I have some questions about how examiners prepare for an examination, and how they decide what  "strategy" to use on a particular examinee.

I went thru a counter-intelligence poly with a 3-letter government agency on Monday.   I have had a  TS/SCI clearance for years and am probably as "clean" as they come.  I was relaxed going in, and  didn't anticipate any problems.     The examiner was presumably a DACA-certified individual.

However, sitting with the examiner during the pre-screen interview, he was abrupt and rude.  He didn't  let me fully answer questions like "so tell me about your job" and "tell me about your wife and kids", he  would scribble something on his notepad and interrupt me with his next question, as if he was in a hurry.   I started to get a little frustrated, and I am certain that my agitation was noted by the examiner.

He asked some more questions, and then stopped and blind-sided me with the comment "I don't think  you are taking this polygraph very seriously".    WTF?   At this point, I was no longer relaxed.   I  suspected some theater was involved, but I was still taken aback.  Despite my efforts to try to remind  myself "this guy is just jerking with me",  I became defensive and tense. 

We proceeded with hooking me up to the machine and ran thru some test questions.  The examiner  was very disruptive,  continuously interrupting the process with comments like "you're breathing too  fast", or "you're breathing too slow" and incessantly saying "if you don't follow my instructions, we'll  never get this finished today".    I became ultra self-aware of my breathing and posture, to the point  where the harder I tried to breathe naturally and sit still, the more difficult it became.    By the time the  test began, I was pretty much a nervous fidgety wreck.   Eventually, he asked me to stop speaking  altogether, and answer my questions only by moving my eyes.

The testing proceeded badly.  After about 90 minutes, he stood up from his terminal, and got in my face  -- "Are you intentionally not following my instructions?", he said.   I tried to explain that I was sitting as  still as I could and breathing as naturally as possible, under the circumstances.  I explained that he had  caused me to be nervous when he said, before testing even began, that he felt I was not serious about  the polygraph.  His response was "You weren't serious about the polygraph then, and I'm not sure you  are even now, because you aren't following my instructions".

At this point, I become mentally disengaged - I was no longer interested in passing the polygraph, nor  was I concentrating on answering the questions, only on counting the minutes when this exam would be  over and I could escape from this jerk.   

The testing went another 90 minutes (3 hours total).  He left the room for awhile, then came back to  inform me that my test was "useless", they couldn't use any of it!   I was not surprised at all.   I was told  to come back for a re-test the next morning, which I had with a pleasant lady who did not badger me,  and I passed (as I knew I would).

So, my questions are:

1.  How much of this was "theater" and how much was genuine antagonism by the examiner?   I had  expected some "tough guy" stuff, but by the end I felt bullied and harrassed.  I had voluntarily submitted  myself to undergo the polygraph, in good faith that I would be given a fair, impartial examination.... but I  left feeling as if the examiner had made it personal, trying to "teach me a lesson" or something  

2.  If this was "theater", how is it beneficial to  put the examinee into a heightened state of anxiety?   It  seems to me that ANY anxiety at all would skew the graphs, as NONE of the physiological responses  would be "natural".    I was so tense, that I imagine that all my responses looked exactly the same on his  graphs (which was probably making him angrier by the minute).

3.  If this was "theater", how did he determine which tactics to use on me?   Was there something in my  profile that suggested that they would get better results by making me uncomfortable?  Or was it a  spur-of-the-moment call, that he made during his pre-test interview with me?   Or was my examiner  simply incompetent (which I now suspect)?   

4. Does an examiner get "dinged" for not being able to get good graphs?  Because my examiner sure seemed pissed off that he wasn't getting good graphs from me.

5. Finally -- can an examinee request a new examiner before the testing begins?   In hindsight, I feel like  I should've stopped and requested a new examiner, at that moment in the beginning when he accused  me of not taking polygraphs seriously.    His comments showed that he had already formed an opinion  of me, which I believe poisoned the entire exam process.

guitarman wrote on Oct 8^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:


A lot of your experience sounds indeed very much  like "theatre", and is reminiscent of my experience in Langley several years ago (and it appears as if you are applying to work at a similar "three-letter agency"!). 

I was also repeatedly accused of being deceptive, not taking the polygraph seriously, and not even being serious about wanting to work at the Agency.

Between that and a very sloppy BI, I now feel very fortunate that I wasn't employed by the "brave warriors" of Langley.

Very informative post quickfix. It is good to know that there is some oversight. Honestly, I had believed that the govt polygraphers had free reign and were not questioned.

Evan S wrote on Oct 10^th, 2015 at 11:02pm:


The only civilized option - let's stop using this stupid thing.  Your suggestion is like saying -  "lets only allow bishops and cardinals to burn witches at the stake and not let priests do it anymore".

guitarman:

IMO, filling out an "email survey" is a complete waste of time.  Also the federal polygraph school is no longer called DACA, it's now NCCA (your polygraph office is not up to date).

And don't you think it's strange that the second polygrapher easily passed you ("a pleasant lady who did not badger me")?  Lack of consistency, not good for a "scientific" test.  (I have already asked quikfix this question, have yet to receive an answer.)

quickfix...thanks for your reply...Evan S

However it is my understanding this idea has been previously floated: an independent federal agency to conduct all federal polygraphs, including preemployment testing, post-employment security screening, specific issue, and others.

My experience with the federal polygraph was post-employment security screening (CSP), in private aerospace.  Currently retired.  So I have some knowledge.