George-

Just wanted to post my experience (in brief) with the pre-employment polygraph for FBI candidates. I read TLBTLD many times before my polygraph, but did not use countermeasures since I had nothing to hide. I only tried marijuana experimentally one time, but was in the presence of others using marijuana many times. Needless to say, I failed the polygraph specifically for drug usage, and though the examiner didn't say specifically which areas of questioning I failed, I gathered that I failed ALL questions regarding illegal drug usage, including the sale of. Also, he said there were concerns regarding the veracity of information on the FD-140. The complete polygraph, including the interview prior took approximately 2.5 hours. He was very polite throughout, although the description of the interrogation surroundings and questions asked as described in TLBTLD were exactly right. My explanation of the 'spikes' in my chart regarding drug use seemed to satisfy my examiner, and he mentioned that a second polygraph may be administered depending on the outcome of the adjudication process in Washington. I already have a clearance, and am already a government employee, and am wondering if this will affect my current clearance. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Thanks,

Undesirable

wrote on Nov 17^th, 2003 at 8:51pm:

I read TLBTLD many times before my polygraph, but did not use countermeasures since I had nothing to hide.

Since you read TLBTLD completely before the test, did you recognize the control Q's?  Since the PL-CQT is preconditioned on the examinee not knowing the "trick", and since I presume you did know the "trick", could you please describe how you handled the C's knowing they expected you to try to be deceptive on them?

TIA.

-Marty

Marty-

The 'control questions' were easily identified thanks to reading TLBTLD, and were almost exactly as described. Incidentally, the 'stim test' was the known numbers test, as I expected. With regard to the 'control questions' I believe I experimented once or twice with countermeasures during the 'control' questions, but have no conclusive proof of the results as I never saw the charts afterward. The examiner did expound on all the questions he would be asking me during the polygraph before the actual 'test', so I was able to recognize all the 'control questions' ahead of time. Having never been polygraphed before, the process wasn't totally unexpected thanks to TLBTLD.  

Marty-

The 'control questions' were easily identified thanks to reading TLBTLD, and were almost exactly as described. Incidentally, the 'stim test' was the known numbers test, as I expected. With regard to the 'control questions' I believe I experimented once or twice with countermeasures during the 'control' questions, but have no conclusive proof of the results as I never saw the charts afterward. The examiner did expound on all the questions he would be asking me during the polygraph before the actual 'test', so I was able to recognize all the 'control questions' ahead of time. Having never been polygraphed before, the process wasn't totally unexpected thanks to TLBTLD.  

Undesirable

wrote on Nov 17^th, 2003 at 10:11pm:

With regard to the 'control questions' I believe I experimented once or twice with countermeasures during the 'control' questions, but have no conclusive proof of the results as I never saw the charts afterward.

Thanks. Earlier, you had said you did not use CM's but here you indicated you "experimented" with them. Since you were able to ID the C's, how do you believe you would have reacted to the same questions if you had no prior info about polygraphy? Also, during the question review did you indicate to the examiner discomfort with any of the controls? Given their purpose, do you think the controls were well selected in your case?

-Marty

Marty-

My belief is that I probably would have reacted to the 'control' questions in approximately the same way but perhaps less intensely had I not 'experimented' with CM's on them. But as previously stated, I have no knowledge that the 'control' questions that I 'experimented' on vs. the 'control' questions I did not 'experiment' on were in any way different since I did not see the chart(s) afterward. As to the question review, I did in fact relate to the examiner my discomfort with some of the general 'control' questions, as they raised doubts in my mind whether I could recall any significant events pertaining to those questions. As to the relevance of the 'control' questions in my case, they were generally what I expected and what was described in TLBTLD. As far as 'well selected', only a trained polygrapher could answer that, but I suspect that yes, they were well selected. Pardon me for saying so, but your questions sound suspiciously like a polygraph examiner looking for corroboration that the polygraph functions exceptionally well as a pre-screening tool. No offense intended.

Undesirable

Undesirable Candidate,

Thank you for posting your experience with the FBI pre-employment polygraph. If you do not receive timely notice of your polygraph results (or, if your application is terminated because of the polygraph results), then you should appeal the polygraph result in writing and request a re-test.

A failed FBI polygraph could well affect your ability to hold a clearance elsewhere in government. The FBI may report your polygraph results to your current employer, and even if it doesn't, the fact that you have an FBI HQ file will come up when your clearance is due for review. At that point, your polygraph results will become an issue.

At this point, it might be advisable to seek a phone consultation with Mark S. Zaid, who is representing several plaintiffs suing a number of federal agencies (including the FBI) over their pre-employment polygraph policies. His phone number is  (202) 223-9050. Some filings from the currently pending litigation are available here:

http://antipolygraph.org/litigation.shtml#zaid

Feel free to contact me by e-mail, or by private message through this board (you'll need to register first), if you'd like to discuss anything privately.

PS: Marty is not a polygraph examiner. He has previously expressed interest in the idea that subjects who understand polygraph procedure but do not employ countermeasure might be at a heightened risk of a false positive outcome, and I think his questions were asked in that vein.

While I believe George's assurance that Marty is not a polygrapher, it is very possible if not probable that many who post here are.  And it is certain that many of them give "advice" that is designed to make it easier to catch you and to trace you.

George-

Thanks for your comments. I suspect the results of my polygraph are a foregone conclusion. It is disappointing and perturbing that telling the truth (during the relevant questions) could result in perhaps disqualifying me from further consideration in the employment process. Not only that, but at the risk of seeming arrogant and egotistical, the FBI would be losing a valuable asset. Perhaps being 100% honest during the polygraph exam is not the ticket to securing employment. Time will tell.

Undesirable

wrote on Nov 18^th, 2003 at 10:16pm:

I suspect the results of my polygraph are a foregone conclusion.

I didn't read anything in your account that would necessarily indicate disqualification.  And I've been DQed twice, so I ought to know the signs!

Seriously, good luck.

>Marty is not a polygraph examiner. He has previously expressed interest in the idea that subjects who understand polygraph procedure but do not employ countermeasure might be at a heightened risk of a false positive outcome

Well, Marty, chalk me up as a statistic.  I consider myself informed about the polygraph, decided not to employ CM, and I was DQ-ed.

Human Subject-

The reason I suspect an imminent 'DQ' from the FBI is because of a post-polygraph interview with my examiner that lasted less than 10 minutes where he discussed my 'spikes' during the drug questions and truthfulness (or suspected lack of) on my FD-140. I would equate this interview with a 'post-test interrogation', although I could be mistaken. And according to TLBTLD, this 'post-test interrogation' is just verification of polygraph failure. This is the reason for my concern. Just to make sure that there were no omissions on my FD-140 I reviewed ALL the information I had provided, and it is all true and correct. I have no idea why I 'spiked' on those questions, but according to my examiner, I did. Could this have been a case where I was the subject of an examiner who wished to produce evidence of wrongdoing where no such evidence existed? I'm clueless. Anyway, we'll see what happens............

Undesirable

Could be you reacted simply by virtue of recognizing these as questions on which -- were you to react -- you might have trouble.

