- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Ex Member
- Aug 03, 2017, 08:43 PMgirl2,
I'm sorry you have this burdensome polygraph requirement. As much as your situation sucks, it's better than being in jail. Perhaps if you had a more positive attitude towards your therapy, you may learn how to make better decisions in life, which will enable you to be a good mother and raise your child to be a good citizen. I know a person with long past convictions who went into business and became quite wealthy.
I do not believe that a polygraph exam would be risky to a normal pregnancy; evolution has made women quite robust in perpetuating the species. I think this restriction is just a safeguard measure to stop someone from blaming a failed pregnancy on a recent polygraph exam. It's a "cover your own ass" strategy.
I'm sorry you have this burdensome polygraph requirement. As much as your situation sucks, it's better than being in jail. Perhaps if you had a more positive attitude towards your therapy, you may learn how to make better decisions in life, which will enable you to be a good mother and raise your child to be a good citizen. I know a person with long past convictions who went into business and became quite wealthy.
I do not believe that a polygraph exam would be risky to a normal pregnancy; evolution has made women quite robust in perpetuating the species. I think this restriction is just a safeguard measure to stop someone from blaming a failed pregnancy on a recent polygraph exam. It's a "cover your own ass" strategy.
Posted by John M.
- Aug 03, 2017, 02:22 PMQuoteoh and i failed twice telling the truth and only passed once i made up something to "admit" to them and they were satisfiedTheir 'opinion' is that you failed. The polygraph can't determine a lie from the truth. They are abusing you.
Surely there are approved and relevant regulations/policies that prohibit taking unfavorable actions against someone based solely on the polygraph 'results' in this situation!
Posted by girl2
- Aug 03, 2017, 12:37 PMi am 27 weeks pregnant and have been forced to take a polygraph 3 times in the last year, now i have to take it again. this will be the fourth time in a year. they absolutely will polygraph you pregnant in Arizona if you are on probation. they do not care!!! i also havent even been able to buy a crib for the baby cause the polygraphs are $300 each, probation is $75/ month, counseling is 40/ week and individual counseling is 80/month. you think getting a job with a felony is hard? try getting a job with felonies and being pregnant! oh and i failed twice telling the truth and only passed once i made up something to "admit" to them and they were satisfied.
Posted by Pregnant and Denied
- Jan 28, 2009, 01:26 PMThank you for the responses. I continue to be frustrated with my situation. When contacting someone from the Bureau for more information, I was called "Sweetie". The more I learn, the less likely I am to pursue a position with the FBI. However, I'm still compelled to push this issue.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Jan 08, 2009, 04:29 AMPregnant and Denied,
You are having a hard time finding reliable research on polygraphs and pregnancy because to my knowledge, nothing of the sort has been published.
The American Medical Associaiton was one of many groups that issued position statements against polygraphy when the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (legislation that outlawed polygraphy in the US private sector) was under consideration.
It goes without saying that physicians groups are not going to waste time conducting a study of the safety of a test on pregnant women when the test is an invalid procedure when used on anyone.
The FBI does not have a scientific/rational/reasonable answer as to why polygraphs are used in the hiring process on those who are not pregnant. After all, the National Academy of Sciences concluded 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."
Surely you don't expect the FBI to provide a scientific/rational/reasonable answer as to why polygraphs are not be used on expectant mothers.
Although it is far from a scientific/rational/reasonable answer, the reason why the FBI is refusing to polygraph you is that they have so many applicants availble that it's simply not worth the chance of a lawsuit if something goes wrong with your pregnancy.
They simply prefer to take someone slightly less qualified.
This is what the entire FBI pre-employment polygraph program is about. And yes, it's very ignorant.
Best of luck with the rest of your pregnancy.
You are having a hard time finding reliable research on polygraphs and pregnancy because to my knowledge, nothing of the sort has been published.
The American Medical Associaiton was one of many groups that issued position statements against polygraphy when the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (legislation that outlawed polygraphy in the US private sector) was under consideration.
It goes without saying that physicians groups are not going to waste time conducting a study of the safety of a test on pregnant women when the test is an invalid procedure when used on anyone.
QuoteMy beef is that I'm tired of people telling me I can't do things just because I'm pregnant, and they don't have a scientific/rational/reasonable answer.
The FBI does not have a scientific/rational/reasonable answer as to why polygraphs are used in the hiring process on those who are not pregnant. After all, the National Academy of Sciences concluded 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."
Surely you don't expect the FBI to provide a scientific/rational/reasonable answer as to why polygraphs are not be used on expectant mothers.
Although it is far from a scientific/rational/reasonable answer, the reason why the FBI is refusing to polygraph you is that they have so many applicants availble that it's simply not worth the chance of a lawsuit if something goes wrong with your pregnancy.
They simply prefer to take someone slightly less qualified.
QuoteTelling me NO, just because there's some sort of imagined/feared risk is ignorant
This is what the entire FBI pre-employment polygraph program is about. And yes, it's very ignorant.
Best of luck with the rest of your pregnancy.
