Twice. I failed it twice. The band that went around my middle was too tight the first time, which prompted me to take really huge breaths. The polygrapher yelled at me. So I started to really try not to take those big breaths, and he yelled at me for using countermeasures. Then I was so flustered from his telling me that I was lying that I started twitching in the chair which apparently looked like MORE countermeasures. Needless to say, I failed that one. He said I was unresolved on everything. They gave me another chance - and I also screwed that one up because I was dreading it so much and of course the band is still too tight. He loosened it once but that did not really help. Then they each grilled me for about two hours about what I was hiding.

FYI: I have done NOTHING wrong. I am a really good kid. I declared minor (5 times) marijuana usage and minor instances of illegal downloading on my form. Everything I reported is true (and I omitted nothing). For what it is worth, the polygraphers seemed to believe me that I wasn't doing it on purpose and that I was telling the truth when I said that I was hiding nothing - but they were still awful to me. I cried a lot in the first one and a little bit in the second one.

I just want to ask everyone - what are my chances that they will still grant my clearance? The rest of my processing has been stellar (to the best of my knowledge).

Also, this is for a job with an intelligence agency. I will be so miserable if I don't get it. I'm extremely qualified and I just feel so cheated that the polygraph is doing me in when it's apparently pseudoscience.

I can totally relate pandasn. Even when being truthfully honest I have repeatedly failed polygraph exams for multiple law enforcement agencies. The polygraph is a joke. I've never done any illegal drugs or drugs whatsoever and I was branded as a drug user/dealer by "failing" the illegal drug question. I also have failed because of the polygraph saying that I was being deceptive when it came to my criminal history and involvement with any serious crimes. It shouldn't be used at all but, the polygraph seems to have a cult following among bureaucrats and uneducated government officials

wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 12:21am:

I can totally relate pandasn. Even when being truthfully honest I have repeatedly failed polygraph exams for multiple law enforcement agencies. The polygraph is a joke. I've never done any illegal drugs or drugs whatsoever and I was branded as a drug user/dealer by "failing" the illegal drug question. I also have failed because of the polygraph saying that I was being deceptive when it came to my criminal history and involvement with any serious crimes. It shouldn't be used at all but, the polygraph seems to have a cult following among bureaucrats and uneducated government officials

Wouldn't responsible policy makers in the government stop the use of the polygraph if they were aware of these problems?  One would think they would, but the sad fact is they already know all these things - they have known since at least 1985 when I testified in Congress and got the EPPA passed into law.  But, knowing the polygraph is worthless as a "lie detector", knowing that people were wrongly accused of lying, and knowing that many were abused by polygraph operators asking illegal questions was still not enough to convince government agencies to stop using the polygraph.  In fact, these agencies demanded that they be excluded from this law in order to "protect national security" and to "assure the integrity of law enforcement and the criminal justice system".   The lawmakers caved and allowed the exclusions to be written into the law because that was the only way to be assured that even the watered down version prohibiting the polygraph in the private sector would pass.  Why do government agencies still staunchly defend the use of the polygraph and even harass, intimidate and try to punish me for proving the polygraph is not a "lie detector" by demonstrating that I can teach anyone to easily control the results of the "test"?  Why do they do everything in their power to prevent any information that discredits the "lie detector" from being exposed?  Why do they intimidate applicants and others who are required to submit to polygraph "testing" by monitoring their internet activity and punishing them for educating themselves about the polygraph? Why does the government love to use this "Frankenstein's Monster", (a description given to the polygraph by its inventor Dr. Larson)?  And why do they insist on continuing to use it?