Why did Gary Leon Ridgway (aka the Green River Killer) pass the polygraph, and why did poor old Melvin Foster fail his exam when interrogated about Ridgway's crimes?

http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=1067927512

We can spin out all sorts of explanations, but they all boil down to the simple truth that polygraphy is quackery.

Still, I wish you the best.  DQing for no good reason is very difficult to deal with, for me at least.  I still loose sleep over failing, and over the thought of the types of people who manage to slip through.  

I'm hoping we'll all live to see the day polygraphy assumes its rightful place in the Toilet of Bad Ideas, along with  phrenology and parachute pants.  (Of course, we'll be too old by then get a second shot.)

wrote on Nov 18^th, 2003 at 11:08pm:

>Marty is not a polygraph examiner. He has previously expressed interest in the idea that subjects who understand polygraph procedure but do not employ countermeasure might be at a heightened risk of a false positive outcome Well, Marty, chalk me up as a statistic.  I consider myself informed about the polygraph, decided not to employ CM, and I was DQ-ed.

Alf,

George is right about the nature of my interest. In my readings I have found virtually nothing about how polygraphers examine other polygraphers except the admission of one that the CQT would be inappropriate. I suspect the directed lie approach is more commonly used there or perhaps it's a sort of "professional courtesy."  I am also interested in how the polygraph community is approaching the problem of increased awareness of CM's and the way the CQT works. Right now it seems the most common approach is assertion of authority and expertise which, when combined with the normal subjects complete lack of experience, may often make effective application of CM's difficult. Cialdini has an excellent book on compliance psych. One of the reasons I suggest people should also read the texts published FOR polygraphers (easily found on Amazon) is that it provides independent validation of much of the info in TLBTLD and will help mitigate the psych techniques used by examiners. After all it's pretty hard for examiners to credibly maintain "facts" at variance with their own texts.

One of the posters here, "Mr Truth", has unique experience with multiple polygraphs prior to reading TLBTLD and his posts indicate, IMO, a rather thorough and intuitive knowledge of CQT polygraphy and CM's. As for me, I have never taken a poly but have had occasion to utilize decades ago very similar techniques that Mr Truth has described, albeit for very different reasons - with success, I might add.

-Marty

Still haven't heard anything official about my polygraph results. No letter(s), no call(s), no DQ yet. Can I infer anything from this? Can't really talk to Mr. Zaid or request an appeal until I get official results, and it's been almost a month since the polygraph. Any insights anyone?

Undesirable

Undesirable Candidate,

I'm just curious here.......you read TLBTLD, and you probably read many horror stories here about the FBI polygraph experience, and all the false positive findings.  Did you choose not to use countermeasures for ethical reasons, or did you put all your faith in the complete honesty approach?  Enquiring minds and all......

Kona

Kona-

Good question. The answer is this: I experimented with CM's on a couple of 'Control' questions, just to see if there was any distinct variance(s) between the use of CM's or the straightforward truth. Unfortunately, (and I should have foreseen this) I never was able to view the charts afterward, and even if I had been able to, I don't suspect I would have been able to determine if there was any difference in the physiological responses, since I am not a professional 'chart gazer' and don't possess the exquisite training afforded to the elite 'professional' polygraph examiner community. I unobtrusively increased my breathing and heart rate and visualized 'exciting' scenarios in my head to accomplish the electrodermal responses, but have no clue whether or not they did anything on the chart. I find it strange though, over my career in federal service, after holding and maintaining TS-SCI level clearance, that I have never been polygraphed by any of the agencies which afforded me that level of clearance. Odd. Anyway, to answer your other question, I had no valid reason to use countermeasures other than perhaps to offset the guilt of being in presence of others who were using drugs illegally. The fact that I hold a clearance and consider myself a law-abiding citizen I suspect was enough for me to feel guilt during the questions about drug usage, and thus, damaging physiological responses during these same questions. I would think that the FBI would appreciate the fact that candidates for employment would feel guilty about having been present where a 'crime' was being commited, even though the prospective employee never engaged in the actual 'act' of the crime itself. So, I decided not to use CM's throughout the entire 'test' for ethical reasons. I don't think it's such a bad thing to feel some measure of guilt about past involvement in things one knows is against the law, even when that involvement was not active engagement of breaking a law. Except of course, when one is engaged in taking a polygraph 'test'. I read TLBTLD essentially for background information on the polygraph and it's administration, not for the effective use of countermeasures. I'm not sure that I could have identified the control questions without having read TLBTLD, however. And really, I didn't need to identify the control questions at all, since I had no plans to use CM's. Hope this dissertation answers your questions.

Undesirable

undesireable,

Why would you "experiment" with CM's but maintain you chose not to use CM's?  The examiner doesn't know what questions you "experimented" on vs those you didn't use CM's on.

-Marty

Marty-

I made an error in judgement. I should have decided before the 'test' to either use CM's throughout the 'test' or not. I thought I would attempt CM's on a couple questions just for the hell of it to determine if the examiner would notice anything (about myself or the charts) during the application of CM's and say something to me about it. Nothing was said. Perhaps I should clarify my 'experimentation' with CM's. The first series of questions regarded counterintelligence. Three separate charts were taken, with the order of questions changed for each of the three charts. No CM's were used. The second series of questions regarded drug use and veracity of information on the FD-140. Three separate charts were taken, order of questions changed for each chart.  On the second series of questions, for the second chart, I attempted CM's on a couple control questions. That was the extent of my use of the CM's. I know that there was probably no discernible difference in physiological responses, and nothing was said about it. These 6 charts were all identified, according to TLBTLD, as the PLCQT format. I was then given another set of questions regarding drug use and veracity of information contained in the FD-140, this time with what appeared to be some relevant/irrelevant questions such as "are you sometimes called XXXXXX" and "is today "XXXXXXXX", interspersed with the relevant questions and standard control questions I recognized from the PLCQT format previous to this set of questions. The order of the questions was changed for each chart recording, and three charts were taken. At the conclusion of the 'test', I was given my coat, asked to take a seat in the corner of the room, and my examiner said I had 'hit' on the drug questions and the veracity of information contained in the FD-140. I explained my reasoning behind the 'hits' on the drug questions as being unable to disassociate myself with events that had taken place in the past, even though I was not guilty of any actual wrongdoing. The examiner seemed satisfied with my answer, and concluded our 'session', by asking me if I had any questions. I said I had none. He asked me what I thought of the 'test'. I responded that it was 'interesting'. He said 'Interesting?' and I said yes. This concluded our time together. We shook hands, and I left. Conclusions? Hell if I know.

Undesirable

wrote on Dec 9^th, 2003 at 10:13pm:

On the second series of questions, for the second chart, I attempted CM's on a couple control questions. That was the extent of my use of the CM's. I know that there was probably no discernible difference in physiological responses, and nothing was said about it.

undesirable,

Thanks for the detail.  I am curious as to why you believe you didn't have any reactions to your use of CM's. I wouldn't expect the examiner to comment about any reaction to the controls.

Also, since you were an "informed" examinee, do you think your reactions to the controls (which I assume you lied on as expected but did not use CM's) were as strong as they would have been if you hadn't understood the way they are utilized?