Posted by nopolycop
- Jan 07, 2009, 11:06 AMYou have just experienced how the Fed Govt works. You are just a piece of meat. They do not care about you now, and they will never care about you. You will always be frustrated, and eventually quit long before retirement.
I know many retired FBI agents, they all got out as fast as possible. You are better off without them.
I know many retired FBI agents, they all got out as fast as possible. You are better off without them.
Posted by Pregnant and Denied
- Jan 07, 2009, 09:38 AMHi,
I know I'm about 6 years behind this debate, but I can't seem to find much on the subject.
I'm 5 months pregnant and am trying to convince the FBI to allow me to take a polygraph. I cannot be considered for an FBI position without having a polygraph. By the time I deliver, the hiring blitz will be over...opportunity lost.
When I asked why I was not being allowed to take the polygraph, they seemed to be wish washy on the answer. The bottom line is (like many other things pregnant women are told NOT to do) they just don't know the affects of pregnancy on polygraph.
I have gained medical clearance from my doctor. I've had no complications thus far with my pregnancy and am in fine health (great blood pressure, taking spinning classes, working full time, eating well).
And based on the position of the heart rate sensor, there would be no risk of catching the baby's heart rate instead of mine. If they were monitoring my heart rate with a chest strap and the baby flipped positions so that her heart is in the upper most part of my abdomen, then there MIGHT be interference. If they are monitoring heart rate with the blood pressure cuff, no worries.
My beef is that I'm tired of people telling me I can't do things just because I'm pregnant, and they don't have a scientific/rational/reasonable answer. Telling me NO, just because there's some sort of imagined/feared risk is ignorant.
I'm willing to take the polygraph and have medical clearance. That should be enough. If I fail, that's my loss. If I pass, the FBI should have no question about me. Agreed?
I know I'm about 6 years behind this debate, but I can't seem to find much on the subject.
I'm 5 months pregnant and am trying to convince the FBI to allow me to take a polygraph. I cannot be considered for an FBI position without having a polygraph. By the time I deliver, the hiring blitz will be over...opportunity lost.
When I asked why I was not being allowed to take the polygraph, they seemed to be wish washy on the answer. The bottom line is (like many other things pregnant women are told NOT to do) they just don't know the affects of pregnancy on polygraph.
I have gained medical clearance from my doctor. I've had no complications thus far with my pregnancy and am in fine health (great blood pressure, taking spinning classes, working full time, eating well).
And based on the position of the heart rate sensor, there would be no risk of catching the baby's heart rate instead of mine. If they were monitoring my heart rate with a chest strap and the baby flipped positions so that her heart is in the upper most part of my abdomen, then there MIGHT be interference. If they are monitoring heart rate with the blood pressure cuff, no worries.
My beef is that I'm tired of people telling me I can't do things just because I'm pregnant, and they don't have a scientific/rational/reasonable answer. Telling me NO, just because there's some sort of imagined/feared risk is ignorant.
I'm willing to take the polygraph and have medical clearance. That should be enough. If I fail, that's my loss. If I pass, the FBI should have no question about me. Agreed?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 23, 2002, 09:01 AMAn informational pamphlet produced by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department polygraph section (a copy of which has been provided to AntiPolygraph.org) states that LASD polygraphers will not polygraph females known to be pregnant.
Posted by beech trees
- Nov 18, 2002, 05:02 PMQuote from: Batman on Nov 18, 2002, 04:35 PMOh Heck, I'll chime in on this one. Any polygraph examiner who would administer an exam to a woman who is 8 months pregnant, on a non-life or death situation, would have to be an idiot.
What about six months pregnant, bm? Would a polygrapher who administered a polygraph to a woman who is six months pregnant be an idiot too?
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- Nov 18, 2002, 04:35 PMOh Heck, I'll chime in on this one. Any polygraph examiner who would administer an exam to a woman who is 8 months pregnant, on a non-life or death situation, would have to be an idiot. (Beech, you may respond with, "All polygraph examiners are idiots." )
The original question was, "What, if any, would the harm be in her taking this test?". From a physical standpoint, probably no harm, if her prenancy has had no complications. From a polygraph standpoint, well, how would the examiner interpret a response that the examinee claims occurred because her soon to be born NFL player just kicked a 50 yard field goal into her kidney? (George, you may respond with a question, "How would an Examiner know what causes any response seen on a polygraph exam?")
In this particular situation, the right call was made by the agency administering polygraphs, even if it was a year ago. Three points to them.
George, do you post these old ones just to "stimulate debate", or is it because no one new has been dropping in lately?
Batman
Batman
The original question was, "What, if any, would the harm be in her taking this test?". From a physical standpoint, probably no harm, if her prenancy has had no complications. From a polygraph standpoint, well, how would the examiner interpret a response that the examinee claims occurred because her soon to be born NFL player just kicked a 50 yard field goal into her kidney? (George, you may respond with a question, "How would an Examiner know what causes any response seen on a polygraph exam?")
