Polygraph testing, "Then and now"

<Reference Materiel>
http://www.digitalessays.com/social_issues/082.shtml

 People have yearned for a reliable and consistently correct way of finding out if one is telling the truth since ancient times. “Early societies used torture.  Statements made by a person on the rack were considered especially believable.” (Jussim, pg.65) There was also trial by ordeal, which was based on superstition.  For instance, if there were two suspects for one crime, it was thought that the innocent would be stronger in combat and thus vanquish a guilty opponent. This example shows how it was done long ago. “The ancient Hindus made suspects chew rice and spit it into a leaf from a sacred tree.  If they couldn’t spit, they were ruled guilty.  Although this procedure long predated the modern lie detector, it was based-knowingly or not- on assumptions about psychological stress much like those that support polygraph examinations today.  The ancient test depended on the fact that fear makes the mouth dry, so rice would stick in a guilty person’s mouth.  For the procedure to work, the subject had to believe in its accuracy and, if guilty, had to be anxious about being caught in a lie.” (Ansley, pg. 42)

The modern polygraph is said to measure the subject’s “internal blushes” in much the same way.  It does not really detect lies-only physiological responses.  The theory behind the polygraph is that lying always heightens these responses.  When taking the test, subjects are hooked up to a briefcase-sized machine by means of several attachments. usually, a pneumatic tube goes around the chest to measure respiration, a cuff squeezes one bicep to monitor blood pressure, and electrodes are attached to two fingertips to determine the skin’s resistance to electrical current (which is related to how much the subject is sweating).  An examiner, or polygrapher, quizzes the subject.  As the subject answers the questions, the machine draws squiggles on a chart representing physiological responses, which are supposed to clue the examiner in to the subject’s lying, or truthful, ways.  Just as the ancient Hindu was betrayed by a dry mouth the modern polygraph subject is said to indicate that he or she is lying by breathing harder or having a racing pulse.  (In arriving at a conclusion about a person’s deceptiveness, some polygraphers also use their own subjective observations of the person’s behavior.) The test will not work, though, if the subject does not believe in the procedure.  If the subject does not think the machine can tell the examiner anything, then he or she won’t be anxious and won’t show the heightened responses that the machine is designed to record.  Because of this, the examiner will often use deceptive tricks to impress the subject with the polygraph’s alleged accuracy. 

Modern polygraphy got its start in Chicago in the 1930s, where it was used in criminal justice investigations.  Now it has a wide range of other applications, including screening job applicants and employees, conducting intelligence investigations in federal security departments like the Central Intelligence Agency, and trying to uncover the source of unauthorized disclosures to the press of government documents or information. The strategies used by polygraphers vary from one application of the machine to another. In pre-employment screens, subjects are typically asked a series of about twenty questions.  “Irrelevant” questions like “Is your name Fred?” serve to put the subject at ease.  Typical “relevant” questions are: have you ever been convicted of a crime?  Stolen from a previous employer? Is all the information on your employment application correct? 
Do you take illegal drugs?  This series is repeated, and if physiological responses to particular relevant questions are constantly and significantly higher than responses to others, the subject is reported as “deceptive.” Investigations into specific incidents are more complicated.  Tin these, “relevant” questions concern only the alleged wrong doing-for instance, “Did you steal the missing $400?”  To determine truthfulness, polygraph responses to these questions are compared with responses to other questions- called “control” questions-that are provocative but do not relate to the incident. The use of polygraphs in the work place greatly increased over the last fifteen years, and now over two million of them are given annually in the United States. Seventy-five percent of them are administered to job applicants.  Other tests are given periodically or randomly to employees or as part of an investigation in the wake of a theft or act of sabotage.  Although subjects technically submit to testing “voluntarily” - generally signing a release saying they are willing to undergo such an examination- they actually have few options.  Applicants who refuse a screen are not likely to be hired, and even long-time employees who refuse risk being fired or having their decision held against them in some way. According to the American Polygraph Association (APA), an industry group that promotes lie-detector use, one-fifth off all major U.S. businesses uses the machine in some capacity. The test is most commonly used by firms in which low-level employees handle large sums of cash, such as bans and department stores.  But all kinds of concerns have tested their employees- from meatpacking companies to hospitals.  Though some companies have in-house polygraph operations, most hire a security firm to do the lie detection for the.  Generally, companies using lie detectors make submission to testing a condition of employment. Polygraphs are also sometimes used on state and federal government employees. The Department of Defense (DOD) uses the polygraph more than any other federal agency except the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA).  The DOD gave 25,000 tests in 1985.  The department uses polygraphs for criminal and counterintelligence investigations and to screen people being considered for access to classifies information.  The CIA and NSA, which together have about 100,000 employees, screen all job applicants with the machine and also use it in investigations as well as in random checks on employees.  The CIA or NSA will hire no one refusing a pre-employment polygraph.  In 1979, three-quarters or more of the applicants turned down for CIA jobs were rejected because of their polygraph results.  Sometimes the federal government also uses lie detectors to track down the source of unauthorized disclosures, or “leaks,” to the press. The U.S. Postal Service uses the polygraph more than any other agency not involved in national security.  The primary use here is in investigations of mail theft. The Office of Personnel Management strictly regulates pre-employment polygraph programs for many federal agencies.  Its rules require that any agency doing screening have “a mission approaching the sensitivity of that of the CIA.”  The questions asked in the course of the exam must be narrow, and the agency involved must monitor procedures “to prevent abuses or unwarranted invasions of privacy.”  The rules also require employers to tell the subjects that they have a privilege against self-incrimination and a fight to consult a lawyer before the test, and, in addition, that refusal to submit to a lie detector will not be recorded in employment files. The Defense Department has similar regulations governing polygraph use. Defense employees can refuse lie detectors used in investigations of criminal activities or unauthorized disclosures without suffering adverse consequences.  

