The FBI has lied in writing about the accuracy of polygraphy. A new full color leaflet prepared by the FBI Polygraph Unit to promote the Bureau's Personnel Security Polygraph Program states:
QuoteQ: How accurate is the polygraph?
A: Current research continues to show that the polygraph is highly reliable and a valid technique. Your test will receive an opinion by your examiner but will be subject to a quality assurance review to be sure you receive a fair and accurate examination.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which recently conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence on polygraphs, has flatly contradicted the FBI, concluding in its report,
The Polygraph and Lie Detection (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html), that "almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy" (p. 212 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html/212.html)). Indeed, the NAS found that
"[the polygraph'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." (p. 6 (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html/6.html), original emphasis)
Moreover, no amount of "quality assurance review" can assure anyone of a "fair and accurate examination" because
polygraphy has no scientific basis whatsoever.The leaflet also includes the following:
QuoteQ: If I am nervous will this cause me trouble on the polygraph test?
A: It is normal and expected that you will be nervous during the polygraph process. Your polygraph examiner will explain to you the process and eliminate areas of concern that you may have. Feel free to ask your examiner any questions you think are necessary to ask.
One wonders how FBI polygraph examiners propose to eliminate the informed subject's well-justified concerns about the unreliability of polygraphy? In any event, what the FBI does not tell the reader is that if he/she is more nervous when answering the relevant questions (the ones about counterintelligence issues) than when answering the so-called "probable-lie control questions" (e.g., "Did you ever lie to a supervisor?"), answers to which are secretly expected to be untrue, then his/her nervousness may very well result in a false positive outcome. For more on polygraph procedure, see Chapter 3 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) (1 mb PDF).
The FBI Personnel Security Polygraph Program leaflet may be downloaded as a 637 kb PDF file here:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/fbi-psp-leaflet.pdf
The plain text of the leaflet is available in HTML format here:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/fbi-psp-leaflet.shtml
George:
I'm new to bulletin boards and can't quite figure out how to start my own message so I'm tacking it on to your posting.
I recently took a pre-employment FBI poly and was told I reacted strongly to the drug questions. I admitted to using marijuana a few times long ago, but in fact during a period of youth indiscretion my drug usage exceeded the FBI's 15 times limit and was not limited to marijuana. However, I haven't touched anything illegal in about 25 years. I was encouraged to write an explanation/confession. I was told that without some explanation, the technical reviewers of my poly might not grant me a second chance. I said it was so long ago that I'd have to think about it.
My questions are these: should I write a beneign statement that perhaps I did more drugs than previously stated, but that it was so long ago I can't be sure?
Also, can a relevant/irrelevant test be beaten? I'm pretty sure after reading your book and other material, that the test was relevant/irrelevant. The irrelevant questions were 1) Is your name XXX?
2) Is your SSN XXX? 3) Do you live in XXX? One other question seemed relevant, but may not have been. It was, "Have you ever betrayed the trust of someone from your inner circle of trust?" It sounds like a control question, but it was explained that they were only looking for significant betrayal, not white lies, and that they found that spies don't just one day start spying but in fact begin down that road by betraying those closest to them. In that context, it could be a relevant question.
Anyway, I'm stymied as to what tack to take. I'm pretty sure that if I admit to more than 15 times, I'll be disqualifed 1) for exceeding that arbitrary number, and 2) for lying about it to begin with.
Any advice you have would be greatly appreciated.
CCK
CCK,
For future reference, to start a new topic, go to the forum in which you want to post, and click on the "Start new topic" text in the upper right hand portion of the message board page.
With regard to your questions:
1) I think it would not be in your interest to write a statement admitting that your drug use actually exceeded that which you previously admitted. You would be disqualified, and your admission to having lied in your application would become a matter of permanent record (in your FBI HQ file) with long-term consequences for future government employment, even outside the FBI.
2) Yes, like other polygraph techniques, the relevant/irrelevant technique can be beaten, but based on your description, this is not the technique that you encountered. The question, "Have you ever betrayed the trust of someone from your inner circle of trust?" is very clearly a probable-lie "control" question.
