- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by xenonman
- Aug 31, 2016, 09:31 AMThis NYT article is so vile that I think it deserves another pass!
The BI process for employment at the Agency is just as, or even possibly more, onerous than the polygraph "interview".
Part of what this Agency liar and/or fool says is quite accurate, except grossly understated.
Getting through the Agency's BI is so difficult that "surviving" it is a matter of pure luck.
Obviously, having a Russian lover will largely block any application process. Here are some other, unstated requisites for getting through a BI for Langley:
1. Come from a family with an upper-middle or upper class background. This will be most helpful in avoiding any adverse police contact, as well as avoiding the danger of unfavorable credit/financial complications. It will also make it more likely that the applicant will not have an extensive employment history, thus reducing the possibility of adverse comments and recommendations from supervisors and coworkers.
Coming from a home with a large lot will reduce the chance for adverse comments/recommendations from the applicant's neighbors.
Having a background of attendance at a private school or academy, or in an affluent public school district will help in avoiding the possibility of any derogatory comments/recommendations by high school faculty. (Yes, the BI actually digs for dirt that far back in an applicant's history!).
Be a good enough "chameleon" so as to be able to avoid the likelihood of derogatory remarks from peers.
Then all that the successful applicant need do is just to remember to tighten the anal sphincter for the duration of the polygraph intimidation.
ETC. AD INFINITUM
Having met all the above-suggested (but never specified) criteria will almost assure the applicant a place in the exalted halls of Langley, and the successful applicant will be automatically elevated to the status of a super patriot who will "risk" life and limb for the country while under hostile enemy fire at Langley, or at any US Embassy or Consulate the world over!
The BI process for employment at the Agency is just as, or even possibly more, onerous than the polygraph "interview".
Part of what this Agency liar and/or fool says is quite accurate, except grossly understated.
Getting through the Agency's BI is so difficult that "surviving" it is a matter of pure luck.
Obviously, having a Russian lover will largely block any application process. Here are some other, unstated requisites for getting through a BI for Langley:
1. Come from a family with an upper-middle or upper class background. This will be most helpful in avoiding any adverse police contact, as well as avoiding the danger of unfavorable credit/financial complications. It will also make it more likely that the applicant will not have an extensive employment history, thus reducing the possibility of adverse comments and recommendations from supervisors and coworkers.
Coming from a home with a large lot will reduce the chance for adverse comments/recommendations from the applicant's neighbors.
Having a background of attendance at a private school or academy, or in an affluent public school district will help in avoiding the possibility of any derogatory comments/recommendations by high school faculty. (Yes, the BI actually digs for dirt that far back in an applicant's history!).
Be a good enough "chameleon" so as to be able to avoid the likelihood of derogatory remarks from peers.
Then all that the successful applicant need do is just to remember to tighten the anal sphincter for the duration of the polygraph intimidation.
ETC. AD INFINITUM
Having met all the above-suggested (but never specified) criteria will almost assure the applicant a place in the exalted halls of Langley, and the successful applicant will be automatically elevated to the status of a super patriot who will "risk" life and limb for the country while under hostile enemy fire at Langley, or at any US Embassy or Consulate the world over!
Posted by xenonman
- Aug 29, 2016, 02:47 AMQuote from: quickfix on Aug 22, 2016, 02:34 PMThe only liar and fool here is you; your two polygraph failures are proof; and of course you can't admit now that you attempted to use countermeasures since that would destroy your credibility with your minions after 15+ years of denial.
Re: Liars and fools.
There is at least one more: Our mole from the Office of Security, the quick-draw "fix-it" man!
Posted by xenonman
- Aug 29, 2016, 02:36 AMI always find hilarious all the grandiose, exotic, euphemistic, and deceitful titles the Agency gives to all its "directorates" and managers!
Posted by xenonman
- Aug 29, 2016, 02:24 AMAt least this Agency scumbag is honest about the fact that during the copious BI, they will attempt to find people who dislike the applicant, in an effort to dig up as much dirt on the applicant as is possible.
He might have been equally forthcoming about how minuscule are the chances of any one applicant ever being hired by Langley.
I'm so sick of articles such as this which continue to glorify and exalt the CIA, and its vile employment practices.
Another fringe benefit of working at Langley: Your coworkers will all be exotic specimens like our "quickfix" here.
He might have been equally forthcoming about how minuscule are the chances of any one applicant ever being hired by Langley.
I'm so sick of articles such as this which continue to glorify and exalt the CIA, and its vile employment practices.
Another fringe benefit of working at Langley: Your coworkers will all be exotic specimens like our "quickfix" here.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 24, 2016, 12:02 AMQuote from: quickfix on Aug 23, 2016, 03:38 PMI can't speak for the CIA specifically, but I can say that in the hands of a trained, competent examiner, it is a very useful tool. Furthermore, in the military, attempting to engage in countermeasures is a court-martial offense under Article 92. Of the last three fools who attempted to do so, one was court-martialed (commissioned officer), and the other two were issued general officer letters of reprimand and forced to retire/separate from the service.
The polygraph may at times be useful for getting admissions from naive and gullible persons, but it has no scientific basis and is vulnerable to simple countermeasures that polygraph operators cannot detect.
