial sound of the computerized voice was more of a distraction than anything else.

2. The polygraph "test" process is largely about power and control. Polygraph operators, in my opinion, are loathe to forfeit much in the way of flexibility when it comes to how they choose to conduct an exam.

3. Generally speaking, the polygraph community is likely to resist anything that would set the stage for full automation and the elimination of the polygraph operator. One exception, though, is automated scoring, which has caught on like wildfire. Why? When deception is indicated, the whiz-bang computerized readout makes for a convincing prop from which the operator can more easily launch into a post-test interrogation.

Evan,

Although what you suggest is a good idea and may be a necessary criterion for a good "in-test" phase of examination, it is hardly sufficient for a well constructed test seeking to differentiate between examinee truths and falsehood.   

The in-test phase of a lie detection test is preceded by perhaps 30 to 45 minutes of unscripted free wheeling pre-test, in which, amongst other things, a variety of lies and misrepresentations are made regarding the question types which will be asked during the in-test phase of examination.  The impact of these lies and misrepresentations affect all that follows and would not be undone by the mere unbiased computerized verbalization of questions during the in-test phase.

Another type of examination, a concealed information test or guilty knowledge test (well beyond the scope of your question), could be fully scripted and presented as you have suggested.  Additionally it is amenable to meaningful statistical analysis not appropriate for lie detection tests.

Dan:

With almost all polygraphers utilizing computerized polygraph machines, I wish to bring up the following issue.

The actual polygraph questions having to be constructed by the polygrapher, but with the existence of computer-synthesized speech and the availability of low-cost hardware and software to perform same, I am surprised that all polygraphers (certainly the last one I took in 2000) continue to employ human speech, considering that personal biases, tone of voice, inflexions, sarcasm, etc. can influence the result.  I attribute the wide variance of polygraph results to the human voice.

I would like your thoughts on this subject.

Regards,
Evan S

Dan Mangan wrote on Dec 16^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:


The problem Dan, is that unless the examinee admits to using countermeasures, all you have is a hunch. You could be looking at an innocent person who is showing strong reactions to well formulated comparison questions. But, I agree with you that it does take someone with some poise and practice to properly execute the countermeasures. And someone with the right aptitude could vary the degree of intensity from chart to chart. The fear of such a skilled individual is surely the impetus behind the government's recent prosecutions.

George, I'll speak for myself as a lowly civilian polygraph operator with only ten years of experience.

Test subjects who apply mental countermeasures in a heavy-handed manner are prone to exhibit signs of their efforts.

To illustrate my point, imagine instructing a five-year-old child who desperately wants a dog for Christmas to wish with all their might -- for a period of, say, 30 seconds -- that Santa will bring them a puppy.

Anyone with experience around kids -- especially parents -- is familiar with the child's likely response: eyes shut tight, mouth clamped shut, a perceptible tremor, sometimes a clenching of the fists, etc.

And so it often is with individuals engaging in mental CMs, albeit more subtle.

On top of that, the tricky test subject's "wish with all your might" demeanor comes and goes with the CQs, as the faker is also working at achieving tranquility/detachment during the RQs. 

The difference can be noticeable.

So, while mental countermeasures may be the least detectable, they are not undetectable -- in my opinion.

Of course, the operator does not know for certain; mind reading is not part of this equation. But, in the post-test phase, when the suspected subject is shown the video replay of their own shifting demeanor and asked to explain the change, admissions of fakery are not uncommon.

Another wild card is luck. That is, luck of the draw when it comes to examiner competence. The wide variance of polygraph operator capability is shocking.

For years now, I have been calling for an ongoing countermeasure challenge series, integral to APA seminars, that would pit CM-prepped challengers against randomly chosen polygraph operators. In such a scenario, I predict that about half of the fakers would prevail. 

So, in my view, the successful application of mental CMs requires, at a minimum, deep knowledge of the polygraph process, a very high degree of discipline, a facile and vivid imagination, and the ability to maintain a uniform "poker face" throughout the multiple data collection phases. Obviously, such an objective is more likely achieved with the benefit of coaching and practice.

As far as a coherent methodology to detect mental CMs is concerned, I am not aware of any. If such a thing exists, it is certainly not available to rank-and-file members of the APA. That said, my hunch is that stricter-than-ever QA protocols are employed on the federal level. Of course, that also results in more FP collateral damage -- hence more victimization.