- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 29, 2008, 01:35 PMQuoteThen, listening to "Larry" and the other so called false positive "experts" on this board
According to Sackett, "false Positives" don't happen much. But he is a polygrapher and biased. Listen to what the scientific community concluded:
QuoteFalse Positives with "Suspicious" Thresholds Polygraph screening protocols that can identify a large fraction of serious security violators can be expected to incorrectly implicate at least hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of innocent employees for each spy or other serious security violator correctly identified.
Furthermore, if you end up failing the test, or getting an "inconclusive", despite the fact that you were telling the truth, you'll have first hand knowledge regarding the validity of the test.
You can be truthful, yet fail the test.
QuoteBut coming on this board looking for polygraph information is like going to an AA meeting to find a drinking buddy.
There is a lot of good info on this website. Interested in knowing what the scientific community has to say about the test? Read the NAS report which you can access from this board:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369
I hope you get hired? Be advised that you dealings with the polygraph will not end with being hired. You have to take the test every 5 years, so the more objective info you can assimilate about the test, the better.
Posted by confused candidate
- Feb 29, 2008, 12:09 AMI most certainly will.
Posted by sackett
- Feb 29, 2008, 12:06 AMConfused,
I appreciate your interest and concern. But coming on this board looking for polygraph information is like going to an AA meeting to find a drinking buddy. Most people on this board have one, maybe, and I do mean maybe, two experiences with the polygraph process. Usually negative and defininately not balanced or informed.
If, for some reason, you do not get any further, please find out exactly why you were not considerd before jumping to any conclusions. If you get the position, great! We need honest and decent feds in the intell community.
And please, do let us know the outcome of your efforts
Sackett
I appreciate your interest and concern. But coming on this board looking for polygraph information is like going to an AA meeting to find a drinking buddy. Most people on this board have one, maybe, and I do mean maybe, two experiences with the polygraph process. Usually negative and defininately not balanced or informed.
If, for some reason, you do not get any further, please find out exactly why you were not considerd before jumping to any conclusions. If you get the position, great! We need honest and decent feds in the intell community.
And please, do let us know the outcome of your efforts
Sackett
Posted by confused candidate
- Feb 28, 2008, 11:23 PMI am neutral down the middle. I am not rooting for it nor am I against it. I just would like to get feedback what did this experience mean and has it caused me to not be considered, thats all. If I do not get the position, of course I am going to blame the polygraph to a certain point because I am being fasly accused. If I get hired, well then I would come here and let everyone know. as well. I just want to know from people with far more experience what did this mean, thats all.
Posted by sackett
- Feb 28, 2008, 11:09 PMDear Confused,
reading your posts, I wonder to mself, why did you come here? Not that you have to explain youself to me, a lowly "idiot" examiner. But, thinking this through; coming to an "anti" anything site when you have been subjected to the very process seems rather strange, especially not knowing the results.
Then, listening to "Larry" and the other so called false positive "experts" on this board and assuming (since you do not know anything about them other than they are genuinely disheartened and angry) as the know anything people, when you don't even know the results of your own processing also seems a little strange. Are you looking for help in explaining your possible failed test, or just preparing yourself and looking for potential support?
What if you passed your examination process but they don't want to tell you why they're not hiring you? This happens often. Will you then blame polygraph for the results? Another false positive club member...?
I'm simply confused about your intentions. If you do pass and get hired, at some time you going to have to explain your interest and presence on this board. It will probably come up if you get hired into an intell agency. If you pass, and get hired, will you then return here to tell about how the process worked for you...? Polygraph worked! And, you have nothing to complain about.
I look forward to hearing about it,
Sackett
reading your posts, I wonder to mself, why did you come here? Not that you have to explain youself to me, a lowly "idiot" examiner. But, thinking this through; coming to an "anti" anything site when you have been subjected to the very process seems rather strange, especially not knowing the results.
Then, listening to "Larry" and the other so called false positive "experts" on this board and assuming (since you do not know anything about them other than they are genuinely disheartened and angry) as the know anything people, when you don't even know the results of your own processing also seems a little strange. Are you looking for help in explaining your possible failed test, or just preparing yourself and looking for potential support?
What if you passed your examination process but they don't want to tell you why they're not hiring you? This happens often. Will you then blame polygraph for the results? Another false positive club member...?
I'm simply confused about your intentions. If you do pass and get hired, at some time you going to have to explain your interest and presence on this board. It will probably come up if you get hired into an intell agency. If you pass, and get hired, will you then return here to tell about how the process worked for you...? Polygraph worked! And, you have nothing to complain about.
