Batman wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2003 at 11:07pm:


Batman,

First off, learn to spell.  It's lying, not lieing.  For a man who does this evey time he gives a polygraph, you should know how to spell it.  Your posts immediately lose credibility with me when I see your errors.   

And what is it with you polygraphers not being able to determine gender?  You're "supposed" to be able to detect when some one is telling the truth or lying, but you can't even tell if they can pee standing up!  Your buddy The_Breeze called me a "gal" once, so I put that little gender symbol next to my screen name, just like Seeker has.  Those symbols may be confusing for a man of your intellect, but really, come on.  They're color coded, for Pete's sake!!!   

As to the issue of secretagent's polygraph . . . 

I happen to see well delivered points on all sides of this discussion.  As always, the pre-employment polygraph screening went well beyond its advertised parameters of spies, drugs, and false application information.  I understand that agencies choose to use the polygraph in lieu of (that means instead of, Batman) a more detailed background check.   

Apparently, this agency had some disqualification parameters that were met by the admission of secretagent.  This agency got what it was looking for by using the polygraph, but it could have also gotten the same information through similiar methods -- bamboo, dripping water, car batteries w/ jumper cables, etc.   

Subjecting unknowing applicnts to such methods of interrogation is unfair.  They should be treated with more respect.  But as a very famous polygrapher told me, "the polygraph will work better and better the less and less the subject knows about the methods of the test."   

My major contention is the admission made by secretagent.  If said admission is minor, but happens to meet DQ parameters, was it necessarily information withheld an an application?

Batman you said:
Quote:


I disagree with this.  Applications are very broad in asking questions, and even the pre-polygraph interview doesn't ask enough questions to elicit all information.  There may be a DQ parameter that is met for an admission that is made in which the question is never asked  during the polygraph and the pre-test interview.

I'm stabbing, but let's say that secretagent was involved in a crime of passion, a situation that could easily get out of control.  I have yet to see a standard law enforcement application that asks questions of that sort, or heard of anyone  getting asked these questions in a pre-test interview for a standard law enforcement position (there have been cases of the CIA using the poly to "enter the bedroom").  If an admission was made about an inappropriate relationship, could that have sparked a DQ parameter yet not been withheld on an application or during the pre-test interview?

The torture of the polygraph on the unknowing is truly intense, yet pro-polygraph types make light of the issue and continue to lay blame on the individual as if they were a criminal.   

I would have preferred bamboo in my test, because the questions asked would be direct, like "are you a spy?", and under great pain I would scream "No!"  They would ask the question enough times unti lI passed out, and then believe me.
Instead I was treated to the polygraph torture, where the my answer to the question of "are you a spy?" was'nt determined by what I said in response, but how I responed to the question asked 3 earlier, and the assumption that my answer to that question was a lie, even though I was telling the tuth . . . .

Just give me the damn bamboo.

Chris 

Torpedo wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2003 at 1:48am:


Don't flatter yourself, "Torpedo".  Both of you put together have yet to demonstrate the ability to argue yourselves out of a wet paper bag.  And considering how little material your "side" has to work with in the first place, perhaps either "Laurel and Hardy", or "Keystone Cops numbers 1 and 2" might be a better choice of nicknames.

The day you guys decide to engage in a debate on the facts (instead of a battle of name-calling wits in which you are clearly outgunned) will be a proud day for all of us.  You can start by addressing the scientific findings of the NAS' report on polygraphy.

Skeptic

My, how this thread has degenerated.

In general, guys, I'm not a big fan of "spelling and grammar" flames.  They add nothing to arguments, and almost always, the flamer is living in a glass house.  And yes, Torpedo, that includes you, too -- though I must say, I have yet to see you add anything of value to any thread, regardless.

I think attempting to deduce the whole story from most of our one- or two-paragraph horror story posts is nearly always a case of "going off half-cocked".  Generally speaking, there's no way to derive "Secret Agent"'s indiscretion based upon what he's written, nor whether he's deserving of ridicule or praise.  Unfortunately, unfounded, baseless assumption regarding those who post their stories here seems to be all too common among a couple of current posters who shall remain nameless (they know who they are).  

I respectfully suggest that we keep our commentary confined to the polygraph itself in such cases, considering the lack of certainty regarding anything else.

Skeptic

Marty,

You wrote:

Quote:


At this point, we don't know whether SecretAgent "passed" or not. Nor is it clear whether SecretAgent's admission -- which was evidently regarding a matter highly embarrassing/humiliating to him/her -- was in fact a disqualifying factor, or whether it was responsive to any of the relevant questions in the polygraph interrogation.

Marty wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2003 at 1:32pm:


Good points by George and Marty.  We do not know the fate of secretagent, we have all made assumptions. 

What we do know is that secretagent made some sort of admission.  My concern is that if he was DQ'd for this admission, was he truly given the opportunity to disclose this information prior to the polygraph??

