- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by xenonman
- Jun 07, 2013, 11:41 AMIt is the background investigation process that is as damning for applicants as is the vile polygraph.
If any CIA scum are read :Ding this, ENJOY!
If any CIA scum are read :Ding this, ENJOY!
Quote from: Fair_Chance on Jul 25, 2005, 11:02 PMDear George,
No doubt about it, the government not only relies on the pre-screening and current employment polygraph exams, it is expanding it.
Supply and demand. Supply and demand.
Regardless of the validity or lack of validity of polygraph exams, the future holds this for the United States Federal Goverment: highly gifted scientific workers in the United States are becoming rare. Recent surveys and papers by the Chemical Engineering Society of America are demonstrating that other countries are now surpassing us in Doctorial Engineering Degrees of all types.
The United States Government is not going to be able to treat such highly educated and sought employees with its current hiring practices and expect them to be subjected to such practices as the polygraph examination.
Time will tell. Mark my words, there will be Congressional hearings by 2012 about our lack of qualified applicants for the needs of technology in government. It is not pretty.
Regards.
Posted by xenonman
- Jun 07, 2013, 01:05 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Jul 27, 2005, 11:55 AM:-XAll aspects of the Agency's background investigation policies are wholly fucked up. I was denied employment by the Agency because I was unlucky enough to have had various jerks interviewed by the investigators, who made negative remarks about me. Essentially, the background check becomes virtually a popularity contest -- nothing more. Fuck the agency!Quote from: opp on Jul 27, 2005, 11:27 AMGeorge,
Mellisa states that approximately 75 percent of applicants are denied clearances by the CIA because of the polygraph. But she is quoating a study from back in 1979. Is it still the case now?
Opp
Actually, what she writes in her book is that in 1979, 75% of CIA and NSA security clearance denials were based on polygraph results, not that nearly 75% of CIA applicants are/were rejected on the basis of polygraph results, as Gabriel Schoenfeld reported in a March 2005 Commentary magazine article titled, "What Became of the CIA?"
What Mahle writes is that in 2001, some two-thirds of CIA applicants for whom security clearances were requested did not receive them, and that the "vast majority were rejected on the basis of the polygraph."
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jan 23, 2008, 12:39 AM"You mean to say that not one single one of these people SAID anything during or after the polygraph process that might have POSSIBLY led to their disqualification?"
You hit the nail right on the head Nonobre.
The key is never, never, ever admit to anything during the polygraph. Even is they test you for three days and jump up and down on their desk screaming.
If they insist the machine is showing deception or untruthfulness make them explain the scientific basis for such a conclusion.
Last thing one should do is answer a lot of open ended questions with a lot of jabbering and discourse. That's what you want them to do. Am I right?
Go in there with the attitude that you can take the job or leave it. If you get it, great. If not, well, then I'll try the private sector. But at any rate, mr. polygrapher, I'm not going to sit here and lie (i.e. admit to something I have not done) just because your blood pressure machine says I'm getting flustered! That would be RIDICULOUS!
What they want is for you to burst into tears because if you don't get the job, your life will end.
You hit the nail right on the head Nonobre.
The key is never, never, ever admit to anything during the polygraph. Even is they test you for three days and jump up and down on their desk screaming.
If they insist the machine is showing deception or untruthfulness make them explain the scientific basis for such a conclusion.
Last thing one should do is answer a lot of open ended questions with a lot of jabbering and discourse. That's what you want them to do. Am I right?
Go in there with the attitude that you can take the job or leave it. If you get it, great. If not, well, then I'll try the private sector. But at any rate, mr. polygrapher, I'm not going to sit here and lie (i.e. admit to something I have not done) just because your blood pressure machine says I'm getting flustered! That would be RIDICULOUS!
What they want is for you to burst into tears because if you don't get the job, your life will end.
Posted by meangino
- Jul 18, 2006, 12:44 AMDr. Richardson:
I'm not surprised George is a Ph.D linguist. I've known and worked with several excellent writers in my day; his writing as good as any of theirs.
I'm not surprised George is a Ph.D linguist. I've known and worked with several excellent writers in my day; his writing as good as any of theirs.
Posted by alterego1
- Jul 17, 2006, 05:19 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Jul 17, 2006, 12:32 PM
None of his detractors and/or opponents individually or in concert is any match for him, but it is most entertaining to see subsequent would-be champions come forth.
Good job on knowing that the word "none" is always singular, regardless if the words in the prepositional phrase following it are plural. Many mere mortals would have been tempted to state "None of his detractors are any match for him." You definitely get an "A+" for the day.
By the way Dr. Drew, I love that call in show that you do with Adam Carolla on Comedy Central. You guys are great!
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jul 17, 2006, 12:32 PMMeangino,
You write in part:
Dr. Maschke is a Ph.D. linguist. That which you and many others have observed regarding his writing skills should come as no surprise to any. I am glad to know him and value both his broad knowledge of matters concerning polygraphy and his unsurpassed articulate manner of sharing such with others on this board and elsewhere. None of his detractors and/or opponents individually or in concert is any match for him, but it is most entertaining to see subsequent would-be champions come forth.
You write in part:
Quote...George is one of the best writers I've read. He hardly ever makes writing and grammatical errors. Besides my distrust of polygraphs the second reason I like to view this site is to read George's superb writing....
