So here's my horror story.  I'll keep it short and sweet, just looking for input.  About three weeks ago I took the poly for a federal agency.  He starts off the interview asking if had taken a polygraph before and if I had done any research on the topic.  I have taken one polygraph before and passed it and explained that the only research I had done was reading everyone's horror story on another forum.  He said that is good because most people who go looking online for advice end up failing the exam.  No issues there, on to the exam.   

So we go through the entire exam twice with the second time me having to repeat the last word in the question followed by yes or no.  Twice he walks out to confer with "quality control."  The second time he returns and begins the interrogation and starts accusing me of being deceptive during a few of the more ridiculous questions.  Eventually I ask the guy if the responses he is seeing is due do what I am doing in between questions.  During the 10-20 seconds between questions I would think of irrelevant things i.e. childhood memories, lunch, my dogs, etc. and stare at the wallpaper trying to make shapes out of it, much like cloud watching.  I did this will the sole purpose of calming myself down, not to influence the outcome of the exam as he put it.  Not only did I see this as a normal reaction, but it was also advice given to me by a state agency's recruiter before taking their polygraph.  The recruiter told us not to dwell on the question or go looking for answers that would make us second guess ourselves.  So, again I see nothing wrong with what I did.  He continues to grill me and insist that I was doing it to influence the outcome of the exam.  At this point I was getting a little pissed off and was about to start arguing, but I decided that if I stood any chance at continuing I just needed to accept it and go with the flow.  So that's what I did.  He even gave me the option to write an apology to HQ for using countermeasures, which I wrote.  In the end, I bent over and, for the sake of possibly moving on, admitted what I had done and wrote the apology.  As we were walking out, he kept reiterating what a great candidate I was, that this was unfortunate, and hopefully HQ decides to give me another shot.

Obviously, I'm writing this because I didn't get another shot.  However, to this day I still feel like what I did should not be considered as a countermeasure.   

Am I blacklisted because of my admission?  Sorry for the rant, it was longer than I expected.

To Dan and Joe McCarthy (and all other polygraphers who visit AP):

If you want to clean up your industry, try to reach out to jw00001.  Perhaps you can communicate with him through PM (might have to go through AP admin).

Find out who the name of this federal polygrapher and expose him.  Let him know it is totally unacceptable behavior to interpret the following as countermeasures:

(1)  relaxing mental imagery
(2)  slow heart rate (long-distance running)
(3)  strong Catholic upbringing
(4)  etc.


By the way I am a retired aerospace employee who worked on SCI programs.  I was a physics major (BS and MA) and appreciate the scientific approach.  I took two CSP polygraphs in 1994 and four in 2000.  The polygraphs were administered in Room 343 somewhere in Southern California.  One of the (year 2000) polygraphers Gary Allen was a complete disgrace, having researched my 1994 polygraphs and describing them as "rocky" and also shoving his credentials onto me in an attempt to impress/intimidate me.  Totally unacceptable behavior.  If any of Room 343 polygraphers want to respond to me on this board you may do so, just keep it civil.  Let me explain to you the difference between junk science and valid science.

Regards, Evan S

quickfix wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 8:23pm:


The mental activity the original poster described cannot credibly be characterized as a polygraph countermeasure:

Quote:

quickfix:

I believe you have stated in previous postings you are a federal polygrapher.  I hope you can read postings from me and other polygraph examinees with an open mind, without jumping to conclusions.

I sympathize with high-visibility organizations like the CIA, FBI and NSA with many applicants per opening (100 or more) and their dealing with the torrent of applications.  Isn't this the primary purpose of the pre-employment polygraph, with its reported failure rate of 50% or more?  (I can believe maybe 10% of the applicants are guilty of lying on their applications but certainly not 50%.)  And so it's understandable the polygraphers who conduct pre-employments polygraphs are under pressure to fail a large percentage of the applicants; perhaps jw00001 was a victim of these guidelines.

I realize the polygraph is not going away anytime soon.  Perhaps an acceptable solution (to both sides) is to relocate all federal polygraphers into a single organization, independent of FBI, CIA etc., under which they would receive their performance appraisals and salary reviews.  Maybe you as a fed can initiate change.  Someone has to take the first step.

Please keep your responses civil.

Regards, Evan S

Thanks to those who have replied.  To quickfix: why would I voluntarily admit to what I was doing in between questions if I knew it would be considered countermeasures? I thought what I was doing was normal and innocent, hence the admission.

Unfortunately, when I decided to just go with the flow and hope to save my chance with this agency, I feel like I royally screwed myself with any future opportunities I may have had. 

yes, I am, and yes I and others in my profession do have an open mind.  But when one engages in CMs, he/she is engaging in moral misconduct (for lack of a better term).  Its' one thing to attempt CMs in order to try to hide a deceptive result.  It's a completely different thing to engage in CMs to "help oneself".  The vast majority of three-letter agency employees/applicants do not attempt to "help themselves".  Those who do are telling us, "I will cheat if it helps me", even if they've done no wrong.  It shows a clear lack of integrity.  What else will they cheat at?  Violating a suspect's rights?  Falsifying an agent's report?  These are the types of applicants who are in the 10-50% you refer to.  Closer to 10% than 50%, but regardless of the percentage, lack of moral character is every bit a disqualifier as one who is deceptive to the relevant issues.  I don't want someone like this guarding our nations secrets or protecting our borders.  Do you?

George W. Maschke wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 8:54pm:


And we call that a "defense mechanism".  Blame it on the examiner.  If I had a nickel for every time I heard that one, I'd never worry about sequestration!

Same person, just a typo. 

Is it worth trying to get a retest or do I need to just let it go?   Will other agencies that don't polygraph look at this and go, " Uh oh, no thanks?"