After much thought, I have come to what I consider to be the only logical conclusion that can be drawn as to why government agencies, (federal, state, & local) continue to use the polygraph even though all the scientific evidence proves it is worthless as a "lie detector".  I believe they are using the polygraph as a subterfuge to avoid complying with federal employment regulations!  What else explains the 65% "failure" rate for applicants who have already passed a very thorough background investigation?  These agencies can circumvent federal laws and discriminate against people, ask illegal questions, interrogate/terrorize them for hours, and use the polygraph as an excuse to deny employment to anyone they don't want to hire.  They can be totally subjective in their hiring and firing practices when they use the polygraph, because all they have to do is to say the applicant "failed" a polygraph test.  By simply saying the person has "failed" a polygraph test, government agencies can hire and fire people at will and then just blame it on the "failed" polygraph test.  There is no way anyone can appeal a hiring or firing decision that is based on a "failed" polygraph - and those who are denied employment or terminated have no recourse - they can't bring a lawsuit for discrimination or wrongful termination!  Do I believe the government agencies who utilize the polygraph are this nefarious?  YES!  And it is tantamount to criminal negligence on the part of those charged with oversight of these government agencies to allow them to continue to use this so-called "lie detector testing"!

@Jimmyjohns: I can't believe there are so many of us :(

@Doug_Williams: 65% fail who have a satisfactory background check?! I had no idea it was that high! Does the government actually think that all 65% of people that have great references, great employer reviews, and great landlord reviews are truly hiding some DASTARDLY secret??? How do they sleep at night??? Any polygraphers on this site want to weigh in???

I have not been taken out of processing so I'm crossing my fingers but....:(

Yeah, I'll weigh in- Doug Williams is full of shit.  This "65%" is some ridiculous figure he pulled out of his ass.  Why?  His mission is to sell as many books and DVDs as he can to dupes like you.  Listening to Doug Williams is both FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.

Customs and Border Protection Polygraph Failure Rate Pegged at 60%

Posted by AntiPolygraph.org on 12 March 2010, 10:42 am      
 

Customs and Border ProtectionOn Thursday, 11 March 2010, in testimony before a subcommittee of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, it was disclosed that the failure rate associated with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) pre-employment polygraph screening program stands at 60 percent. New York Times correspondent Randal C. Archibold reports, among other things:


Polygraph examinations, which officials call an important tool to help weed out bad hires, were administered to about 15 percent of applicants by the end of 2009.

That was an increase from the 10 percent of the previous year, but made possible only because hiring slowed for the first time in several years.

James F. Tomsheck, who is in charge of internal affairs for Customs and Border Protection, said that about 60 percent of candidates failed the test and were turned away, including some who officials believed had ties to criminal organizations.

Senator Mark Pryor, an Arkansas Democrat and chairman of the subcommittee that held the hearing, described the failure rate as “alarming to me.”

“It is to me, too, sir,” Mr. Tomsheck replied.

He said the agency had 31 polygraph examiners but needed 50 more to reach a goal of screening all new hires.

In addition, he said, the agency is far behind in conducting periodic background checks of current law enforcement employees.

He also proposed giving periodic polygraph examinations to those employees but said that Congressional authorization and financing would be needed.

In assessing the significance of the 60% polygraph failure rate, it is important to bear in mind the 2002 finding of the National Academy of Sciences that polygraph screening is completely invalid. Upon completion of a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence on polygraphy, the NAS advised that “its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.”

Applying polygraph screening to all CBP applicants will not solve the problem of corruption within the organization. Polygraphy is highly vulnerable to countermeasures, and members of criminal enterprises seeking to infiltrate CBP will likely fool the lie detector. Meanwhile, given polygraphy’s complete lack of scientific underpinnings and inherent bias against the truthful, many well-qualified applicants will be wrongly excluded from the agency. Anecdotally, AntiPolygraph.org has heard from a number of CBP applicants who report having been falsely accused of deception.

WASHINGTON — Thousands of job applicants come to FBI offices all across the country every year, eager to work for the top law enforcement agency in the U.S.

But many of them have their hopes dashed, and it’s not because of their work experience or education or criminal records. They’re turned down because they’ve failed their polygraph tests.

The FBI’s policy of barring job candidates who fail their polygraph tests clashes with the view of many scientists that government agencies shouldn’t be relying on polygraph testing to decide whether to hire or fire someone. Experts say polygraph testing isn’t a reliable indicator of whether someone is lying – especially in employment screening.

“I was called a lazy, lying, drug dealing junkie by a man who doesn’t know me , my stellar background or my societal contributions,” wrote one black applicant in Baltimore, who said he was told he qualified for a job except for his polygraph test failure. “Just because I am young and black does not automatically denote that I have ever used any illegal drugs.”


