Duc748,

I had not intended to spend very much time devoted to responding to this thread, but it has become sufficiently interesting and because a couple of important topics have been raised or alluded to, I now believe it a worthwhile investment to do so.  The two topics being "the friendly polygraph exam" and the notion that technology (e.g. your mention of pupil dialation [sic]) will somehow dig polygraphy out of the morass it now wallows in.  With regard to the first...

This site now contains material related to a study dealing with the notion of possible racial bias in polygraphy (see home page for a download).  This type of bias is but one of several that may affect control question test (CQT) polygraphy.  Another would be the bias generated through investigative hypotheses and changes in any such hypothesis (es).  We may well have witnessed such in the rather bizarre flip flop(s) and differences of opinions regarding polygraph exam results in the Wen Ho Lee matter.  Another type of bias with parallel outcome in a polygraph exam exists because of prior expectations due to familiarity and bureaucratic position.  And thus, we arrive at the so-called “friendly polygraph exam.”  Two types of people are highly unlikely to ever be found deceptive through polygraph exams with the various federal agencies that you listed somewhere early on in this thread.  Those two types of exams would involve polygraph examiners polygraphing other polygraph examiners and polygraph examiners polygraphing agency executives.  The exception to this would be if either group were under investigation for some matter (again perhaps even leading to the opposite result through the previously mentioned investigative bias).  This friendly polygraph result relates to the bias developed from familiarity and collegial trust in the case of fellow polygraph examiners and position and authority (and negative consequences of a false positive result) in the case of executives.  Your situation is quite interesting.  You apparently are a known quantity through some indirect route to your Bureau examiner, but much more importantly you are a member of some standing (through your past employment) with the intelligence community.  With you one of two things could happen with your polygraph exam--you could be found non-deceptive which apparently you were (and I presume are) with the only consequence of a wrong decision to the polygraph examiner is that at some distant point in the future this false negative result would be exposed and the associated damage to the country would be investigated.  A somewhat low probability scenario at best...And of course the other substantive possibility is that you could have been found deceptive.  In your case as opposed to most applicants (who simply would have been denied employment), a full field espionage investigation would ensue with the obvious consequences/effects to all involved.  The consequences of an error with this decision  (a false positive) would be immediate and personally catastrophic for the examiner involved.  Because of all this I believe two things likely come in to play with you (I am not suggesting for a minute that the result obtained is not the correct one).  Because of direct/indirect familiarity with you and because of the threat of most immediate danger (the more immediate consequences of a false positive than a false negative result in your case--all humans are prone to reacting to such influences) there would be some unconscious and unspoken bias leading naturally to the result obtained.  This rationale is why I believe it is highly unlikely that a major spy will ever be revealed through a polygraph examination as currently conducted.   Again, I have no reason to believe the correct determination was not made in your case---I would just never leave it to a polygraph exam to determine such....

And the second issue you raise….

You suggest that perhaps pupil dilation may lead us out of the desert.  Although I would be happy to discuss in detail why I do not believe that to be the case, let me just briefly tell you where I stand on the issue… Neither pupil dilation nor any other new dependent measure (in any organ system whether it be central (brain and CNS) or in the periphery (the types of things which are now and might be measured through conventional polygraphy), nor any data transformation of any or all dependent variables, nor any scoring algorithm applied in connection with computerized data acquisition and analysis will ever make a hill of beans bit of difference in CQT polygraph validity.  The reason that I come to this conclusion is that the problem with control question polygraphy does not lie (no pun intended) with the various existing and possible dependent variables but with the independent variable, i.e., the nature and underlying assumptions of the basic test at the time various aspects of physiology are being recorded.  In a nut shell, because the assumed and critical relationships between the emotional affect of control and relevant questions is quite unsound, NO and I mean NO new or modified physiological modification or add-on will ever correct the existing shortcomings of control question polygraphy, particularly for the screening application which because of its “fishing expedition” nature has its own additional problems….

