George,
Not sure where this link would go on your website, but it's interesting. You see, I am aware that sometimes, when the Government really needs a rare skill, they will overlook things like a shady background. I wonder if the FBI would overlook a failed polygraph to get the obvious skills that they need.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16042604/
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 05, 2006, 12:33 AMGeorge,
Not sure where this link would go on your website, but it's interesting. You see, I am aware that sometimes, when the Government really needs a rare skill, they will overlook things like a shady background. I wonder if the FBI would overlook a failed polygraph to get the obvious skills that they need.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16042604/
Not to speak for George, but if they allow him to return to FBI service, it would be a tacit admission that their polygraph unit is flawed. Given this administration's unwillingness to admit they made a mistake and the FBI's past history, it's doubtful...
But it would be nice for them to abandon this pseudoscience...
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 05, 2006, 12:33 AMGeorge,
Not sure where this link would go on your website, but it's interesting. You see, I am aware that sometimes, when the Government really needs a rare skill, they will overlook things like a shady background. I wonder if the FBI would overlook a failed polygraph to get the obvious skills that they need.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16042604/
This is indeed an interesting article. But it doesn't suggest that the FBI is routinely overlooking "shady backgrounds" or failed polygraphs (a shady pseudoscience) to hire people with Arabic language skills. In fact, I have heard from numerous Arabic-speaking FBI applicants who maintain that they were falsely branded as liars by their polygraphers and wrongly disqualified.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 05, 2006, 12:33 AMGeorge,
Not sure where this link would go on your website, but it's interesting. You see, I am aware that sometimes, when the Government really needs a rare skill, they will overlook things like a shady background. I wonder if the FBI would overlook a failed polygraph to get the obvious skills that they need.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16042604/
LBCB, would you desire to work for an organization (or company) who treated you as shabbily as the FBI treated Mr. Maschke? I wouldn't.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Dec 05, 2006, 03:13 AM
This is indeed an interesting article. But it doesn't suggest that the FBI is routinely overlooking "shady backgrounds" or failed polygraphs (a shady pseudoscience) to hire people with Arabic language skills. In fact, I have heard from numerous Arabic-speaking FBI applicants who maintain that they were falsely branded as liars by their polygraphers and wrongly disqualified.
George,
Do you know if the FBI keeps statistics on the demographics on those who fail its employment screening through polygraph, background checks, etc.? It might show bias against certain types of individuals. My university department is looking into bias in police traffic stops, our methodology could easily be exported into other arenas...
I'm finally done with classes this semester and only studying for prelims next semester, so I might see what I can get from the FBI regarding employment statistics then. Could be an interesting topic and easily made into a academic paper if the data exist...
Given their 20% failure rate, I wonder what would shake out...
regards,
digithead
Quote from: digithead on Dec 06, 2006, 05:03 AM
Given their 20% failure rate, I wonder what would shake out...
Digithead, in May 2002 Mr. Maschke posted a link (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=592.msg3067#msg3067) to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer that reports 50% of FBI applicants don't pass the polygraph "test." Unfortunately, the link embedded in his post is invalid and it appears the subject article is no longer available online at this point.
digithead,
I do not know whether the FBI keeps statistics on the demographics of those who fail the polygraph, background investigation, or other stages of the hiring process (such as Phase I and Phase II testing). As Meangino pointed out, the FBI special agent pre-employment polygraph failure rate rose from about 20% pre-9/11 to about 50% post-9/11. How do you suppose that happened?
You might be interested in a suppressed racial bias study conducted at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute suggesting that innocent blacks may be more likely to wrongly fail the polygraph than innocent whites:
https://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-racial-bias-study.pdf
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Dec 07, 2006, 07:54 AMdigithead,
I do not know whether the FBI keeps statistics on the demographics of those who fail the polygraph, background investigation, or other stages of the hiring process (such as Phase I and Phase II testing). As Meangino pointed out, the FBI special agent pre-employment polygraph failure rate rose from about 20% pre-9/11 to about 50% post-9/11. How do you suppose that happened?
You might be interested in a suppressed racial bias study conducted at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute suggesting that innocent blacks may be more likely to wrongly fail the polygraph than innocent whites:
https://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-racial-bias-study.pdf
Thanks, I've read that study already. It supports the conclusion that the only "detector" in the whole CQT setup is whatever the examiner thinks and feels, irrespective of the truth or supposed uniformity of process...
I wonder how long they keep information on all applicants. It would be interesting to see what exists beyond racial bias, there might be additional patterns of bias, e.g. gender, age, prior employment...
My recent repartee with LBCB convinces me that the only way we'll overcome these guys is by showing policymakers that the numbers support our side...
There was also an interesting story (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/06/front2454077.074305556.html) linked on Drudge today that only six of the 1,000 staffers on board with the US Embassy in Iraq speak Arabic.
Why do I have the a feeling that the federal government types struggling with recruiting Arabic linguists lurking about read what is written here and wish that the tea leaves had spread out another way and that George Maschke was on their side.
To the anonymous angry polygraphers who lurk in the shadows on this board... I invite you to take a seat in that chair positioned into the virtual corner over there and allow me to pull up my own chair, knee to knee.
Why don't you confess. Simply admit it--that you secretly wish that George Maschke was on your side...
Come on, fellas... Lay it out on the table and I promise that I will do my best to portray your statement in the best possible light to "HQ."
Ok, Gino, I'll make that confession. It would indeed be nice if George were on our side. He is persuasive, well-spoken, educated, and intelligent. He obviously influences people who are worried about taking a polygraph because we find them all the time when they fail the exam, and his name does come up quite often when they are confronted regarding where they got their information.