Although all polygraph testing is controversial, many scientists are highly critical of its use in job screening, saying it’s especially prone to inaccuracies because the questions are often more vague than they are in criminal investigations and therefore they’re more likely to provoke reactions from the innocent that might seem like deception.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/20/191539/fbi-turns-away-many-applicants.html#storylink=cpy

quickfix wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 7:19pm:

Yeah, I'll weigh in- Doug Williams is full of shit.  This "65%" is some ridiculous figure he pulled out of his ass.  Why?  His mission is to sell as many books and DVDs as he can to dupes like you.  Listening to Doug Williams is both FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.

OK Quickfux, here is one more for you... The Connecticut State Police have provided the following statistics in a "Selection Process Update":


As of August 27, 2003, all of the six hundred seventy three (673) candidates scheduled for polygraph examinations have completed it. _Two hundred twenty seven (227) applicants passing the polygraph have proceeded to the background investigation phase of the selection process. _One hundred five (105) polygraph reports have yet to be evaluated. Excluding the 105 polygraph reports not yet evaluated, 227 out of 568, or 40%, passed. The remaining 341, or 60%, failed!

Note that the polygraph is the fourth step in the Connecticut State Police selection process. Those 60% of applicants who are being branded as liars have all passed a written examination, a physical fitness assessment, and an observational test.

Given that polygraph screening is completely invalid (as confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in its landmark report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, it is clear that the CSP is falsely branding large numbers of truthful, qualified applicants as liars and wrongly disqualifying them from employment.

And by the way, Quickfux, my mission is to put myself out of business.  And I'll happily quit selling manuals and DVD's the day after you and your cohorts quit running your scam of "lie detection".

Very good-take one agency and base your nonsensical 65% on that.  Where is your data from the other two dozen federal agencies, and hundreds of local and state law enforcement agencies?  Show me the 65% failure rate from them. 

As for that NAS study, that was 12 years ago.  Ancient history.

Our motto remains:  Listening to Doug Williams is both FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.

quickfix wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 7:50pm:

Very good-take one agency and base your nonsensical 65% on that.  Where is your data from the other two dozen federal agencies, and hundreds of local and state law enforcement agencies?  Show me the 65% failure rate from them.  As for that NAS study, that was 12 years ago.  Ancient history. Our motto remains:  Listening to Doug Williams is both FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.

I have given you the proof that what I have said is true and that "This "65%" is some ridiculous figure..." is not ridiculous but rather a proven factual figure.  And those millions of people who have been falsely accused of being liars by you and the others who practice this last vestige of witchcraft called "lie detection" (including those who have told their stories here today) already know what I say is true.

And my motto remains:  THE "LIE DETECTOR" IS BULLSHIT!

Doug Williams wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

I have given you the proof that what I have said is true and that "This "65%" is some ridiculous figure..." is not ridiculous but rather a proven factual figure.

Show us all those factual figures.  Name each agency, show how many were tested, and how many failed.  That's proof;  not some bullshit percentage with no genuine data to back it up.

Once again, listening to Doug Williams is both DANGEROUS and FOOLISH

quickfix wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 7:50pm:

...As for that NAS study, that was 12 years ago.  Ancient history...

Can you tell me if more recent studies during the last 12 years
(1) contradict the NAS study,
(2) support the NAS study, or
(3) exist?

To my knowledge, no further studies have taken place.

quickfix wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 7:50pm:

...As for that NAS study, that was 12 years ago.  Ancient history...

quickfix wrote on Mar 27^th, 2014 at 6:54pm:

To my knowledge, no further studies have taken place.

So the results of scientific studies, like, what? Wear out?

in essence, they do, when follow-up studies do not keep up with more recent/advanced research.  Just like any other kind of continuing research in medicine, vehicle/aircraft safety, etc, opinions based on out of date studies/data are not necessarily valid today. 

Quickie, tell us how polygraphy has "advanced" in the last few decades.

hmmm, let's see:  computerized polygraph instruments, ability to zip polygraph charts which can be emailed as an attachment;  far better and vastly more sensitive countermeasure cushion components;  built-in audio and video recording capability, no more cassette tapes needed.

