Matt,
Thanks for your post.
Quote: I understand it’s hard for people to not take it personally but you have to realize your just another face to the tester and he uses the same old tricks to draw out hidden secrets that many applicant hold back. If you have nothing to hide and understand this you can just let him play out his game and stay more relaxed.
At one time, I too believed that the aggressive interrogations often accompanying polygraph “tests” were merely a pretext for evaluating an applicant under stress. I now know this to be false.
You correctly pointed out that the examiner’s primary job is to elicit as much information as possible about an applicant’s past. Unfortunately, what you describe is contrary to the interview and interrogation techniques that polygraphers are extensively trained in.
Staying calm and relaxed when falsely accused of something is widely considered a sign of deception.
According to I&I literature, when honest individuals are falsely accused of something, they tend to go bat-shit. It would be a tremendous mistake for an examinee to think that agencies use the polygraph as a “stress test” and to simply remain calm while enduring extensive abuse. For this very reason, we advise making two firm denials of false accusations and then ending the interrogation.
Quote:I feel the reason the authors of the posts on your web site failed and are so angry is they are actually honest people that just walked into the room expecting it to be a simple test and had no clue it was going to be so intense and invasive.
I can’t say I was expecting a simple test. I can say that I was expecting a valid test, which is one having been shown to produce accurate results. I certainly was not expecting to be evaluated with a “test” universally opposed by academics as “having no predictive value” (for polygraph screening read: no better than chance).
Quote: There is something wrong honest people failing however the FBI looks at the big picture and the reality is... "why take a chance on you when there's 100 other people waiting to take the spot you applied for."
This is indeed the government bureaucrat’s mentality. Still, this is foolish especially in the dangerous times in which we live. We need the best and brightest protecting our country, not the 2nd best. Suppose we take the entire applicant pool. We rank order them by desirability after researching credentials, interviewing, etc. If we then start eliminating candidates based on a “test” blasted by researchers for predicting absolutely nothing and going to the next applicants in the line, we are being absolutely asinine. If the “Magic 8 ball” was the truth detection device of choice, heads would have been rolling after Sept. 11. Polygraphy is nothing more than the scientific equivalent of a liquid-filled plastic pool ball. This is the very reason that the authors of this site are outraged.
Quote: Just the fact the test exists causes many dishonest people from even applying. I think the "fear" of the test effectively removes many people and the tactics used by testers forces many others to admit to crimes. You need to look at the big picture and not just focus on the honest people that get a false read.
Polygraphy certainly has not been shown to be an effective deterrent. Look at Aldrich Ames, Ana Belen Montes, etc. Moreover, in the words of former FBI Supervisory Special Agent Dr. Drew C. Richardson, “Attempting to maintain such a universal bluff would be impossible if not downright comical.” As it stands now, any applicant who does ½ hour of research on the Internet regarding polygraphy will come to the conclusion that it is a fraud.
Quote: I think the poly might be better utilized as a tool to assist in the background check. The investigators conducting the check would be informed of what areas you failed on and look deeper into the area.
Why do you think that background investigators should focus their efforts on areas “failed” on a polygraph screening “exam” when such a test has not been show to have
any predictive validity?
Pages: [1] 
MY thoughts and experience on polygraphs (Read 17655 times)
