Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Failed twice (Read 53700 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box pandasn
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 4
Joined: Feb 28th, 2014
Failed twice
Feb 28th, 2014 at 2:53pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box jimmyjohnssubs
Guest


Re: Failed twice
Reply #1 - Mar 26th, 2014 at 12:21am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I can totally relate pandasn. Even when being truthfully honest I have repeatedly failed polygraph exams for multiple law enforcement agencies. The polygraph is a joke. I've never done any illegal drugs or drugs whatsoever and I was branded as a drug user/dealer by "failing" the illegal drug question. I also have failed because of the polygraph saying that I was being deceptive when it came to my criminal history and involvement with any serious crimes. It shouldn't be used at all but, the polygraph seems to have a cult following among bureaucrats and uneducated government officials
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Failed twice
Reply #2 - Mar 26th, 2014 at 1:40am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
I can totally relate pandasn. Even when being truthfully honest I have repeatedly failed polygraph exams for multiple law enforcement agencies. The polygraph is a joke. I've never done any illegal drugs or drugs whatsoever and I was branded as a drug user/dealer by "failing" the illegal drug question. I also have failed because of the polygraph saying that I was being deceptive when it came to my criminal history and involvement with any serious crimes. It shouldn't be used at all but, the polygraph seems to have a cult following among bureaucrats and uneducated government officials


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"!


  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years.  I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY.  Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box pandasn
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 4
Joined: Feb 28th, 2014
Re: Failed twice
Reply #3 - Mar 26th, 2014 at 6:06pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
@Jimmyjohns: I can't believe there are so many of us Sad

@Doug_Williams: 65% fail who have a satisfactory background check?! I had no idea it was that high! Does the government actually think that all 65% of people that have great references, great employer reviews, and great landlord reviews are truly hiding some DASTARDLY secret??? How do they sleep at night??? Any polygraphers on this site want to weigh in???

I have not been taken out of processing so I'm crossing my fingers but....Sad
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 365
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Failed twice
Reply #4 - Mar 26th, 2014 at 7:19pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Failed twice
Reply #5 - Mar 26th, 2014 at 7:27pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Customs and Border Protection Polygraph Failure Rate Pegged at 60%

Posted by AntiPolygraph.org on 12 March 2010, 10:42 am      
 

Customs and Border ProtectionOn Thursday, 11 March 2010, in testimony before a subcommittee of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, it was disclosed that the failure rate associated with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) pre-employment polygraph screening program stands at 60 percent. New York Times correspondent Randal C. Archibold reports, among other things:


Polygraph examinations, which officials call an important tool to help weed out bad hires, were administered to about 15 percent of applicants by the end of 2009.

That was an increase from the 10 percent of the previous year, but made possible only because hiring slowed for the first time in several years.

James F. Tomsheck, who is in charge of internal affairs for Customs and Border Protection, said that about 60 percent of candidates failed the test and were turned away, including some who officials believed had ties to criminal organizations.

Senator Mark Pryor, an Arkansas Democrat and chairman of the subcommittee that held the hearing, described the failure rate as “alarming to me.”

“It is to me, too, sir,” Mr. Tomsheck replied.

He said the agency had 31 polygraph examiners but needed 50 more to reach a goal of screening all new hires.

In addition, he said, the agency is far behind in conducting periodic background checks of current law enforcement employees.

He also proposed giving periodic polygraph examinations to those employees but said that Congressional authorization and financing would be needed.

In assessing the significance of the 60% polygraph failure rate, it is important to bear in mind the 2002 finding of the National Academy of Sciences that polygraph screening is completely invalid. Upon completion of a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence on polygraphy, the NAS advised that “its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.”

Applying polygraph screening to all CBP applicants will not solve the problem of corruption within the organization. Polygraphy is highly vulnerable to countermeasures, and members of criminal enterprises seeking to infiltrate CBP will likely fool the lie detector. Meanwhile, given polygraphy’s complete lack of scientific underpinnings and inherent bias against the truthful, many well-qualified applicants will be wrongly excluded from the agency. Anecdotally, AntiPolygraph.org has heard from a number of CBP applicants who report having been falsely accused of deception.
  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years.  I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY.  Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Failed twice
Reply #6 - Mar 26th, 2014 at 7:36pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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...

