Dear FBI-Reject,

It is a God awful feeling having someone who has no real knowledge of your life telling you that you are a worthless piece of sh__ after two hours of meeting you.  I know you were falsely accused.  Failing a polygraph pre-screening procedure would not bother a lying person or a person of no integrity.

This site is a life-saver for people falsely accused.  I know it to be an infuriating situation.  I do not feel your pain but I know what it feels like.  I will never forget it either for the rest of my life.  What an insult.

Regards.

Quote:


Underlying Truth,

Sure, I would like to comment by repeating a post I made some time back...

nonombre wrote on Mar 8^th, 2006 at 3:16am:

I couldn't help but notice that each one of your scenarios involved somebody confessing and giving you the information you needed.  I have no doubt that you are very good at manipulating people and coercing them to confess.  If you think that the end justify the means, then you go right ahead and pat yourself on the back at the end of each day.   

I also noticed that you didn't say anything about people that fail polygraphs and don't confess.  No doubt, you just assume they are lying and uncooperative.  Does it ever cross your mind that they are telling the truth and that you are ruining their lives with your fallible machine?
 
What have you done for society today?   As I said, I think you and other operators like you live in a world of denial where you have convinced yourself that you are doing good and helping people.  I think you are forced to believe this way in order to justify your actions and despite how many times you read or hear of a person's life being destroyed; you will choose to believe it is for the good of society.

FBI-Reject wrote on Jun 18^th, 2006 at 1:54am:


Since you and "Underlying truth" have asked basically the same question (only I believe you came across a bit more objectively) I will answer you both:

Police applicants/criminal suspects do not provide information in every case in which deception has been diagnosed on a polygraph examination.  I will tell you (as many polygraph examiners will) that they do provide information in the vast (and I mean vast) majority of cases.  A "confirmatory" polygraph examination is then always run to determine if the examinee is then being truthful.

In the very few applicant cases that are not resolved (<8%), I do sometimes wonder if I registered a FP.  BTW, the examples you give of, " Maybe it was because he was accused of stealing his grandfather's money when he was a child, when it was really his drug-using cousin." are not truly FP's, as they are issues that were on the applicants mind that he chose not to share with the examiner.  A true "FP" occurs when there is absolutely no issue concerning the examinee on the relevant question and he/she still responds consistantly for some unknown reason.

The paragraph above is why I talk at lengh with each examinee.  I am not "coercing" the examinee as "Underlying truth" has implied, but giving him/her a chance to talk about whatever is on their mind and may be causing a problem on the polygraph exam.

To get back to the FP, yes they do occur, that is why if you were to look at my earliest posts, you will see that I support the use of a graded pre-employment process that gives a certain number of points to each stages of the process (interview, written exam, physical, poly, etc), and the point system would be set up so that the applicant could "blow" any portion of the process and still concievably get the job.  In this case the "water walking" applicant that many of the posters on this site claim to be, would have stilll gotten the job, even after flaming out on the polygraph exam.

My apologies for any spelling mistakes, my wife is calling me for breakfast and I hate cold eggs.

Regards,

Nonombre

I see a very big problem with false positives and the situation I described.  It seems to me that honest people who have guilt complexes over the smallest things (me) are most at risk for "failing." Those who are less sensitive or more pathological will register less.

As I got into the test, I kept remembering little things that I knew were of no consequence, but that I felt would cause me to register.  I began telling my examiner and he was getting irritated.  He told me "your dying a death by a thousand cuts here."  To me that was basically saying "shut up and lets get on with it."  With that chilling effect, how was someone in my position supposed to bring up anything else after that?

He was arrogant, self-righteous, and rushed during the exam.  I had done no research on the exam.  My only sin was that I was too nervous for the exam and I began obsessing about all the little things (of no consequence to anyone but me) that I had done.

And as far as my drug example, I think in a lot of cases those reactions are so ingrained or subconcious that the person might not even realize that is why they are reacting.

nonombre wrote on Jun 18^th, 2006 at 3:50pm:


Wow, that's the closest I've seen one of you guys admit that your machine doesn't detect deception but only emotional response to a question. So how can you make the logical leap that the emotional response is from lying when an examinee is having "issues" with a question? 

And less than 8% false positives too! What's your false negative rate? As I asked you before, you probably don't want to think about it, do you?