I look forward to hearing about it,
Sackett
Posted by confused candidate
- Feb 28, 2008, 10:34 PMIt is one of those agencies you have mentioned. My screening has gone pretty fast fortunately compared to what Ive read and heard from others. I just hope, like I said, they do not make a desicion just off of that second poly. I would think if it was over I would of heard something by now.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 28, 2008, 10:31 PMConfused,
BI of only 4-6 weeks? That is pretty short. Must not be NSA or CIA.
Spread the word about your experience!
Larry
BI of only 4-6 weeks? That is pretty short. Must not be NSA or CIA.
Spread the word about your experience!
Larry
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 28, 2008, 10:28 PMIf your showing deception on your polygraph,...
Well, there you go again.
An ANS response as measured on the polygraph is not equal to "deception", though that is what you'd have people believe.
Larry
Well, there you go again.
An ANS response as measured on the polygraph is not equal to "deception", though that is what you'd have people believe.
Larry
Posted by confused candidate
- Feb 28, 2008, 10:27 PMIm not sure......she said she would input her evaluation and the adjucaters would make the final judgement. I called my Program Officer and she said she hasnt heard anything and that the BI would start in 4-6 weeks. Would I have heard something by now if I was turned down???
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 28, 2008, 10:25 PMConfused,
Are you going to be retested?
Just don't play their game. But do it with a smile!
Try to ignore the polygraphers here.
Are you going to be retested?
Just don't play their game. But do it with a smile!
Try to ignore the polygraphers here.
Posted by nomegusto
- Feb 28, 2008, 08:21 PMTeach an examinee to purposly use deceptive NVI's. Smart move there. That's not going to help you. If your showing deception on your polygraph, and question you, and your NOT showing NVI's, or other indicators, I hope your polygrapher will be reasonable to take it into account. Not ALL polygraphers go by what the machine dictates.
It's one of the reason most LE agencies use there expierence members to use the polygraph. However, there are execptions, and some polygraphers aren't perfect. But, again the techiques your describing would be a DQ by any LEO. Go in be honest. If there is nothing to answer, then answer nothing. If you do have a DQ'ing factor, and you were trying to hide it, well then your DQ'd. Nothing more.
It's one of the reason most LE agencies use there expierence members to use the polygraph. However, there are execptions, and some polygraphers aren't perfect. But, again the techiques your describing would be a DQ by any LEO. Go in be honest. If there is nothing to answer, then answer nothing. If you do have a DQ'ing factor, and you were trying to hide it, well then your DQ'd. Nothing more.
Posted by confused candidate
- Feb 28, 2008, 07:03 PMThanks Larry for the input. I kind of figured this going in but like I said I answered truthfully but I did admit to thinking about my deployment while in Iraq but that was all. Other than that, I have nothing to hide or lie about so hopefully this experience will not effect my hirin process.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 28, 2008, 02:04 PM"about 15 minutes later and tells me that I "reacted" to the terrorist question. I was baffled by this!!!!"
They want you to be "baffled".
Contrary to what you might have thought prior to being tested, a "reaction" doesn't mean you're being untruthful. Though that is what they'd like you to believe. A reaction simply means your autonomic nervous system was stimulated.
They use those dramatics all the time. My second polygrapher at the NSA did the following. She leaves the room for 15 minutes. Then comes back all excited and told me: "I just got off the phone with the hiring committe. THEY WANT YOU BADLY! They said they haven't had such a qualified candidate in quite some time. Okay, Larry, I want you to get this job. I am here to help you! You've got to cooperate. Think and think hard. What could possibly be bothering you about this question?' blah blah blah
Later I mentioned that to the HR person and she laughed. She said nobody from security had called her or the hiring committee about me. I confirmed this with a personal friend (and current NSA employee) who recommended me to the hiring committee.
BTW, there is little "love lost" between hiring committees (made up of ops people) and the polygraph folks. The former hate the poly folks because they block the hiring of qualified people they need. The later dislike the hiring committees because they resent them trying to tell them their job, and think they are not taking "security" seriously.
The goal at the NSA/CIA polygraphers is not to test your veracity regarding the questions, but to GET YOU TALKING! They want to see what they can GET OUT OF YOU! They want to convince you that the machine can tell if you are being untruthful, and have you believe that there might be something "deep in the recesses of your mind" that is bothering you. They want you to tell them your "life story". They get kudos from their higher ups based on what they can get out of you. And they are EXPERTS at getting stuff out of you.