Dr. Maschke is a Ph.D. linguist. That which you and many others have observed regarding his writing skills should come as no surprise to any. I am glad to know him and value both his broad knowledge of matters concerning polygraphy and his unsurpassed articulate manner of sharing such with others on this board and elsewhere. None of his detractors and/or opponents individually or in concert is any match for him, but it is most entertaining to see subsequent would-be champions come forth.
Posted by alterego1
- Jul 17, 2006, 12:15 AMQuote from: meangino on Jul 16, 2006, 11:58 PM
Why do you insist on trying to call him down? Are you a polygrapher?
Wasn't trying to call him down......I just had never heard the term "censured" before, so I stand corrected. I'm a fan of grammar and spelling myself, so i'm always trying to learn something or call out someone's mistakes. It's nothing personal against the people I call out (nor am I trying to embarass them). After all, George states that "real Americans question authority."
Posted by meangino
- Jul 16, 2006, 11:58 PMAlterego one, the (sic) annotation is correct.
The verb to censor means "to examine and expurgate." The verb to censure means "to criticize severely; blame."
The writer should have used "censured."
George is one of the best writers I've read. He hardly ever makes writing and grammatical errors. Besides my distrust of polygraphs the second reason I like to view this site is to read George's superb writing.
Why do you insist on trying to call him down? Are you a polygrapher?
The verb to censor means "to examine and expurgate." The verb to censure means "to criticize severely; blame."
The writer should have used "censured."
George is one of the best writers I've read. He hardly ever makes writing and grammatical errors. Besides my distrust of polygraphs the second reason I like to view this site is to read George's superb writing.
Why do you insist on trying to call him down? Are you a polygrapher?
Posted by alterego1
- Jul 16, 2006, 08:22 PMGeorge, why did you [sic] the word "censored" in that quote, if it is spelled correctly and used in the correct context?
Posted by Onesimus
- Apr 18, 2006, 04:23 AMIt is unclear to me whether or not drop-outs from the clearance process are included in these numbers.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 18, 2006, 03:57 AMQuote from: nonombre on Apr 16, 2006, 11:13 PM
Mr. Maschke,
Am I to understand that two thirds of the applicants to CIA were disqualified due to nothing more than the squiggly lines on a computer screen?
Two thirds?
No. What Mahle is saying (see the excerpt from pp. 311-12 of her book, above) is that in 2001, two-thirds of the CIA applicants for whom security clearances were requested were denied, and that the vast majority of these rejections were based on polygraph results. This means that some number less than two-thirds were rejected based on polygraph results. If we suppose that by "vast majority" Mahle refers to a figure of, say, 75% (which was the 1979 figure), then the percentage of applicants rejected on the basis of polygraph results would have been:
.6667 x .75 x 100 = 50%
QuoteYou mean to say that not one single one of these people SAID anything during or after the polygraph process that might have POSSIBLY led to their disqualification?
No. I did not mean to say that, nor did I. No doubt, some of the applicants rejected based on their polygraph results made disqualifying admissions. To the best of my knowledge, that percentage has not been publicly documented. But given what we know about polygraphy's complete lack of validity as a diagnostic test for deception, it's clear that many truthful, qualified applicants are being falsely branded as liars by the Agency's Polygraph Division and wrongly disqualified. I agree with Mahle that "the security disqualification rate is outside the bounds of reasonable assessment."
QuoteHmmm, seems like half a story to me...
Regards,
Nonombre
If you or anyone else reading this can provide additional documentation regarding the CIA's polygraph program, please contact AntiPolygraph.org. Anonymous submissions are welcome.
Posted by Tarlain
- Apr 17, 2006, 09:06 PMYou called me a "punk". 
I already feel like I am back in highschool...maybe you could dump my books next?
I already feel like I am back in highschool...maybe you could dump my books next?Posted by nonombre
- Apr 17, 2006, 08:55 PMQuote from: Tarlain on Apr 17, 2006, 02:44 AM
things like this just add fuel to my fire. i can't WAIT to get in the room with one of you guys (or girls). i only wish it was you in the room Nonombre
In the words of Detective Harry Callahan:
Go ahead punk, make my day...
Posted by Tarlain
- Apr 17, 2006, 02:44 AMQuote from: nonombre on Apr 16, 2006, 11:13 PM
Mr. Maschke,
Am I to understand that two thirds of the applicants to CIA were disqualified due to nothing more than the squiggly lines on a computer screen?
Two thirds?
You mean to say that not one single one of these people SAID anything during or after the polygraph process that might have POSSIBLY led to their disqualification?
Hmmm, seems like half a story to me...
Regards,
Nonombre
things like this just add fuel to my fire. i can't WAIT to get in the room with one of you guys (or girls). i only wish it was you in the room Nonombre
Posted by nonombre
- Apr 16, 2006, 11:13 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Jul 27, 2005, 11:55 AM
...some two-thirds of CIA applicants for whom security clearances were requested did not receive them, and that the "vast majority were rejected on the basis of the polygraph."
Mr. Maschke,
Am I to understand that two thirds of the applicants to CIA were disqualified due to nothing more than the squiggly lines on a computer screen?
Two thirds?
You mean to say that not one single one of these people SAID anything during or after the polygraph process that might have POSSIBLY led to their disqualification?
Hmmm, seems like half a story to me...
Regards,
Nonombre