The methodology is far more improved as well, but I certainly am not going to share the details of that on this site.

What you refer to is gadgetry enhancement not advancements in polygraphy. The truth is, there have been no advancements.

Gadgetry?  Really?  You sound just like the kind of person who would have called automobile seat belts "gadgetry" in the 1960s until research showed they saved more lives of occupants using them then those not wearing them.  Even then, research continued, and seat belt technology improved with the development of the shoulder harness.  Then research was started on another "gadget"- airbag technology. 

You can call it what you like, it's still advancement in any language.

The gadgetry of seatbelts has been enhanced, but the basic concept of "if you restrain the passenger, injuries are reduced" has not been improved upon. Your fascination with your toys distracts you from the fact that there have been no advancements in detection of deception.

quickfix wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

hmmm, let's see:  computerized polygraph instruments, ability to zip polygraph charts which can be emailed as an attachment;  far better and vastly more sensitive countermeasure cushion components;  built-in audio and video recording capability, no more cassette tapes needed. The methodology is far more improved as well, but I certainly am not going to share the details of that on this site.

It is irrelevant how "improved" your "methodology" or your polygraph "instrument" may be - it is still not a "lie detector".  There is no such thing as a reaction that indicates deception! 

quickfix wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

hmmm, let's see:  computerized polygraph instruments, ability to zip polygraph charts which can be emailed as an attachment;  far better and vastly more sensitive countermeasure cushion components;  built-in audio and video recording capability, no more cassette tapes needed.

It's such a shame that we didn't have all this advanced lie-detection technology in 1955, when John Anthony Walker was allowed access to navy secrets, or in 1960, when David Henry Barnett was hired by the CIA, or in 1967, when Aldrich Ames was hired by the CIA, or in 1976, when Robert Hanssen was hired by the FBI, or in 1977, when William Kampiles had access to the CIA's KH-11 spy satellite manual, or in 1980, when Harold Nicholson was hired by the CIA, or in 1986, when U. S. Army warrant officer James Hall III was investigated while he had already been selling codes to East Germany and the Soviet Union for three years, or in 1987, when FBI agent Earl Pitts was providing Top Secret documents to the Soviet Union, or in 1991, when Pitts had to find a new market in Russia because his former customer had imploded, or even in 2006, when Edward Snowden was engaged by the CIA and the NSA.

But don't be completely discouraged by all those failures: we did have enough gagetry in 1983 to falsely accuse Edward Lee Howard of drug abuse, causing him to be unjustly fired and driving him into the embrace of Soviet Union recruiters where he betrayed his entire former network.

so quickfix, you are still here trying to have intelligent discussion with antis who don't believe computerization can be counted as an advancement.  Good luck brother!

pailryder wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 7:27pm:

you are still here trying to have intelligent discussion with antis who don't believe computerization can be counted as an advancement.

Please tell us how computerization has made polygraphy more able to detect deception.

pailryder wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 7:27pm:

so quickfix, you are still here trying to have intelligent discussion with antis who don't believe computerization can be counted as an advancement.  Good luck brother!

A computerized Ouija board is an "advancement" over the old wooden one, but it is still unable to communicate with the spirits of the dead.  And, by the same token, a computerized "lie detector" is an "advancement" over the old analog one, but it is still unable to detect deception!

The old Ouija board, and the computerized Ouija board - the old "lie detector", and the computerized "lie detector" are ALL still just BULLSHIT!

quickfix wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

hmmm, let's see:  computerized polygraph instruments, ability to zip polygraph charts which can be emailed as an attachment;  far better and vastly more sensitive countermeasure cushion components;  built-in audio and video recording capability, no more cassette tapes needed.

The 2003 NAS study The polygraph and lie detection concluded in part "Computerized polygraph scoring procedures have the theoretical potential to increase the accuracy of polygraph interpretation..."

Has this potential been even partially realized since 2003? Are any polygraphers using computer algorithms or automated expert systems to interpret or score charts?

The study continues "The polygraph as currently used has extremely serious limitations for use in security screening to identify security risks and to clear valued employees. In populations with extremely low base rates of major security violations, such an application requires greater accuracy than polygraph testing achieves."

