- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Just an accountant
- Jul 28, 2010, 02:00 AMThe report is a little hodge podge, even on their website though, the term is "successfully complete" not necessarily "pass". To show further inconsistency, the DEA uses the term "significant response" not "deception", despite the report continues to use the wrong term throughout the DEA section. Splitting hairs though really.
I would like to ask though, or at least seek guidance. I received my FBI file, but all the charts are blotted out so I can't have them reviewed. The said they did it under the guise of exemption of FOIAPA because testing materials do not have to be disclosed. The law states that, but only if the dissemination would damage the objectivity and fairness of the test. My blood pressure, breathing, et al, I hardly think would compromise the test. In any case, from the stories on this board, isn't it normal to get a copy of your charts?
I would like to ask though, or at least seek guidance. I received my FBI file, but all the charts are blotted out so I can't have them reviewed. The said they did it under the guise of exemption of FOIAPA because testing materials do not have to be disclosed. The law states that, but only if the dissemination would damage the objectivity and fairness of the test. My blood pressure, breathing, et al, I hardly think would compromise the test. In any case, from the stories on this board, isn't it normal to get a copy of your charts?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 21, 2010, 11:42 PMThe DOJ report states at p. 67 (p. 90 of the PDF): "In 1995, the DEA began requiring applicants for Special Agent positions to pass a polygraph examination as a condition for employment."
It is true that the report also states (at p. 68, p. 91 of the PDF): "The DEA policies and procedures also establish the consequences for an individual whose polygraph results indicate deception. The DEA does not retest individuals whose test results indicate deception, but the results of a polygraph examination are just one factor in the overall hiring decision. If the test result is inconclusive, no determination can be made as to the person's truthfulness." But it is not at all clear that this means that those who fail the polygraph can still be hired (which would be at odds with the language at p. 67 indicating that applicants are required to pass the polygraph).
For an example of a DEA applicant who was disqualified based on polygraph results alone, see the statement of "Straight Shooter."
It is true that the report also states (at p. 68, p. 91 of the PDF): "The DEA policies and procedures also establish the consequences for an individual whose polygraph results indicate deception. The DEA does not retest individuals whose test results indicate deception, but the results of a polygraph examination are just one factor in the overall hiring decision. If the test result is inconclusive, no determination can be made as to the person's truthfulness." But it is not at all clear that this means that those who fail the polygraph can still be hired (which would be at odds with the language at p. 67 indicating that applicants are required to pass the polygraph).
For an example of a DEA applicant who was disqualified based on polygraph results alone, see the statement of "Straight Shooter."
Posted by Just an accountant
- Jul 21, 2010, 07:40 PMhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/dojpoly.pdf
Goto page 70ish under the DEA's use of the poly. Something to the effect of "it cannot be used as the sole factor in determining suitability". I've met others that got hired there even though they failed it wrongly, they use it to supplement to background I guess to dig deeper. I can't necessarily fault them for that, I'm skeptical that statements made during the exam may get misconstrued though.
Also interesting, FBI was cited throughout the OIG report.
Goto page 70ish under the DEA's use of the poly. Something to the effect of "it cannot be used as the sole factor in determining suitability". I've met others that got hired there even though they failed it wrongly, they use it to supplement to background I guess to dig deeper. I can't necessarily fault them for that, I'm skeptical that statements made during the exam may get misconstrued though.
Also interesting, FBI was cited throughout the OIG report.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 18, 2010, 04:04 AMThoughts on the points you raise:
Indeed, polygraph screening gives agencies that rely on it the ability to eliminate otherwise qualified applicants who, for whatever reason, are perceived by the polygraph operators not to "fit the mould." For example, a racial bias study that the federal polygraph school subsequently covered up strongly suggested a bias against blacks among polygraph school trainees:
https://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-racial-bias-study.pdf
Indeed, as convicted spy Aldrich Ames (who twice fooled the polygraph) pointed out, the polygraph provides bureaucratic cover for decision-makers when the trust placed in an employee (or informant) turns out to have been misplaced.
Excellent point. Employees of organizations that rely on pre-employment polygraph screening are to some extent shielded from understanding the unreliability of this pseudoscientific practice. Having passed, they may be inclined to think they passed because they told the truth, and to suppose that those who didn't pass must not have been telling the truth.
Indeed, I an argument can be made that polygraph screening actually leads to a less honest work force. Polygraphy is inherently biased against the most honest people, because the more candidly one answers the so-called "control" questions, and as a consequences feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to fail and be blacklisted. Conversely, those who purposefully withhold information and willfully lie when asked the control questions, and as a result feel more anxious when answering them, are more likely to pass and be hired.