George is a person who can hold a grudge a long, long time, too. He is persistent in his anti-polygraph jihad (I thought of using the word crusade instead, but it seemed more fitting considering his reportedly outstanding Arabic language abilities--no offense intended, George, it's just a joke). There are two ironies, I believe, when we examine both George's viewpoint and those of polygraphers like me: If George had passed his FBI polygraph, he might very well be used as a translator for FBI polygraphers, and then how would he have viewed the polygraph when it was a tool on his side? And as for the polygraphers like myself, had we been one of the rare--in our experienced opinions--false positives as George claims to be, we might very well be Especially Senior Users on this website, rubbing shoulders with George and Dr. Richardson and you, Gino, as fellow insurgents trying to disrupt or destroy the system. In both cases, it's a "there but for the grace of God [or Allah] go I."
LBCB,
I know for a fact that, at one particular state polygraph association meeting. A discussion on George and antipolygraph.org, quickly deteriorated into a argument on how much blame to put on the FBI polygrapher (Jack Trimarco) for screwing him over in the first place. And the woulda, coulda, shoulda avenues that did or did not transpire. We antipolygraph folks and this website wouldn't even exist if we had been treated fairly. And by fair I mean using the polygraph to cull out undesireables for what ever reason during a hiring process. I stand by my opinion that keep the polygraph in the criminal realm and out of the working / hiring realm.
Regards ....
Yeah, but you do see the irony, right, EosJ? If George would have passed, he would have been happy as a bug in a rug to work for FBI and translate for polygraphers, I'm sure. I wonder what George would say if FBI came apologizing to him now and asking for his services.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 10, 2006, 08:31 PMYeah, but you do see the irony, right, EosJ? If George would have passed, he would have been happy as a bug in a rug to work for FBI and translate for polygraphers, I'm sure.
Actually, as I mentioned in my public statement (http://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml), I once served as a translator during a polygraph examination, though not for the FBI. About 20 years ago, when I was an active duty interrogator in the U.S. Army, I translated at the polygraph screening of an Arabic-speaking spy who had been recruited by the U.S. military. This was my introduction to polygraphy, and it did not inspire confidence. The "test" turned out inconclusive, and the polygrapher ended up asking me for my "gut" feeling about whether the examinee was telling the truth.
QuoteI wonder what George would say if FBI came apologizing to him now and asking for his services.
I wonder what I would say, too. Since the scenario you've described seems about as likely as pigs sprouting wings and flying, it's one about which I haven't devoted much thought.
LBCB,
Fist of all, I would like to extend my thanks for your contributions to this forum.
The whole purpose of having a forum is to encourage debate with the goal of learning from each other. This forum wouldn't have much debate if proponents of polygraphy were not represented.
QuoteGeorge is a person who can hold a grudge a long, long time, too.
I see this as dedication and tenacity. Imagine if all of the time he is putting in attempting to destroy polygraphy were instead spent on his first choice--fighting terrorists for the FBI?
QuoteAnd as for the polygraphers like myself, had we been one of the rare--in our experienced opinions--false positives as George claims to be, we might very well be Especially Senior Users on this website, rubbing shoulders with George and Dr. Richardson and you, Gino, as fellow insurgents trying to disrupt or destroy the system.
Correct, although I think that you go pretty far when you use the word "insurgents" drawing a comparison to those who wish to destroy this country and do Americans harm.
Moreover, it was not the "false positive" that set me out trying to "destroy the system." If it was simply "you fail, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out," I would have probably simply moved on and looked for other work.
It was the abusive interrogation that followed the false positive, at the hands of a member of the US Secret Service, that led me to desire the destruction of the abusive and corrupt pre-employment polygraph system.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 09, 2006, 09:27 PM...And as for the polygraphers like myself, had we been one of the rare--in our experienced opinions--false positives as George claims to be, we might very well be Especially Senior Users on this website, rubbing shoulders with George and Dr. Richardson and you, Gino, as fellow insurgents trying to disrupt or destroy the system...."
Some in the polygraph community no doubt consider public truth-telling about polygraphy to be an act of subversion. I recall that I was accused of treason (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=843.msg5530#msg5530) after AntiPolygraph.org published a translation of a passage from the
Encyclopedia of Jihad making it clear that Al-Qaeda knows that lie detectors are a sham (https://antipolygraph.org/documents/al-qaeda-lie-detection.shtml).
But far from seeking to "disrupt or destroy the system," we seek to reform it by exposing and ending waste, fraud, and abuse.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 09, 2006, 09:27 PM...And as for the polygraphers like myself, had we been one of the rare--in our experienced opinions--false positives as George claims to be...
Why do you (or any other polygraph examiners) need to rely on your "experienced opinions" when determining the results of a supposedly scientific test?
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Dec 11, 2006, 09:20 AM
Why do you (or any other polygraph examiners) need to rely on your "experienced opinions" when determining the results of a supposedly scientific test?
I see your point, Sergeant. Why would anyone ever rely on experience when it's much easier to just believe what inexperienced people tell you? :-/
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 11, 2006, 02:34 PM
I see your point, Sergeant. Why would anyone ever rely on experience when it's much easier to just believe what inexperienced people tell you? :-/
Apparently you don't see my point.
I was not suggesting that you eschew experience and rely on what inexperienced people tell you, and I don't really see how you gathered that from my post.
My point was and still is that the results of a scientific test should not come from the "opinion" of the examiner. The results should be objective and replicable, not subjective and possibly different every time the test is conducted.