- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty
- Sep 13, 2003, 01:43 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 13, 2003, 06:12 AMAnonymous,
Assuming your security clearance is granted, you can expect to be subjected to the ritual of polygraph screening on a regular basis so long as you continue to work on NSA contracts. If you disbelieve the information that is provided here on AntiPolygraph.org, you might wish to consult the report of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, The Polygraph and Lie Detection. I think you'll find it to be consistent with that which is provided here.
I took his comments about not "believing" to be more along the lines of not "absorbing" which was clearly the case. His earlier comments indicated some surface knowledge about PL controls but certainly not a deep or intuitive understanding. Given his comments to the examiner about actually posting here, I would expect this thread would almost certainly be reviewed post test. Given his specificity, there's a good chance they were aware of it in advance.
Fascinating in any case.
-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 13, 2003, 06:12 AMAnonymous,
Assuming your security clearance is granted, you can expect to be subjected to the ritual of polygraph screening on a regular basis so long as you continue to work on NSA contracts. If you disbelieve the information that is provided here on AntiPolygraph.org, you might wish to consult the report of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, The Polygraph and Lie Detection. I think you'll find it to be consistent with that which is provided here.
Assuming your security clearance is granted, you can expect to be subjected to the ritual of polygraph screening on a regular basis so long as you continue to work on NSA contracts. If you disbelieve the information that is provided here on AntiPolygraph.org, you might wish to consult the report of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, The Polygraph and Lie Detection. I think you'll find it to be consistent with that which is provided here.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 13, 2003, 06:01 AMAnonymous,
Thank you for updating us on how your polygraph examination went. Based on your account, it seems likely that you passed.
In evaluating your experience, bear in mind that you actually left yourself no choice but to adopt a "complete honesty" approach, including telling your polygrapher about your post here, since you posted enough specific detail to allow yourself to be identified. That you were polygraphed by the NSA polygraph unit's technical director is circumstantial evidence that you were, in fact, so identified.
It is heartening that your having posted here has apparently not resulted in retaliation. Your telling the NSA that you "didn't believe anything about anti-polygraph" (whether or not such is actually the case) may also have been helpful.
The questions you described suggest that you were indeed subjected to a Relevant/Irrelevant "test." As I mentioned earlier in this message thread, this is the standard technique used by the NSA for screening purposes.
In this technique, the irrelevant questions (like, "Are you sitting down?") were not to "see what [your] level was for telling the truth." They are not scored at all. Instead, reactions to relevant questions are compared to each other, and the polygrapher looks for a "conspicuous, specific, and significant" reaction to a relevant question over multiple chart collections (question series). You'll find this technique discussed at greater length at pp. 115-19 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Thank you for updating us on how your polygraph examination went. Based on your account, it seems likely that you passed.
In evaluating your experience, bear in mind that you actually left yourself no choice but to adopt a "complete honesty" approach, including telling your polygrapher about your post here, since you posted enough specific detail to allow yourself to be identified. That you were polygraphed by the NSA polygraph unit's technical director is circumstantial evidence that you were, in fact, so identified.
It is heartening that your having posted here has apparently not resulted in retaliation. Your telling the NSA that you "didn't believe anything about anti-polygraph" (whether or not such is actually the case) may also have been helpful.
The questions you described suggest that you were indeed subjected to a Relevant/Irrelevant "test." As I mentioned earlier in this message thread, this is the standard technique used by the NSA for screening purposes.
In this technique, the irrelevant questions (like, "Are you sitting down?") were not to "see what [your] level was for telling the truth." They are not scored at all. Instead, reactions to relevant questions are compared to each other, and the polygrapher looks for a "conspicuous, specific, and significant" reaction to a relevant question over multiple chart collections (question series). You'll find this technique discussed at greater length at pp. 115-19 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Posted by Marty
- Sep 13, 2003, 04:12 AMWell, anonymous. I find your comments and explanation reasonable. Thanks for the clarification. You may well have been fortunate in getting an R/I. While not considered as reliable as the CQT, it would be more appropriate for someone exposed to some detail about the CQT.