Has this greater accuracy been demonstrated since 2003? Has any polygrapher even cited a significant increase in accuracy since the damn thing was invented?

I have asked you in all seriousness whether anything in the NAS study has been refuted yet, and you can only bloviate about converting a poly chart to a zip file or by eliminating the cassette tapes. Frankly, sir, this is just more of your argument-like noise.


quickfix wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

The methodology is far more improved as well, but I certainly am not going to share the details of that on this site.

Well I suppose we should be thankful to be spared at least that much bullshit.

pailryder,
I will try to give a serious response to your comment. Beyond having drop down menus and radio buttons which make Quickfix feel like Buzz Lightyear, computerization does nothing to enhance your ability to detect deception. Digital is not superior to analog. Analog to Digital Converters (ADC) simply sample the analog signal and convert these samples to numbers which can be stored. Computer software can then perform various mathematical manipulation of these sampled data to relieve the polygraph operator of the task of scoring the charts; the most common is a statistical approach using discriminant analysis. I suppose there could be some utililty to this if there were dozens of charts to be read as in a study, but beyond that it does nothing more than what you are already supposed to know how to do. Digitization may have made housekeeping less tedious, but it hasn't advanced your ability to detect deception one iota.

Aunty Agony wrote on Mar 30^th, 2014 at 2:59am:

Are any polygraphers using computer algorithms or automated expert systems to interpret or score charts?

Aunty Agony

The short answer to your question is yes, practically all are.  In addition to a numerical hand score, I have scored every chart I have run since 1995, almost twenty years now, with computer software.  Using software calls as a backup has alerted me to potential mistakes and most certainly has improved my accuracy.

pailryder wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 11:41am:

Aunty Agony wrote on Mar 30th, 2014 at 2:59am: Are any polygraphers using computer algorithms or automated expert systems to interpret or score charts? Aunty Agony The short answer to your question is yes, practically all are.  In addition to a numerical hand score, I have scored every chart I have run since 1995, almost twenty years now, with computer software.  Using software calls as a backup has alerted me to potential mistakes and most certainly has improved my accuracy.

Accuracy?  Seriously?  What "accuracy"?  Are you trying to tell us that you can accurately detect deception - that there is a reaction that ALWAYS indicates deception?

pailryder wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 11:41am:

Using software calls as a backup has alerted me to potential mistakes

As I said, computerization has not advanced your ability to detect deception; it is just a crutch for your rusty chart reading skills.

pailryder wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 11:41am:

Aunty Agony wrote on Mar 30th, 2014 at 2:59am: Are any polygraphers using computer algorithms or automated expert systems to interpret or score charts? Aunty Agony The short answer to your question is yes, practically all are.  In addition to a numerical hand score, I have scored every chart I have run since 1995, almost twenty years now, with computer software.  Using software calls as a backup has alerted me to potential mistakes and most certainly has improved my accuracy.

Fascinating.  What software, and what does it do for you?

pailryder wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 7:27pm:

so quickfix, you are still here trying to have intelligent discussion with antis who don't believe computerization can be counted as an advancement.Good luck brother!

Yes, I know!  They cannot and will not ever be convinced.  They prefer to belly ache and kvetch about how unfair it is, their lives are ruined, they're emotionally scarred for life!  Of course they can always pay the Doug Williamses of the world for their "magic cures", hoping against hope that they get lucky, instead of coming to terms with the fact that they were less than truthful on their polys.  Funny, the parking lots of NSA, CIA, FBI, etc, are filled with cars.  How can that be?!?! All these employees got hired after failing their polys???  Not bloody likely.

Aunty Agony wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 7:01pm:

What software, and what does it do for you?

Aunty

The polygraph manufactures provide software for their own collection systems, to record and manage chart data.  And there are several copyrighted software available for purchase to score the collected data.  I have not collected a paper chart, of the type  depicted on the home page, in almost twenty years.

pailryder wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 8:04pm:

I have not collected a paper chart, of the typedepicted on the home page, in almost twenty years.

This statement is irrelevant; digital and analog polygraph instruments produce the same charts.

quickfix wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 7:02pm:

Yes, I know!They cannot and will not ever be convinced.

