- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by G Scalabr
- Nov 23, 2004, 02:30 AMWillI,
If you get a chance, check out the personal statement of "Brad Balfour" at the following URL:
http://www.antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-004.shtml
Here is a relevant quote:
Like the others have said, the polygraph is a roll of the dice, no matter who you are, no matter how qualified. Perhaps the only exception might be to have a substantial "hook" within the agency to arrange for "re-tests" that are anything other than a rubber stamp of the 1st examiner's opinion.
If you get a chance, check out the personal statement of "Brad Balfour" at the following URL:
http://www.antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-004.shtml
Here is a relevant quote:
QuoteSecret Service polygraph examiner: "All the time, a guy walks in here... The second I meet him, I can tell... The guy's a scumbag... There's no way I'm going to let him get on to my job..." "You on, on the other hand, are the kind of guy I'd like to see get this job. Degree from a top school... Computer experience... You're the kind of guy I want to see on this job.
Like the others have said, the polygraph is a roll of the dice, no matter who you are, no matter how qualified. Perhaps the only exception might be to have a substantial "hook" within the agency to arrange for "re-tests" that are anything other than a rubber stamp of the 1st examiner's opinion.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Nov 23, 2004, 01:28 AMDear WillIGetScrewed,
Any failure of the pre-employment polygraph by any of the agencies you listed in your last post will be on a permanent record which will be shared with the other federal agencies you listed.
You could get an unbiased polygraph examiner who makes a random mistake of interpretation (easily done since this is not a science) or you could get an examiner with a bias against your history, attitude, or personal looks (yes, discrimination is still a big problem in law enforcement). It is so frustrating trying to do the right thing when the cards seemed stacked against the honest applicant who trust the system.
They do not want to catch on. The polygraph is a convenient crutch. No individual wants to take responsibility for their actions so they "blame" a machine. It cost less to throw away a good applicant on an unsubstatiated "not within acceptable parameters" than doing a background check. The amount of applicants exceeds the amount needed. The old law of supply and demand.
Immediately contest any false positives in writting. Do not admit to anything in the hope of keeping an application alive. Any admission is the kiss of death of your application. Do all appeals in writing via certified return receipt mail. The system makes mistakes everyday. The squeaky wheel not only is greased but normally removed and placed on a stand where it does not have to do any work.
My tone is downbeat but anyone who has walked the walk during the last fifteen years of change would not argue my honesty.
Regards.
Any failure of the pre-employment polygraph by any of the agencies you listed in your last post will be on a permanent record which will be shared with the other federal agencies you listed.
You could get an unbiased polygraph examiner who makes a random mistake of interpretation (easily done since this is not a science) or you could get an examiner with a bias against your history, attitude, or personal looks (yes, discrimination is still a big problem in law enforcement). It is so frustrating trying to do the right thing when the cards seemed stacked against the honest applicant who trust the system.
They do not want to catch on. The polygraph is a convenient crutch. No individual wants to take responsibility for their actions so they "blame" a machine. It cost less to throw away a good applicant on an unsubstatiated "not within acceptable parameters" than doing a background check. The amount of applicants exceeds the amount needed. The old law of supply and demand.
Immediately contest any false positives in writting. Do not admit to anything in the hope of keeping an application alive. Any admission is the kiss of death of your application. Do all appeals in writing via certified return receipt mail. The system makes mistakes everyday. The squeaky wheel not only is greased but normally removed and placed on a stand where it does not have to do any work.
My tone is downbeat but anyone who has walked the walk during the last fifteen years of change would not argue my honesty.
Regards.
Posted by WillIGetScrewed
- Nov 22, 2004, 11:57 PMScary stuff 
I heard about the FBI Blacklist for failing the polygraph. Does this hold true for the other "big guys" (CIA, NSA, DEA, Secret Service, etc)?
It's frustrating because I really want to work in federal law enforcement, but I'm scared that I'm going to walk in, the examiner's going to look and say "This guy looks like a jerk, I'm gonna beat him up", and I'll be pretty much finished at the tender age of 25.
I've read all the "anti-polygraph" stuff out there (scientific studies, lawsuits, Supreme Court rulings, etc.)
Why haven't they caught on?
On top of all that, what should I do if I get a false positive? I read somewhere (on here I think) that you should just look at the examiner and say "I don't know what you want me to say, but I didn't [smoke crack, kill anyone, steal a car, etc.]"
I heard about the FBI Blacklist for failing the polygraph. Does this hold true for the other "big guys" (CIA, NSA, DEA, Secret Service, etc)?
It's frustrating because I really want to work in federal law enforcement, but I'm scared that I'm going to walk in, the examiner's going to look and say "This guy looks like a jerk, I'm gonna beat him up", and I'll be pretty much finished at the tender age of 25.
I've read all the "anti-polygraph" stuff out there (scientific studies, lawsuits, Supreme Court rulings, etc.)
Why haven't they caught on?
On top of all that, what should I do if I get a false positive? I read somewhere (on here I think) that you should just look at the examiner and say "I don't know what you want me to say, but I didn't [smoke crack, kill anyone, steal a car, etc.]"