  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years.  I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY.  Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Failed twice
Reply #7 - Mar 26th, 2014 at 7:48pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Mar 26th, 2014 at 7:19pm:
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.


OK Quickfux, here is one more for you... The Connecticut State Police have provided the following statistics in a "Selection Process Update":


As of August 27, 2003, all of the six hundred seventy three (673) candidates scheduled for polygraph examinations have completed it. _Two hundred twenty seven (227) applicants passing the polygraph have proceeded to the background investigation phase of the selection process. _One hundred five (105) polygraph reports have yet to be evaluated. Excluding the 105 polygraph reports not yet evaluated, 227 out of 568, or 40%, passed. The remaining 341, or 60%, failed!

Note that the polygraph is the fourth step in the Connecticut State Police selection process. Those 60% of applicants who are being branded as liars have all passed a written examination, a physical fitness assessment, and an observational test.

Given that polygraph screening is completely invalid (as confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in its landmark report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, it is clear that the CSP is falsely branding large numbers of truthful, qualified applicants as liars and wrongly disqualifying them from employment.

And by the way, Quickfux, my mission is to put myself out of business.  And I'll happily quit selling manuals and DVD's the day after you and your cohorts quit running your scam of "lie detection".
  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years.  I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY.  Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 365
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Failed twice
Reply #8 - Mar 26th, 2014 at 7:50pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Doug Williams
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 284
Joined: Feb 15th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: Failed twice
Reply #9 - Mar 26th, 2014 at 8:19pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Mar 26th, 2014 at 7:50pm:
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.


I have given you the proof that what I have said is true and that "This "65%" is some ridiculous figure..." is not ridiculous but rather a proven factual figure.  And those millions of people who have been falsely accused of being liars by you and the others who practice this last vestige of witchcraft called "lie detection" (including those who have told their stories here today) already know what I say is true.

And my motto remains:  THE "LIE DETECTOR" IS BULLSHIT!


  

I have been fighting the thugs and charlatans in the polygraph industry for forty years.  I tell about my crusade against the insidious Orwellian polygraph industry in my book FALSE CONFESSIONS - THE TRUE STORY OF DOUG WILLIAMS' CRUSADE AGAINST THE ORWELLIAN POLYGRAPH INDUSTRY.  Please visit my website POLYGRAPH.COM and follow me on TWITTER @DougWilliams_PG


Doug Williams
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 365
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Failed twice
Reply #10 - Mar 26th, 2014 at 8:46pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Doug Williams wrote on Mar 26th, 2014 at 8:19pm:
I have given you the proof that what I have said is true and that "This "65%" is some ridiculous figure..." is not ridiculous but rather a proven factual figure. 

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
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Aunty Agony
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 140
Joined: Aug 15th, 2011
Re: Failed twice
Reply #11 - Mar 27th, 2014 at 6:30pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Mar 26th, 2014 at 7:50pm:
...As for that NAS study, that was 12 years ago.  Ancient history...

Can you tell me if more recent studies during the last 12 years
(1) contradict the NAS study,
(2) support the NAS study, or
(3) exist?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 365
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Failed twice
Reply #12 - Mar 27th, 2014 at 6:54pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
To my knowledge, no further studies have taken place.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Aunty Agony
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 140
Joined: Aug 15th, 2011
Re: Failed twice
Reply #13 - Mar 28th, 2014 at 2:27pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
quickfix wrote on Mar 26th, 2014 at 7:50pm:
...As for that NAS study, that was 12 years ago.  Ancient history...

quickfix wrote on Mar 27th, 2014 at 6:54pm:
To my knowledge, no further studies have taken place.

So the results of scientific studies, like, what? Wear out?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box quickfix
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 365
Joined: Jan 15th, 2006
Re: Failed twice
Reply #14 - Mar 28th, 2014 at 5:36pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Failed twice

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X