Please provide your argument that computerization has advanced your ability to detect deception. Please give specific details. I'm listening with an open mind, ready to be convinced.

Ex Member wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:09pm:

I'm listening with an open mind, ready to be convinced.

That's highly doubtful  Since you can't (or won't)comprehend the obvious differences between analog and computerized polygraph, which is only one small aspect of polygraph advancement, explaining advancement in methodology to you would be like explaining the west coast offense to a monkey,  and I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

quickfix wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:58pm:

Ex Member wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:09pm: I'm listening with an open mind, ready to be convinced. That's highly doubtful  Since you can't (or won't)comprehend the obvious differences between analog and computerized polygraph, which is only one small aspect of polygraph advancement, explaining advancement in methodology to you would be like explaining the west coast offense to a monkey,  and I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

"Advancement in methodology?"  Are you trying to tell us that you can accurately detect deception by measuring nervousness - that there is an "advancement in methodology" that will now allow you to determine with certainty that a specific nervous (fight or flight) reaction ALWAYS indicates deception? 

A simple yes or no to this question will suffice to educate this monkey.  Is there any such thing as a reaction that ALWAYS indicates deception? 

quickfix wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:58pm:

That's highly doubtfulSince you can't (or won't)comprehend the obvious differences between analog and computerized polygraph

This is where you are wrong Quickie, I have sufficient aptitude in this area. Perhaps you can elaborate on the sample rate or which DSP filters are used, or even how the Remez Algorithm may come into play. Please enlighten me with your insight as to how digital is superior to analog.

pailryder wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 8:04pm:

...there are several copyrighted software available for purchase to score the collected data...

Yes -- I'm asking: have you purchased any, which ones have you used, and what did they do for you?

AA

The Objective Scoring System Version 3 (OSS3) is my current favorite.  I use it after I hand score as a backup.  The call is usually the same, but sometimes not.  Occasionally the software disagree with each other.   Most of my clients, who are now much younger than me, seem to prefer to trust it over my hand score.

Although Arkhangelsk disagrees, and I do see his point, as a longtime user, I see a great deal of difference in an ink on paper chart and a digital chart.  Think of the difference between a polaroid photograph and a digital photograph.  The same photo?  Yes, maybe.  But the digital is much easier to crop, zoom in and out, eliminate redeye, adjust color and light.  Things that were impossible with a polaroid.  Measurement of some chart features, such as relative line length, very difficult on paper, is a snap for the software which offer digital calipers. 

My analog recorded four channels, my digital records eight and has in time audio/video recording.

Doug Williams wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:19pm:

A simple yes or no to this question will suffice to educate this monkey.Is there any such thing as a reaction that ALWAYS indicates deception?

No.  There is no certainty in this world.  Well, there is one reaction that ALMOST ALWAYS indicates deception.  We call it a confession.

pailryder wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 11:52am:

Well, there is one reaction that ALMOST ALWAYS indicates deception.We call it a confession.

That's what we call it too.

quickfix wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 12:04pm:

pailryder wrote on Apr 3rd, 2014 at 11:52am: Well, there is one reaction that ALMOST ALWAYS indicates deception.We call it a confession.  That's what we call it too.

So, we are all in agreement.  The polygraph is not a "lie detector", it is just a prop a good interrogator uses to coerce a person into confessing.

And it seems we also agree that, since there is no evidence that any reaction ALWAYS indicates deception, the polygraph operator should never call a person a liar unless that person has confessed.

I would further state that the confession obtained under duress is of dubious value.

Two recent cases in the news point out the problems with using the psychological billy club (polygraph) to get a "confession".

Here are two recent examples of blatant abuse perpetuated by these thugs/bullies aka polygraphers!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-chicago-aldermen-ok-66-million-to-settle-lawsuits-20140331,0,862549.story

http://wrvo.org/post/would-videotaping-interrogations-help-false-confessions

This is exactly why I have been fighting the use of this insidious Orwellian instruments of torture called the polygraph and why I have been trying for almost forty years to stop the bullies and thugs who administer these so-called "lie detector tests".

