I read the personal statements by the military, CIA, police guys. Seemed all failed because of "drug use" or "another drug situation". Whatever happened to alcohol, financial, security violations, etc? I may be wrong.

Skeptic, Batman, Polycop, and The_Breeze,
 
     I would like to ask you a couple questions in regards to myself and to your last post.
I took a polygraph and failed the drug question. The polygrapher during a post interogation stated to me that I showed a very high "deception reading" on his charts, and then he began his interogation. Not knowing about his true job as an interogator, I spoke with him for 45mins until he asked, "when i ask you about these drugs tell me what you think about." When i was in the service my ex-wife was observed by the DST task force buying drugs from a dealer being watched by DST. I recieved a phone call from DST and went home to catch my ex-wife snorking coke. The polygrapher at that point realized at that point that this was the reason I showed deception and passed me. How often do polygrapher's take the time to dig vs interogate to find the facts rather the confession? When an admission such as this comes out what steps do you take to "clear the applicants." after this occurs. My second question is: If your close friends daughter or son applied with your agency and you have met her/him a couple of times and had to give them there polygraph, and it came up as deceptive in any area, but everyone tells you that they are clean, What would you or what could you do? Please all of you respond, I only would like a polygraphers suggestion, so unless you have been a polygrapher, or are a polygrapher please do not reply, you may send me a private message though. Thank you.

Brian "Orange County" Knox

woops, sorry, thats for the other message though!
Brain

Jet
We give our applicants every benefit of the doubt possible.  If something comes forth from a polygraph it is independently verified, not mindlessly accepted.  We as an agency would not rely on any one single part of a background (of which a polygraph may be a part) unless it clearly shows documentable evidence of felony behavior.  I am gratified that your illustration shows a more balanced picture of those that serve the public than is sometimes presented here.  Good luck to you-
Jay

Alliebean,

While it is true that if a polygrapher opines that an examinee has employed countermeasures, he/she will will not "pass," there is no evidence that such opinions have any correlation with actual countermeasures use. Indeed, the only available peer-reviewed research on this subject showed no such correlation. Thus, choosing not to employ countermeasures offers no protection against being arbitrarily (and wrongly) accused of countermeasure use.

Considering that polygraph screening itself has no more scientific basis than astrology or tea leaf reading and that polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect countermeasures, anyone facing a polygraph screening "test" has little to lose (and potentially much to gain) by using countermeasures rather than leaving the results to chance alone.

alliebean wrote on Sep 15^th, 2004 at 11:19pm:


I would agree with you that persons seeking positions of public trust have an ethical obligation to answer relevant questions truthfully. But I don't believe that such truthful persons lose their integrity by using countermeasures to protect themselves against the high risk of a false positive outcome. As we note in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 125 of the 3rd edition):

Quote:


I note that your initial objection to polygraph countermeasures was based not on any argument of lost integrity, but rather on your (wrong) suggestion that polygraphers are able to detect countermeasures.

You go on to write:

Quote:


Again, the minor deception inherent in countermeasure use by otherwise truthful persons is justified by our government's use of deception in the pseudoscientific procedure that is polygraph screening. 'Tis no deceit to deceive the deceiver.

Quote:


Unfortunately, such statistics are not available. Fewer than 1% of those who download The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (which includes detailed information on polygraph countermeasures) post to this message board. However, I  disagree with your characterization that the majority of people who post here seem to be "looking for a way to 'beat the system.'" On the contrary, those who have stated that their objective is to get away with lying are a distinct minority.

Quote:


And a very dishonest and dishonorable job at that. When one falsely accuses another person of deception based on the outcome of an invalid test, one should not be surprised to receive an angry response.

Quote:


Would your opinion differ had you lost the polygraph crapshoot? Again, choosing not to employ countermeasures provides no protection against being arbitrarily accused of having done so.

Quote:


Indeed, your polygraph examination was "voluntary" in the sense that you were not forced to take it, but compulsory in the sense that if you didn't submit, you wouldn't qualify for the job you sought... So what?

Quote:


Those wrongly accused of deception have very little avenue of appeal. For instance, you mentioned in another message thread that your polygraph examination was for an FBI intelligence analyst position. While the FBI has no formal process for appealing polygraph results, applicants who are falsely accused of deception may request a "re-test," and in many cases it is granted. But the results of re-tests are almost always the same as the initial one. The FBI polygraph unit cannot afford to be seen reversing very many initial decisions. Were they to do so, it would tend to undermine confidence in their voodoo science.

Quote:


That's true. But you'd have a permanent FBI HQ file falsely branding you as a liar.

Quote:


No, it's not hypocrisy for those who have employed polygraph countermeasures (which involve only minor deception that, in the case of truthful persons, harms no one) to complain about the trickery involved in the administration of polygraph examinations (which harm many innocent persons). The deception here is initiated by our government in its wrongful use of a screening "tool" that it knows to be invalid. If there is moral blame to be assigned, it rests squarely on the shoulders of government.

Quote:


It is well that your polygrapher conducted himself in a professional manner and did not engage in verbal abuse. But you are mistaken in thinking that your he did not lie to you. The polygraph procedure depends on deception in a very fundamental way. The polygrapher lies to the examinee by exaggerating the accuracy of the procedure (FBI polygraphers, for example, typically claim 98%), by administering a meaningless "stim test" intended to falsely convince the examinee that the polygraph can actually detect deception, and by providing a false explanation of the purpose of the "control" and irrelevant questions. You will find these deceptions explained in detail in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Quote:


I find it ironic that an aspiring FBI intelligence analyst would choose the path of willfull ignorance.

alliebean says "In addition, it seems that quite a few of the stories talk about how people seriously lost their temper with the polygraphers.  It's a job.  A JOB.  "

  well, "callin' it your job, ole Hoss, sure don't make it right"