- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by mustbaliar
- Sep 15, 2005, 09:43 PMQuote from: magic-cat on Sep 15, 2005, 09:19 PMI got word today that I passed.
Now, i'm just worried about my BI. I have a vindictive ex who's still mad 6 years later about custody and support issues.
Congrats and good luck!
Posted by magic-cat
- Sep 15, 2005, 09:19 PMI got word today that I passed.
Now, i'm just worried about my BI. I have a vindictive ex who's still mad 6 years later about custody and support issues.
Now, i'm just worried about my BI. I have a vindictive ex who's still mad 6 years later about custody and support issues.
Posted by Johnn
- Sep 13, 2005, 01:08 AMQuote from: polyfool on Sep 12, 2005, 11:56 PM
Johnn:
I asked myself this same question over and over after my rude awakening to the polygraph. There's no rhyme or reason to the FBI's polygraph process. The whole thing is ridiculous beyond belief. If you are looking for sound logic in the FBI, you are definitely looking in the wrong place.
Of course, it makes sense that if one is accused of lying about drugs and/or national security that he/she would also be accused of lying on the application. I was also accused of lying about drugs, but was not accused of lying on my application--both relevant questions within the same series for me. If one "fails" only a single question within the series, he/she fails the entire series. There is no differentiation in the final polygraph report, which means you never really know which questions you actually failed because they are redacted. One only learns the final determination as to whether he/she is NDI, DI or INC on each series.
That's probably what happened to George (and to the rest of us for all we know). When George got his results under the privacy act, he noticed that the polygrahper deemed him defective on all the series of the questions. I guess it's because they did not want to contradict themselves - those liars.
Posted by polyfool
- Sep 12, 2005, 11:56 PMQuote from: Johnn on Sep 12, 2005, 04:44 PM
I was thinking -albeit two weeks later , that their series do not make any sense. Because for example, if one fails the drug usage or the national security, then, doesn't it make one fail the lying on the application as well? So if one is accused of either or, shouldn't they be accused of lying on the application as well?
Johnn:
I asked myself this same question over and over after my rude awakening to the polygraph. There's no rhyme or reason to the FBI's polygraph process. The whole thing is ridiculous beyond belief. If you are looking for sound logic in the FBI, you are definitely looking in the wrong place.
Of course, it makes sense that if one is accused of lying about drugs and/or national security that he/she would also be accused of lying on the application. I was also accused of lying about drugs, but was not accused of lying on my application--both relevant questions within the same series for me. If one "fails" only a single question within the series, he/she fails the entire series. There is no differentiation in the final polygraph report, which means you never really know which questions you actually failed because they are redacted. One only learns the final determination as to whether he/she is NDI, DI or INC on each series.
Posted by Johnn
- Sep 12, 2005, 04:44 PMQuote from: polyfool on Sep 09, 2005, 12:57 AM
Since FBI polygraph testing includes one series regarding drugs and lying on the application and a second series on national security, there's nothing else to fail.
I was thinking -albeit two weeks later , that their series do not make any sense. Because for example, if one fails the drug usage or the national security, then, doesn't it make one fail the lying on the application as well? So if one is accused of either or, shouldn't they be accused of lying on the application as well?
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Sep 10, 2005, 12:51 PMQuote from: polyfool on Sep 09, 2005, 10:38 PM
Not only did I not research the polygraph before my so-called test, I didn't even ask people I know about it who would have enlightened me. I didn't think to even mention it to them. I thought I didn't need to-- that it was simply a matter of tell the truth and pass--WRONG.
I thought the same thing during all four of my polygraphs. I wasn't worried about that aspect of them because I had every intention of telling the truth, and I believed that if I told the truth I would pass.
Looking back I see how naïve I was – thinking that a machine and its operator would be able to determine if I was being deceptive or truthful.
I think that the reason the polygraph simply cannot be accurate is that you can never know what someone is thinking. You can guess; you can surmise; you can render an opinion; but you can never truly know for sure. Not even with a cooperative subject who tells you afterwards what he was thinking. You might believe him, but you will never know for sure.