<Get Involved:>
False positive test results are without question a serious concern for all agencies that rely on polygraph testing. For anyone to conclude that all “DI” polygraph test results are proof of true deception; the polygraph community is very ill fated, and destined for failure. 

Polygraph testing simply cannot continue on such a path of unethical career devastation. Many innocent people are being wrongfully denied potential career positions based on deceit and flimflammery. 

This has got to stop, and I’m sure it will sooner than later. However, at what cost and how many innocent people will be hurt in the process…


Respectfully,
Triple_x

<Torpedo wrote>
"Hate to burst your bubble Triple X..NAS IS an agency of the Department of Defense"

Torpedo, I'm sure you are referring to the "NSA", not the "NAS" as you so state… 

[The [my] excerpt to which you reference]
"The Department of Defense (DOD) uses the polygraph more than any other federal agency except the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA)."

I did not say the NSA is NOT an agency of the DoD... where and how do you arrive at this interpretation…?? 

Perhaps you may wish to re-read my post more slowly, and try harder to comprehend the context and meaning of the material; rather than scramble for a "quick" clever remark, and find yourself in error...

In closing; don’t worry; you didn’t burst my bubble…   although you had me going there for a moment with your reference to the “NAS” as an agency of the Department of Defense.

Have a great day.

Respectfully,
Triple_x

Vato,

I attended the 3-week SFAS course at Fort Bragg, NC in 1982.

Following jump school at Ft. Benning, GA I was selected to attend the (SFAS) Special Forces Assessment and Selection course at Ft. Bragg, NC. 

As you know, [others may not] SFAS is basically designed to select the best within a class of SF candidates who will then move on to the next level, (SFQC) Special Forces Qualification Course also at Fort Bragg. As with any SF candidate, final selection and assignment into an elite Special Forces Unit, now called (SOGS) “Special Operations Groups” depends on successful completion of the (SFAS) Special Forces Assessment and Selection process, as well as the (SFQC) Special Forces Qualification Course.  

Strictly in my opinion; Air Assault school, (11-day course) then taught at Ft. Rucker, AL is superior to either of the SFAS and/or SFQC courses.

Vato; I assume by your knowledge of SFAS SF courses, you also have a background in SF’s.?


Respectfully,
triple_x

Vato,

* My statement regarding air assault school was simply a “matter of speech”.
* I successfully completed/graduated both SFAS/SFQC courses.
* You put emphasis on air assault school “only” being a nine-day course. 
* SFAS and SFQC courses are “only” three (3) week courses. 
* Air assault school is a two-week course. [Not a significant difference.]
* There is merely a one-week difference between the duration of said courses.  

My personal opinion obviously differs with that of yours. However, perhaps we simply perceive specific aspects of the referenced SF courses somewhat differently; and I don’t have a problem with that. 

Strictly in my opinion, the SFAS/SFQC course(s) were more mentally challenging, Air Assault School was simply more physically challenging. 


Regards,
x

Vato...I have this feeling thaty you have hit the nail on the head.  Triple X (odd name don't you think) seems to enjoy lengthy posts to demonstrate his knowledge about certain topics.  True enough, I erred by transposing the letters NSA with NAS, but I would think that there is little doubt that he was excluding NSA from the DoD...indicating to me that his organizational knowledge is lacking....or...made up??? In case you missed it...this was his statement:

"The Department of Defense (DOD) uses the polygraph more than any other federal agency except the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA)."