You also write:
To the best of my knowledge, every federal agency with a pre-employment polygraph screening requirement requires that applicants pass in order to be hired. If you can document that the DEA (or any other federal agency) has hired applicants who failed the polygraph, I'd be interested to know more.
And finally you ask:
Yes, they are. But it's an exercise in mutual masturbation, with a happy ending for all concerned.
Quote1. Places that polygraph seem to get so many qualified applicants and they are so backlogged, any doubt, albeit arbitrary, is enough to disqualify and applicant. In the private sector, companies can be arbitrary, in gov't they can't, in theory. So the polygraph can provide cover to widdle down applicants significantly. Hence why some fire departments use the polygraph. How is that a public trust position?
Indeed, polygraph screening gives agencies that rely on it the ability to eliminate otherwise qualified applicants who, for whatever reason, are perceived by the polygraph operators not to "fit the mould." For example, a racial bias study that the federal polygraph school subsequently covered up strongly suggested a bias against blacks among polygraph school trainees:
https://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-racial-bias-study.pdf
Quote2. In our litigious and superficial society, to have a sworn officer on the stand, that "passed a lie detector" makes it sound even more attractive to a lay audience. And if an intelligence official goes rogue, the agency head can cover his ass and say, "there's no way we could have known, he passed a poly after all." And that's where the true danger of this machine comes in, to go back to Mr. Maschke's motto, it provides a false sense of security and is cheaper than a updating backgrounds appropriately.
Indeed, as convicted spy Aldrich Ames (who twice fooled the polygraph) pointed out, the polygraph provides bureaucratic cover for decision-makers when the trust placed in an employee (or informant) turns out to have been misplaced.
Quote3. As an auditor I can say the polygraph administration is fraught with control weaknesses. Which is a fancy way of saying, there is poor oversight and it is a catch-22 environment. Also, since everyone has to pass a poly to work there, a culture that believes in it develops.
Excellent point. Employees of organizations that rely on pre-employment polygraph screening are to some extent shielded from understanding the unreliability of this pseudoscientific practice. Having passed, they may be inclined to think they passed because they told the truth, and to suppose that those who didn't pass must not have been telling the truth.
Quote4. Agencies that polygraph still have background failures on par with ones that don't. That is to say, are these agencies getting a significantly more amount of liars or are these machines truly random. And why then are there still denials of backgrounds? This is according to DOJ-OIG, DHS-OIG, and Treasury-IG hiring reports.
Indeed, I an argument can be made that polygraph screening actually leads to a less honest work force. Polygraphy is inherently biased against the most honest people, because the more candidly one answers the so-called "control" questions, and as a consequences feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to fail and be blacklisted. Conversely, those who purposefully withhold information and willfully lie when asked the control questions, and as a result feel more anxious when answering them, are more likely to pass and be hired.
You also write:
QuoteMany federal agencies use the poly to supplement an application, like the DEA, and won't drop an applicant solely because of a bad poly.
To the best of my knowledge, every federal agency with a pre-employment polygraph screening requirement requires that applicants pass in order to be hired. If you can document that the DEA (or any other federal agency) has hired applicants who failed the polygraph, I'd be interested to know more.
And finally you ask:
Quote...could someone answer if polygraphers are polygraphed?
Yes, they are. But it's an exercise in mutual masturbation, with a happy ending for all concerned.
Posted by Just an accountant
- Jul 14, 2010, 03:50 AMThis board and website are really the most amazing, and indeed, truly patriotic things I have found on the internet in the past year. I don't mean to lavish unnecessary praise, indeed, I think I sound corny using the term "patriotic". but Mr. (sorry, I'm gonna butcher the spelling) Maschke is a hero to expose the farce, and more importantly, the danger to national security the polygraph is. So I'll give my unbiased account of my experience, with due consideration to my non-disclosure, that I had with the polygraph and the FBI.
Awhile back ago, I did an application with the FBI and everything was humming along smoothly (enough) until the polygraph. I am truly a "spotless" character, and a religious (Catholic--dang examination of conscience) one at that. Following advice from a police jobs forums, I decided to refrain from doing too much research on the polygraph prior to my test. So like I said, I'm going to respect my non-disclosure of what happened during my test, but that said, I'm sure others here can get an idea from reading the other posts on this site.
I was told I failed, and pressed for a confession. I stood to my guns and insisted that everything I told previously was everything there was to say. I couldn't think of any reasons why I would fail. Annoyed, my polygrapher gave up after 5 or 10 minutes. I shook his hand, despite the fact he pulled away, I grabbed it anyway. I was taking the high road out.