Posted by Johnn
- Sep 10, 2005, 03:18 AMQuote from: polyfool on Sep 09, 2005, 10:38 PM
Johnn:
You're exactly right--those who have something to hide would learn how to beat the test beforehand. That's just common sense. Not only did I not research the polygraph before my so-called test, I didn't even ask people I know about it who would have enlightened me. I didn't think to even mention it to them. I thought I didn't need to-- that it was simply a matter of tell the truth and pass--WRONG.
My co-workers have also teased me about my polygraph failure. They throw out the occasional joke, though it has taken awhile to joke about it because they witnessed the devastating effects the experience had on me. At first, they thought my interrogation was just a part of the test because they know me and the accusations were just so out there. Once they found out it was for real, it just made the FBI look foolish and inept in their eyes. They think the agency is a total joke and I can't say that I blame them. They way I look at it, at least they have learned about the polygraph through my experience and, who knows, perhaps one day, it will save them from making the same mistake I did when I signed away my rights thinking that I was submitting to a reliable, valid scientific testing procedure. Before I took my poly, I considered it to be the same as undergoing drug screening.
You're right. You're much better off working with people who know you and appreciate your honesty and integrity.
Things will work out much better for you in the end, even though it may not always seem that way now.
At this point, I am just trying to get over the mental anguish and trauma from being accused of something that I've never done. I had to take an exam yesterday for one of my graduate classes, and during the exam the polygraph experience would play in my mind. I frequently had to exercise great control to get my mind back on track.
Posted by polyfool
- Sep 09, 2005, 10:38 PMQuote from: Johnn on Sep 09, 2005, 01:52 AM
It's ridiculous the way the FBI relies on the polygraph to weed out applicants, considering that most dishonest people would look up information on the polygraph and pass it using counter methods. I'm willing to bet that the majority of us who have "failed" are the 100% honest people. We are suckers who did not look up information on the polygraph because the FBI told us not to.
It's common sense- which the FBI doesn't seem to have these days, that if I were a drug user/dealer or whatever they want to accuse me of, I'd make sure I'd prepare myself by using counter methods. Before anyone starts trashing this sight, just remember that counter methods are found everywhere not just on this sight. Most likely, one can go to their local library and find books on polygraphs, and believe me, if I were a drug user with something to hide, that would have been the first thing I would have done.
Funny how I related my experience in the workplace and my co-workers were laughing. They were making fun of the whole thing and imagining funny things of what they would have said if they would have been in my shoes. In essence, they couldn't believe how the FBI messed up again. Which reminds me- I'd rather be in the company of my co-workers who know me for who I am instead of some organization who treats me like a crack pimp.
Johnn:
You're exactly right--those who have something to hide would learn how to beat the test beforehand. That's just common sense. Not only did I not research the polygraph before my so-called test, I didn't even ask people I know about it who would have enlightened me. I didn't think to even mention it to them. I thought I didn't need to-- that it was simply a matter of tell the truth and pass--WRONG.
My co-workers have also teased me about my polygraph failure. They throw out the occasional joke, though it has taken awhile to joke about it because they witnessed the devastating effects the experience had on me. At first, they thought my interrogation was just a part of the test because they know me and the accusations were just so out there. Once they found out it was for real, it just made the FBI look foolish and inept in their eyes. They think the agency is a total joke and I can't say that I blame them. They way I look at it, at least they have learned about the polygraph through my experience and, who knows, perhaps one day, it will save them from making the same mistake I did when I signed away my rights thinking that I was submitting to a reliable, valid scientific testing procedure. Before I took my poly, I considered it to be the same as undergoing drug screening.
You're right. You're much better off working with people who know you and appreciate your honesty and integrity.
Things will work out much better for you in the end, even though it may not always seem that way now.
