Hello,

I failed a pre-employment polygraph for a federal agency last year (the reason was because I didn't feel the slightest bit guilty about the trick control question -- cheating in school -- because I have never cheated before!) Obviously, I felt way more guilty about being accused of serious matters, and failed the test.

Unfortuantely, I did not have ANY idea at the time what kind of trickery and deception was going on, and made the fatal mistake of trying to explain my responses. 

Now I am feeling uneasy because I applied to work in a daycare which requires a national criminal background check and I had to be fingerprinted, etc. I have no criminal record (not even any speeding tickets!) but I am terrified that my polygraphy nightmare is going to come up. Will my employers find out about that, and if so, will they disqualify me from working at a daycare because flunking a polygraph makes me seem like a criminal?

I'm scared because I have volunteered for these people and they love me and I don't want them to think I'm a criminal!

Does anyone know what I can expect? If it does come up, what can I do about this in order to clear my name for my employers?

Thanks for the reply.

That puts my mind at ease somewhat!

I hope you're right about that.

T.M. Cullen wrote
Quote:


Mr. Cullen: This steady stream of people that you talk about; what exactly would you calculate as the percentage the members of this "steady stream" represent of the total number of polygraph examinations given? 

Can you establish by any means of responsible calculation that your "steady stream" represents more than an infinitesimal fraction of a percentage of the total number of polygraph examinations given either in the entire 8 years this site has existed or in any year you might select? 

If you can't then you should reconsider your broad insinuation that the number of people coming here to complain about their exams constitutes anything resembling evidence of a high false positive rate. 
IT DOESN'T.   

There is research that addresses false positives but counting complainers isn't part of it. Also, how exactly did you reach your conclusion concerning how many FBI applicants might be liars or spies? 

Dr. Maschke. A simple Yes or No will suffice.  Would you attempt to publish a study for peer review that attempted to draw conclusions concerning error rate based only on complaints of false positives without addressing how many tests were given?

Sancho Panza

P.S.  I won't be the least bit surprised if the only response to my questions constitutes almost anything but a concise answer or evidence of calculation.

S.P.

"Polygraph screening protocols that can identify a large fraction of serious security violators can be expected to incorrectly implicate at least hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of innocent employees for each spy or other serious security violator correctly identified."  (NAS Report p. 218)


Do the math.  "False positives" are rare,  Yeah right!

TC

"The polygraph as currently used has extremely serious limitations for use in security screening to identify security risks and to clear valued employees." (NAS report p.218)   

Yet polygraphers continue to claim that "false positives" are rare, and routinely compare polygraphs to Xray exams and DNA testing.

"This test is totally scientific and 98% accurate".  This is what one of the NSA's top polygraphers told me during the pretest as he childishly scribbled a bogus pie chart on a legal pad he put in front of me.  "Ya got about a 2% chance of fooling me Tom", he said, repeatedly tracing over  a tiny slice of this stupid pie chart, assuming I'd actually believe such a preposterous claim!

Little did he know my anus was primed and ready to pucker! 

TC

SanchoPanza wrote on Sep 19^th, 2008 at 6:40am:



Sancho as usual you resort to using information to suit your  silly test.
Let's say you did do the math and your calculations were in fact correct.
TC and George's contention is that this site does not represent ALL false positives in the field of Polygraph. 
Of course you fail to mention that the same "math" would hold true to your side in the representation of examiners. 
There have been only a "few" since I have been here that have been vocal about it. You would think with a 98% effective science that, either, this site would be irrelevant ( judging by the zeal of people like you Sackett and others thats not the case) or that you would have the facts to present both here and in the public arena that would seal that validity of Polygraph. You have neither. 

Also Sancho, you use the term "complainers" to describe some that are against Polygraph. 
What are complainers Sancho? If they are those of us who took the test, told the truth and FAILED then, count me in, but don't call me a complainer just because I have taken the time and effort to try to right a wrong that has been going on for way too long.
I understand however, that labeling me and others as complainers makes you feel better about your position of defending your livelihood.
I only hope that some day the test will be turned on you and you get to feel the cold hand of false accusation by un unscientific test. But, something tells me that if that day came you would conveniently opt out of taking it. Just my opinion.

NotGuilty1, Mr. Cullen’s insinuation was clear in his previous post that a so called “steady stream” of people alleging polygraph errors on this site somehow invalidated the statement that false positives are a rare occurrence. He can’t back that up with anything and neither can you. 
Dr. Maschke didn’t even try because he knew my comment was factually correct. 
He Wrote: Quote:


Mr. Cullen keeps trying to avoid the question by quoting a document that completely fails to address any relationship between the number of complainers on this site and a measurable or even estimable false positive rate. 

As to definitions let’s use these
com•plain       (kəm-plān')  Pronunciation Key  
intr.v.   com•plained, com•plain•ing, com•plains 

1.      To express feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment. 
2.      To make a formal accusation or bring a formal charge. 
[Middle English compleinen, from Old French complaindre, complaign-, from Vulgar Latin *complangere : Latin com-, intensive pref.; see com- + Latin plangere, to lament; see plāk-2 in Indo-European roots.] 

com•plain'er n.

SOURCE: complainer. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complainer

You however seem to be more of a whiner (see definition 2 below)

whine        (hwīn, wīn)  Pronunciation Key 
v.   intr. 
1. To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint.
2. To complain or protest in a childish fashion.
3. To produce a sustained noise of relatively high pitch: jet engines whining.
v.tr. 
To utter with a whine.


[Middle English whinen, from Old English hwīnan, to make a whizzing sound.] 

whin'er n., whin'ing•ly adv., whin'y, whin'ey adj.

SOURCE: whiner. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whiner

The only reason that this site is relevant or worthy of comment is my belief that this site provides aid and comfort to criminals and the enemies of our country, and my disagreement with the founder for co-writing a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity.  I also believe that Dr. Maschke fails to give proper weight to recent information that seems to indicate that the procedures he teaches may cause innocent people (like you claim you are)  to fail polygraph tests. 

If you want to change the subject, change it, but don't pretend your are responding to my post when you do it. 

SanchoPanza

Notguilty1... You're really quite emotional aren't you?  

Temper Temper Temper
 

Sancho Panza