A few weeks later, I got a notice in the mail stating I failed. I started to feel dejected, I began to worry what effect this might have on my future applications with the government. My HR contact said I would be barred from future consideration with the FBI and possibly other places. I tried to schedule a retest, my applicant coordinator didn't respond to 1 email and 2 phone calls I placed. I sent my FOIA request, and still have yet to hear back, besides the confirmation of receipt.
Perplexed why I failed despite being completely forthright and honest, I researched the polygraph. I went to the main pro-polygraph website, here, and LE websites. I wanted to get a variety of perspectives on the topic. As a person with a background in accounting and law and just an all around nerd, I enjoy research. Further not satisfied, I ordered a polygrapher training manual and read the DOD-PI's guidelines fairly recently. I was floored when I read the section for federal LE positions! Everything outlines in there, I experienced during mine, exactly! However, my polygrapher gave different reasoning on why he was performing the test the way he did that the DOD-PI manual did! I realized, what I thought was merely hyperbole on a anti-poly website, was in fact all true! Polygraphers lie out their teeth to garner weak confessions! In addition, many advocate that one shouldn't investigate the polygraph beforehand because it could negatively affect results. This rings of the same tactic that frats and gangs use to intimidate recruits. Only with the polygraph is knowledge bad. In fact, I wouldn't want an investigator working if they accept anything as blind fact without prior investigation. I was stupid for not doing that sooner.
So of all my research conducted in this matter, I come to the conclusion that THIS IS THE ONLY WEBSITE that accurately portrays the polygraph for what it is. It's a shame that a judge or congressman high enough up won't go through the same rigors that I, or others, that have personally been hurt, will go through to outlaw its use. I have my theories.
1. Places that polygraph seem to get so many qualified applicants and they are so backlogged, any doubt, albeit arbitrary, is enough to disqualify and applicant. In the private sector, companies can be arbitrary, in gov't they can't, in theory. So the polygraph can provide cover to widdle down applicants significantly. Hence why some fire departments use the polygraph. How is that a public trust position?
2. In our litigious and superficial society, to have a sworn officer on the stand, that "passed a lie detector" makes it sound even more attractive to a lay audience. And if an intelligence official goes rogue, the agency head can cover his ass and say, "there's no way we could have known, he passed a poly after all." And that's where the true danger of this machine comes in, to go back to Mr. Maschke's motto, it provides a false sense of security and is cheaper than a updating backgrounds appropriately.
3. As an auditor I can say the polygraph administration is fraught with control weaknesses. Which is a fancy way of saying, there is poor oversight and it is a catch-22 environment. Also, since everyone has to pass a poly to work there, a culture that believes in it develops.
4. Agencies that polygraph still have background failures on par with ones that don't. That is to say, are these agencies getting a significantly more amount of liars or are these machines truly random. And why then are there still denials of backgrounds? This is according to DOJ-OIG, DHS-OIG, and Treasury-IG hiring reports.
On the final note of my rant, the NAS report that states that polygraphs work slightly better than chance, my response to that would be (and as scientists they should have asked this question), how accurately would a person's gut feeling be without a machine? I'm willing to bet also slightly better than chance, so then why even bother with the machine? From the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode, I am willing to agree with the polygrapher that said it is a metaphorical beating with a rubber hose.
So back to my FBI poly failure. Here is my problem with them specifically as an applicant. Many federal agencies use the poly to supplement an application, like the DEA, and won't drop an applicant solely because of a bad poly. The FBI will toss someone solely for a bad poly, then they add a failure to your FBI file. Everywhere else CAN'T do that. So when a basic NAC search comes up that a poly is failed, an FBI stamp on it makes it carry undue weight and in effect, place a defamatory accusation against you.
I also find it funny that the agencies on the longest leash and can reak the most havoc in the country, and curiously enough, ones filled with typical eggheads shy away from the polygraph e.g. State, DoE, NASA.
I don't mean to come down to harshly or fall into the same cliches that are prevalent on this board in describing the polygraph or polygraphers, though I certainly understand them. My complaint about the process though is something akin to my dislike of most financial advisors, though not exactly the same. In any case, most financial advisors don't have their clients' needs at heart, solely their commision, and sell products based on that. But so many people buy into it because they get caught up in the hype, some even get lucky, but generally they give unreliable advice.
Sorry for the long post, but also, could someone answer if polygraphers are polygraphed? Be interesting to know.
Awhile back ago, I did an application with the FBI and everything was humming along smoothly (enough) until the polygraph. I am truly a "spotless" character, and a religious (Catholic--dang examination of conscience) one at that. Following advice from a police jobs forums, I decided to refrain from doing too much research on the polygraph prior to my test. So like I said, I'm going to respect my non-disclosure of what happened during my test, but that said, I'm sure others here can get an idea from reading the other posts on this site.