Posted by mustbaliar
- Sep 09, 2005, 05:03 PMMagic,
Your experience sounds very similar to my first FBI poly experience. Once my polygrapher realized he wasn't getting any admissions from me, he ended the session and told me that he'd send the results off to headquarters (DC), but he couldn't make any promises. So if I use my experience as a measuring stick, I'd say your chances of having passed are slim. It turned out that I "failed" that exam and the subsequent "retest." But since this isn't quite an exact "science" an inclusive or passing result is very possible for you.
You can try contacting your AC listed on your conditional letter of appointment, but don't hold your breath. I tried calling mine several times and never heard from him.
Good luck.
Your experience sounds very similar to my first FBI poly experience. Once my polygrapher realized he wasn't getting any admissions from me, he ended the session and told me that he'd send the results off to headquarters (DC), but he couldn't make any promises. So if I use my experience as a measuring stick, I'd say your chances of having passed are slim. It turned out that I "failed" that exam and the subsequent "retest." But since this isn't quite an exact "science" an inclusive or passing result is very possible for you.
You can try contacting your AC listed on your conditional letter of appointment, but don't hold your breath. I tried calling mine several times and never heard from him.
Good luck.
Posted by Johnn
- Sep 09, 2005, 01:52 AMQuote from: polyfool on Sep 09, 2005, 12:57 AM
I agree with Bill--the agency knows good and well that it's falsely accusing applicants of lying about using and/or selling drugs. However, it doesn't care because it figures that it's worth it if the procedure is successful in keeping out some actually witholding information. The FBI can afford to do this because it has so many applicants for special agent positions that it doesn't care about the collateral damage it leaves behind in the process.
It's ridiculous the way the FBI relies on the polygraph to weed out applicants, considering that most dishonest people would look up information on the polygraph and pass it using counter methods. I'm willing to bet that the majority of us who have "failed" are the 100% honest people. We are suckers who did not look up information on the polygraph because the FBI told us not to.
It's common sense- which the FBI doesn't seem to have these days, that if I were a drug user/dealer or whatever they want to accuse me of, I'd make sure I'd prepare myself by using counter methods. Before anyone starts trashing this sight, just remember that counter methods are found everywhere not just on this sight. Most likely, one can go to their local library and find books on polygraphs, and believe me, if I were a drug user with something to hide, that would have been the first thing I would have done.
Funny how I related my experience in the workplace and my co-workers were laughing. They were making fun of the whole thing and imagining funny things of what they would have said if they would have been in my shoes. In essence, they couldn't believe how the FBI messed up again. Which reminds me- I'd rather be in the company of my co-workers who know me for who I am instead of some organization who treats me like a crack pimp.
Posted by polyfool
- Sep 09, 2005, 12:57 AMQuote from: Johnn on Sep 08, 2005, 05:22 PM
I wonder why. Have a lot of people really used drugs in their life times? I doubt that most FBI applicants are like the "common masses". Otherwise, why should 95% of the people who apply for FBI jobs be accused of drug usage - that's insane. I am beginning to think it's some kind of conspiracy between the person who gives you the psi interview and the polygrapher. If the person who gives you the psi interview doesn't see you as "one of them" then they probably whisper to the polygrapher as they hand him your charts, "Hey, listen, - not one of us... this person has never travelled, so don't go accusing them of espionage, however, they claim they've never taken drugs, use that instead and weed 'im out".
How else would you explain George's missing charts? They probably dont' want someone else (private polygrapher) to subject the charts to other interpretation.
Johnn,
Whether right or wrong, the truth is that at one time or another, MOST people, NOT ALL have at the very least experimented with marijuana at some point in their lives. Even though it's not something that most people go around talking about, you would probably be shocked to learn how truly common it is. Obviously, I'm not talking about hard drugs or regular drug use as these experiences would be much less common.