In this particular situation, the right call was made by the agency administering polygraphs, even if it was a year ago. Three points to them.
George, do you post these old ones just to "stimulate debate", or is it because no one new has been dropping in lately?
Batman
Batman
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 16, 2002, 07:13 AMQuote from: yankeedog on Nov 15, 2002, 07:40 PM
diz30143,
?If you are looking for advise on polygraph, George W. Maschke is last person qualified to provide it to you. ?If he doesn't understand (and he apparently does not) the principle of a polygraph examiner not wanting to test a woman who is almost 8 months along in a pregnancy, he clearly is ignorant of even the basics of the polygraph procedure and process. ?I suggest you ignore what this character tells you. ?The best thing you can do is get some legal advise and go from there. ?Just make sure when you get advice from someone as important as this, they know what they are talking about. George does not! ?Get a lawyer and take their advice!
Yankeedog,
Your advice to diz30143 comes more than a year late.
Nonetheless, the issue of pregnancy and polygraphy perhaps deserves some additional mention. First, I would note that the model polygraph policy posted on the American Polygraph Association website provides no clear guidance regarding the polygraphing of pregnant women. It merely states:
Quote...Polygraph examinations shall not be conducted on any person whom the examiner reasonably believes to be physically or emotionally unsuitable for testing. This may include but is not limited to persons with heart conditions, women who are pregnant and individuals taking certain types of medication that may interfere with test results....
Former FBI contract linguist Can Dickerson, the subject of colleague Sibel Edmonds' espionage allegations, told Rebecca Carr of Cox Newspapers that the FBI polygraphed her regarding these allegations when she was six months pregnant.
That I have not thus far succeeded in finding an unambiguous statement of policy regarding the polygraphing of pregnant women, and the rationale therefor, does not logically entail that I am "ignorant of even the basics of the polygraph procedure and process."
Posted by beech trees
- Nov 15, 2002, 10:45 PMQuote from: yankeedog on Nov 15, 2002, 07:40 PM
diz30143,
If you are looking for advise on polygraph, George W. Maschke is last person qualified to provide it to you.
Really? The last person? No one else on Earth is less qualified than George? Elsewhere on this board polygraphers have admitted that they print out in bulk George's well-researched free book and distribute it 'mongst their lying brethren. Hmmm..... which of you is lying?
Posted by yankeedog
- Nov 15, 2002, 07:40 PMdiz30143,
If you are looking for advise on polygraph, George W. Maschke is last person qualified to provide it to you. If he doesn't understand (and he apparently does not) the principle of a polygraph examiner not wanting to test a woman who is almost 8 months along in a pregnancy, he clearly is ignorant of even the basics of the polygraph procedure and process. I suggest you ignore what this character tells you. The best thing you can do is get some legal advise and go from there. Just make sure when you get advice from someone as important as this, they know what they are talking about. George does not! Get a lawyer and take their advice!
If you are looking for advise on polygraph, George W. Maschke is last person qualified to provide it to you. If he doesn't understand (and he apparently does not) the principle of a polygraph examiner not wanting to test a woman who is almost 8 months along in a pregnancy, he clearly is ignorant of even the basics of the polygraph procedure and process. I suggest you ignore what this character tells you. The best thing you can do is get some legal advise and go from there. Just make sure when you get advice from someone as important as this, they know what they are talking about. George does not! Get a lawyer and take their advice!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 28, 2001, 10:49 AMFirst, your son-in-law should refuse to submit to a polygraph "test." The polygraph cannot detect lies. It is little more than a prop for an interrogation. Moreover, the "test" is fundamentally dependent on trickery, and truthful persons run a considerable risk of being falsely accused of deception.
By all means, have your son-in-law read Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. to find out about the trickery that is going to be practiced against him if he agrees to be polygraphed.
With regard to pregnant women not being polygraphed, I suspect that this is a liability issue. I know that in polygraph studies conducted with volunteers at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, pregnant women are not allowed to participate.
In any event, you should not be eager for your son-in-law's accuser to be polygraphed, too, because anyone -- truthful or not -- can pass a polygraph "test" by augmenting their physiological responses to the "control" questions. See Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for details.
By all means, have your son-in-law read Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. to find out about the trickery that is going to be practiced against him if he agrees to be polygraphed.
With regard to pregnant women not being polygraphed, I suspect that this is a liability issue. I know that in polygraph studies conducted with volunteers at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, pregnant women are not allowed to participate.
In any event, you should not be eager for your son-in-law's accuser to be polygraphed, too, because anyone -- truthful or not -- can pass a polygraph "test" by augmenting their physiological responses to the "control" questions. See Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for details.
Posted by diz30143
- Apr 28, 2001, 02:23 AMTo make a very long story short....a person is accusing my son-in-law of fraud which I KNOW he is innocent of. Both were scheduled to have a polygraph test today. The agency said they could not do a test on her because she is pregnant (f.y.i.she's due in 6 wks.). What, if any, would the harm be in her taking this test? I need professional/reliable answer a.s.a.p. Thank you.