Is there any doubt in your mind?..Take care my friend, the Justice League would welcome your presence if you so desire!

Vato,

You started the SF debate with:

Vato
Guest                 
             Re: Polygraph testing; « Reply #3 on: 02/16/03 at 18:48:22 »

“When did you go through SFAS?”

 I too, hope this will be my last post regarding this topic as well. Actually, I further hope this will be my last post to you period. The readers on this board are without question, tired of reading this meaningless thread. And quite frankly, I don’t blame them. I’m sick of debating the entire SF saga with you. Let it go. If you don’t believe what I post, fine. Why not contain your personal sarcasm, and simply dismiss the post. Rather, you prefer to respond with personal insults, sarcasm and rudeness, resulting in a continuing response and meaningless never ending thread.

First off; if you would read your on link provided within your previous post, you will clearly read that SFAS is currently a 24 day course: 

[Vato wrote]
“If you follow this link to the JFK Special Warfare Center http://www.soc.mil/swcs/Pipeline.shtml, you'll see that you are clearly in error as to the duration of the SFAS as well as the "Q" course.”

[Copy & paste from your own referenced link]
“Phase I: Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS): 24 days”

The last time I checked, a 24-day course is 3 weeks in duration. 

With respect to the SFQC course, 21 years ago, [1982] the basic SFQC course excluding additional MOS skill training [not part of the basic “Q” course] was a three-week basic course. Present day, I suspect it is still close to 3-weeks, although it may have extended in duration over 21 years. Not sure, don’t care. 

Unlike you, I’m not going to waste my time searching via “Yahoo” to try and find out. Please understand my position here ese Vato; I don’t really care if its 3-weeks, 3-months, or 3-years. I have already successfully completed the course, and could care less what you think. I’m certain that you will try to impress your avid supporters with your typical “unsupported” response. You blatantly discredit yourself further with each succeeding post. Only this time, be sure and “proof read” your own referenced material for a supporting argument, when suggesting we read your provided link. Ha! 

[ese Vato also wrote]
“Maybe you should go back to reading Tom Clancy and Marcinko novels.”

I have never read a single Richard “Dick” Marcinko novel, nor do I like or read Tom Clancy novels. However, I appreciate your recommended source reading material. Do you also recommend the National Enquirer magazine? Sounds to me as though it would be more in-line with your intellect.  

[ese Vato again wrote]
“I'll let the readers come to their own conclusions about your stated qualifications.”

I have never stated any of my qualifications on this board. Where do you arrive at this? Again, you are misstating something you did not fully comprehend. You should seriously consider some basic adult reading comprehension improvement classes. Remedial reading education courses for adults are very beneficial, helpful and affordable.

[ese Vato continues to write]
“The members of the Special Forces are called "quiet professionals" for a reason.”

Agreed, and your point is..??
Are you suggesting that my admission to a couple of Army courses over 21 years ago is some type of a threat to National Security, or giving away some type of secret.? It’s not like I’m posting any classified information, or actual “real-world-events”. Be realistic ese, you can do better than that.

Vato, you should quit embarrassing yourself any further. You respond to my post with a referenced link of you own, that supports my very position. You probably found the link you referenced via Yahoo search engine. You tell me to read your referenced link, and it completely supports my argument to within a couple of days.

Vato, you’re an Idiot.


Torpedo:

[You write]
“Vato...I have this feeling thaty you have hit the nail on the head.  Triple X (odd name don't you think) seems to enjoy lengthy posts to demonstrate his knowledge about certain topics.  “

You point out that my board identity “xxx” is an odd name, agreed. Fair enough, however, I assume “Torpedo” is a far superior board name? 

What is your point here Torpedo? Are we now rating board member identities? If you are suggesting it is representative of the movie “XXX”, [some assume it is] I assure you it is not, nor have I viewed the movie. I also received a private message from a board member asking me if I was into xxx porn… again, not so; and has nothing to do with my board identity. Since when is board names an issue.? I simply picked it at random.

Torpedo, you made reference to my post(s) being "lengthy" to appear knowledgeable about certain topics, not the case at all. 

I do not consider my post(s) any lengthier than many others on this board, and not as long as some. I simply try to make my point and position clear.