Let's say applicant X (no relation to x_X_x), when he was in high school, cheated on his all important SAT and was never caught.  It's not really a crime, per se, but something that might eat away at applicant X for the rest of his life.

Under the mental duress of the polygraph, believing that it can truly read your mind, applicant X might spill that he cheated on his SAT.  And the unforgiving polygrapher DQ's him, and then blames applicant X for not revealing this information when he had the chance.  What application gave this applicant the chance to disclose this action?

If the question is never asked, then the applicant believes that the action isn't relevant.  So an admission to the like during the polygraph must be the only solution, in the mind of the unknowing applicant, to get the machine to read correctly.  

How then can applicant X be DQ'd when he was never given the chance to reveal said information??

Batman wrote:
Quote:


Batman, I ask again, what if secretagent was never asked a question relevant to his "crime"??  How can you assume he gambled?  He could only gamble if he knew the DQ criteria.

Chris

Fair Chance:
Yes, in fact I agree that any law enforcement officer as well as any person with access to classified information should very well be able to handle stress, including hard grilling as is typical in a lot of polygraph exams.
Your point about someone having some ghost that could open them up to blackmail is very sound and valid.  I appreciate that.   
All of that having been said, I have a question based on what you stated:
Quote:

What if the person sitting for the polygraph is NOT law enforcement, or seeking a LE job?  Let us also presume that it would not be a criminal investigative matter.  Would you contend the same in such a situation?

Regards,
Seeker

Seeker wrote on Feb 4^th, 2003 at 12:30pm:


I think we are actually closer than would appear. I also agree poly interrogations create stress even with true DI's. I don't think it is caused by dissonance so much as shame/fear. Dissonance based stress is a different animal and has to be reconciled somehow, and probably drives more people to this site post poly than any other factor. I suspect people who are true positives on a DI [usually] don't come here at all. [The secretagent type of post is rare here compared to it's frequency in poly exams.]

[added]

-Marty

Dear Seeker,

Before I start the following discussion I want to make very clear that I find the "validity" of polygraph usage in the FBI prescreening to be a waste of time and money unless a thorough investigation is done and a very specific incident can be identified.  Even with this, the percentage outcome has not scientifically been proven and a margin of error cannot be defined.  The utility of the polygraph is the main reason it still exist.

The Director of the FBI has requested an additional 13 positions specifically for polygraph for the fiscal year 2003 due to the anticipated increase in examinations (source can be verified on the FBI website under press releases, Congressional Statements).  Someone at a high level is still defending this primative device and I can hear their sly justification, "There is nothing better or more cost effective."  Emphasis on cost effective.  Anyone who has read the complete NAS report knows that this is a very good spin on stretching the truth.  

Many people on this site have attacked "The Breeze"'s posting but he has been very astute in this area.  The FBI believes it saves money and footwork on "believing the polygraph".  Since all successful employees and special agents successfully pass their exams, they have no reason to question or doubt the validity and endorse its usefulness and effectiveness.  It allows the "good-ole-boys club" to selectively enhance the probability of finding a candidate with attributes that the current leadership wants to perpetuate without violating hiring laws.  The refusal to videotape the examination, use tamper resistant time/date techniques (via computer recording), and not allowing the applicant to sign all copies of any current strips used would be ample ammunition for any expert attorney to question the chain of custody and validity of results due to possible tampering.  Any long time examiner will admit that through unethical behavior they could skew the results of any polygraph experience.  The videotape is key to objectively witnessing unethical behavior.  The videotape can protect the polygraph examiners against false accusations and I can find no good ethical examiner who would have a problem with showing his/her exam to an objective person and defending  their actions.  The only outcome of this logic is that examiners who do not use videotape are not proud of their technique or procedure and fear review of such actions.

Seeker, you are trying to be logical with a system which is not founded on logic.  No matter how you discuss it, it cannot make sense to a reasonable person.  I would not trust my life on information provided to me by an informant (volunteer or otherwise) strictly based on polygraph.  The polygraph is just another prop to intensify an interrogation. The polygraph just gives a warm and fuzzy feeling without spending any real money on footwork. A good interrogator does not need a polygraph except as a "fear inducing tool."  The utility of confessions is in direct proportion to the fear that the examiner can instill in the examinee that the polygraph works.

My first few postings vented my anger that the polygraph is given so much weight in the vetting process of an FBI application without any other source of information.  This is nothing short of allowing the examiner to be the "gate keeper" of the organization.  By carefully controlling who is allowed to be an examiner, a supervisor can ensure his opinions will be perpetuated in spirit (similar to the sway the President can have on Supreme Court Justices by picking nominees who agree with his personal values).

Polygraphing an unjammed source serves no useful purpose if one knows all the answers anyway from other sources.  If one does not have any other sources, I would be very remiss about just using a polygraph for verification if my life depended on it.

Regards.