From here, it seems to me that you now face an ethical choice between 1) contacting the FBI to withdraw your application (or perhaps simply doing nothing) and 2) contesting the polygraph results, requesting a "re-test," and attempting to pass the second time. This is a choice you'll have to make on your own.
George:
Thank you for your input. I'll need a bit of prep time, but I'm going to take the test again. Could you please answer just a few more questions so I'll know how to deal with it?
Is it possible that the question about betraying a loved one's trust could be relevant? The only reason I question it is that the polygrapher emphasized that he was only talking about significant breaches of trust, no white lies and such. He also said they used that question as a criterion for hiring because spies tend to betray their loved ones first on their road to espionage. Maybe I'm still naive to their tactics and the polygrapher was just playing me. If it is a control question, it's not a very good one. I don't think many people (other than those who've had affairs and such) would register a strong reaction. I wouldn't, which would skew the reactions of my relevant questions.
Second question is, if it is a known-lie control question, would a test have just one? The other non-relevant questions were "Is your last name XXX? Is your SSN XXX? Do you live in XXX?" If I were to try to beat the test, would I manipulate a response to those questions also or only the one about trust?
Also, I understand how to manipulate for a known-lie test. How would one respond to a relevant/irrelevant test?
Thanks in advance for your answers and for the service you provide with your website.
CCK
As I mentioned before, the question about betraying the trust of a loved one is a probable-lie "control" question. The polygrapher's spiel about betrayal of loved ones being a first step on the road to espionage is delivered in an attempt to make the question appear to be a relevant one.
I am not aware of the FBI using only one probable-lie "control" question in pre-employment polygraph examinations. Other commonly used "control" questions include, "Did you ever lie to a supervisor?", "Did you ever steal anything from an employer?" and, if it is determined during the "pre-test" that you drink alcoholic beverages, "Did you ever drive while under the influence of alcohol?"
Countermeasures to the Relevant/Irrelevant technique are briefly discussed in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf).
Note also that, based on feedback received by AntiPolygraph.org, it seems that in most cases, FBI applicants who are offered a "re-test" usually fail the second time, too, and are sometimes additionally accused of countermeasure use. It seems likely that FBI polygraphers expect those who have failed an initial polygraph to have researched polygraphy. They may be suspicious of those who deny having done so. Thus, it might be prudent, in the context of a "re-test," to adopt the "complete honesty" approach discussed in Chapter 4 of TLBTLD.
Thanks very much. I'll re-read chapter 4.
It is worth noting that the intended audience for the FBI Polygraph Unit's calculated lie about the accuracy of polygraphy is their fellow special agents and other Bureau employees.
The FBI Polygraph Unit is worthy of the contempt of all FBI employees for whom the motto, "Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity" is not merely an empty slogan.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Nov 03, 2003, 01:30 AMCCK,
...
With regard to your questions:
1) I think it would not be in your interest to write a statement admitting that your drug use actually exceeded that which you previously admitted. You would be disqualified, and your admission to having lied in your application would become a matter of permanent record (in your FBI HQ file) with long-term consequences for future government employment, even outside the FBI.
This comes very close to encouraging an FBI applicant to lie, or rather to continue lying, in pursuit of a career. While one may argue with the specific criteria an agency selects for itself, I don't like the idea that a future FBI agent may have lied about a material job requirement to get hired. I certainly don't expect you to encourage this, George.
-Marty
Marty,
I interpreted George's statements in the same manner; encouraging cck to lie in order to better his chances of gaining employment with the FBI. Perhaps George would care to clarify his statement.
Always look out for no.1!
Marty and Ray,
I have never advocated circumventing any rules on an application. My complete honesty approach put me through the wringer plus an extra wash cycle and rinse. I read George's opinion to be one that any change, no matter how slight, could be interpreted in the worst way possible and not put into context (as compared to a a court of law with a jury and defense lawyer to argue your case).
