Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What color are the stars on the U.S. flag?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Feb 27, 2006, 03:36 PM
Quote from: Collectivist on Feb 27, 2006, 03:09 PMLooking at the list of questions in original post....
Is "Have you ever lied to a supervisor?" a control question?
Is it something almost eveyone has done?
Or is it something that the FBI would definitely not want a candidate to do?

The question about lying to a supervisor is indeed a probable-lie "control" question. You'll find "control" questions commonly used by the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies listed in DoDPI's Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test examiner's guide:

http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-lepet.pdf
Posted by Collectivist
 - Feb 27, 2006, 03:09 PM
Looking at the list of questions in original post....
Is "Have you ever lied to a supervisor?" a control question?
Is it something almost eveyone has done?
Or is it something that the FBI would definitely not want a candidate to do?
Posted by 8675309
 - Jan 20, 2006, 05:33 PM
Quote from: Bill Crider on Jan 20, 2006, 03:37 AM

No, if you were told you reacted to this and grilled about it, you were inconclusive at best or you failed.


Thats really not what I wanted to hear.  I'll wait and stew I guess.  Thanks for the response.
Posted by Bill Crider
 - Jan 20, 2006, 03:37 AM
QuoteSo what are all of your impressions?  Do you think its possible to be bluffed and told you are registering high and still pass

No, if you were told you reacted to this and grilled about it, you were inconclusive at best or you failed.
Posted by Johnn
 - Jan 19, 2006, 12:48 PM
Quote from: polyfool on Jan 19, 2006, 12:20 AM

Johnn,

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that the FBI will release anything through FOIPA that will leave it open to a challenge. By the time you get your hands on your polygraph results, they will be so heavily redacted that no one will be able to make heads or tails of them. All of the questions are redacted, so you won't ever even know which questions you reacted to or have any idea of a score.

I don't think examiners have qualms about failing anyone. The so-called test is subjective, requiring an OPINION to arrive at a result. Human bias plays a part even though it may be unintentional on the part of the examiner.    

I see.  As if the applicant grew up in a public housing project, then they must've experimented with drugs, for example.  How moronic.
Posted by polyfool
 - Jan 19, 2006, 12:20 AM
Quote from: Johnn on Jan 17, 2006, 12:36 PM

Hi Poly,
Do you think that the examiner would take the risk of excluding a minority using the polygraph?  I ask because the applicant can always get his charts and ask an outside "professional"  polygrapher to review the charts and then claim discrimination if the charts are not found deceptive.  :-X

Johnn,

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that the FBI will release anything through FOIPA that will leave it open to a challenge. By the time you get your hands on your polygraph results, they will be so heavily redacted that no one will be able to make heads or tails of them. All of the questions are redacted, so you won't ever even know which questions you reacted to or have any idea of a score.

I don't think examiners have qualms about failing anyone. The so-called test is subjective, requiring an OPINION to arrive at a result. Human bias plays a part even though it may be unintentional on the part of the examiner.    
Posted by Johnn
 - Jan 17, 2006, 12:36 PM
Quote from: polyfool on Jan 15, 2006, 11:19 PMEosJupiter,

That faulty system which includes examiner biases, would be expected to keep out a fair amount of minorities. .

Hi Poly,
Do you think that the examiner would take the risk of excluding a minority using the polygraph?  I ask because the applicant can always get his charts and ask an outside "professional"  polygrapher to review the charts and then claim discrimination if the charts are not found deceptive.  :-X
Posted by polyfool
 - Jan 15, 2006, 11:19 PM
EosJupiter,

I'm probably the last person in the world who would take up for the FBI, but I gotta say, I think you are wrong on this one. After undergoing the agency's pre-employment process, I honestly do not believe the FBI is using the polygraph to skirt fair labor laws.  I think it comes down to an agency afraid of hiring would-be spies and it's looking for ways to prevent their infiltration. Because it's using a faulty system to do that, it's cutting loose innocent, qualified, valuable applicants--the best and the brightest, as they say--and perhaps letting in the very types of people it's  seeking to keep out. That faulty system which includes examiner biases, would be expected to keep out a fair amount of minorities. Now, having said that, just because its heart is in the right place, doesn't make what the agency is doing to people right in any way. In essence, it's shooting itself in the foot.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Jan 15, 2006, 05:21 PM
Quote from: 8675309 on Jan 15, 2006, 04:58 PMSo what are all of your impressions?  Do you think its possible to be bluffed and told you are registering high and still pass?  Or do you think if you are told you registered high they already know you are going to fail and just want a confession for vindication.  I had nothing to confess so by the point I was getting accused it was out of my hands.

