- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by furedy
- Sep 07, 2006, 07:28 AMGeorge,
I agree that at least at first sight, this change in the APA's stated policy appears to be of practical benefit.
However, I recall that originally polygraphers claimed to be 100% accurate (and still this lie is part of the standard CQT that is administered to examinees), but in the past couple of decades they have admitted that they are only 98% or 90% accurate.
I am concerned that, in the long run, the FBI and CIA will learn to be a little more careful in communicating their rejection decisions, but will, nevertheless, base their decisions on the polygraph in an assessment situation which is a very complex and subjective one. And, of course, the stain of having failed a polygraph will remain on those who have been the victims of this mumbo jumbo practice, wherever they apply for security-related positions.
All the best, John
I agree that at least at first sight, this change in the APA's stated policy appears to be of practical benefit.
However, I recall that originally polygraphers claimed to be 100% accurate (and still this lie is part of the standard CQT that is administered to examinees), but in the past couple of decades they have admitted that they are only 98% or 90% accurate.
I am concerned that, in the long run, the FBI and CIA will learn to be a little more careful in communicating their rejection decisions, but will, nevertheless, base their decisions on the polygraph in an assessment situation which is a very complex and subjective one. And, of course, the stain of having failed a polygraph will remain on those who have been the victims of this mumbo jumbo practice, wherever they apply for security-related positions.
All the best, John
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 07, 2006, 05:08 AMJohn,
I fully agree with you that any reliance on polygraph chart readings is entirely misplaced. Indeed, decisions to hire or not to hire an applicant should never be based in whole or in part on polygraph results.
Nonetheless, from a policy standpoint, the American Polygraph Association's new model policy is highly significant because it is an explicit rejection of the kind of reliance placed on polygraphy by the FBI and countless other agencies across the United States (and Canada). These agencies must now be held answerable for relying on polygraph results in a way that America's leading polygraph organization says they never should be.
I fully agree with you that any reliance on polygraph chart readings is entirely misplaced. Indeed, decisions to hire or not to hire an applicant should never be based in whole or in part on polygraph results.
Nonetheless, from a policy standpoint, the American Polygraph Association's new model policy is highly significant because it is an explicit rejection of the kind of reliance placed on polygraphy by the FBI and countless other agencies across the United States (and Canada). These agencies must now be held answerable for relying on polygraph results in a way that America's leading polygraph organization says they never should be.
Posted by furedy
- Sep 07, 2006, 12:48 AMEVEN PARTIAL USE OF THE POLYGRAPH IS TO RELY ON MUMBO JUMBO
Roman generals did not solely rely on entrails reading to determine their strategies, but to the extent that their strategies were influenced by entrails reading (instead of what they knew about the enemy, the ground, weapons, their onw soldiers' morale, i.e, empirical evidence interpreted in the light of their expertise), they were relying on mumbo jumbo.
The same applies, in my view, to the polygraph, so the question of whether it is the sole or only a partial determinant of choice is very secondary. And, by the way, even your letter may be ambiguous on that point, because perhaps some of the "information developed as a result" of the polygraph was of the non-magical, orginary sort used by experts to make decisions.
Of course the polygraph is more "useful" for its practitioners where other evidence is unavailable, but its influence as a social disease is present whether it is a sole or only a partial basis for decisions.
All the best, John
Roman generals did not solely rely on entrails reading to determine their strategies, but to the extent that their strategies were influenced by entrails reading (instead of what they knew about the enemy, the ground, weapons, their onw soldiers' morale, i.e, empirical evidence interpreted in the light of their expertise), they were relying on mumbo jumbo.
The same applies, in my view, to the polygraph, so the question of whether it is the sole or only a partial determinant of choice is very secondary. And, by the way, even your letter may be ambiguous on that point, because perhaps some of the "information developed as a result" of the polygraph was of the non-magical, orginary sort used by experts to make decisions.
Of course the polygraph is more "useful" for its practitioners where other evidence is unavailable, but its influence as a social disease is present whether it is a sole or only a partial basis for decisions.
All the best, John
Posted by FBI-Reject
- Sep 06, 2006, 08:53 PMMy letter clearly states "in your case, information that developed as a result of your polygraph indicates that you may not be suitable for employment with the FBI."
It doesn't get much more clear than that. I was removed from processing due solely to information from my polygraph exam.
My examiner told me that nothing I said during the exam would have disqualified me. Rather, he felt I was trying to use countermeasures. I was not.
I have a scanned copy of the letter that I would be willing to upload if anyone is interested.
It doesn't get much more clear than that. I was removed from processing due solely to information from my polygraph exam.
My examiner told me that nothing I said during the exam would have disqualified me. Rather, he felt I was trying to use countermeasures. I was not.
I have a scanned copy of the letter that I would be willing to upload if anyone is interested.
