Sometimes it is not a confirmable or refutable issue. Are you suggesting that, for example, you report on an application you never smoked marijuana. You take the examination and fail, specifically to marijuana use. Just because I fail the pot portion of the test doesn't mean I was lying. You can tell the truth and STILL FAIL. All you can say is that my ANS "reacted".
I have already addressed this. It is up to the readers to decide. That is exactly why polygraph is used. There are many things in a person's life that can be corroborated through a background; however, there are many more that can not. Hense the applicability of polygraph...
You are talking in circles. You said the polygraph can't tell for sure whether one is telling the truth.
No, don't think so. I never said polygraph was a lie detector... So, there are many things in one's background that can't be corraborated, so we need the polygraph, which can't really show for sure (by your own admission) that the subject is telling the truth?
Maybe we need to bring Edgar Cayce back from the dead.
FYI, I have undergone two comprehensive backgrounds and pre-employment polygraph examinations. Yes, I was scared. Yes, I was nervous. Yes, I was (completely) honest and yes, I was hired.
FYI, I passed a SBI when I entered the service, held a TS SCI for 20 years, passed 4 periodics BI updates, passed a polygraph at NSA after retiring (told the truth), failed a polygraph at NSA five years later (was telling the truth). So what does that prove:
You can PASS the test when telling the truth.
You can FAIL the test while telling the truth.
But not when withholding information. No valid examination process has interrogations between charts. Ever! First they they went over my application, then explained what the CI questions mean, hooked me up, turned on the voodoo box and conducted the 1st test. Stopped and looked at the chart, said I was having trouble with the "foreign contacts" question. Tried to get me to explain why I would have trouble with it. Turned the player piano on again and did it again. Stopped, said I was still having trouble....ad naseam for two freaking days! Each time trying to get more info.
Like an idiot, even though I knew I had had no elicit foreign contact (and they explained what that meant in great detail), and after two grueling days, they were able to get me to question my own veracity. IOW, got me to think, even though in my CONSCIOUS mind, I knew I was answering truthfully, maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me.
"maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me" doesn't sound like you were completely truthful. I'm not suggesting you were lying, but if there is any chance you withheld, then you would naturally have problems on the testing. This is VERY similar to the COERCED FALSE confessions police get people to make all the time.
I have seen the same shows, movies, etc. I will tell you for me, I have never taken a false confession, ever! No, reaction in a significant and consistant manner indicates information that has been withheld (and/or lied to). By the time the test begins, the issue has been covered well enough not to be a threatening issue, unless of course they're withholding something.
A consistent ANS reaction still is not proof they are lying or withholding. It just means the question is consistently bothering them.
I've already discussed this. In my case, it was because I knew it was THAT question (foriegn contacts) that they were having trouble with. Which, pissed me off, cuz I was telling the truth. And might stop me from getting the job I am extremely qualified for...etc.
What they did, was keep changing it, during the interrogations between tests you said never happen, to read: "Other than what you already told me, have you ever had an illicit contact with a foreign contact..." But these were just the 1st, 2nd, 3rd...permutations of the original question. I guess some people can DESENSITIZED that way, but I couldn't.
Further, inter-chart interviewing concerning a specific subject is inappropriate at best. But I can not speak to your experience, I wasn't there, nor was I responsible for your test. Incidently, the "scuttlebutt" at the NSA is that if the hiring committee really want's you, whether a new applicant, or an existing employee doing a "periodic", they will test you, test you, test you, test you, test you....until you finally pass.
Nepotism, buddy considerations, friends of friends, dynastic desires, etc, that's the "scuttlebutt" at every dept. Gee, that should make the nation feel secure!
I know many federal examiners and yes, it should make the nation feel more secure. I specifically do not allow the examinee to tape the process because once they leave the polygraph suite, I no longer have control of it's release or dissemination.
Wouldn't want the subject to walk away with any documentation, would we?
No. Wouldn't want testing information to be misused, manipulated, falsely misrepresented, etc before the truth can come out... I make the tapes for judicial or official use under discovery and by personnel who have some inclination to the polygraph process. I do not want any examination cut and paste by a disgruntled examinee only to be reviewed in the court of public opinion concerning a topic (i.e. polygraph) which most people don't understand (and whose understanding may extend only to to watching "The Recruit" or "Meet the Parents") and in which I have no feedback or means to explain the proceedure and protocol. Oh please! Doesn't work the other way around, huh?.
No, it doesn't! I've explained that. Bedsides, polygraphers have NOTHING TO HIDE, anyway.
![Grin Grin](https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/grin.gif)
Like those taped coerced false confessions you see on TV from time to time.
Do not believe everything you see on TV, or the internet for that matter... The point I am trying to make to people is that a polygraph is an INTERROGATION. The polygraph machine is just a prop used to intimidate. If you go in naive, like I did, believing "just tell the truth, and the machine will show you are being truthful. Ya got nothing to hide of fear": You can GET SCREWED!
Well, I think you reported four polygraphs before having problems. Now I can't speak for your examination, but I think your hypothesis of naivete is a little off. Better to go in with the attitide, that machine can't tell if I am being truthful. TELL THE TRUTH, and DON'T LET THEM TELL YOU YOU ARE LYING WHEN YOU AIN'T!
My fingers are too tired to continue this!