-Marty

Undesirable,

It's unfortunate that you didn't attack the polygraph with the employment of full countermeasures.  Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't make any sense why you would "experiment" with CM on a "few" control questions.  What did you hope to accomplish with this techique?  Since you experimented with a few questions, you really had nothing to lose by employing full CM.  If you had done this, the outcome of your examination might have been different.  

Good luck to you in the future.  I think you'll know what to do next time.  

Kona

Marty-

Another good question, but one in which I can only answer in retrospect. Also, a difficult one, indeed......as I am required to psychoanalyze myself-a task which is biased, at best.

But to answer your question, and to put it in simpler terms, I think that having read TLBTLD, and having an understanding of the purpose of the 'control' questions MAY have resulted in stronger unconscious physiological responses. In fact, on another note-I daresay that having read TLBTLD  heightened my anxiety about false positives, and may have increased the chances of my own failure, based on that anxiety. Hindsight is 20/20.

Kona-

You are right. My use of CM's on only a couple of 'control' questions makes no sense. I had no plan, first of all, to use CM's during the 'test'. It was a conscious decision not to employ them not only due to ethics (which I am not sure I could use as a valid excuse anyway) but primarily because I had not practiced and perfected them enough to believe they would go unnoticed and be effective. I tried them out on a couple questions just for the hell of it to see if I could do it unnoticed. Whether they influenced the test is a question which I will never know the answer to. Also, the official results of my examination have yet to be seen. I just have a strong suspicion that I failed......................but who knows? I will post the results if and when I get them. And I suspect that there will be no 'next time'. I suggest to all concerned with FBI employment that they read "The Bureau" by Ronald Kessler-it will open your collective eyes, if nothing else.

Regards,

Undesirable

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2003 at 1:27am:

...I think that having read TLBTLD, and having an understanding of the purpose of the 'control' questions MAY have resulted in stronger unconscious physiological responses.

Interesting possibility. I can kinda see how that may occur.

Quote:

In fact, on another note-I daresay that having read TLBTLD  heightened my anxiety about false positives, and may have increased the chances of my own failure, based on that anxiety. Hindsight is 20/20.

Very possible. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this as I am trying to get a feel for the spectrum of responses people have to minimize my own a-priori bias.

-Marty

wrote on Dec 10^th, 2003 at 1:27am:

Also, the official results of my examination have yet to be seen. I just have a strong suspicion that I failed......................but who knows? I will post the results if and when I get them.

Oh, I didn't realize that.  Well, there's still a chance you may have passed.  Don't give up the ship quite yet!!  Definitely post your results here, because you may be the first here to conquer the polygraph with.....dare I say "partial countermeasures."  Good luck.

Kona

The results are in. I failed. Now it's time to write the appeal letter and request all pertinent documentation relating to my application. For those who have not actually seen a DQ letter, here is a representation of mine.

Dear Mr. Undesirable,  ;)

This is to advise you that our conditional offer of appointment dated XX/XX/XXXX, is hereby rescinded.

Although your desire to become affiliated with this Bureau is appreciated, we are unable to further process your application, based on the results of your polygraph examination on XX/XX/XXXX. As you are aware, all applicants for FBI employment must successfully pass a pre-employment polygraph examination. The results of your polygraph examination were not within acceptable parameters.

I know that this decision will be disappointing to you, but trust that you understand the FBI's position in this matter.

                                         Sincerely yours,

                                          Blah blah blah blah

I am composing my letter, and requesting all my applicant information including polygraph charts and videotapes. Any advice from the group?

Another victim of false positives.

Undesirable

sorry to hear.
yup, sounds like the standard letter; I got one.

I'm waiting a bit before I request all my files (thinking it takes a few weeks to process my "dissent" letter and close my file, etc.) via the FOIA process.

For "experienced users":
Is there such a recommended "wait" time after DQ-ing?or does it not matter when a request is made?
thx

Yeah, I have two of them!  Keep it.  Someday your grandkids will have a good laugh that there was ever a time when we relied so heavily on this nonsense.

By then -- most probably after a few more Robert Hanssen-style episodes at the Bureau -- you may find it comical, too.

PS: You may not want to bother appealing.  You may request documentation, file a letter or protest, etc.  But my hypothesis is basically that they only bear the expense of multiple tests because they assume examinees will attempt countermeasures (just like they assume lies on probable-lie questions), and therefore they consider it a chance to learn more about the CMs in use.  If being the subject of such an encounter sounds fun, more power to you.  I think the chance of success on a second test is very, very slim.  

Undesirable,

Sorry to hear about your results.

If you can appeal the results, and get a re-test, then why wouldn't you?  You have absolutely nothing to lose.  What's the worst thing that can happen if they fail you again?  You're right back where you are now, without a job offer.  

Look at it this way.......if you get the re-test, use countermeasures and pass, doesn't this put you in a better situation than where you are right now?  Would you rather go through the rest of your life knowing that you might have had a chance to rectify the situation, and did nothing?  The choice is ultimately yours to make.  

Good luck.

Kona  

Kona-

I'm sending a Privacy Act request for all my records, and requesting Director Mueller to grant me a re-examination not necessarily to obtain a position with the FBI, but to ensure that when my current security clearance comes up for adjudicative review sometime in the future, that my FBI records don't reflect unfavorably upon review. This is not to say that I have a better chance of passing a second polygraph, rather, I intend to use full CM's this time if granted a re-test which may or may not give me a better chance at passing. Besides, I already have a decent job making good money, and I don't want to necessarily move out of state and take a pay cut just to be associated with the Federal Bureau of Interpretation. If I fail a re-test however, that would, I suspect, be double jeopardy when it comes time to reviewing my current clearance. Since my position requires a clearance, I suspect I would be out of a job if I had the results of 2 polygraph examinations that both concluded I was deceptive when answering questions regarding drug use and sales. This would also lead me to believe that under the circumstances, I would be under virtually double the anxiety about passing a second time, which in and of itself, without using CM's, would almost guarantee failure. So to answer your question, yes I have a lot to lose. Not only my current clearance and ultimately, my job, but I will not let the Federal Bureau of Intimidation get away with an affront to my integrity and honesty. I'll keep you informed........

Undesirable

Kona-

I'm sending a Privacy Act request for all my records, and requesting Director Mueller to grant me a re-examination not necessarily to obtain a position with the FBI, but to ensure that when my current security clearance comes up for adjudicative review sometime in the future, that my FBI records don't reflect unfavorably upon review. This is not to say that I have a better chance of passing a second polygraph, rather, I intend to use full CM's this time if granted a re-test which may or may not give me a better chance at passing. Besides, I already have a decent job making good money, and I don't want to necessarily move out of state and take a pay cut just to be associated with the Federal Bureau of Interpretation. If I fail a re-test however, that would, I suspect, be double jeopardy when it comes time to reviewing my current clearance. Since my position requires a clearance, I suspect I would be out of a job if I had the results of 2 polygraph examinations that both concluded I was deceptive when answering questions regarding drug use and sales. This would also lead me to believe that under the circumstances, I would be under virtually double the anxiety about passing a second time, which in and of itself, without using CM's, would almost guarantee failure. So to answer your question, yes I have a lot to lose. Not only my current clearance and ultimately, my job, but I will not let the Federal Bureau of Intimidation get away with an affront to my integrity and honesty. I'll keep you informed........