As countermeasure case files leaked to AntiPolygraph.org reveal, the sorts of polygraph countermeasures being "detected" by federal polygraph operators are crude manipulations that anyone who understands polygraph procedure wouldn't do.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 23, 2016, 11:14 PMQuote from: quickfix on Aug 22, 2016, 02:34 PMThe only liar and fool here is you; your two polygraph failures are proof; and of course you can't admit now that you attempted to use countermeasures since that would destroy your credibility with your minions after 15+ years of denial.
For the record, I failed the polygraph twice despite answering all relevant questions truthfully and was accused by a polygraph operator of using polygraph countermeasures when I not only didn't use them, but didn't even know what they are.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Aug 23, 2016, 09:52 PMAs the NAS found, polygraph "screening" is grossly unreliable.
Why is the accuracy so low?
IMHO... Because a lot of people have misplaced guilt feelings, and the polygraph "test" can be easily beaten -- or at least confounded -- by following simple instructions freely available on the internet..
But what do I know... I'm only a lowly polygraph operator.
Why is the accuracy so low?
IMHO... Because a lot of people have misplaced guilt feelings, and the polygraph "test" can be easily beaten -- or at least confounded -- by following simple instructions freely available on the internet..
But what do I know... I'm only a lowly polygraph operator.
Posted by Aunty Agony
- Aug 23, 2016, 06:30 PMQuote from: AuntyAgony on Aug 22, 2016, 10:03 PMDo you agree with him?
Quote from: quickfix on Aug 23, 2016, 03:38 PMI can't speak for the CIA specifically, but I can say that in the hands of a trained, competent examiner, it is a very useful tool.So, no, then.
Posted by quickfix
- Aug 23, 2016, 03:38 PMI can't speak for the CIA specifically, but I can say that in the hands of a trained, competent examiner, it is a very useful tool. Furthermore, in the military, attempting to engage in countermeasures is a court-martial offense under Article 92. Of the last three fools who attempted to do so, one was court-martialed (commissioned officer), and the other two were issued general officer letters of reprimand and forced to retire/separate from the service.
Posted by Aunty Agony
- Aug 22, 2016, 10:03 PMQuote from: quickfix on Aug 22, 2016, 02:34 PMThe only liar and fool here is youRonald S. Patrick has described the polygraph as "an exceedingly reliable way to find out whether you've been truthful".
Do you agree with him?
Posted by quickfix
- Aug 22, 2016, 02:34 PMThe only liar and fool here is you; your two polygraph failures are proof; and of course you can't admit now that you attempted to use countermeasures since that would destroy your credibility with your minions after 15+ years of denial.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 21, 2016, 10:33 AM
CIA Talent Development Office Deputy Chief Ronald S. Patrick (CIA photo)
Ronald S. Patrick, the CIA's deputy director for talent development, recently characterized the pseudoscience of polygraphy as "an 'exceedingly reliable' way to find out whether you've been truthful" in a single-source article by New York Times Magazine writer Malia Wollan:
Quotehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/magazine/how-to-pass-a-cia-background-check.html
How to Pass a C.I.A. Background Check
Tip
By MALIA WOLLAN AUG. 19, 2016
"Withholding information from us will not work in your favor," says Ronald S. Patrick, deputy director of talent development at the Central Intelligence Agency, which receives up to 150,000 résumés a year. Applicants who are offered a job go through a monthslong security clearance, including an intense background check. To pass, you can't have been convicted of a felony ("That's a showstopper for us"); also, no recent illegal drug use. You will be asked about drugs in the application. Tell the truth. "We don't expect you to be shockingly, squeaky clean," Patrick says. "We expect you to have lived a life, to have exercised bad judgment, to have gone through adolescence and made mistakes."
Get your finances in order. "The No. 1 reason why Americans spy is for financial gain or need," Patrick says. The C.I.A. sees bad credit and mountainous debt as potential liabilities. Prepare to be spied on. Investigators will come to your town; walk your streets; talk to your ex-colleagues, former roommates and nosy neighbors. They're looking for people not listed as your character references, especially those who don't like you. "I went through a lot of shoes," Patrick says of his former role as a background investigator.
Keep your romantic interests American. "If you're in love with a Russian citizen," Patrick says, "we cannot take that risk." Sign over your medical records. "Tell us everything," Patrick says. "It may be embarrassing. It may be something you want to forget, something you've put in your past — tell us about it anyway."
Be prepared to take a mandatory polygraph test, which Patrick describes as an "exceedingly reliable" way to find out whether you've been truthful. You will have many chances to disclose your secrets. Reveal them early and often. If investigators find out late in the process, through the polygraph interrogation or from sources, that you're a regular stoner, say, or that your father is an arms smuggler, it will not reflect well on your trustworthiness. "This is the very last question we ask in the polygraph," Patrick says. " 'Is there anything else that you want to tell us that we haven't talked about?' "
Patrick should touch base with retired CIA polygrapher John F. Sullivan, who has more realistically opined that in the CIA, "...an honest subject has no better chance than a dishonest subject of getting through the process."
Moreover, polygraph "testing" is easily confounded by simple countermeasures that polygraph operators cannot detect.