The polygraph test is the most important test any of you will ever take. Until you take one, you have no idea how traumatic and grueling it can be - it is that way for a reason. The polygraphers want you to be so frightened that you "spill your guts". In fact, many people are so intimidated that they make statements that the polygrapher will use to incriminate them - some people are so frightened that they confess to things they haven't even done!

There are millions of people who have been falsely branded as liars, simply because they had a nervous reaction when they answered a question. They have had their lives ruined because they believed the lie that the polygraph was reliable and accurate as a "lie detector", and that the polygrapher was an honorable professional who would treat them fairly. They found out the hard way that the polygrapher was just an interrogator - that the polygraph was just a prop he used to frighten and intimidate them. And worse yet, that the polygrapher could accuse them of lying without any evidence to prove that accusation and they could not challenge or appeal his decision! That's not fair, it is not the way things should be done in this country, but that's the way it is - and that's the way it will continue to be until we put a stop to it!  Shame on anyone who administers these "tests" - and shame on the government for continuing to allow this state sponsored sadism!

It's a prop to you, a valuable diagnostic tool to us.  Listening to Doug Williams is both FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.

quickfix wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 1:17pm:

It's a prop to you, a valuable diagnostic tool to us.  Listening to Doug Williams is both FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.

The fact that federal agents  attempted to entrap Doug Williams and created a watch list from the customer records they seized from him suggests otherwise.

Pailryder, all of those things you mentioned are very cool and really help with your housekeeping and help with your fading eyesight. But, they have not advanced your ability to detect deception.

does the bp tell you if you pass or fail at the time of polygraph

joe311 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 6:52pm:

does the bp tell you if you pass or fail at the time of polygraph

If you fail, you'll know it because you'll be accused of deception and interrogated in an attempt to get admissions.

If you pass, you probably won't be directly told that you did, but the absence of a post-test interrogation would be a good indication that you did.

pandasn wrote on Feb 28^th, 2014 at 2:53pm:

Twice. I failed it twice. The band that went around my middle was too tight the first time, which prompted me to take really huge breaths. The polygrapher yelled at me. So I started to really try not to take those big breaths, and he yelled at me for using countermeasures. Then I was so flustered from his telling me that I was lying that I started twitching in the chair which apparently looked like MORE countermeasures. Needless to say, I failed that one. He said I was unresolved on everything. They gave me another chance - and I also screwed that one up because I was dreading it so much and of course the band is still too tight. He loosened it once but that did not really help. Then they each grilled me for about two hours about what I was hiding. FYI: I have done NOTHING wrong. I am a really good kid. I declared minor (5 times) marijuana usage and minor instances of illegal downloading on my form. Everything I reported is true (and I omitted nothing). For what it is worth, the polygraphers seemed to believe me that I wasn't doing it on purpose and that I was telling the truth when I said that I was hiding nothing - but they were still awful to me. I cried a lot in the first one and a little bit in the second one. I just want to ask everyone - what are my chances that they will still grant my clearance? The rest of my processing has been stellar (to the best of my knowledge). Also, this is for a job with an intelligence agency. I will be so miserable if I don't get it. I'm extremely qualified and I just feel so cheated that the polygraph is doing me in when it's apparently pseudoscience.

The real determining factor will be how much dirt the investigators will be able to "develop" on you during the BI.

Ex Member wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 8:33pm:

pailryder wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 8:04pm: I have not collected a paper chart, of the typedepicted on the home page, in almost twenty years. This statement is irrelevant; digital and analog polygraph instruments produce the same charts.

Pailryder and/or Quickfix, I have a question to ask you. Can you think of any aspect of the polygraph technique where it would be advantageous to use an analog instrument over a computerized system?

No, I can't think of any.

Neither can I.

Back in the early 90's when Computerized Polygraph systems came into practice, they had a powerful effect on examinees. "Oh no, there is no way we are going to get over on a computerized polygraph, we are toast!"

Fast forward 2 decades--now, even 9 years olds are downloading apps on their iphones and tablets, computers have become ubiquitous, and a laptop with a small DAS is unassuming and routine.