Undesirable

Undesirable,

Have you talked to your security manager where you presently work concerning the failing of a polygraph for a FBI employment interview?  Would this even be a factor when your security clearance comes up for adjudicative review?  

When I got my TS/SCI clearance (while in the military), a polygraph wasn't ever required.  Hopefully your security folks won't make this an issue.  Good luck to you.

Kona

Undesirable candidate,

Your concerns are valid.  Unless you confessed or admitted wrongdoing, your letter has stated that "you were not within acceptable parameters."    The FBI has very carefully worded this letter so that they could not be challenged for accusing you of "deception." While everyone and their brother will assume you were deceptive (an inference that the FBI does not do anything to clarify or reject), you have not been judged in writting that you are untrustworthy.

I have had military clearances and currently Dept of Justice clearances which I was concerned about.  I was eventually offered a third polygraph and cleared my name (after many well thought letters of appeal and political chess playing).

It is personal to you and I but the FBI, CIA, NAS, and many government agencies consider it to be very acceptable to have false positives.  They are very aware of its shortcomings but it comes down to money issues.  They have a surplus of qualified candidates and if you read carefully on their webpages, they specifically state that the background check will not be done unless the polygraph is successfully passed.  This is a big catch-22 since you cannot demand they provide actual evidence of wrongdoing concerning being "unacceptalbe."  They save money and you are guilty without evidence that any court in the nation would demand.

If the polygraph were to become excessively expensive to perform, it would be eliminated tomorrow.  If the voice analysis methods become cheaper and easier to administer, regardless of any validity arguments, it will surpass and replace the polygraph.

Delay any letters to Congressmen and other officials outside the chain of FBI command until you exhaust your appeals.

Good Luck,

Fair Chance

Kona-

Ironically, I have never been polygraphed before for any of the clearances I've held and currently hold, just as you have been. You would think as a current government employee granted a relatively high level of clearance that the FBI would conduct a background investigation as a routine matter, at least as far back as my last adjudication, prior to a polygraph to verify specific information. Their reliance on the polygraph as a screening tool is, in my opinion, a significant measure to help them reduce the cost of processing employment candidates. Since the pool of candidates is extremely large though, I guess they can pick and choose from whomever they want, and this is, of course, their privilege. At this point, all I can say is that it's the FBI's loss, not mine.

Fair Chance-

I agree. There are reasons for concern, and it is a personal issue. The FBI Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines, Polygraph Examinations of FBI Applicants states that: "A preemployment polygraph examination is one element
of the overall applicant screening process.  It is not to be considered as a substitute for a thorough and complete background investigation." However, a background investigation, as you mentioned, will never be conducted if the candidate doesn't pass the polygraph examination. It would appear that the FBI is violating their own policy, unless I'm reading it wrong. It is not comforting to me that I am now considered "acceptable collateral damage", and I am getting set to fight this thing as you have done-successfully, I trust. I will take your advice on writing our other elected officials until my appeals have been 'exhausted'-is there a specific or general time frame that I should be aware of?

Thanks for the support from all who have read and replied. Your comments and advice have been welcome.

Regards,

Undesirable

Fair Chance

I have to disagree that the FBI letter was so carefully worded that it can't be challenged in court. My understanding is that there is only three determinations that can be made by the polygraph and two of them are bad. Doesn't an inconclusive indicate there is deception on at least one question? Not within acceptable parameters means, to me, not being totally truthful (total truth is a requirement proven be the poly only, right?)) which is accusing one of being a liar. According to all polygraphers, if you tell the truth, you pass. If you don't, you fail. I fail to see any wiggle room in that letter. If that letter was written to me, it would be hard to waite until I could get that polygrapher in the witness chair.

Twoblock wrote on Dec 18^th, 2003 at 10:34pm:

Fair Chance I have to disagree that the FBI letter was so carefully worded that it can't be challenged in court. My understanding is that there is only three determinations that can be made by the polygraph and two of them are bad. Doesn't an inconclusive indicate there is deception on at least one question? Not within acceptable parameters means, to me, not being totally truthful (total truth is a requirement proven be the poly only, right?)) which is accusing one of being a liar. According to all polygraphers, if you tell the truth, you pass. If you don't, you fail. I fail to see any wiggle room in that letter. If that letter was written to me, it would be hard to waite until I could get that polygrapher in the witness chair.

Total truth is highly likely to cause you to fail. Polygraphers describe "No Deception Indicated" as applying to the relevant questions only - not ALL questions. If in fact you do not lie on the controls nor on the relevants and hence do not show a differential physiological response, you are most likely to be scored as "inconclusive" and hence fail a screening exam.

The exhortation to "Tell the whole truth" is simply to heighten your responses when lying. Polygraphers still expect you will lie. In fact they depend on it to get a score of NDI.

"Not being within acceptable parameters" is purposefully vague. I believe an inconclusive result is not considered "passing." With luck an examinee will get to take another test.

-Marty

Marty

I think I understand what you are saying. However, getting down and dirty in a court of law, a definate line can be drawn between "passing" and "not passing". Inconclusive is not determined to be passing. So, from a legal point of view (down & dirty) it would have to be considered not passing which, to me, is saying "hey you lied just a little bit here".  Doesn't inconclusive mean there is a problem, maybe a little higher spike, on at least one of the relevant questions?

I wouldn't let "being purposefully vague" fly in the courtroom. That vague letter can be torn apart.

It will be interesting to see how Mark Zaid attacks in the courtroom. Complaints, motions, etc., is just  the necessary means to get you in the courtroom. There is where a  lawyer's metal is tested.

If one can't be totally truthful and pass a polygraph, then it's not worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell. I'll say it again. There is something drastically wrong with a procedure that allows one person to control another's ability to make a living in his chosen field.

Twoblock wrote on Dec 19^th, 2003 at 1:17am:

If one can't be totally truthful and pass a polygraph, then it's not worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell.

yup

The whole point of a probable lie control question is to get the examinee to not only tell a lie on the controls, but have him be more concerned about the the control question lies, than truth on the relevant questions (assuming he doesn't have to lie on those).

The often bogus assumptions made about controls are a major source of error.

-Marty

Dear Undesirable Candidate,

A time line of up to two months waiting for a response during the holiday period is not unreasonable.  After two months, I would send another certified return receipt letter with a photocopy of my first one asking for its status.   If you get no response within three months, I would start going up the FBI chain of command one letter per month until you get some sort of response.  If you want to privately e-mail me a message as the information comes in I might be able to clarify exactly what I did and what you could do.

Dear Two-Block,
I always liked your style, you young hearted gold-digger.  The FBI does not send you a letter that you "officially passed."  The only confirmation that you "passed" the polygraph test is that your background check begins.

The FBI never states that you "failed".  They stop processing the "conditional job offer" upon the candidate "not being withing acceptable parameters".  They never state that you are untrustworthy or deceptive in writing.  I do not question your method of challenging the system, it was just not the method I used.

Marty,

Your observation, that the assumptions made during control questions are bogus, is accurate.  I tend to agree with your previous discussions that countermeasure responses in general are very repeatable.  This exactness causes suspicion (as if enough did not exist in the polygraph room already).   I only wish that they would stop the whole nonsense of "polygraph" usage in prescreening.  I feel the agencies involved only end up destroying some of their credibility with highly educated applicants.

