".....I can tell when a person is withholding information concerning a specific topic when that topic, by virtue of the pre-test interview is made significant. "

For certain?  I can see where you might SUSPECT somebody is withholding info, but I don't see how you can know for sure.

That's what the NSA polygrapher thought I was doing, but I wasn't.  They were suspicious about some translation work I did for an embassy official. He suckered me into translating a 20 page regulation from his home country for free.  They just couldn't believe it.  Thought I was passing secrets or something.

Wouldn't it be better for a trained INVESTIGATOR to check something out like that, rather than screw a qualified candidate because of "hunch" you have.   

Would you want an investigator conducting your polygraph?

I'm glad you mentioned the "pretest".  That, and the interviewing (INTERROGATING) between chart gazing,  is where people screw themselves.  They want you to open up and tell them your life story.  Which they will use against you later, whether you're truthful or not, if they have to (e.g. if there is an "unacceptable" squiggle mark they have to account for).

So what do you do if you test and test and keep getting a reaction WITHOUT A CONFESSION?  My polygrapher did the following:

Let out a big sign when looking at the chart.  Dramatically, got out of her chair, walked out from behind her desk, picked up a chair that was against the wall (thought she was gonna throw it at me), put the chair in front of me, sat in front of me knee2knee, then started yelling at me.

What do you do Mr. Sackett, when a guy keeps professing his innocence (you can't coerce an admission out him), yet that troublesome squiggle mark (which is outside of "acceptable parameters")  keeps showing up.

Does a "reaction" necessarily mean he is lying.  Maybe he is reacting cause that's THE QUESTION YOU KEEP SAYING HE'S HAVING TRUBS WITH EVEN THOUGH HE'S BEING HONEST.  I mean, that alone is enough to get somebodies ANS to get agitated! 

Oh, yeah, and why don't polygraphers allow the test subject to tape the test for their records.  If it's all on the "up and up", that is.   

Sackett

What's to prevent polygraphers to cut and paste their tapes? Wouldn't the fair way be for each to tape the test. Then, if the tapes don't jibe, the ruling body can determine who altered their tapes. An alteration on a tape can be detected if one is armed with that technology.
 
You're not suggesting that all polygraphers and interrogators are above lying to and deceiving subjects, are you?

If I was an honest polygrapher, I would encourage my subjects to both audio and video tape my tests. If he altered his tapes, then he would be required to pay the costs of detection or spend a comparable time in jail. If I altered my tapes, the same would apply to me. What's wrong with this scenario?

Sackett

What rediculous accusation? I made no accusations whatsoever. I asked questions and made a statement. I was not trying to bait you. But, when polygraphers like you and nonombre will not answer intelligent questions to which we all know you have the answers, makes you all look simple and silly. You guys wear your feelings on your sleeve cuffs.

As to my statement about if I was an honest polyghrpher and your answer was "No you wouldn't" -- Bud, you don't know my propensity for honesty and integrety which would preclude me from ever being a polygrapher. I, also, know more about the polygraph than you think, but I refuse to get in a pissing contest. We all have our ideas and opinions so I will leave this discussion alone except to say - don't ever get the notion that I won't/can"t back up what I say.

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".

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.   

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.

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.

This is VERY similar to the COERCED FALSE confessions police get people to make all the time.

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. 

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.

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.

Gee, that should make the nation feel 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?   

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?. Bedsides, polygraphers have NOTHING TO HIDE, anyway.      Like those taped coerced false confessions you see on TV from time to time.   

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!

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!

T.M. Cullen wrote on Feb 17^th, 2008 at 4:27am:


me too, have a nice night...

Sackett

Ejohnson,

Let me guess.  You're a polygrapher.

Al, you really need some help formulating thought without the pseudo bluster.


Like your post above?

Al

Sackett,

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.

They said I was having trouble with one of the questions right from the start (after the first chart).  I had lunch with 3 other candidates tested that day and they all reported the same thing.  They probably tell everyone they're having problem in an effort to get them to "open up".

So in your expert opinion, is being untruthful or withholding information the only possible reason for a ANS "reaction"?  Rather than anger, fear, frustration for being called a liar even though you're telling the truth....etc.

You kind of glossed over that one.

Maybe Ejohnson has an answer for that.