Twice. I failed it twice. The band that went around my middle was too tight the first time, which prompted me to take really huge breaths. The polygrapher yelled at me. So I started to really try not to take those big breaths, and he yelled at me for using countermeasures. Then I was so flustered from his telling me that I was lying that I started twitching in the chair which apparently looked like MORE countermeasures. Needless to say, I failed that one. He said I was unresolved on everything. They gave me another chance - and I also screwed that one up because I was dreading it so much and of course the band is still too tight. He loosened it once but that did not really help. Then they each grilled me for about two hours about what I was hiding. 

FYI: I have done NOTHING wrong. I am a really good kid. I declared minor (5 times) marijuana usage and minor instances of illegal downloading on my form. Everything I reported is true (and I omitted nothing). For what it is worth, the polygraphers seemed to believe me that I wasn't doing it on purpose and that I was telling the truth when I said that I was hiding nothing - but they were still awful to me. I cried a lot in the first one and a little bit in the second one.

I just want to ask everyone - what are my chances that they will still grant my clearance? The rest of my processing has been stellar (to the best of my knowledge). 

Also, this is for a job with an intelligence agency. I will be so miserable if I don't get it. I'm extremely qualified and I just feel so cheated that the polygraph is doing me in when it's apparently pseudoscience.

Quote:


Wouldn't responsible policy makers in the government stop the use of the polygraph if they were aware of these problems?  One would think they would, but the sad fact is they already know all these things - they have known since at least 1985 when I testified in Congress and got the EPPA passed into law.  But, knowing the polygraph is worthless as a "lie detector", knowing that people were wrongly accused of lying, and knowing that many were abused by polygraph operators asking illegal questions was still not enough to convince government agencies to stop using the polygraph.  In fact, these agencies demanded that they be excluded from this law in order to "protect national security" and to "assure the integrity of law enforcement and the criminal justice system".   The lawmakers caved and allowed the exclusions to be written into the law because that was the only way to be assured that even the watered down version prohibiting the polygraph in the private sector would pass.  Why do government agencies still staunchly defend the use of the polygraph and even harass, intimidate and try to punish me for proving the polygraph is not a "lie detector" by demonstrating that I can teach anyone to easily control the results of the "test"?  Why do they do everything in their power to prevent any information that discredits the "lie detector" from being exposed?  Why do they intimidate applicants and others who are required to submit to polygraph "testing" by monitoring their internet activity and punishing them for educating themselves about the polygraph? Why does the government love to use this "Frankenstein's Monster", (a description given to the polygraph by its inventor Dr. Larson)?  And why do they insist on continuing to use it?

After much thought, I have come to what I consider to be the only logical conclusion that can be drawn as to why government agencies, (federal, state, & local) continue to use the polygraph even though all the scientific evidence proves it is worthless as a "lie detector".  I believe they are using the polygraph as a subterfuge to avoid complying with federal employment regulations!  What else explains the 65% "failure" rate for applicants who have already passed a very thorough background investigation?  These agencies can circumvent federal laws and discriminate against people, ask illegal questions, interrogate/terrorize them for hours, and use the polygraph as an excuse to deny employment to anyone they don't want to hire.  They can be totally subjective in their hiring and firing practices when they use the polygraph, because all they have to do is to say the applicant "failed" a polygraph test.  By simply saying the person has "failed" a polygraph test, government agencies can hire and fire people at will and then just blame it on the "failed" polygraph test.  There is no way anyone can appeal a hiring or firing decision that is based on a "failed" polygraph - and those who are denied employment or terminated have no recourse - they can't bring a lawsuit for discrimination or wrongful termination!  Do I believe the government agencies who utilize the polygraph are this nefarious?  YES!  And it is tantamount to criminal negligence on the part of those charged with oversight of these government agencies to allow them to continue to use this so-called "lie detector testing"!

Yeah, I'll weigh in- Doug Williams is full of shit.  This "65%" is some ridiculous figure he pulled out of his ass.  Why?  His mission is to sell as many books and DVDs as he can to dupes like you.  Listening to Doug Williams is both FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.

WASHINGTON — Thousands of job applicants come to FBI offices all across the country every year, eager to work for the top law enforcement agency in the U.S.

But many of them have their hopes dashed, and it’s not because of their work experience or education or criminal records. They’re turned down because they’ve failed their polygraph tests.

The FBI’s policy of barring job candidates who fail their polygraph tests clashes with the view of many scientists that government agencies shouldn’t be relying on polygraph testing to decide whether to hire or fire someone. Experts say polygraph testing isn’t a reliable indicator of whether someone is lying – especially in employment screening.

“I was called a lazy, lying, drug dealing junkie by a man who doesn’t know me , my stellar background or my societal contributions,” wrote one black applicant in Baltimore, who said he was told he qualified for a job except for his polygraph test failure. “Just because I am young and black does not automatically denote that I have ever used any illegal drugs.”


Although all polygraph testing is controversial, many scientists are highly critical of its use in job screening, saying it’s especially prone to inaccuracies because the questions are often more vague than they are in criminal investigations and therefore they’re more likely to provoke reactions from the innocent that might seem like deception.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/20/191539/fbi-turns-away-many-applicants.html...

Very good-take one agency and base your nonsensical 65% on that.  Where is your data from the other two dozen federal agencies, and hundreds of local and state law enforcement agencies?  Show me the 65% failure rate from them.   

As for that NAS study, that was 12 years ago.  Ancient history.

Our motto remains:  Listening to Doug Williams is both FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.

Doug Williams wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

Show us all those factual figures.  Name each agency, show how many were tested, and how many failed.  That's proof;  not some bullshit percentage with no genuine data to back it up.

Once again, listening to Doug Williams is both DANGEROUS and FOOLISH

To my knowledge, no further studies have taken place.

in essence, they do, when follow-up studies do not keep up with more recent/advanced research.  Just like any other kind of continuing research in medicine, vehicle/aircraft safety, etc, opinions based on out of date studies/data are not necessarily valid today.