Happy Holidays All.

Fair Chance-

I'll take you up on that offer. I will be mailing my letter to the Director this week. I will keep you updated on the status via this website, and if necessary, will email you privately with status. If you can provide insight with regard to your appeal, that would indeed be helpful to me. I appreciate your offer of assistance. I called my point of contact requesting information on whom to write or call requesting a re-test, and have received no response (as expected). Go figure.

Undesirable

I read the post by "undesirable candidate" and feel I am in exactly the same boat.  I recently underwent a poly for the FBI for an analyst position.  Here are some of the things that happened to me and some questions I have for you all.
Before I had even gotten comfortable in the chair, the examiner told me I get one chance and if I failed, I would no longer be considered for the position.  The situation was stressful for me already and having him say that made it even more stressful (if that was possible).

I then proceeded to answer all of his questions truthfully (I had no reason to lie to anything).  After three series of questions, he tells me I "failed" and would I like to continue by having him write out any statements.  I told him fine and proceeded to clarify the drug use (6 times total in my life with marijauna).  He then proceed to call me a drug dealer (which I denied), a drug user in the past 3 years (which I denied since the last time I had use was almost 7 years ago), and  that I might have been recruited by some foreign intelligence to infiltrate the FBI and get their secrets (which, of course, I denied).  I left there thinking that I would probably get a second chance with another tester but I got my form letter this last week telling me that the job was rescinded.
I have asked for an appeal but have not heard from the person who was my "Applicant Coordinator".  Last week, I got a call from someone else in the FBI wanting me to come in for an interview for another job.  I explained the situation to him and was told that he would find out about the appeal process for me and whether or not he can even interview me since I had "failed" the poly.

What I find funny about all of this is that I have a clearance pending with the CIA (the contractor I was going to work for ended up losing the contract before I was to start but I had finished the process).  During that process, I had "failed" my first poly and was asked to come back the next day, which I then passed.

Also, I know that the background check had started on me because at the PSI, the agent told me that there were already initials on parts of my application showing that they had checked those items off.  Also, my boss got a visit by an agent and the agent also interviewed four of my co-workers.

Why doesn't the FBI allow a second poly for those people who get so worked up and stressed that it must throw off any of the needles on their machine?  Also, it was stated that they do the polygraph first and then do the background check after a pass.  From my experience, that isn’t true.

Also, by failing this one poly, does that mean I can never be considered for an FBI position again?  I know for a fact that I have 6 applications that have gone past the initial phase and are now in the respective departments being reviewed.  I would hate to think that my only chance, ever, at getting a decent job doing some interesting and mind stimulating work (not to mention important to our country) would be stopped because of this one “fail” even though I have that clearance pending with the CIA.

Any and all information would be helpful.  Do I have any recourse at all or should I just throw up my hands and move on?  I am pretty upset about this.  Thank you all ahead of time for any assistance.

shocked applicant,

I'm saddened and angered by your experience. It is all too common: some 50% of FBI applicants are being branded as liars and permanently disqualified from FBI  emloyment based on junk science that the Bureau knows is unreliable. The FBI's conduct is absolutely scandalous and unworthy of an organization that purports to serve the cause of justice.

If your request for a retest was made verbally, then I suggest that you send a letter contesting the polygrapher's accusations of deception and formally requesting a re-test (sometimes granted). At a minimum, the Bureau should add your letter to your HQ file; it will show that you did not simply accept the polygrapher's accusation.

For more about the polygraph process, see The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and also the DoDPI Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Polygraph Test document.

Without going into a lot of detail, I understand what you are going through and how you probably feel right now.  Many on this board do and many on this board will think of you as a melodramatic whiner.  Such is life.

To answer some of your questions, let me first start by saying that I only have experience with the Special Agent process but I believe policies regarding the FBI polygraph would be the same for SA and support positions.

With that in mind, I can tell you that the FBI does allow polygraph retests AT THEIR DISCRETION under certain circumstances.  Primarly, you are ineligble for a retest if you a)disclosed any information to the examiner AFTER your data gathering session (i.e. hooked to the machine) that had not already been disclosed and/or b)were found deceptive on relevant questions relating to national security issues.

If neither condition applies to you, a retest might be possible.  Call your applicant coordinator until you get him/her on the phone.  Indicate that you are disputing the results and you will be sending a letter to him/her.  In the letter, address the following items:  your examiner's name, examination date, position applied for, your background (summary of what you can bring to the FBI), problems on polygraph as mentioned by the examiner, any reasons you feel those problems existed (e.g. something on your mind, etc.), the fact that you did NOT disclose any previously undisclosed information and the fact that you want a retest.  Address the letter to the Applicant Coordinator and get it off as soon as possible.  Call to make sure he/she got it.  Call every two weeks or so to see where things stand.  The letter will be sent to HQ for a determination, you will then be interviewed by an agent to determine "sincerity" and best case scenario will face another polygraph.

It sounds like you may have been accused of deception relating to national security based on your description.  I can't say for sure that a retest is not possible but from what I understand, it may not be.  However, check and make sure that this was actually a question you indicated deception on; I have seen the polygrapher's statements on problems and the ACTUAL problem vary somewhat.

Hopefully your clarification of drug use did take place before your examination and you indicated after data gathering exactly (and only) what you indicated before data gathering.

Finally, as far as I know a polygraph failure will prevent you from reapplying for the FBI in the future and will not allow your other FBI position applications to be processed further.  I am truly sorry and I wish you the best.

My apologies, I reread your post and left a few items out.

Regarding the appeal letter, unless you feel you were really mistreated during the examination, try to avoid bringing examiner conduct into question as a possibility for having problems.  It will only make more problems for you.  Remember, he/she is already in the "club."

As far as polygraph/background investigation order, it is true that the background did not start before a successful polygraph before.  However, an FBI contact has indicated that the policy has changed and the BI MAY begin before a polygraph.  Unfortunately, the BI will come to a screeching halt should you fail the polygraph.  That would explain your in-progress BI.

I think your "interesting and mind stimulating work (not to mention important to our country)" comment is a bit of a stretch.  Many agencies do not use the polygraph examination.  Goverment work is not the only work that is interesting, stimulating or important to our country.  Think of it this way - if the job exists, the work is necessary and someone must do it.  That makes it important.  The rest is up to you - any job is really what you make it.  Check out other agencies and don't forget the private sector while you're looking.  Good luck.

Just to give an update.  The person who wanted to interview me but didn't know if he could because of my "failed" poly phoned back on Tuesday.  He told me I needed to write a letter to the Assistant Director of the division I had the job offer from.  In it, he said to state that I currently have the security clearance pending with the CIA and that during the testing process for that clearance, I had to take the exam twice due to the fact that I had "failed" the first time there.  He stated that it would be up to the division as to whether or not they wanted me to have the re-test and how much they want me to come work for them.

He said that he has seen people with similar circumstances end up with a favorable appeal but cautioned me me that anything can happen.  He also did state that he could not interview me due to the "fail" on the poly and wished me luck.

I have to say, I was impressed that he actually went out and got the information for me like that and I think he did some research because he knew who I needed to contact and what I needed to tell the people.

