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:
Type the third word in this sentence: 'The quick brown fox jumps.' (answer in lowercase):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Jan 02, 2009, 01:57 AM
I was polygraphed there in 2000.  I went in all gullible and wanted to bend over backwards cooperate.  That is NOT the way you want to be.  You want to go in suspicious of the process, but NOT confrontational.  And never, ever criticize the polygraph to the examiner/interrogator.  They would be less offended if you called their grandma and old whore!

You might also want to read some of the posts on this board made by polygraph operators to see what they are pompous asses they really are.  "Sancho Panza", "Mr. Sackett" and "TheNoLieGuy4U" would be a good place to start.  You need to know the "mindset" you would be up against.

TC
Posted by nopolycop
 - Jan 01, 2009, 04:50 PM
Quote from: John85 on Jan 01, 2009, 04:19 AMah, that's exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!

Ironically, before becoming interesting in the NSA process and this site, I was under the impression that polygraphs were accurate.  ::)

The polygraph itself is accurate.  It accurately records heart rate, blood pressure, respiration rate and sweating.  It is the analysis of these recordings, and corrolating them with the questions asked, and the responses given, that is the problem.  Too many variables to be scientifically reliable.  Good luck, don't admit to anything you wouldn't want your grandma to know about you.
Posted by John85
 - Jan 01, 2009, 04:19 AM
ah, that's exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!

Ironically, before becoming interesting in the NSA process and this site, I was under the impression that polygraphs were accurate.  ::)
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Jan 01, 2009, 04:04 AM
While you're more likely to pass if you don't make any but the most innocuous of admissions, making no admissions is no guarantee that you will pass. Polygraphy has no scientific basis and is inherently biased against the truthful. Many truthful applicants for positions of public trust are falsely accused of deception and wrongly disqualified from employment based on polygraph chart readings alone, without any disqualifying admission having been made. For more on polygraph screening, see The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF). For more on the NSA hiring process, see the pseudonymous Ralph J. Perro's article, "Interviewing With an Intelligence Agency (or, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Fort Meade)":

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/nsa-interview.pdf
Posted by John85
 - Jan 01, 2009, 03:34 AM
I'm thinking about applying to the NSA. I heard they asked you goofy questions about if you masturbate thinking about your aunt or something, so I googled "NSA hiring process" and got to this site.

I read here that the polygraphers from the big federal agencies think of an admission as a 'trophy'. If I just say not to everything, and don't buckle when they start interrogating me, am I liker to pass?