Posted by furedy
- Sep 04, 2006, 08:14 PM The ancient Roman generals did not rely solely on entrails reading to determine whether or not to engage in battle, but to the extent that they relied on the entrails to make their decision, they were engaged in superstitious behavior that was out of touch with reality. Unlike the Greeks, who realized that oracles were useless for predicting the future, the more superstitious (though also more technically advanced) Romans relied on them, though not with 100% certainty or "solely".
The same applies to current guardians of American security. So I don't share George's and Gino's enthusiasm for the recent APA's decision not to rely solely on the CQT polygraph, because, in practice, the distinction between the FBI and APA policies for employing this piece of modern mumbo jumbo is a distinction without a difference.
All the best, John
The same applies to current guardians of American security. So I don't share George's and Gino's enthusiasm for the recent APA's decision not to rely solely on the CQT polygraph, because, in practice, the distinction between the FBI and APA policies for employing this piece of modern mumbo jumbo is a distinction without a difference.
All the best, John
Posted by DippityShurff
- Sep 04, 2006, 07:25 PMQuote from: EosJupiter on Sep 04, 2006, 03:45 PMDippityshurff,
There might be only one state that comes close to allowing direct polygraph evidence, and thats New Mexico, but even there its hard to get direct utilization of the polygraph results into the court room. But what I find will most interesting is how the FEDS are going to reconcile with the APA over this new policy change. As the FEDS see no need to answer to anyone, nor will they. I see the potential of an abyss opening up here. But I see this policy change as a selfdefense mechanism for the APA and polygraphers in general, as the biggest complaint with polygraph usage is in the employment arena. If this irritant is removed, then I bet that they will have less issues to deal with, or they might even believe we (ANTIPOLYGRAPH FOLKS), might settle down and be less of an irritant.
Regards ....
I think you would see even the most vocal opponents here become less strident, because the only other purpose of the polygraph would be to catch criminals, which, hoodoo or not, it can sometimes be helpful. I would reiterate what I have said in the past. I know too many people who had nothing to hide be made out to be not acceptable by the polygraph. I think even George thinks that guilty knowledge testing has a place, though I certainly can't speak for him.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Sep 04, 2006, 03:45 PMDippityshurff,
There might be only one state that comes close to allowing direct polygraph evidence, and thats New Mexico, but even there its hard to get direct utilization of the polygraph results into the court room. But what I find will most interesting is how the FEDS are going to reconcile with the APA over this new policy change. As the FEDS see no need to answer to anyone, nor will they. I see the potential of an abyss opening up here. But I see this policy change as a selfdefense mechanism for the APA and polygraphers in general, as the biggest complaint with polygraph usage is in the employment arena. If this irritant is removed, then I bet that they will have less issues to deal with, or they might even believe we (ANTIPOLYGRAPH FOLKS), might settle down and be less of an irritant.
Regards ....
There might be only one state that comes close to allowing direct polygraph evidence, and thats New Mexico, but even there its hard to get direct utilization of the polygraph results into the court room. But what I find will most interesting is how the FEDS are going to reconcile with the APA over this new policy change. As the FEDS see no need to answer to anyone, nor will they. I see the potential of an abyss opening up here. But I see this policy change as a selfdefense mechanism for the APA and polygraphers in general, as the biggest complaint with polygraph usage is in the employment arena. If this irritant is removed, then I bet that they will have less issues to deal with, or they might even believe we (ANTIPOLYGRAPH FOLKS), might settle down and be less of an irritant.
Regards ....
Posted by DippityShurff
- Sep 04, 2006, 01:08 PMQuote from: yankeedog on Sep 03, 2006, 08:18 PMPolyfool - Yes, I agree, you are.
And, one should not obtain an arrest warrant based solely on the results of a deceptive specific issue polygraph examination. Does it happen? I'm sure it does, but it is a bad idea.
I can't imagine any Judge anywhere issuing an arrest warrant based solely on polygraph results. Ours don't, nor do I even know any that would. And if they did, it would not survive even the most cursory suppression. The one **possible** exception may be a stipulated polygraph, but I really can't even imagine that
Stay safe
Posted by yankeedog
- Sep 03, 2006, 08:18 PMPolyfool - Yes, I agree, you are.
And, one should not obtain an arrest warrant based solely on the results of a deceptive specific issue polygraph examination. Does it happen? I'm sure it does, but it is a bad idea.
And, one should not obtain an arrest warrant based solely on the results of a deceptive specific issue polygraph examination. Does it happen? I'm sure it does, but it is a bad idea.
Posted by polyfool
- Sep 02, 2006, 06:31 PMWow, this is a surprising development. Even the APA is trying to distance itself from this insane practice. It will be interesting to see how the agencies respond. Of course, that response is probably years away....
Yankeedog,
Do a little research next time before opening your mouth and making yourself look stupid.