Anyways, thank you so much George and Anon for your posts.  I have the letter written but am fine tuning it so I can have the best shot possible.

Oh, and Anon, what I meant about ""interesting and mind stimulating work (not to mention important to our country)" is that I currently work for the government driving forklifts and cranes (with a PhD no less) and need something that is more stimulating than doing that.  It pays the bills but don't want to be stuck for the rest of my life doing it.  I don't want to give up the government benefits so I have avoided looking at the private sector.  Thanks again.

shocked,

Best of luck with the appeal.  Sounds like you may be able to pursue a bit of a different process according to your source and I would say go with whatever he/she indicates.  I really hope you can post some good news at some point after your appeal has gone through.

Roger that on the job.  I don't care what field, a PhD is an impressive quality and I hope you are able to do something with it in return for the work performed in earning it.  I have a better idea now of what you meant by your statement as well as staying in the public sector.  Good luck!

wrote on Feb 24^th, 2004 at 10:39pm:

I would hate to think that my only chance, ever, at getting a decent job doing some interesting and mind stimulating work (not to mention important to our country) would be stopped because of this one “fail” even though I have that clearance pending with the CIA.

shocked,

Don't dismiss the private sector too quickly. Both my parents were in public service but I chose the private sector and was much happier than my parents. Sure the retirement benefits are poor, but the opportunities are far greater and everyone has 401ks. What you want to find are small co's, 30 to 200 people, so you (and they) can see the impact you make. Not only will you be more likely to be recognized and rewarded for your work but you will learn much about how business works. Most small co's are very flexible with employees that are big contributers. Capitalism is very cool. Consider being a part of it. It's another way to contribute to America.

And they tend not to engage in voodoo science.

-Marty

shocked applicant,

I don't mean to unduly alarm you, but you should be aware that you've posted enough detail about your background that the FBI polygraph unit will almost certainly have identified you. It is to be hoped that this will not result in retaliation, but I wouldn't count on it.

George,

If they do, they do.  Not much I can do about that.  I have nothing to hide and have been honest through out the entire process and through out my life.  I tell people how it is so that there is no confusion.

Thanks for the warning though.  I was only clarifying my statement to anon so that there was no confusion.

After re-reading and thinking about my last post, I think I might need to clarify a few things.

When I said, "If they do, they do.  Not much I can do about that", my thought is that if I am going to appeal, they might find offense and "retaliate" anyways since I am questioning a result.  Some people are like that and other might see it as being that I am here to get information about a subject.  Who knows how people are going to react.  But I do appreciate your concern George.

My main reason for coming here to this message board was to find answers to questions about the appeals process and if anyone had any information, which people did and I appreciate them sharing.  I saw that someone else had a very similar experience and posted to see if there was any further information since my applicant coordinator was not returning phone calls and I didn't know who else to turn to.  In the mean time, I was able to get me more information from elsewhere that helped out as well.

I truly have nothing to hide from anyone.  If people perceive me as being a whiner, so be it.  But I know I have a clear conscience and have been upfront with everyone involved with the process, including here.

Again, thanks alot all for your information.  It has given me some insight into how the appeal process works.

Hello again, folks!

As predicted, the FBI has not responded to the letter I sent to Director Mueller disputing the results of my polygraph and my request for a re-test. In fact, the return receipt from the certified mail wasn't returned to me until 4 weeks after the letter was delivered. I never received any correspondence from my applicant coordinator either, so I'm not disappointed or surprised that I haven't heard from FBI HQ. Regardless, another letter to the Director is in the works, and after that, another one. I haven't decided how many to send, but I'm going to keep nagging them until I receive SOME kind of response, good or bad. Then, when that is completed, I will request my records through FOIPA.

Regards,

Undesirable

Undesirable Candidate,

Did you tell the FBI examiner about your "one time marijuana use" and your "being in the presence" of other's using marijuana before the test...during the question review?  Your posts read as if you told the examiner about this as an "explanation" after "failing" the test.    

Chart Gazerette,

Yes. During the PSI, and prior to the actual polygraph when I was being interviewed by my polygrapher, I told both SA's about my one time experimentation with marijuana during my sophomore year of high school in 1968, and I also explained my guilty feelings of being in the presence of others using drugs (marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, LSD) even though I did not partake. I told the truth, and failed. If nothing else, it proved to me that such a thing as false positives DO occur, and WILL render an FBI applicant's disqualification from further consideration. The polygrapher did ask me again about my one time experimentation at the conclusion of the 'test', and I reiterated the same explanation offered before the 'test' was administered.

Undesirable

Undesirable Candidate,

I'm sorry to hear that you fell victim to a false positive polygraph result.

Telling the truth during a polygraph examination is no guarantee of receiving a passing result. False positive results are not uncommon, they do exist, and often occur more than publicly reported or posted on this message board.

Knowledge is power. Read TLBTLD available for free on this website.


Triple x

Triple-X,

It would appear that I have been granted a second polygraph. I do not intend to use countermeasures since I do not feel confident enough in my application of them to make the use of them worthwhile. I am not CERTAIN that I can apply them effectively, so I will not use them at all. We'll see what happens.................

Undesirable

Dear undesirable,

You situation sounds very similar to mine. During my first exam I explained that I had never used drugs in my life, but was deemed deceptive by the polygrapher regardless of what I had to say. I protested the results and was called in about a month later for a PSI, where I explained the same things – no drug use, ever. I had the second exam a month or so later, and again “had issues” on the drug question.

My impression from reading posts is that second exams are granted just to ward off accusations of not getting a second chance and to add ‘credibility’ to their initial ‘findings’ – a sort of insurance policy in the event that they are ever confronted. So long as you make no disqualifying admissions, you are almost always granted a retest; however, unless you have some on-of-I wouldn’t hold my breath about passing, at least not with the FBI.

Has anyone out there ever passed a second FBI poly? Better yet, has anyone had a third and passed?

Fletch

Dear Fletch,

I have had three and passed the third one. I will not rehash all the details because they were posted and available in the archives.

I believe that the FBI has the right to use any test they want but the FBI also has the responsibility to offer reasonable methods to contest results based only on polygraph examinations.  They have the obligation to use only researched or documented facts.  The polygraph can not be used to prove innocence or guilt in a court of law by itself and the denial of empolyment should be treated accordingly.  

As it is right now, appeals are difficult and not well structured.  The FBI almost wants an applicant to think that they do not even exist when letters are sent out stating that "results were not within acceptable parameters."

There is no appeal information and an applicant is blackmarked in any future federal application which uses polygraphs.

This does not sound like an organization which is dedicated to defending the "Spirit" and Law of the Constitution.  The FBI is a great organization and this does reflelct well upon them.

Regards

Dear Fair Chance,

I agree with you entirely. There needs to be a better system in place to avoid tarnishing the reputations of innocent individuals and steamrolling their LE/Intel careers. According to the FBI’s own polygraph guidelines (viewable on this website), a polygraph is not to be used as a substitute for a background investigation. Presumably, this means that an unfavorable exam is not an automatic DQ and that some, albeit minor, background investigation takes place to verify the veracity of the applicant’s innocence. The reality, however, is that conditional offers of employment are immediately rescinded with little opportunity for recourse and no investigation or measure of good faith is made by the accuser to verify their claim.