Again, good luck and best wishes that you passed.
-Marty
Again, good luck and best wishes that you passed.
-Marty
Posted by Anonymous :)
- Sep 13, 2003, 04:05 AMI guess I was tired of people saying how bad off I was going to be because I gave the correct date so I started to cover it up a bit. After posting that I wanted to edit it out but I am a guest and can not. I do understand your concern though. I also don't like knowing that its that easy to find out who someone is based on a small bit of information. I guess the statements the people were making about it made me feel like a idiot so I was trying to make myself look better.
Posted by Anonymous :)
- Sep 13, 2003, 03:58 AMI learned multiple languages in school but I will be doing Java development for the contracting company if I get the clearance. I am learning unix adminstration on my own time as well. I havn't read much about R/I from this website so i'm not sure about that. He asked questions like are you sitting down to check and see what my level was for telling the truth and then questions that had to do with something important to the national security. I have been a pretty good person growing up so the test wasn't really all that nerve wrecking for me as it might be for someone else. I did have problems keeping myself from swallowing. When I was driving to the NSA I was singing in my car and I did have a cough attack 20 minutes from the NSA. Not sure if thats the reason for so much reaction there or not. I felt better as the tests went on though.
Posted by Marty
- Sep 13, 2003, 03:47 AMQuote from: Anonymous :) on Sep 13, 2003, 02:25 AMHi, I took my test today and I think I did pretty well. It started out with asking me what I knew about polygraph tests. From there I told the truth about the sites i've visited and I even explained about this post.While I admire the "complete honesty" approach I must point out that you earlier said:
............
In conclusion I do not know if I pass but I feel good about the test. I'll let you all know the official results as soon as I get it. 100% honesty was the way I approached this test and forum post.
QuoteI decided I will just go through the test being completely honest. Thanks for the information anti-polygraph but I feel I need to go with my gut here. This site is good to see the other side of the polygraph test that I may of not thought about until I visited. Its just sort of funny because the date is wrong and my age is off a bit. I just was wondering about how they treated younger folks etc. So no need to really stick up for me there TestMan, although thanks.
Please note the test date was also Sept 12 in your original post. Your own words suggest "Human Subject" may have been correct. Perhaps you have another explanation?
-Marty
Posted by Marty
- Sep 13, 2003, 03:37 AMCongratulations! I also like your decision to be completely open with them.
I've heard it's somewhat unusual for NSA (used to be No Such Agency) people to grant permission about much of anything they do.
I'm curious. Since you indicated you honestly answered all the questions and showed no discomfort I'm assuming you got a "R/I" type test. I think Skeptic has also indicated they use an R/I version at NSA. Is that your take as well?
BTW, what programming languages and systems do you like best? Me, I like C++ but I've heard good things about Java and VB.NET.
-Marty
I've heard it's somewhat unusual for NSA (used to be No Such Agency) people to grant permission about much of anything they do.
I'm curious. Since you indicated you honestly answered all the questions and showed no discomfort I'm assuming you got a "R/I" type test. I think Skeptic has also indicated they use an R/I version at NSA. Is that your take as well?
BTW, what programming languages and systems do you like best? Me, I like C++ but I've heard good things about Java and VB.NET.
-Marty
Posted by Anonymous :)
- Sep 13, 2003, 02:25 AMHi, I took my test today and I think I did pretty well. It started out with asking me what I knew about polygraph tests. From there I told the truth about the sites i've visited and I even explained about this post. I explained to him that I didn't believe anything about anti-polygraph and went to other sites that were for polygraph tests as well. My goal was to find good information about what i'm in for. I am a programmer and I usually like to research before I start coding. I guess I did this here too and it did turn in to a pretty big thread and debate. From there he started telling me about the machine and how it works. Since you guys are experts you know this already but I had two left finger sensors, two stomach sensors and a right arm sensor. The guy who did my polygraph was very friendly and polite. He went over the questions and I answered honestly to every question. I did have a problem with swallowing. Some reason my body would want to swallow every 5 minutes or so. A few sessions in I got better at controlling my swallows and he said I was doing great. He then asked me if I was ok with the questions and I was. There was only one time he had to ask if there was a problem with a question. That question was "Were you born in MD?" The reason is because I happened to have a problem swallowing during the question so we redid it and everything ended up alright. He left the room for about 5 minutes towards the end and came back in hinting that I passed but did not come out and say it. He then talked to me some more about the new job I was getting and walked me to the NSA visitor entrance. Towards the end he told me his name and that he was the Technical Director and told me I can use that information while posting about my polygraph experience.