However, the analog instrument with the sounds of the pens whipping about and scratching away on the charts is something that appears scientific and intimidating to those who are accustomed to computers.

Most polygraph literature emphasizes the importance of stimulating the examinee--giving confidence to the innocent (psychological set focused on the control questions) while instilling fear into the guilty allowing them to be oriented to the relevants.

So the use of the analog instrument, in itself can stimulate the subject and enhance question discrimination.

Before rebutting this, I would challenge you to experiment and scrutinize the empirical results..

Ex Member wrote on Jun 30^th, 2014 at 8:30pm:

Back in the early 90's when Computerized Polygraph systems came into practice, they had a powerful effect on examinees. "Oh no, there is no way we are going to get over on a computerized polygraph, we are toast!" Fast forward 2 decades--now, even 9 years olds are downloading apps on their iphones and tablets, computers have become ubiquitous, and a laptop with a small DAS is unassuming and routine. However, the analog instrument with the sounds of the pens whipping about and scratching away on the charts is something that appears scientific and intimidating to those who are accustomed to computers. Most polygraph literature emphasizes the importance of stimulating the examinee--giving confidence to the innocent (psychological set focused on the control questions) while instilling fear into the guilty allowing them to be oriented to the relevants. So the use of the analog instrument, in itself can stimulate the subject and enhance question discrimination. Before rebutting this, I would challenge you to experiment and scrutinize the empirical results..

You're right, the old analog instrument is a very intimidating machine - many polygraph operators still use it for that very reason (among others) .  It is what most people associate with the "lie detector". 

I remember when I used to be a polygraph operator/interrogator/inquisitor/terrorist, I would use the prop of the polygraph machine to great advantage during my interrogations.

After running a chart, I would tear the paper from the machine and jam it right in their face, a couple of inches away from their nose, and scream at them, "Just look at this shit, you told such a big lie on that question that you actually slung ink all over my tie!"  I would point at their increased reaction on the cardio tracing and jam my finger into the still wet red ink smearing it around like a blood stain as I traced their "reaction" with my finger.  This little drama was very effective in getting a confession.

Another advantage of the old analog was that even if there was no reaction to any question, you could twist the little cardio tracing centering knob and make it look like they had a gigantic reaction even when they hadn't!

Doug Williams wrote on Jul 1^st, 2014 at 5:20pm:

I remember when I used to be a polygraph operator/interrogator/inquisitor/terrorist, I would use the prop of the polygraph machine to great advantage during my interrogations.

You never were a polygraph examiner.  Your behavior below is proof enough:

Doug Williams wrote on Jul 1^st, 2014 at 5:20pm:

After running a chart, I would tear the paper from the machine and jam it right in their face, a couple of inches away from their nose, and scream at them, "Just look at this shit, you told such a big lie on that on that question that you actually slung ink all over my tie!"I would point at their increased reaction on the cardio tracing and jam my finger into the still wet red ink smearing it around like a blood stain as I traced their "reaction" with my finger.This little drama was very effective in getting a confession.Another advantage of the old analog was that even if there was no reaction to any question, you could twist the little cardio tracing centering knob and make it look like they had a gigantic reaction even when they hadn't!

You're actually proud of this behavior?  Only an unethical, incompetent/inept nitwit would engage in such behavior.  Chart manipulation and physical intimidation of an examinee.  Class act.

Quickfux - "unethical, incompetent/inept nitwit" is only a partial description of a polygraph operator - I would also add charlatan, fraud, con man, inquisitor, interrogator, and torturer - the only difference between me and others utilizing this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture is that I admitted what I did and have tried for almost 40 years to make restitution.  When will you do the same?

Speaking only for myself and not for any other inquisitor, terrorist, or torturer, I would like to wish a happy and safe 4th of July weekend to all.

pailryder wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 5:50pm:

Speaking only for myself and not for any other inquisitor, terrorist, or torturer, I would like to wish a happy and safe 4th of July weekend to all.

Not to put a damper on your kind wishes, but it would be a true day of celebration if we were celebrating independence from the threat of being tortured and interrogated by polygraph operators. Banning the use of the polygraph would bring true freedom – the freedom of individuals from being subjected to the insidious Orwellian instrument of torture.