Batman:

You are totally incapable of posting an independent post on your own. You are quick to rally and call out to your supporters such as “Green Lantern (Torpedo) and Vato” just to name a few, to rally behind and pile-on to help support your claim.

You guys get-off on “cyber” high-5’ing each other, in support of one another. batshit, you simply can’t post a single debate without calling-out for “requesting” support from your cronies. 

{batshit wrote]
“I called him out on his Special Forces line in a different thread about 2/3 weeks ago.”

When and where do you interpret “calling me out”.? If you’re referring to your previous post regarding your suspicions of me being a “logistics or supply puke”, you have to be kidding… If that’s “calling someone out” in your own mind, then your very weak minded. 

[batshit writes again]
“Vato, funny you should tell him to go back to reading Marchinko (I'm probably misspelling his name because I never read his crap), because I told him he was reading too much Marchinko.”

Your correct here batshit, you did spell it wrong. For the record, the correct spelling is Richard “Marcinko”, not [Marchinko] as you suspected. In this rare case, to your defense, you suspected you may have spelled Marcinko wrong; and amazingly, you were correct in your suspicions. Having said that, I have never read any of his books; although I am smart enough to know who he is, what he represents, and how to "properly" spell his name. Its not exactly rocket science, we’re talking about basic elementary spelling. 

I thought you polygraph pukes were college degreed and educated in the basic disciplines.  However, I laugh at the thought...   

[batshit writes yet again]
“I'm convinced he's simply a tag-a-long, or back office puke who maybe sat through the courses to audit them, but never actually went through them.”

batshit, I’m flattered that you put me in the same category with a simple “tag-a-long, or back office puke”. 

[batshit says]
“He's a classic example of how a little bit of knowledge and training is just enough to get you killed.”

You may actually be on to something here batshit… 


You and your supporters are pathetic. I personally find it appalling that you represent the polygraph community, and possess the ability as a “chart-gazer” to ruin people’s lives and career ambitions.

I sure hope you are better at “guessing” at polygraph chart results, than trying to guess at my previous military experience and background. You don’t have a clue with respect to my past military experience, no more than you have a clue with chart-gazing… Tell us batshit, how do you really do it, do you shake your magic 8-ball, and rely on the answer.? 

You disgust and insult most all non-polygraph supporters on this board. And you are singularly incapable of posting without rallying and calling for all your “yes-men” to support your claim to fame, and pile-on..

Try an independent post for once; that would truly amaze me, as well as many others on this board.

Your turn batshit, write your post, be sure to rally all your supporters, and pile-on with your cyber high-5’ing so the rest of us can sit back and be amused… Ha!!!.


Triple_x

Batman,

[you write]
“You have lost all credilbility with me.” 

When did I ever have any credibility with you in the first place Batman; for you to proudly claim now that I have lost it? Also, you misspelled credibility… although you do show improvement. 

Thanks for the hot tip on “not shaking” the magic 8-ball. Please understand, I did not have a magic 8-ball as a child growing up, nor do I use one currently to aide my profession. 

Perhaps this magic 8-ball is precisely what sparked your interest during your childhood to become a polygraph examiner… After all, they both [polygraph/magic 8-ball] constitute the same chance-accuracy when comparing “chart gazing” to determine truth from deception, verses using the magic 8-ball to establish yes/no answers to the same questions when asked independently. 

That definitely would explain your obvious frustration with me not knowing how to properly use the magic 8-ball. I now have a better understanding of your thought process. 

We are making great strides in progress here Batman with our combined and noteworthy efforts in analyzing one another’s individual shortcomings, mental capacities and flawed personal characteristics. 

I would like to see us move in a positive direction, and work toward a resolve in our opposing differences. Lets try and debate our opposing opinions and views as the true polygraph examiner community statesman and ambassador you are. 

Lets end this charade, and discuss/debate how I passed an FBI pre-employment polygraph exam with flying colors. The polygraph examiner told me that I did fine, yet I was informed the following week via phone, that I was “suspected” of employing polygraph countermeasures by the FBI DC polygraph lab.

That's what brought me to this website Batman, and that's what keeps bringing me back time and again. I now speak out against polygraph testing because I do not feel it is reliable. I further feel that it is fallible, and can be beat with polygraph countermeasures if employed correctly.

What do you say Batman, ready for a change in direction here…??

As you previously remarked crusader; the cat is out of the bag...


Triple X

I have a question for anyone who might be able to tell me.

Michelle wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2003 at 9:09pm:


Is there a way to put Michelle on ignore?  I fear she suffers from OCD when it come to this forum.

Thanks,

Auntie Polly