Best again and good luck in your new career…

Drew,
     I really don't know what to say. Will technology advance to a point where a computer will know you are lying. No one can say for sure, but technology and people are merging closer and closer every day. It may come to a point where a computer will hook into you and know your every thought in say 50 years.
     At this point in time however, I think it's known that the polygraph is not 100%, but it is a cog in the wheel of the selection process and just one more hurdle for many to face. I have faced it and passed by it. Many others will do the same. Many will not. That can be good and that can be bad. It's just like life.

Duc748,

Your experience is a fairly simple one with a fairly simple interpretation.  You passed a polygraph exam.  Because there existed only two substantive possibilities (pass/fail), had your fate been determined by the flip of a coin, you would have had a 50 percent chance of obtaining the result you know to be true and presumably the result you obtained.  Because of the bias and various pressures on examiners that I addressed in my previous posting, I believe your chance of passing was higher than that of other innocent examinees with work circumstances different than your own.  Take home message: the significance of your result is a thank your lucky stars and keep your head down message for you, not an object lesson in behavioral modification for others and certainly not one from which any statistical significance can be drawn.  With regard to reading minds, there is but One who reads the hearts and minds of men and He does not depend on today's or tomorrow's technology....  Technology is not and will not put us any closer to such....cheers

Quote:


George,
     I guess I don't see the question as a probable-lie question. Besides what I told him in the pre-interview, and after he reworded the question, I passed with only a slight hill. A couple of my questions were reworded, in particular some security questions related to my job. This was for obvious reasons.
     Anyway, instead of "probably-lie", I'd call it "probable-truth" questions. Maybe they assume people will lie, but I would hope that in most cases people would be truthful. They know that most kids cheat at some point in high-school. This is a "known" fact. Cheating in college is much more severe.

Quote:


Beat me in a game of logic? All you did was throw words like fvck around. I will not have discussions with someone that lacks vocabulary to express his feelings.

Quote:


So this wasn't you?:

Netnin
Senior User 
Posts: 66
(No subject) on: 02/27/02 at 22:22:58 


You are a totally unreasonable piece of crappity smacking dog shit.
Are you one of those people who has been absolutely and totally brainwashed by society?  Be a crappity smacking individual you god damned piece of crappity smacking crap.

You really are a complete and utter liar. You have just proven that fact to everyone here. 

Duc748,

What you mistake as resentment for a given agency is in fact great distaste for a practice (polygraph screening) that is utilized by that and other agencies and which is the cause of the victimization of thousands of people.  I most assuredly do not resent the FBI, nor even those who practice polygraph screening within it--a group of individuals who are largely well motivated and of honorable intent but nevertheless ignorant of that which they do.  I too have enjoyed our chats and will look forward to more in the future...

Quote:


Thanks for the clarification Drew. Maybe one day, the practice of poly's will fall by the wayside, or replaced by something better, but until that day, it's part of the process and as such, I support its use. If it ever becomes history, then I will support its disuse. (As I've said, I NEVER want to go through another one. To mentally draining.)
I guess that my mentality has been shaped by the military environment for the last 12 years. Good or bad, I support the decisions made by those agencies for which I work.

Duc748:

Are you going to claim that you didn't send the following post?

Duc748
New User
Posts:  11
(No Subject) on:  2/28/02 at 13:52:32

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Netnin:  You are almost as utterly pathetic as the so- called "men" who are running this site.  I find it absolutely entertaining to come see what lousy excuses you liars come up with in each new post that you put out.  To listen to an ex- FBI agent and self-proclaimed "military hero"  try and rationalize why they are helping criminals and liars pass the polygraph test is almost as entertaining as going to the movies.  I seriously doubt the validity of their prior professional  positions.  Like I said,  the only reason one would risk using countermeasures is because they are liars.  Only the truly truthful deserve spots in law enforcement.  Since you have claimed to have used countermeasures to try and pass a polygraph test,  I conclude that you are untruthful and undeserving of any spot on any law enforcement agency.  And to respond to your earlier statement:  No...I wouldn't want someone like you covering my back.

Duc748

The above is a private message sent from the two-faced Duc to myself on 2/28/02.  Some food for thought for those of you who think the Duc is conversing on this board simply for for the sake of an intellectual conversation.  Seems to me like he is using us as his pawns in his game of humor.  

Peace,  
Netnin