- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Fletch
- May 10, 2004, 07:52 PMDear ibenubee,
I understand what you mean; "passing" a polygraph exam is certainly not the end of the road. I was simply quoting the FBI's own guidelines on how to deal with those who do not "pass." Despite their own rules, for those individuals, it IS the end of the road and in most cases, unless you are a current employee with the Bureau, retests are only given to reconfirm the earlier "test" results.
Fletch.
I understand what you mean; "passing" a polygraph exam is certainly not the end of the road. I was simply quoting the FBI's own guidelines on how to deal with those who do not "pass." Despite their own rules, for those individuals, it IS the end of the road and in most cases, unless you are a current employee with the Bureau, retests are only given to reconfirm the earlier "test" results.
Fletch.
Posted by Anonymous
- May 10, 2004, 03:34 AMQuoteIt isn't telling your that if you "fail" the polygraph a background will be done. It is just saying that "passing" a polygraph is not the end of the road.
Okay, so in other words, if you "pass" the polygraph we're still going to conduct an in-depth background investigation because your "pass" doesn't necessarily mean you were telling us the truth about not being a spy, drug abuser or drug dealer.
However, if you "fail" the polygraph then we're just going to skip the in-depth background investigation and disqualify you because your "fail" necessarily and without a doubt indicates that you are either a spy, drug abuser or drug deal as well as a liar.
Riiight. Anyone else see a problem with this?
Posted by ibenubee
- May 09, 2004, 07:14 AMReply to Fletch's post concerning the FBI's statement that a polygraph is not to be considered a replacement for a background investigation. This is not meant to indicate that a background investigation will be performed on every applicant. It is meant to say that even if you successfully complete your polygraph a background investigation will still be performed. It isn't telling your that if you "fail" the polygraph a background will be done. It is just saying that "passing" a polygraph is not the end of the road.
Posted by ibenubee
- May 09, 2004, 06:22 AMI'm new to the site and just surfing and learning, but I noticed that you referred to the FBI as the Federal Bureau of Interpretation and also as the Federal Bureau of Intimidation. Pardon me for being crass, but you don't deserve to be an FBI agent if you don't know that FBI stands for Famous But Incompetent. Did J. Edgar Hoover really sleep with a night light?
Posted by Marty
- Apr 05, 2004, 05:21 PMQuote from: Anonymous on Apr 05, 2004, 05:03 PMpillpopper,
I absolutely agree with you. In fact, from an examiner's own mouth - the polygraph allegedly works by determining which questions are most "threatening" to a person.
If one understood the idea behind control questions (choosing to not attempt countermeasures), which questions would be more threatening? At this point it isn't between deception and truth! For this candidate, it is simply knowing that a control question won't get him/her disqualified but a relevant question could! During my exam, that's what I found myself thinking about - not "hmmm, did I exceed the agency's drug policy?" (I didn't), but rather "shit, this is a relevant question - I can't react or I'll fail" (reaction given).
Seems pretty unfair to me. Examiners - is this not at all the way things work? Please enlighten us because I genuinely would like to know.
Anonymous,
This touches on exactly what I consider most problematic about the polygraph, ie: that knowledge about the polygraph obviates the assumumptions upon which it is based. I suspect this greatly concerns polygraphers but, for obvious reasons, they have difficulty addressing it.
This morning, David Kay (CSPAN) spoke on emerging terrorism issues and came down hard on the hostile environment scientists found themselves in working in critical govt. positions. I couldn't help but think about the contribution polygraph screening has in this. Scientists, by their nature, are highly suspicious of "sciences" that depend on ignorance to work. I fear the loss of needed human capability may outweigh the benefit (and I do believe there is some) provided by polygraph based filters. It's a serious problem that needs addressing. The National Academy of Science's report is a pretty fair and balanced attempt to do that - for the benefit of the country. The degree to which it has been ignored is not helpful in attracting talent. Far too easy just to go into the non-govt. private sector.
-Marty
Posted by Anonymous
- Apr 05, 2004, 05:03 PMpillpopper,
I absolutely agree with you. In fact, from an examiner's own mouth - the polygraph allegedly works by determining which questions are most "threatening" to a person.
If one understood the idea behind control questions (choosing to not attempt countermeasures), which questions would be more threatening? At this point it isn't between deception and truth! For this candidate, it is simply knowing that a control question won't get him/her disqualified but a relevant question could! During my exam, that's what I found myself thinking about - not "hmmm, did I exceed the agency's drug policy?" (I didn't), but rather "shit, this is a relevant question - I can't react or I'll fail" (reaction given).