If there appears to be a problem with your test, the first thing the FBI is going to go after is what you've given them or in your case, what you haven't given them. So, if you tell them you've used drugs a few times, the agency would give you the benefit of the doubt unless there are problems with your test, in which case, the examiner will go after you to admit to more drug use. In your case, you've never used drugs--probably an automatic red flag because it stands out from the norm--I know, a sad commentary on society. Accusing you of lying about drug use is the only thing your examiner had to go on. Being accused of lying to the drug questions is just about the only reason applicants fail. Since FBI polygraph testing includes one series regarding drugs and lying on the application and a second series on national security, there's nothing else to fail. I suppose the agency finds it more acceptable to "fail" applicants regarding drug use because accusing half of the agency's applicants of being spies would surely raise a red flag as to the validity of its choice to subject applicants to polygraph screenings.
From what I gather, most applicants fail regarding the drug questions while the employees who fail tend to have more problems with national security issues.
I agree with Bill--the agency knows good and well that it's falsely accusing applicants of lying about using and/or selling drugs. However, it doesn't care because it figures that it's worth it if the procedure is successful in keeping out some actually witholding information. The FBI can afford to do this because it has so many applicants for special agent positions that it doesn't care about the collateral damage it leaves behind in the process. Sad, but true.
I believe that polygraph screening is a horrible way to choose employees because it weeds out the very honest, like yourself Johnn and the countless others who have posted similar stories on this site.
Posted by Bill Crider
- Sep 08, 2005, 11:34 PMi think they just dont care if its accurate. it makes them feel good if they bust 1 in 10000 people who actually are drug lords and trying to get into the FBI. there are plenty of applicants to replace the 9999 who are falsely accused
Posted by Johnn
- Sep 08, 2005, 05:22 PMQuote from: JB933 on Sep 08, 2005, 03:10 AMA lot of people seem to have been accused of lying during the drug questions. The nimrod that did my test accused me of lying about undetected crimes, which I have no reason to lie about. This is sad.
I wonder why. Have a lot of people really used drugs in their life times? I doubt that most FBI applicants are like the "common masses". Otherwise, why should 95% of the people who apply for FBI jobs be accused of drug usage - that's insane. I am beginning to think it's some kind of conspiracy between the person who gives you the psi interview and the polygrapher. If the person who gives you the psi interview doesn't see you as "one of them" then they probably whisper to the polygrapher as they hand him your charts, "Hey, listen, - not one of us... this person has never travelled, so don't go accusing them of espionage, however, they claim they've never taken drugs, use that instead and weed 'im out".
How else would you explain George's missing charts? They probably dont' want someone else (private polygrapher) to subject the charts to other interpretation.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 08, 2005, 04:00 AMmagic-cat,
Questions such as, "Are you sitting down?" or "Are the lights on in this room?" are irrelevant questions, and not comparison or "control" questions. It is a known counter-countermeasure for the polygrapher to falsely describe irrelevant questions as being comparison/"control" questions in an attempt to misdirect the examinee. This technique is mentioned at p. 158 of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
While the question about lying on your FBI application was a relevant question, the questions about cheating in school, lying on a loan application, and misusing sick leave were all probable-lie "control" questions.
For more on the screening technique used by the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies, see the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test examiner's guide:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-lepet.pdf
Because of the mildness of your post-test interrogation, I suspect that you either passed or were at worst "inconclusive."
Questions such as, "Are you sitting down?" or "Are the lights on in this room?" are irrelevant questions, and not comparison or "control" questions. It is a known counter-countermeasure for the polygrapher to falsely describe irrelevant questions as being comparison/"control" questions in an attempt to misdirect the examinee. This technique is mentioned at p. 158 of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
While the question about lying on your FBI application was a relevant question, the questions about cheating in school, lying on a loan application, and misusing sick leave were all probable-lie "control" questions.
For more on the screening technique used by the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies, see the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute's Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test examiner's guide:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-lepet.pdf
Because of the mildness of your post-test interrogation, I suspect that you either passed or were at worst "inconclusive."
Posted by JB933
- Sep 08, 2005, 03:10 AMA lot of people seem to have been accused of lying during the drug questions. The nimrod that did my test accused me of lying about undetected crimes, which I have no reason to lie about. This is sad.