In conclusion I do not know if I pass but I feel good about the test. I'll let you all know the official results as soon as I get it. 100% honesty was the way I approached this test and forum post.
In conclusion I do not know if I pass but I feel good about the test. I'll let you all know the official results as soon as I get it. 100% honesty was the way I approached this test and forum post.
Posted by Human Subject
- Aug 29, 2003, 04:59 PMQuote from: Guest on Aug 29, 2003, 02:55 AMCould be. Doesn't matter though. You guys are focused enough that if it were an attempt to thwart your efforts it wouldn't have worked anyway. You guys are so dedicated and smart that the Fed/Gov is increasing its reliance on PDD by leaps and bounds. Good luck anyway.
As I've said elsewhere, I guess this means we'll have fewer cases of spying. We'll just have to wait and see. Somehow I doubt it.
In the short term, increased reliance on the polygraph could be seen as a setback.
In the long term, it just means there are more and more opportunities for people to discover what a fraud this technique is.
Posted by Guest
- Aug 29, 2003, 02:55 AMQuote from: Elmo on Aug 29, 2003, 01:15 AMI talked to a friend of a friend and he said no one that fits this description of anonymous is even taking a test. Hes prolly just a examiner . . .
Could be. Doesn't matter though. You guys are focused enough that if it were an attempt to thwart your efforts it wouldn't have worked anyway. You guys are so dedicated and smart that the Fed/Gov is increasing its reliance on PDD by leaps and bounds. Good luck anyway.
Posted by Marty
- Aug 29, 2003, 01:42 AMQuote from: Elmo on Aug 29, 2003, 01:15 AMI talked to a friend of a friend and he said no one that fits this description of anonymous is even taking a test. Hes prolly just a examiner which is trying to get the people who visit this post to think twice about antipolygraph.org. This is just what I heard and might not be 100% accurate but im just giving you a heads up.. I'd ban his ip or somethingWhile it's possible for a polygrapher to identify someone who provides enough unobfuscated detail of their situation, the converse is essentially impossible. That said I have little doubt there has been numerous ad hoc attacks on antipolygraph.org. This is likely effective to some degree as people have a predisposition to believing authority figures and confusion is the polygraphers friend.
Interesting that polygraphplace chooses to censor their forums so heavily but given their craft's charateristics it probably can't be any other way. Too bad. If there was a technique that wasn't itself deceptive and provided truth discrimination I would sure like to pursue it and help it succeed.
-Marty
Posted by j. law
- Aug 29, 2003, 01:42 AMHe has something to hide, else he would not be here. After all they call it a "lie " detector, not truth detector.
In any case, if he passes, he's using some knowledge gained here.
Jonnlaw
In any case, if he passes, he's using some knowledge gained here.
Jonnlaw
Posted by jonnlaw
- Aug 29, 2003, 01:41 AMHe has something to hide, else he would not be here. After all they call it a "lie " detector, not truth detector.
In any case, if he passes, he's using some knowledge gained here.
Jonnlaw
In any case, if he passes, he's using some knowledge gained here.
Jonnlaw
Posted by Elmo
- Aug 29, 2003, 01:15 AMI talked to a friend of a friend and he said no one that fits this description of anonymous is even taking a test. Hes prolly just a examiner which is trying to get the people who visit this post to think twice about antipolygraph.org. This is just what I heard and might not be 100% accurate but im just giving you a heads up.. I'd ban his ip or something