Seems pretty unfair to me. Examiners - is this not at all the way things work? Please enlighten us because I genuinely would like to know.
I absolutely agree with you. In fact, from an examiner's own mouth - the polygraph allegedly works by determining which questions are most "threatening" to a person.
If one understood the idea behind control questions (choosing to not attempt countermeasures), which questions would be more threatening? At this point it isn't between deception and truth! For this candidate, it is simply knowing that a control question won't get him/her disqualified but a relevant question could! During my exam, that's what I found myself thinking about - not "hmmm, did I exceed the agency's drug policy?" (I didn't), but rather "shit, this is a relevant question - I can't react or I'll fail" (reaction given).
Seems pretty unfair to me. Examiners - is this not at all the way things work? Please enlighten us because I genuinely would like to know.
Posted by Bill Crider
- Apr 05, 2004, 01:48 PMthe problem i see is that if you understand the idea of control questions, you set yourself up for a fall because you dont fear these questions since you know why they are asked. thus, you hurt your comparison to the relevants. if the idea is not how you react to relevants but rather how you react to relevants RELATIVE to control Qs, then you have to fear the control questions to be able to pass while telling the truth.
Posted by Fletch
- Mar 12, 2004, 06:51 PMDear where is the integrity,
I tend to agree with you. However, I think the overriding point with the polygraph is that it is not an accurate device for detecting criminals let alone weeding out otherwise unsuitable candidates. The problem exists where innocent individuals are wrongfully and permanently branded liars, while unsuitable candidates (or even criminals) are pass through. Look at Rick Ames, who 'passed' his way through at least 5 times while committing espionage or, in the criminal sense, we can turn to Gary Ridgeway, who continued his killing spree for an additional 20 years (!) after a polygraph cleared him as a suspect and turned the focus of the investigation on to an innocent man who 'failed'. I'm surprised that none of the victims have filed a wrongful death suit against the investigating department for such a folly.
My point here is not to argue the utility of the polygraph, but to point out the dangers of continuing to rely on it as it is used today, be it a police department or an intel agency. The point is that their accuracy is highly suspect, it harms innocent individuals (not just applicants, but victims in the Ridgeway care), and poses a grave danger to the law enforcement and especially the intelligence community – bad people DO get through regardless of the polygraph. Until this is changed, it will do significantly more harm than it ever can do good.
Fletch.
I tend to agree with you. However, I think the overriding point with the polygraph is that it is not an accurate device for detecting criminals let alone weeding out otherwise unsuitable candidates. The problem exists where innocent individuals are wrongfully and permanently branded liars, while unsuitable candidates (or even criminals) are pass through. Look at Rick Ames, who 'passed' his way through at least 5 times while committing espionage or, in the criminal sense, we can turn to Gary Ridgeway, who continued his killing spree for an additional 20 years (!) after a polygraph cleared him as a suspect and turned the focus of the investigation on to an innocent man who 'failed'. I'm surprised that none of the victims have filed a wrongful death suit against the investigating department for such a folly.
My point here is not to argue the utility of the polygraph, but to point out the dangers of continuing to rely on it as it is used today, be it a police department or an intel agency. The point is that their accuracy is highly suspect, it harms innocent individuals (not just applicants, but victims in the Ridgeway care), and poses a grave danger to the law enforcement and especially the intelligence community – bad people DO get through regardless of the polygraph. Until this is changed, it will do significantly more harm than it ever can do good.
Fletch.
Posted by where is the integrity
- Mar 12, 2004, 06:14 PMThis is not intended to sound childish or to belittle your situation, but do two wrongs make a right? I really can understand your frustration w/ the system and I have been in a postion where I wrongly did not get a job for that I based the first 8 years of my adult life for, but I did not cheat, lie, or otherwise sacrifice my values to pursue that. I found another avenue that I am contented w/ now. Although I was greatly upset w/ the system that let me down, it would have been even worse for me to change my standards to try and diminish the integrity of law enforcement any more than bad cops already do.
Posted by Fletch
- Mar 12, 2004, 12:50 PMDear where is the integrity:
I have taken a polygraph examination with the FBI on two occasions, told the complete truth by naively believing that the truth would prevail, didn't use countermeasures of any kind, and was still found deceptive (or inconclusive) on both occasions. Since then no one from FBI has returned my calls or letters, and I have had two conditional offers of employment with other agencies yanked directly on the basis of my FBI polygraph and without any offer of an exam administered by those agencies.