Marty, you know me never to advise anyone to not tell the truth but I think this one might be in a gray area. When in the room with the "polygraph pro", there are no witnesses or records to clarify statements or explainations. Misinterpretations are easy to come by and become part of a lifetime permanent record.
Regards.
Marty,
CCK asked me whether he/she should "write a beneign statement that perhaps [he/she] did more drugs than previously stated, but that it was so long ago [he/she] can't be sure?" I would have been lying had I stated that doing so would be in his/her interest.
Quote from: Fair Chance on Nov 13, 2003, 10:13 PMMarty and Ray,
I have never advocated circumventing any rules on an application. My complete honesty approach put me through the wringer plus an extra wash cycle and rinse. I read George's opinion to be one that any change, no matter how slight, could be interpreted in the worst way possible and not put into context (as compared to a a court of law with a jury and defense lawyer to argue your case).
Marty, you know me never to advise anyone to not tell the truth but I think this one might be in a gray area. When in the room with the "polygraph pro", there are no witnesses or records to clarify statements or explainations. Misinterpretations are easy to come by and become part of a lifetime permanent record.
Regards.
The problem is that cck has already indicated he is outside of the FBI's acceptible drug usage range. While I believe his stated useage is long enough ago as to not matter, it is not my call - or his call - it's the FBI's call.
Fair Chance, this in no way excuses the FBI for use of marginal "science" in screening or the excesses and abuses polygraphers inflict on the innocent. There is little so painful as being accused falsely.
-Marty
Marty,
How would you have answered CCK's question?
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Nov 13, 2003, 10:56 PMMarty,
CCK asked me whether he/she should "write a beneign statement that perhaps [he/she] did more drugs than previously stated, but that it was so long ago [he/she] can't be sure?" I would have been lying had I stated that doing so would be in his/her interest.
Indeed, George, your advice was factually correct. My unease is with the implication some may take that you agreed with cck's falsification of his background to obtain employment as a special agent. I believe that detracts from your more general polygraph message.
-Marty
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Nov 13, 2003, 11:07 PMMarty,
How would you have answered CCK's question?
I would not answer it. I would encourage CCK to withdraw his application as he stated his drug usage is outside of FBI limits.
-Marty
I agree that the ethically preferable option for CCK would have been to withdraw his/her application.
Well done George....I gather from your exchange concerning this person's test that you DO NOT encourage countermeasures.....I am glad that you appear to have seen the light....whew, for a moment there, I could hqve sworn you had ealier (11/04)directed him to the infamous Chapter 4, which one might construe was a tacit recommendation to employ countermeasures, but given your final recommendation that he withdraw his application in lieu of attempting those hopeless countermeasures, I must be incorrect. Hooray for you George, here is hope for you!
Quote from: Torpedo on Nov 14, 2003, 06:44 PMWell done George....I gather from your exchange concerning this person's test that you DO NOT encourage countermeasures.....I am glad that you appear to have seen the light....whew, for a moment there, I could hqve sworn you had ealier (11/04)directed him to the infamous Chapter 4, which one might construe was a tacit recommendation to employ countermeasures, but given your final recommendation that he withdraw his application in lieu of attempting those hopeless countermeasures, I must be incorrect. Hooray for you George, here is hope for you!
Hmmm...do you suppose that, if we all take a moment and let him think, Torpedo will realize the (obvious) flaw in his own reasoning?
Well, I can hope.
Skeptic
Quote from: Marty on Nov 13, 2003, 11:02 PM
The problem is that cck has already indicated he is outside of the FBI's acceptible drug usage range. While I believe his stated useage is long enough ago as to not matter, it is not my call - or his call - it's the FBI's call.
Fair Chance, this in no way excuses the FBI for use of marginal "science" in screening or the excesses and abuses polygraphers inflict on the innocent. There is little so painful as being accused falsely.