Did you understand the question they claimed you were having trouble with? Was your "no" response accurate? Are you a terrorist? Do you support terrorism? Have anything at all to do with terrorists? No?
Then that's all you need to know. Let them go through their "song and dance" routine. Enjoy their high dramatics but.....
WARNING:
MAKE NO ADMISSION OF ANY KIND RELATED TO A RELEVANT QUESTION. No matter how "minor" you might think it is. They will blow it out of all proportion and use it to fail you! If you answered the relevant question TRUTHFULLY, then there is NOTHING TO THINK ABOUT! Whatever you tell them, they will use against you. They will use it to write a fantasy novel about you. The more you tell them, the deeper their "story line" against you will get.
If only people knew this BEFORE TAKING THE TEST!
They want you to be "baffled".
Contrary to what you might have thought prior to being tested, a "reaction" doesn't mean you're being untruthful. Though that is what they'd like you to believe. A reaction simply means your autonomic nervous system was stimulated.
They use those dramatics all the time. My second polygrapher at the NSA did the following. She leaves the room for 15 minutes. Then comes back all excited and told me: "I just got off the phone with the hiring committe. THEY WANT YOU BADLY! They said they haven't had such a qualified candidate in quite some time. Okay, Larry, I want you to get this job. I am here to help you! You've got to cooperate. Think and think hard. What could possibly be bothering you about this question?' blah blah blah
Later I mentioned that to the HR person and she laughed. She said nobody from security had called her or the hiring committee about me. I confirmed this with a personal friend (and current NSA employee) who recommended me to the hiring committee.
BTW, there is little "love lost" between hiring committees (made up of ops people) and the polygraph folks. The former hate the poly folks because they block the hiring of qualified people they need. The later dislike the hiring committees because they resent them trying to tell them their job, and think they are not taking "security" seriously.
The goal at the NSA/CIA polygraphers is not to test your veracity regarding the questions, but to GET YOU TALKING! They want to see what they can GET OUT OF YOU! They want to convince you that the machine can tell if you are being untruthful, and have you believe that there might be something "deep in the recesses of your mind" that is bothering you. They want you to tell them your "life story". They get kudos from their higher ups based on what they can get out of you. And they are EXPERTS at getting stuff out of you.
Did you understand the question they claimed you were having trouble with? Was your "no" response accurate? Are you a terrorist? Do you support terrorism? Have anything at all to do with terrorists? No?
Then that's all you need to know. Let them go through their "song and dance" routine. Enjoy their high dramatics but.....
WARNING:
MAKE NO ADMISSION OF ANY KIND RELATED TO A RELEVANT QUESTION. No matter how "minor" you might think it is. They will blow it out of all proportion and use it to fail you! If you answered the relevant question TRUTHFULLY, then there is NOTHING TO THINK ABOUT! Whatever you tell them, they will use against you. They will use it to write a fantasy novel about you. The more you tell them, the deeper their "story line" against you will get.
If only people knew this BEFORE TAKING THE TEST!
Posted by confused candidate
- Feb 28, 2008, 05:59 AMThank you George for your input. I just hope they do not make their judgement soley on that aspect. We shall see what comes of this matter and I will keep everyone posted.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 28, 2008, 05:53 AMIt sounds as if your original polygraph examiner scored your charts as passing (thus the absence of a post-test interrogation), but that a reviewer disagreed (thus the call to come back for a follow-up session).
Two federal agencies, CIA and NSA, quite commonly call applicants back for one or two (and in fewer instances more) polygraph sessions. Other agencies seem to call applicants back less frequently.
It's impossible to be sure at this point whether your polygrapher actually flunked you on the terrorism question, or whether you were just being bluffed for admissions.
In any event, the "test" is indeed ridiculous. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report some five years ago concluding that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."
And the researcher who devised the Test for Espionage and Sabotage used by the Departments of Defense and Energy thought that the whole screening program should be shut down.
Two federal agencies, CIA and NSA, quite commonly call applicants back for one or two (and in fewer instances more) polygraph sessions. Other agencies seem to call applicants back less frequently.
It's impossible to be sure at this point whether your polygrapher actually flunked you on the terrorism question, or whether you were just being bluffed for admissions.
In any event, the "test" is indeed ridiculous. The National Academy of Sciences issued a report some five years ago concluding that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."
And the researcher who devised the Test for Espionage and Sabotage used by the Departments of Defense and Energy thought that the whole screening program should be shut down.