billyjo2,

I have not taken a DIA CI-scope polygraph, but I am familiar with their procedure, including the precise questions they ask.

DIA uses a technique called the "Test for Espionage and Sabotage" (TES) that you will find documented in the Federal Detection of Deception Examiner Handbook:

https://antipolygraph.org/documents/federal-polygraph-handbook-02-10-2006.pdf

See also my critique of this polygraph technique in "The Lying Game: National Security and the Test for Espionage and Sabotage":

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-002.shtml

AntiPolygraph.org has also received actual DIA polygraph case files dated to 2013 that document the precise questions then asked:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2015/04/18/leaked-documents-point-to-dias-inabili...

The relevant questions were:

Quote:


As you see, there is no relevant question about the completeness and accuracy of one's SF-86.

But you would be mistaken to suppose that any such question is the only question you might "fail."

Polygraph "testing" is a pseudoscientific fraud, and the truthfulness of one's answers has little, if anything, to do with whether one passes. It's common for truthful persons to wrongly be accused of lying.

In the past, virtually everyone who submitted to a DoD polygraph passed, and it seemed that the only way to "fail" was to make an inculpatory admission:

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=51

It appears that this is no longer the case, and that DoD (and DIA) polygraph operators may flunk an examinee absent an inculpatory admission.

For a recent example, see the case of John M.:

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1487351318

And for an earlier example, see the case of DIA analyst John Dullahan:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2010/11/27/john-dullahan-dia-analyst-fired-after-...

If I were in your shoes, knowing the unreliability of polygraphy and the permanent career harm that a false positive polygraph result can cause, I would not apply for any position that requires a polygraph "test."

billyjo2 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 11:16pm:


I don't know for sure, but I expect so. If you download the "DIA confirmed countermeasure case files" (40 MB .zip file) obtained by AntiPolygraph.org, upon expanding the archive, you can look through the folder titled "Documents" for each case and view the polygraph charts. At the end of each chart, you'll find a list of the questions that were actually asked. For example, for case #26, series 1, chart 2, the questions asked (including the subject's answers) were:

Quote:


The aforementioned files date to 2013. For discussion of the significance of these files, again see "Leaked Documents Point to DIA’s Inability to Detect Sophisticated Polygraph Countermeasures."

Quote:


These are so-called "control" or comparison questions. Reactions to them are compared to the examinee's reactions to the relevant questions. If reactions to the "control" questions are stronger than reactions to the relevant questions, the examinee is deemed truthful with respect to the relevant questions and passes. Conversely, if reactions to the relevant questions are stronger, the examinee is deemed to be lying about the relevant questions, and he "fails" this pseudoscientific procedure. This is explained in my previously referenced article, "The Lying Game: National Security and the Test for Espionage and Sabotage."

Regarding "sacrifice relevant" questions, which are not scored, see pp. 96-97 of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Yes, an admission to falsifying an official document could cause career harm. But the polygraph operators assume everyone has done something like this (for example, with respect to tax returns, travel vouchers, or sick leave). In a directed-lie "test," the operator will tell the examinee to think of an instance where he did this, but to not tell him about it, and to think about that instance when answering the directed-lie "control" question, "No."

billyjo2 wrote on Nov 27^th, 2017 at 9:27pm:

You should not be confident about anything when it comes to the DIA administered polygraph examination.

When the examiner tells you that he "sees" something, he'll stop the test and begin with the interrogations.  Highly accusatory and condescending verbal abuse follows.  These altercations are then interspersed with turning the machine back on and running through the same questions, over and over, again and again. Sessions typically last about four hours. Yeah, four hours for five questions.

Lying on the SF86 is a serious matter.  Admitting to that fact, makes me suspicious of your intentions on this website.

By the way, were you ever instructed not to do any research in to the polygraph?

billyjo2 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2018 at 6:17pm:


Just asking because they had mentioned something to this effect in one of their interrogatories. Would seem weird though don't you think, to instruct people not to do any research?  I mean what are they trying to hide, right?

If I were you, I wouldn't worry so much about the questions themselves.  It's going to come down to your ability to not flinch under duress. Think about it - 5 questions over four hours?  When they get right up in your face and call you a liar, say that you must be cheating on your wife, or you're gay, or you did drugs - what are you going to do? Do you think that you could remain calm the next time they ask you the question?  Hell no, you're not.  They screwed with my mind for five of these interrogations in three years. PTSD.

If you are seriously considering taking a polygraph, I don't think you want to hear any more about my experiences.