-Marty
In a nutshell folks, this is what it is all about. The FBI does have the right to demand honesty and truthfulness from all of its applicants. In return, the FBI has the responsibility to show respect, truthfulness, and honesty to its applicants. The pre-employment screening polygraph exam as used today in the FBI is without honor, ethics, or faithfulness to the Constitution of the United States. I believe in treating people the way I would want to be treated. The FBI wants honesty. The FBI has to be honest with its applicants. The polygraph is not a way to do so.
Regards.
My husband recently passed a polygraph and I am still unsure if he did the crime. I was wondering how effectve these are? What are the chances he lied and still passed?
Quote from: Marty on May 26, 2008, 10:00 AMMy husband recently passed a polygraph and I am still unsure if he did the crime. I was wondering how effectve these are? What are the chances he lied and still passed?
There's no way of calculating those chances. Polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-018.shtml) and its accuracy rate cannot be specified. In general, assuming that the examinee is uninformed about polygraph procedure and countermeasures, it's more likely that a truthful person would wrongly fail than that a deceptive person would wrongly pass. But the deceptive can pass using simple countermeasures (https://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) that polygraphers have no demonstrated ability to detect.
I took a polygraph as a police officer candidate. Their were a series of questions relating to drug use. I was told that the polygraph indicated I was lying when I stated that I did not ever use heroin. There were three questions relating to heroin use. In fact I have tried marijuana only once and have never seen nor tried any harder illicit drugs. I rarely take aspirin and never use other non prescription medications. So much for accuracy.
QuoteI was told that the polygraph indicated I was lying when I stated that I did not ever use heroin.
Polygraphers routinely claim their machine can detect deception. But when confronted with the fact that scientifically, all the polygraph machine does is measure fight or flight reactions which can have many underlying causes, they play this down. One polygrapher here even claimed it was an "overgeneralization" to claim that polygraphers use the term "deception indicated" when labeling chart reactions. Yet the four NSA polygraphers who tested me either stated or implied the machine detects deception. One (Mr. Lingenfelter) claimed 98% accuracy. We have other applicants who routine report they make that claim.
They want it both ways. Fact is, if it became common knowledge that the machine doesn't detect deception, it would lessen the utility of the test, which relies heavily on applicant gullibility. Maybe this is why many polygraphers are purposely evasive on the subject (outside of the examination room, of course).
TC
Quote from: travis b on Mar 12, 2009, 02:39 PM I was told that the polygraph indicated I was lying when I stated that I did not ever use heroin... I rarely take aspirin and never use other non prescription medications. So much for accuracy.
travis, this is my first post...of many. Once I stop feeling like a dirt bag I will probably tell my story. Until then, I will continue to hold it in.
In regards to your comment, if it makes you feel better, I was accused of illegal drug use by a FBI polygrapher recently. Unfortunately, and well documented, I have a rare neurological condition that shuts my breathing down if I take drugs. In a nutshell my brain tells my breathing that it too can relax with the rest of my body. I was almost lost to a routine surgery because they did not have an airway established beforehand. Yet by the time I was degraded and left the FBI building, I felt like I had spent years in Columbia trafficking narcotics even though I physically fear drugs...even prescribed.
Before my last polygraph, I brought in a written statement to the polygrapher as to why I thought the poly was bullshit. He read through it, (but because he had to go through the motions) said okay, and started into his "routine," explaining 98% accuracy after new studies, explaining that Gary Ridgeway didn't pass the polygraph, it was the polygraphers fault that he was over worked and missed the deception signs, (yeah, right), blah, blah blah. I then looked him in the eyes and asked him if he could tell if I was actually lying to him. To his credit, he answered truthfully, and said no.
I then agreed to the poly, and when he gave me the hold harmless agreement to sign, I refused, stating that since he can't guarantee that he won't brand me a liar, I won't release him of any liability.
The test ended there, with me agreeing to take the poly but refusing to release him from liability, and he refusing to test me because of it.
Quite a show when it was all said and done...
That agency lies about the accuracy of the polygraph? I am shocked--shocked! In other news, you will all be astonished to know that water is wet.
Those things couldn't tell the truth about the polygraph if you put a gun to their heads.