If your polygrapher did not directly accuse you of deception, then I think you may have passed.
Posted by 8675309
 - Jan 15, 2006, 04:58 PM
So what are all of your impressions?  Do you think its possible to be bluffed and told you are registering high and still pass?  Or do you think if you are told you registered high they already know you are going to fail and just want a confession for vindication.  I had nothing to confess so by the point I was getting accused it was out of my hands.
Posted by EosJupiter
 - Jan 15, 2006, 04:34 PM
I agree its conjecture on my part, I am making my opinion from seeing alot of very talented folks who have law degrees and criminal science backgrounds. Never even make it past the initial screen for one reason or another, or get  blown out by the poly. Bias on my part, but of course. And Opinion, oh yeah. But I have never been one to hide my opinions.

Regards ...
Posted by Johnn
 - Jan 15, 2006, 03:51 PM
Quote from: EosJupiter on Jan 15, 2006, 01:30 AMJohnn

For every open agent billet, they receive on average 300 applications a month. Numbers are an approximation, but I believe they are in the realm of reality. They will disqualify for various reasons most of those persons for everything from Legal altercations to bad credit, and the ones that are not top on there selection list they will disqualify with the polygraph. From that position they will wittle down the applicants to the top five. From there they will select. Its a sellers market and the FBI can be as choosey as they want. And as devious in getting rid of the un-desireables from the selection process. Colleges, accreditations (law school, accounting school)  They tout only wanting the best. And as long as there are folks that are willing to put up with process, it will continue.

Regards

Esos,
Thanks for responding.  

I understand that every employer, including the FBI most likely wants the best, etc, but what I don't understand is that with the FBI, you submit your credentials even before phase II testing.  Don't you think that it would be the perfect opportunity to weed out the undesirables at that point, instead of wasting money on airplane tickets and hotel stays as is the case during phase II?

I'm not defending the FBI's hiring practices either, but I feel that this particular point doesn't make sense. (Not that using a polygraph test makes sense either, but I feel that the perfect time for getting rid of the undesirables is after phase I - when all credentials were already made known to the DOJ)
Posted by Drew Richardson
 - Jan 15, 2006, 01:34 AM
EosJupiter,

You write in part:
Quote...If you weren't already picked, you didn't stand a chance. They make it look like a fair hiring practice, but its not. They already know and selected what applicants will pass and which ones won't. They just use the polygraph to skirt the fair hiring and labor laws....
.

Although I have little regard for the FBI's polygraph  screening program for applicants, I saw (while a Bureau employee) no evidence of a conspiracy between human resources and the Bureau's polygraph examiners and program managers  to utilize polygraphy to wrongfully manipulate the process that determines who is hired and who  is not.  I find the same to be highly unlikely now.  What I  believe to be likely the case (and the problem) involves the wanton  and reckless use of a diagnostic technique that produces widespread but largely  random error across the population of examinees and question areas.
Posted by EosJupiter
 - Jan 15, 2006, 01:30 AM
Johnn

For every open agent billet, they receive on average 300 applications a month. Numbers are an approximation, but I believe they are in the realm of reality. They will disqualify for various reasons most of those persons for everything from Legal altercations to bad credit, and the ones that are not top on there selection list they will disqualify with the polygraph. From that position they will wittle down the applicants to the top five. From there they will select. Its a sellers market and the FBI can be as choosey as they want. And as devious in getting rid of the un-desireables from the selection process. Colleges, accreditations (law school, accounting school)  They tout only wanting the best. And as long as there are folks that are willing to put up with process, it will continue.

Regards
Posted by Johnn
 - Jan 14, 2006, 11:28 PM
Quote from: EosJupiter on Jan 13, 2006, 02:00 AM8675309,

They already know and selected what applicants will pass and which ones won't. They just use the polygraph to skirt the fair hiring and labor laws.


Esos,
How do you think the FBI decides which applicants they want and which ones they dont want?  What do you think  they look at to make that decision?