I was told I failed, and pressed for a confession. I stood to my guns and insisted that everything I told previously was everything there was to say. I couldn't think of any reasons why I would fail. Annoyed, my polygrapher gave up after 5 or 10 minutes. I shook his hand, despite the fact he pulled away, I grabbed it anyway. I was taking the high road out.
A few weeks later, I got a notice in the mail stating I failed. I started to feel dejected, I began to worry what effect this might have on my future applications with the government. My HR contact said I would be barred from future consideration with the FBI and possibly other places. I tried to schedule a retest, my applicant coordinator didn't respond to 1 email and 2 phone calls I placed. I sent my FOIA request, and still have yet to hear back, besides the confirmation of receipt.
Perplexed why I failed despite being completely forthright and honest, I researched the polygraph. I went to the main pro-polygraph website, here, and LE websites. I wanted to get a variety of perspectives on the topic. As a person with a background in accounting and law and just an all around nerd, I enjoy research. Further not satisfied, I ordered a polygrapher training manual and read the DOD-PI's guidelines fairly recently. I was floored when I read the section for federal LE positions! Everything outlines in there, I experienced during mine, exactly! However, my polygrapher gave different reasoning on why he was performing the test the way he did that the DOD-PI manual did! I realized, what I thought was merely hyperbole on a anti-poly website, was in fact all true! Polygraphers lie out their teeth to garner weak confessions! In addition, many advocate that one shouldn't investigate the polygraph beforehand because it could negatively affect results. This rings of the same tactic that frats and gangs use to intimidate recruits. Only with the polygraph is knowledge bad. In fact, I wouldn't want an investigator working if they accept anything as blind fact without prior investigation. I was stupid for not doing that sooner.
So of all my research conducted in this matter, I come to the conclusion that THIS IS THE ONLY WEBSITE that accurately portrays the polygraph for what it is. It's a shame that a judge or congressman high enough up won't go through the same rigors that I, or others, that have personally been hurt, will go through to outlaw its use. I have my theories.
1. Places that polygraph seem to get so many qualified applicants and they are so backlogged, any doubt, albeit arbitrary, is enough to disqualify and applicant. In the private sector, companies can be arbitrary, in gov't they can't, in theory. So the polygraph can provide cover to widdle down applicants significantly. Hence why some fire departments use the polygraph. How is that a public trust position?
2. In our litigious and superficial society, to have a sworn officer on the stand, that "passed a lie detector" makes it sound even more attractive to a lay audience. And if an intelligence official goes rogue, the agency head can cover his ass and say, "there's no way we could have known, he passed a poly after all." And that's where the true danger of this machine comes in, to go back to Mr. Maschke's motto, it provides a false sense of security and is cheaper than a updating backgrounds appropriately.
3. As an auditor I can say the polygraph administration is fraught with control weaknesses. Which is a fancy way of saying, there is poor oversight and it is a catch-22 environment. Also, since everyone has to pass a poly to work there, a culture that believes in it develops.
4. Agencies that polygraph still have background failures on par with ones that don't. That is to say, are these agencies getting a significantly more amount of liars or are these machines truly random. And why then are there still denials of backgrounds? This is according to DOJ-OIG, DHS-OIG, and Treasury-IG hiring reports.
On the final note of my rant, the NAS report that states that polygraphs work slightly better than chance, my response to that would be (and as scientists they should have asked this question), how accurately would a person's gut feeling be without a machine? I'm willing to bet also slightly better than chance, so then why even bother with the machine? From the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode, I am willing to agree with the polygrapher that said it is a metaphorical beating with a rubber hose.
So back to my FBI poly failure. Here is my problem with them specifically as an applicant. Many federal agencies use the poly to supplement an application, like the DEA, and won't drop an applicant solely because of a bad poly. The FBI will toss someone solely for a bad poly, then they add a failure to your FBI file. Everywhere else CAN'T do that. So when a basic NAC search comes up that a poly is failed, an FBI stamp on it makes it carry undue weight and in effect, place a defamatory accusation against you.
I also find it funny that the agencies on the longest leash and can reak the most havoc in the country, and curiously enough, ones filled with typical eggheads shy away from the polygraph e.g. State, DoE, NASA.
I don't mean to come down to harshly or fall into the same cliches that are prevalent on this board in describing the polygraph or polygraphers, though I certainly understand them. My complaint about the process though is something akin to my dislike of most financial advisors, though not exactly the same. In any case, most financial advisors don't have their clients' needs at heart, solely their commision, and sell products based on that. But so many people buy into it because they get caught up in the hype, some even get lucky, but generally they give unreliable advice.
Sorry for the long post, but also, could someone answer if polygraphers are polygraphed? Be interesting to know.