Posted by Fair Chance
- Nov 22, 2004, 01:19 PMDear WillIGetScrewed,
Your clean record, security clearance, and special training will give you no "preferential treatment" during this test. I did not look like a scumbag, had clearances, military experience, Federal Law Enforcement experience, etc., etc., and was put through the wringer anyway.
The test is a fifty-fifty crapshoot for an FBI applicant, short and sweet. If you are part of the 50% that passes, yippee, you think the system is great. If you are part of the 50% "not within acceptable parameters", your life can become a nightmare trying to find a job which needs a security clearance in the future.
It is not scientific, it is claimed to be an "ART." Threre are alot of fingerpainters out there and they still think it is 99% accurate as you read in newspapers and articles.
The jury is still out on specific incident usage because of inadequate independent studies. Not all operators are scam artist and any honest one will admit the employment prescreening polygraphs are completely bogus.
I find it disturbing that anyone could absolutely say that someone is not trustworthy and honorable strictly on test results alone (FBI's policy is to stop all applications upon "not being within parameters" with the polygraph).
Regards
Your clean record, security clearance, and special training will give you no "preferential treatment" during this test. I did not look like a scumbag, had clearances, military experience, Federal Law Enforcement experience, etc., etc., and was put through the wringer anyway.
The test is a fifty-fifty crapshoot for an FBI applicant, short and sweet. If you are part of the 50% that passes, yippee, you think the system is great. If you are part of the 50% "not within acceptable parameters", your life can become a nightmare trying to find a job which needs a security clearance in the future.
It is not scientific, it is claimed to be an "ART." Threre are alot of fingerpainters out there and they still think it is 99% accurate as you read in newspapers and articles.
The jury is still out on specific incident usage because of inadequate independent studies. Not all operators are scam artist and any honest one will admit the employment prescreening polygraphs are completely bogus.
I find it disturbing that anyone could absolutely say that someone is not trustworthy and honorable strictly on test results alone (FBI's policy is to stop all applications upon "not being within parameters" with the polygraph).
Regards
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 22, 2004, 05:24 AMI don't think there is any way that anyone can predict to what extent examiner bias may play a role (positive or negative) in determining the outcome of your polygraph examination (although it is certainly possible that it might).
You should not expect your polygraph examination to be "tailored" to the extent of deviating significantly from the standard script used by the U.S. Secret Service and other federal law enforcement agencies for pre-employment screening purpsose. That procedure is set forth in a Department of Defense Polygraph Institute document titled, Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test.
I can tell you from my own experience applying for a position with the FBI (as an army reserve officer with a security clearance, fluent in Arabic and Persian, and recent experience in support of FBI counterterrorist investigations), that such qualifications do not necessarily provide immunity against a false positive outcome. To protect against such risk, I suggest that you educate yourself about polygraph procedure and countermeasures, which you'll find explained at chapters 3 and 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, respectively.
You should not expect your polygraph examination to be "tailored" to the extent of deviating significantly from the standard script used by the U.S. Secret Service and other federal law enforcement agencies for pre-employment screening purpsose. That procedure is set forth in a Department of Defense Polygraph Institute document titled, Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test.
I can tell you from my own experience applying for a position with the FBI (as an army reserve officer with a security clearance, fluent in Arabic and Persian, and recent experience in support of FBI counterterrorist investigations), that such qualifications do not necessarily provide immunity against a false positive outcome. To protect against such risk, I suggest that you educate yourself about polygraph procedure and countermeasures, which you'll find explained at chapters 3 and 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, respectively.
Posted by WillIGetScrewed
- Nov 22, 2004, 03:31 AMHave a question. I'm currently employed by the government and hold a security clearance. I will be graduating college about this time next year, and I am interested in the Secret Service (or something along those lines). At any rate, there are two things I'm unclear on. First:
Do the poly investigators know anything about the candidate prior to hooking them up to the chair? For an example, if you had someone who was a decorated military officer and fluent in Arabic be treated the same as an ordinary guy coming in for an interview? Or does the Poly examiner read up on the candidate and think "This guy could be really useful" or "No way in hell I'm letting this guy in"?
I wonder because since I have a clean record, already hold a security clearance, and am currently learning Arabic (hopefully it'll give me an edge these days). Given my situation, am I likely to be given an "easier" test? Or is it a matter of the examiner's mood?
And building on that, does the examiner look at someone and decide pass or fail prior to even switching the machine on? I know that they tend to accuse you of things in hopes of eliciting some kind of confession, but is that always the case, or is it just a matter of "This guy looks like a scumbag. I'm going to hassle him."?
Just curious
Do the poly investigators know anything about the candidate prior to hooking them up to the chair? For an example, if you had someone who was a decorated military officer and fluent in Arabic be treated the same as an ordinary guy coming in for an interview? Or does the Poly examiner read up on the candidate and think "This guy could be really useful" or "No way in hell I'm letting this guy in"?
I wonder because since I have a clean record, already hold a security clearance, and am currently learning Arabic (hopefully it'll give me an edge these days). Given my situation, am I likely to be given an "easier" test? Or is it a matter of the examiner's mood?
And building on that, does the examiner look at someone and decide pass or fail prior to even switching the machine on? I know that they tend to accuse you of things in hopes of eliciting some kind of confession, but is that always the case, or is it just a matter of "This guy looks like a scumbag. I'm going to hassle him."?
Just curious