quickfix wrote on Aug 4^th, 2017 at 7:03pm:


That's correct.  That fact applies especially to such luminaries as Ames, Petersson, Pelton, Howard, the Cuban moles in the DIA, and countless others throughout the IC.

Actually, I think informed people understand that polygraphy is indeed a ruse, to the extent that it necessarily involves the polygraph operator lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested." The late Dr. Drew Richardson enumerated some of the examiner deceptions inherent in polygraphy here:

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=999288767/28#28

I can see how you might consider polygraphy not to be a ruse, to the extent that outcomes depend on how the polygraph charts are scored, but in broad terms, polygraph "testing" is an interrogation masquerading as a test.

I agree with you that not everyone gets accused of hiding something. And you're right that those who pass don't (usually) get interrogated. And yet interrogation is a key component of polygraphy, and it is heavily emphasized in polygraph examiner training.

I think Poly Exposer, while engaging in some hyperbole, makes an overall valid point.

quickfix wrote on Aug 4^th, 2017 at 7:03pm:


Bullshit.  And fbx2 thinks that "spanking the cat" was something in her mind that would cause her to fail. The  polygraphers are not mind readers, they only know what you tell them (and anything on record like HR files, debt, or police records). You can have hundreds of things on your mind bothering you. So what. Tell nothing. Say you are just nervous. I passed an FBI poly this way.  The polygraphers need admissions to corroborate any spike in a chart, or reaction by the victim...err...examinee.

George W. Maschke wrote on Aug 4^th, 2017 at 5:37pm:


The polygraph elucidated

Fear is a strong emotion, one that the polygraph operator interprets falsely as a lie.

The ruse that Poly Exposer is referring to is called deception.

I was said to have had a ‘reaction’ to the ‘have you ever intentionally mishandled classified information’ question.  I was called back two days later and was told that I ‘bombed’ it.  I freaked out because I thought without a clearance, I would lose my job of 14 years.  I told him everything that I and my office had done to transfer classified information since 9/11.  A lot of it was, depending on who you asked, potentially dangerous to security.  I wrote a four point paper discussing some of the questionable methods and submitted it to the SSO. I later obtained copies of these first two polygraph ‘exams’ and discovered that they had actually been rated – No Opinion (NO).  I also found out later through discovery that the DIA IG looked at my memo and declared that no security violations were found.

I was called back a third, fourth and fifth time.  Each time they pressured me more and more to confess. Their ‘results’ bounced back and forth between Significant Response (SR) and No Opinion (NO).  The fear of the question consumed me, I could not control my anxiety – the mere thought of the question made me nervous.  But they kept asking and asking, with increasing intensity.  It starts with insinuations and quickly turns in to accusations.

Why does it take four to five hours to ask five questions?

If the test is accurate, why do you need to give it five times in three years?

It was after the fifth test, the one in the electric chair-like setting in the DIA Office of Security, that I had the nervous breakdown that has dogged me to this day.

You see, it really is a mind-crappity smack like Doug Williams says.

Intelligent people know polygraph is not a ruse, and not "everyone" gets accused of hiding something, nor is it is the "main part" of the test.  People who pass are not interrogated.  People who fail are.

quickfix wrote on Aug 4^th, 2017 at 5:12pm:


Please elucidate.

Quote:

And rule #2:  don't listen to imbeciles like "PolyExposer", who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.  The only thing he's "exposed" is his own ignorance.

Quote:


fbx2,

You fell for it. This is the standard polygraph ruse. EVERYONE GETS ACCUSED OF HIDING SOMETHING. It is the main part of the polygraph "test", which is nothing more than an interrogation. By confessing to spanking a cat, as inconsequential as it is, you gave the polygrapher the "admission" he needed to disqualify you. You told him something he NEVER would have found out about. The polygraph is just a fishing expedition for confessions. Next time, keep your mouth shut and do not tell them anything. That is Rule #1 when taking a poly.