Obviously, the costs of administering a full background investigation into every ‘failure’ would be prohibitively expensive (precisely why the poly still exists); the Bureau’s total disregard for due process is frightening and disheartening for such a respected organization that prides itself on “Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity.” I don’t think too many people would be so concerned if the poly were used by the bureau for what it is – a bluff dependant on examinee ignorance.

If LE/Intel organizations feel that there is great utility in continuing the polygraph because people admit to things they normally wouldn’t, then fine – so long as the truly innocent are found to be ‘polygraph innocent’ as well. Unfortunately, with the polygraph’s vast shortcomings what they are and with the Bureau’s resistance to scrapping (or at least reforming) the program, there is little room for the polygraph if due process it to be served.

In regards to your 3rd exam, was this with the Bureau or another agency?

Fletch.

The whining, bawling, and self pity demonstrated on this site proves my suspicion that we have become a country full of cry babies, and beggars.  

Guest,

To the contrary, your posts and those of your apparent friends would lead us to believe that we have become a nation of illiterates possessing no analytical skills whatsoever...

Dear Guest,

You mean to tell me that there is no one right now in the Bureau that currently uses drugs or leaks classified info to the press? Please… Tell me this, is there any special polygraph given to sons or daughters of those already in the club who end up ‘failing’ their polygraphs?

Given the polygraph’s unquestionable and indisputable acceptance in the courts, Congress, and among their own employees (sarcasm intended), it’s only a matter of time before the polygraph put on the carpet again. Of course, we’ll probably have a few more Ames’ before then, but hey; it’s only peoples’ lives were talking about.

At a minimum, you should have some respect for those who, despite being unlawfully branded liars and traitors by the Bureau, still believe that there is some integrity and respect left in the Bureau despite the polygraph and they way they've been treated.

It’s not a matter of complaining about the polygraph itself; rather, it’s a matter of denial of due process when innocent people are branded drug smugglers and traitors. You would be doing a greater service to your country by defending it against real drug smugglers and traitors rather than trying to find them among loyal and trustworthy citizens.

Fletch.

wrote on Mar 5^th, 2004 at 11:02pm:

Guest, To the contrary, your posts and those of your apparent friends would lead us to believe that we have become a nation of illiterates possessing no analytical skills whatsoever...

What exactly is there to analyze?  The depth of the angst in your caterwauling?

Guest,

Congratulations on your improved diction and/or find of a thesaurus...may the gods bless and we continue to be so fortunate.  With regard to your question regarding analysis, I suspect the problem you are facing, judging from your last dozen or so posts, lies in your confusion and inability to discern the difference between analysis and unsupported assumption and assertion.

wrote on Mar 6^th, 2004 at 2:18am:

Guest, Congratulations on your improved diction  .

I think you mean vocabulary not diction you stupid SOB.

Actually, from Merriam-Webster:

diction:  choice of words especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness

Who's the stupid SOB now?  It is amazing you still bother to post here.

wrote on Mar 6^th, 2004 at 8:51am:

Actually, from Merriam-Webster: diction:  choice of words especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness Who's the stupid SOB now?  It is amazing you still bother to post here.

Had you finished the statement out of that dictionary you would have seen that it is defined as" VOCAL expression: ENUNCIATION & PRONUNCIATION.  And you are right I should not have called you a stupid SOB, ignorant bastard would have been more correct.

Grow up.

"Diction" applies to both the spoken and written word. Here is Britannica's more lengthy description and the example fragment is from a writer:

----
Choice of words, especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness. Any of the four generally accepted levels of diction—formal, informal, colloquial, or slang—may be correct in a particular context but incorrect in another or when mixed unintentionally. Most ideas have a number of alternate words that the writer can select to suit his purposes. “Children, …
----

"Diction." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2004.  Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=30843

-Marty

Hey Marty, I see why the nose on that hound you have as your picture is the most prominent thing in the frame - you are always sticking it in other people's business.

wrote on Mar 7^th, 2004 at 12:46am:

Hey Marty, I see why the nose on that hound you have as your picture is the most prominent thing in the frame - you are always sticking it in other people's business.

Yeah. I guess I just have a problem with liars. Especially bombastic ones. Grrr. ;D

-Marty

Marty wrote on Mar 7^th, 2004 at 5:10am:

Yeah. I guess I just have a problem with liars. Especially bombastic ones. Grrr. ;D -Marty

Bombastic yes, but liar?  Why such an uprovoked, baseless and scurrilous attack from such a lovable hound?

wrote on Mar 7^th, 2004 at 5:19am:

Bombastic yes, but liar?  Why such an uprovoked, baseless and scurrilous attack from such a lovable hound?

Because you are not stupid. You looked it up and wrongly implied that the verbal usage of the word was a concatenation purposely left out. It wasn't.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=diction

Marty wrote on Mar 7^th, 2004 at 5:46am:

Because you are not stupid. You looked it up and wrongly implied that the verbal usage of the word was a concatenation purposely left out. It wasn't. http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=diction

Wrong again (S)marty.  I simply said that vocabulary was more appropriate in the context in which he used the word diction.  And it is.  And I didn't have to look it up to know that.

wrote on Mar 7^th, 2004 at 5:56am:

Wrong again (S)marty.  I simply said that vocabulary was more appropriate in the context in which he used the word diction.  And it is.  And I didn't have to look it up to know that.

Here is what was said several posts ago and how you objected and implicitly you looked up the MW definition and pretended it was a part of the prior definition. Notice the verbal usage of "diction" is last.  Review your own words:


Quote:

on Today at 00:51:25, Anonymous wrote:Actually, from Merriam-Webster:   diction:  choice of words especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness Who's the stupid SOB now?  It is amazing you still bother to post here.

You responded after clearly looking up the definition:


Quote:

Had you finished the statement out of that dictionary you would have seen that it is defined as" VOCAL expression: ENUNCIATION & PRONUNCIATION.  And you are right I should not have called you a stupid SOB, ignorant bastard would have been more correct.

-Marty

wrote on Mar 6^th, 2004 at 2:18am:

Guest, Congratulations on your improved diction and/or find of a thesaurus...may the gods bless and we continue to be so fortunate.  With regard to your question regarding analysis, I suspect the problem you are facing, judging from your last dozen or so posts, lies in your confusion and inability to discern the difference between analysis and unsupported assumption and assertion.

Marty if you are going to stick your large snout into other peoples' arguments, please stick it in far enough to get to the root of the controversy.  Now I ask you, wouldn't vocabulary be more appropriate than diction in the above statement?

wrote on Mar 7^th, 2004 at 6:54am:

Marty if you are going to stick your large snout into other peoples' arguments, please stick it in far enough to get to the root of the controversy.  Now I ask you, wouldn't vocabulary be more appropriate than diction in the above statement?

Not at all. After looking up both "diction" and "vocabulary", "diction" is at least as good a choice, especially since I thought you arranged the referenced words well. "Vocabulary" would be more correct if the criticism had been that you merely obtained a list of words.