Yankeedog,
Do a little research next time before opening your mouth and making yourself look stupid.
Posted by Bill Crider
- Aug 31, 2006, 11:19 AMJust to futher add to this point, When i won my appeal for an FBI re-test I had to go through the pre-processing, urine test and security interview all over again. No background check had ever been done of any kind. THe only basis for my DQ was the polygraph results in both cases. Had it been otherwise, I would not have been invited back for a re-test.
Nothing occured betwen the passing of the interview and the polygraph test.
Nothing occured betwen the passing of the interview and the polygraph test.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 31, 2006, 04:15 AMQuote from: yankeedog on Aug 30, 2006, 11:17 PMThe idea, policy or recommendation to not use the results of a polygraph examination as the "sole" reason to deny employment is certainly not new. To suggest it is some kind of revelation, is either misleading, intellectually dishonest or based upon ignorance. In fact, I have never known of any agency that has a written or verbal policy to deny employment for "solely" being deemed deceptive on a premployment polygraph test. Agencies that I am familiar with have written policies similar to the APA. I would like to see a written policy that does disqualify based "solely" on a deceptive pre-employment polygraph test.
See the FBI Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines, Section 67-7.10, Polygraph Examinations of FBI Applicants. Under these written guidelines, the decision not to hire applicants is indeed made based upon polygraph results alone when the applicant "fails."
In 2001, the Los Angeles Police Department's hiring policy was amended to include the following language: "A candidate shall be considered for disqualification on the basis of the results of the polygraph examination if the candidate's polygraph examination results were...deceptive..."
Both of these written policies clearly fail to conform with the APA's model policy.
QuoteKeep in mind, in almost all cases where there is a deceptive pre-employment polygraph test, there is something else that can be used as a disqualifier. It may be minor, but a disqualifier nontheless.
How can you possibly know this to be true? In the case of FBI applicants, for example, typically no background investigation has been conducted by the time the applicant is rejected based on polygraph results. And if non-polygraphic disqualifying information is known before the applicant in polygraphed, then there is no need to polygraph the applicant in the first place.
Agencies that wish to comply with the APA's model law enforcement pre-employment polygraph policy should be on guard against magnifying minor issues "to use as a disqualifier," as you put it, simply to mask rejections actually made based on uncorroborated polygraph results.
QuoteRecording the process is, in my opinion, recommended. I have had situations where an examinee has denied that they made reported disqualifying statements. Once they listen to the tape, that's the end of that complaint. And it also becomes a lifetime disqualifier!
Indeed, recording protects both examiner and examinee alike from false allegations about what was said and done in the polygraph suite.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Aug 31, 2006, 01:32 AMReaders,
Short and to the point: The FBI stops the application process strictly on the polygraph examination being judged "not acceptable parameters." No ifs, ands, or buts. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.00. In Monopoly, when you go to jail, those are the words used. In the FBI, that is the price of buying a lottery ticket for employment. No video or audio recordings allowed.
The APA has seperated themselved from the "professionals" in the FBI. I can not wait to see the spin that will be put upon this new guideline.
Regards.
Short and to the point: The FBI stops the application process strictly on the polygraph examination being judged "not acceptable parameters." No ifs, ands, or buts. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.00. In Monopoly, when you go to jail, those are the words used. In the FBI, that is the price of buying a lottery ticket for employment. No video or audio recordings allowed.
The APA has seperated themselved from the "professionals" in the FBI. I can not wait to see the spin that will be put upon this new guideline.
Regards.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Aug 31, 2006, 01:18 AMQuoteI would like to see a written policy that does disqualify based "solely" on a deceptive pre-employment polygraph test.
Perhaps someone can post a link to an FBI form rejection letter with his name and address redacted. We may actually have one uploaded to the site already.
The letter unequivocally informs the recipient that he was denied employments because the results of the polygraph examination "were not within acceptable parameters."
The Secret Service also denies employment solely on polygraph results alone. The rejection letter they send, however, states only that they have "better qualified applicants."
Whether the above policies are written or unwritten, they exist. Moreover, they are quite common.
The APA is to be applauded for taking this position. If they had done so ten years ago, this Website might not exist right now.
It will be interesting to see what develops, because the FBI, Secret Service and many other agencies are now in a bad spot, legally and otherwise.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 30, 2006, 11:48 PMYankeedog,
Without question, large numbers of people have been denied employment with the FBI due SOLELY to a polygraph result. The common sense represented by the relevant stated position in the newly released "Model Policy" is undoubtedly not new, but its recent release in this format is most definitely a new tool for those who seek redress for past and present wrongs.
Without question, large numbers of people have been denied employment with the FBI due SOLELY to a polygraph result. The common sense represented by the relevant stated position in the newly released "Model Policy" is undoubtedly not new, but its recent release in this format is most definitely a new tool for those who seek redress for past and present wrongs.