So I decided to apply again at another agency. If I make it to the polygraph it's likely I'll fail it again since this is on my mind now. This whole thing is so frustrating and I wish there was a good way to clear my mind so I wouldn't be anxious and show a reaction. The other problem is I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same guy administering the "test."

Joe McCarthy wrote on Mar 16^th, 2017 at 5:29am:



Just don't put all your hope into one particular opening.

Good luck to you!   

Thanks guys. I talked to a friend yesterday. Another agency I applied for had a detective call her for a reference. But of course they do a polygraph too.  Seeing as how I'm extra wound up over this I doubt I can pass this one unless they ask the questions differently. Like "have you ever stolen money/raped/assaulted/murdered someone?" *sigh*

There will be more chances, it's not the end of the world.  Dust off, reboot, acknowledge and move on to the next plan.

Don't let this add to the ball of stink.  There are other agencies and other chances

Quote:
 
Cheer up, only Caesar would be down today.

Well I just received a letter stating they have selected other candidates. Pretty disappointing but I kind of expected it. It just wasn't meant to be. Thanks for the kind responses to my question. Take care!

Quote:


I absolutely agree with you there.   Since you're not applying for a federal position, your BI is likely to be much less intrusive and of less duration.  (Obviously local and state agencies just don't have the resources of the FBI or IC agencies).   

Good luck and keep us posted!   Quote:


Well, punishing the cat for not becoming housebroken is at least understandable.  The real cruelty to animals consists, for  example, of putting cats into microwaves to watch them implode or burning them. 

This is just for a dispatch position. I want them to do my background so they can see there's nothing there. I want then to talk to people who know me. I'm a boring person, 37yr old..married (ten year anniversary Tuesday yay), three kids and two dogs. Yawn. Nothing interesting here. They asked for ex spouse info. He is a leo and I don't think he would trash me. A couple of my references are in law enforcement and won't have negative to say. I have several years dispatch experience so if they don't want me based on the polygraph I guess it's their loss. This whole thing is so frustrating.

Quote:


Believe me, they also rely religiously on the BI, assuming that you are applying for a federal position involving security clearance.

Like pigs rooting for garbage, those BI'tors will attempt to unearth every bit of dirt that they can find on an applicant.  By sheer luck (and only luck) they won't find anyone willing to bad mouth the applicant.

Quote:


Is "Communications", as used here, a euphemism for NSA?   

Quote:

You are very perspicacious. Such a question is unrelated to a known specific event and, most people with some critical thinking skills, would accomplish mental work while trying to determine just what "serious" entails. This mental work would most likely result in some set of physiological responses.

Yesterday morning I had a polygraph which was the last of a couple steps before hiring. I was presented with a contingent job offer depending on my panel Interview, drug screen and polygraph. So the gentleman who administered the test was very nice. During the "test" I could tell I was failing a particular question because I could hear him writing each time it was asked. That intensified my stress. The questions were simple- did I intend to answer the questions honestly, was I being honest about my drug use and have I ever committed a serious undetected crime. After the exam he said let's discuss the results and asked what was on my mind. I told him the truth, I was very nervous. He said I was having a problem with the question about a serious undetected crime. I expected this as I was thinking about a long time ago when I was mean to a pet cat. He asked how mean and I told him the truth..I spanked her and would smack her with a rolled up newspaper. He asked how old I was so I told him the truth, about 19. I explained that I'm an animal lover now and feel very bad for ever hitting an animal for making messes. In my mind, as stupid as it might seem to others, I feel that was a bad thing and I guess my guilty conscience caused a fail. So he told me he had to let the Communications supervisor know since they would see it. A few minutes later they walked in and she said "I'll have to get with the hiring board about this. You should hear something next week." So now what? Why do they ask such a subjective question? Do any of you think they will over look it? They haven't contacted any of my 12 references that can vouch for me. Why do they rely so heavily on a poly instead of a background investigation that they supposedly perform?