-Marty

I will leave the validity and accuracy of the polygraph alone for now.  My concern is that some of you posting on here are applying for jobs in law enforcment and this is a position that requires so much integrity, especially the FBI, yet you so willingly lie and cheat in attempts to pass the requirements for this postion.  This really scares me, it seems as though you are saying you have justification because you feel you are qualified for this position so what you are doing is ok.  What happens when it is time to go after a suspect and you cant get the evidence you think you need, do you  then make the decision to fabricate that evidence or lie about something because you think it is right.  I pity the agency that hires you and the suspects you unjustly put away because you thought they were guilty.

Dear where is the integrity:

I have taken a polygraph examination with the FBI on two occasions, told the complete truth by naively believing that the truth would prevail, didn’t use countermeasures of any kind, and was still found deceptive (or inconclusive) on both occasions. Since then no one from FBI has returned my calls or letters, and I have had two conditional offers of employment with other agencies yanked directly on the basis of my FBI polygraph and without any offer of an exam administered by those agencies.

I have consulted with an attorney in the matter since it seems fairly straightforward, but was advised not to do anything since the repercussions of filing a lawsuit would not only exclude me from employment with an intelligence agency, but also with any government agency requiring a simple background check (what manager would risk hiring someone who has a lawsuit pending against the FBI?). Even having the FBI records sealed would raise suspicions to a hiring manager as to why they were sealed. So my question to you is: “where is the integrity?”

Fletch.

This is not intended to sound childish or to belittle your situation, but do two wrongs make a right?  I really can understand your frustration w/ the system and I have been in a postion where I wrongly did not get a job for that I based the first 8 years of my adult life for, but I did not cheat, lie, or otherwise sacrifice my values to pursue that. I found another avenue that I am contented w/ now.  Although I was greatly upset w/ the system that let me down, it would have been even worse for me to change my standards to try and diminish the integrity of law enforcement any more than bad cops already do.

Dear where is the integrity,

I tend to agree with you. However, I think the overriding point with the polygraph is that it is not an accurate device for detecting criminals let alone weeding out otherwise unsuitable candidates. The problem exists where innocent individuals are wrongfully and permanently branded liars, while unsuitable candidates (or even criminals) are pass through. Look at Rick Ames, who ‘passed’ his way through at least 5 times while committing espionage or, in the criminal sense, we can turn to Gary Ridgeway, who continued his killing spree for an additional 20 years (!) after a polygraph cleared him as a suspect and turned the focus of the investigation on to an innocent man who ‘failed’. I’m surprised that none of the victims have filed a wrongful death suit against the investigating department for such a folly.

My point here is not to argue the utility of the polygraph, but to point out the dangers of continuing to rely on it as it is used today, be it a police department or an intel agency. The point is that their accuracy is highly suspect, it harms innocent individuals (not just applicants, but victims in the Ridgeway care), and poses a grave danger to the law enforcement and especially the intelligence community – bad people DO get through regardless of the polygraph. Until this is changed, it will do significantly more harm than it ever can do good.

Fletch.

the problem i see is that if you understand the idea of control questions, you set yourself up for a fall because you dont fear these questions since you know why they are asked. thus, you hurt your comparison to the relevants. if the idea is not how you react to relevants but rather how you react to relevants RELATIVE to control Qs, then you have to fear the control questions to be able to pass while telling the truth.

pillpopper,

I absolutely agree with you.  In fact, from an examiner's own mouth - the polygraph allegedly works by determining which questions are most "threatening" to a person.

If one understood the idea behind control questions (choosing to not attempt countermeasures), which questions would be more threatening?  At this point it isn't between deception and truth!  For this candidate, it is simply knowing that a control question won't get him/her disqualified but a relevant question could!  During my exam, that's what I found myself thinking about - not "hmmm, did I exceed the agency's drug policy?" (I didn't), but rather "shit, this is a relevant question - I can't react or I'll fail" (reaction given).  

Seems pretty unfair to me.  Examiners - is this not at all the way things work?  Please enlighten us because I genuinely would like to know.

wrote on Apr 5^th, 2004 at 9:03pm:

pillpopper, I absolutely agree with you.  In fact, from an examiner's own mouth - the polygraph allegedly works by determining which questions are most "threatening" to a person. If one understood the idea behind control questions (choosing to not attempt countermeasures), which questions would be more threatening?  At this point it isn't between deception and truth!  For this candidate, it is simply knowing that a control question won't get him/her disqualified but a relevant question could!  During my exam, that's what I found myself thinking about - not "hmmm, did I exceed the agency's drug policy?" (I didn't), but rather "shit, this is a relevant question - I can't react or I'll fail" (reaction given).   Seems pretty unfair to me.  Examiners - is this not at all the way things work?  Please enlighten us because I genuinely would like to know.

Anonymous,

This touches on exactly what I consider most problematic about the polygraph, ie: that knowledge about the polygraph obviates the assumumptions upon which it is based. I suspect this greatly concerns polygraphers but, for obvious reasons, they have difficulty addressing it.

This morning, David Kay (CSPAN) spoke on emerging terrorism issues and came down hard on the hostile environment scientists found themselves in working in critical govt. positions. I couldn't help but think about the contribution polygraph screening has in this. Scientists, by their nature, are highly suspicious of "sciences" that depend on ignorance to work. I fear the loss of needed human capability may outweigh the benefit (and I do believe there is some) provided by polygraph based filters. It's a serious problem that needs addressing. The National Academy of Science's report is a pretty fair and balanced attempt to do that - for the benefit of the country. The degree to which it has been ignored is not helpful in attracting talent. Far too easy just to go into the non-govt. private sector.

-Marty

I'm new to the site and just surfing and learning, but I noticed that you referred to the FBI as the Federal Bureau of Interpretation and also as the Federal Bureau of Intimidation. Pardon me for being crass, but you don't deserve to be an FBI agent if you don't know that FBI stands for Famous But Incompetent. Did J. Edgar Hoover really sleep with a night light?

Reply to Fletch's post concerning the FBI's statement that a polygraph is not to be considered a replacement for a background investigation. This is not meant to indicate that a background investigation will be performed on every applicant. It is meant to say that even if you successfully complete your polygraph a background investigation will still be performed. It isn't telling your that if you "fail" the polygraph a background will be done. It is just saying that "passing" a polygraph is not the end of the road.

Quote:

It isn't telling your that if you "fail" the polygraph a background will be done. It is just saying that "passing" a polygraph is not the end of the road.

Okay, so in other words, if you "pass" the polygraph we're still going to conduct an in-depth background investigation because your "pass" doesn't necessarily mean you were telling us the truth about not being a spy, drug abuser or drug dealer.

However, if you "fail" the polygraph then we're just going to skip the in-depth background investigation and disqualify you because your "fail" necessarily and without a doubt indicates that you are either a spy, drug abuser or drug deal as well as a liar.

Riiight.  Anyone else see a problem with this?

Dear ibenubee,

I understand what you mean; “passing” a polygraph exam is certainly not the end of the road. I was simply quoting the FBI’s own guidelines on how to deal with those who do not “pass.” Despite their own rules, for those individuals, it IS the end of the road and in most cases, unless you are a current employee with the Bureau, retests are only given to reconfirm the earlier “test” results.

Fletch.