Jane,

I'm glad you found AntiPolygraph.org. This website was created by polygraph victims to educate and protect those whose honesty and integrity our government has regrettably decided to assess through the voodoo science of polygraphy.

I don't know whether either of the national agencies that begin with an "N" (NSA and NRO) use the MGQT format (a probable-lie "control" question technique) in employee screening.

At the time of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment report on polygraphy in 1983, the NSA used a Relevant/Irrlevant technique for screening, with a probable-lie "control" question being added at the end of a series if the subject showed no significant reaction to any question in the series. Perhaps the NSA still uses the R/I technique. I don't know.

At the time of the OTA report, the existence of the other agency, NRO, was an official secret. I don't know what technique that agency primarily uses, but in fall of last year, the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute taught a R/I screening course in Chantilly, VA (where NRO is headquartered).

So, when you go back for your follow-up polygraph, you may encounter either a probable-lie or directed-lie "control" question "test" or a R/I "test."

The question "Have you been truthful on this exam today?" is perhaps the most commonly used "sacrifice" relevant question, frequently being the first relevant question asked in a series (after two irrelevant questions), and is not scored. However, in the General Question "Test," (GQT) this question serves as a "disguised control" question. While DoDPI claims that it no longer teaches the GQT and has discarded all documentation of it, it is conceivable that they made some minor changes and slapped a new name on it. Again, I don't know.

A question like, "Is your name Jane Doe?" is indeed an irrelevant question.

A CNN ran a report on the NSA a while back that showed a picture of what appears to be a big comfy polygraph chair, and it could indeed have sensors in it. They'd be easy to conceal:



Good luck next week, and please consider posting a note on how it went. And of course, feel free to post any additional questions you may have. At the appropriate time, you may wish to fill in your friends and co-workers regarding the polygraph.

The chair looked an awful lot like that one, but much cushier.  I don't think I can flex my spincter without flexing my buns, so that is out for me.  I'm working on biting my tongue without it showing.  I'm going to wear a turtleneck.

Another question, are they likely to change the kind of "test "they give me or stick with the same type as last time?

And, no, there was no type of stim test. My husband thought that was odd too. No picking numbers, no intentional lying, nothing.  Just three rounds of questions for the CI part and 3 rounds for the lifestyle part.

I thought of another question & wanted to know if it is a control question.  "In the past 5 years have you used drugs?"  I had admitted to smoking pot in high school, but couldn't think of how many times. He made me come up with a number that it couldn't be more than. I started with 5 but then went up to 10 because I REALLY don't remember.  I would assume that I would still have a "reaction" to the drug question because of my guilty conscience.

Finally, is it ok to think about things in between the questions. I have trouble focusing and my mind wanders.  The examiner said I was "bringing stuff in" that was interfereing.  Should I just sing a song in my head or something?

Jane

You passed your polygraph without using CMs!  Did any of your advisors on this web page offer to hire you if you did not.  In other words do not become a "victim" of antipolygraph.org.  They have no vested interest in your well being, they are only padding their own bitterness.  They seem willing to give you unfounded career advice, but what will they offer when that advice fails?

BW

Boy Wonder sputtered one of the stupidest things I've ever heard:

"Did any of your advisors on this web page offer to hire you if you did not.  In other words do not become a "victim" of antipolygraph.org.  They have no vested interest in your well being, they are only padding their own bitterness."

If I could afford to start and maintain my own NON-PROFIT website, I don't think I would have bitterness towards anything. Perhaps I'm naive....but I doubt it. What the HELL will be offered to an honest person who is absolutely truthful on their pre-employment exam but fails wrongfully? NOTHING!!! They LOSE THEIR OPPORTUNITY. My GOD, what does it take to get this point across???? 

Again I ask, pro-polygraph soothsayers...if the polygraph is flawless, why does the possibility of countermeasures raise the hackles of pro-polygraphers? And again I state, because the polygraph does NOT detect LIES!

Boy Wonder...come on. You're not dealing with uneducated school children here. The polygraph MAY be useful in criminal interrogations, but it should NOT be used to qualify or disqualify ANYone going through a pre-employment screening. Dispute this all you want, but you and I both know that it's a complete sham in this regard. If you deny this, then what is your problem with countermeasures? Either the polygraph is flawless or not. Pick a side and stick with it.

Gino,

You wrote:

Quote:


Polygraph has been shown to have high validity, extremely higher then chance, under field conditions.  
http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Proc&action=display&num=10...

I am not sure of what research you are speaking about in regards to sophisticated countermeasures and their detection? 

Although Drew is an expert in Forensic Toxicology, his expert status is not established under his connections with the FBI.  George has already openly admitted that he is the one who gave Drew this status on this site.

George,

You wrote:
Quote:


That they may.  I think the evidence of the contradictory view to yours is overwhelmingly obvious.

You wrote:
Quote:


Where does the evidence in this research study support that examiners' can't detect sophisticated countermeasures?

You wrote:
Quote:


Who, besides you, has bestowed Drew with expert status in polygraph?  What peer reviewed scientific 'physiological research' has Drew conducted and more importantly that which was specific to polygraph.  Again, I respect Drew as a scientist.  He has an extensive amount of experience in Forensic Toxicology.  The prior remotely relates to polygraph and alone does not meet the normal criteria for being an expert in polygraph. 

Quote:


1.  There is data in Honts' studies of the examiners' ability to detect countermeasures.  Not just can't  but a certain statistical percentage.  Regardless, Gino did not specify which of the many studies he was using for this assertion and/or provide a cite for readers to check the truth of his statement.  If this is simply Gino’s opinion, then it should be noted as such.

2.  I am not discrediting Drew as a scientist and/or attacking him personally in any way.  I am simply pointing to the fact that he is an expert in Forensic Toxicology and too my knowledge only you have said he is one of the FBI's leading experts in polygraph.  Drew's logic is always welcome in my opinion. I think Drew has some vary valid and sound points when it comes to polygraph.  I agree with him on many issues.  Even if I don't agree with something Drew says, I can appreciate his differing view and agree to disagree with him on ones that I find no evidence for the need to change.  Some of my views have changed through discussions with him.

I’m not here to argue any further points with you.  It is quite evident from reading your posts on here as well as, http://archives.his.com/intelforum/threads4.html#04192 , http://archives.his.com/intelforum/msg02979.html ,and various other sites that your views will not change no matter what evidence is provided.