I have consulted with an attorney in the matter since it seems fairly straightforward, but was advised not to do anything since the repercussions of filing a lawsuit would not only exclude me from employment with an intelligence agency, but also with any government agency requiring a simple background check (what manager would risk hiring someone who has a lawsuit pending against the FBI?). Even having the FBI records sealed would raise suspicions to a hiring manager as to why they were sealed. So my question to you is: "where is the integrity?"
Fletch.
I have taken a polygraph examination with the FBI on two occasions, told the complete truth by naively believing that the truth would prevail, didn't use countermeasures of any kind, and was still found deceptive (or inconclusive) on both occasions. Since then no one from FBI has returned my calls or letters, and I have had two conditional offers of employment with other agencies yanked directly on the basis of my FBI polygraph and without any offer of an exam administered by those agencies.
I have consulted with an attorney in the matter since it seems fairly straightforward, but was advised not to do anything since the repercussions of filing a lawsuit would not only exclude me from employment with an intelligence agency, but also with any government agency requiring a simple background check (what manager would risk hiring someone who has a lawsuit pending against the FBI?). Even having the FBI records sealed would raise suspicions to a hiring manager as to why they were sealed. So my question to you is: "where is the integrity?"
Fletch.
Posted by where is the integrity
- Mar 12, 2004, 12:10 PMI will leave the validity and accuracy of the polygraph alone for now. My concern is that some of you posting on here are applying for jobs in law enforcment and this is a position that requires so much integrity, especially the FBI, yet you so willingly lie and cheat in attempts to pass the requirements for this postion. This really scares me, it seems as though you are saying you have justification because you feel you are qualified for this position so what you are doing is ok. What happens when it is time to go after a suspect and you cant get the evidence you think you need, do you then make the decision to fabricate that evidence or lie about something because you think it is right. I pity the agency that hires you and the suspects you unjustly put away because you thought they were guilty.
Posted by Marty
- Mar 07, 2004, 02:16 AMQuote from: Guest on Mar 07, 2004, 01:54 AM
Marty if you are going to stick your large snout into other peoples' arguments, please stick it in far enough to get to the root of the controversy. Now I ask you, wouldn't vocabulary be more appropriate than diction in the above statement?
Not at all. After looking up both "diction" and "vocabulary", "diction" is at least as good a choice, especially since I thought you arranged the referenced words well. "Vocabulary" would be more correct if the criticism had been that you merely obtained a list of words.
-Marty
Posted by Guest
- Mar 07, 2004, 01:54 AMQuote from: Anonymous on Mar 05, 2004, 09:18 PMGuest,
Congratulations on your improved diction and/or find of a thesaurus...may the gods bless and we continue to be so fortunate. With regard to your question regarding analysis, I suspect the problem you are facing, judging from your last dozen or so posts, lies in your confusion and inability to discern the difference between analysis and unsupported assumption and assertion.
Marty if you are going to stick your large snout into other peoples' arguments, please stick it in far enough to get to the root of the controversy. Now I ask you, wouldn't vocabulary be more appropriate than diction in the above statement?
Posted by Marty
- Mar 07, 2004, 01:12 AMQuote from: guest on Mar 07, 2004, 12:56 AM
Wrong again (S)marty. I simply said that vocabulary was more appropriate in the context in which he used the word diction. And it is. And I didn't have to look it up to know that.
Here is what was said several posts ago and how you objected and implicitly you looked up the MW definition and pretended it was a part of the prior definition. Notice the verbal usage of "diction" is last. Review your own words:
Quote
on Today at 00:51:25, Anonymous wrote:Actually, from Merriam-Webster:
diction: choice of words especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness
Who's the stupid SOB now? It is amazing you still bother to post here.
You responded after clearly looking up the definition:
Quote
Had you finished the statement out of that dictionary you would have seen that it is defined as" VOCAL expression: ENUNCIATION & PRONUNCIATION. And you are right I should not have called you a stupid SOB, ignorant bastard would have been more correct.
-Marty
Posted by guest
- Mar 07, 2004, 12:56 AMQuote from: Marty on Mar 07, 2004, 12:46 AM
Because you are not stupid. You looked it up and wrongly implied that the verbal usage of the word was a concatenation purposely left out. It wasn't.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=diction
Wrong again (S)marty. I simply said that vocabulary was more appropriate in the context in which he used the word diction. And it is. And I didn't have to look it up to know that.