This is not intended to be a post to break the rules or anything, but as someone in college currently aspiring to work in the intelligence/national security field for our country in the future I can't help but raise these concerns.
I am very detached from the professional nature in which many people speak on this forum. There are a lot of things I don't understand in some of the posts, especially George's. To be honest though, I am glad I found this website. I only accidentally stumbled upon it, and to be honest, after reading George W. Maschke's statement and the statements by a few others I felt sick and angry.
The primary reasons for this is because what your cases all suggest is that no matter how loyal you are to your country, no matter how many years you've served it in uniform, no matter how many letters of reccomendation you get and who they're from, no matter how much education you've got, the untimely tapping of your fingers, a random sweat, or an aberrant deep breath can screw you over. Any one of those tiny little things can ensure that you NEVER work for the federal government, because those act as red flags in a polygraph test. That one can be blacklisted from all agencies after years of endeavors to acquire a position in intelligence only because of a polygraph test result is truly shocking to me, and I never knew that this environment of coercion existed.
So now to why I have felt compelled to post about this. As someone still in college planning to work toward an ambitious academic goal and possibly military service to compliment an entry into the intelligence field, I need to know something. What the hell do I do? Where do I go from here? How do I ensure that the years ahead of me in my studies and my service do not get relegated to insignificance because of some tiny, inconclusive nervousness I might have? In perhaps less kind words, how do I make sure I don't turn out to be one of you guys here?
Just based on everything I've read - whether it's skimming the suggested countermeasures (I refuse to read them), the testimonials here, the history of the polygraph's use - I can pretty much guarantee you right now that if I were administered a polygraph test I would more than break a sweat with all of this stuff in mind. I don't see myself passing at all, and it's not because I have a skeleton in my closet.
Anyways, that's my rant, and I would really appreciate any help/responses to these concerns.
P.S. Also, I noticed many people here thanking this website for their pass of the polygraph test. I would really like to know how it helped you. How is it it's less stressful to be administered such a test with all this knowledge about the machine you're hooked up to in the back of your head? How is it easier when there's that much more information to hide during the test?
Quote from: 042B2C2D430 on Jan 30, 2009, 03:21 PMJust based on everything I've read - whether it's skimming the suggested countermeasures (I refuse to read them), the testimonials here, the history of the polygraph's use - I can pretty much guarantee you right now that if I were administered a polygraph test I would more than break a sweat with all of this stuff in mind. I don't see myself passing at all, and it's not because I have a skeleton in my closet.
You are right to be concerned. What I've seen repeatedly as a polygraph examiner is that examinees who are caught in countermeasures have read the advice on this site. They have not only tried out the advice, which stands out like a sore thumb to the eye of a trained examiner, but they have, I strongly believe, made the "relevant" questions much more signficant in their own minds than they would have been if they'd never been exposed to the poor advice presented here. When you read the junk that novices and pretenders post here, you'll be so concerned about masking any possible responses to the relevant questions that you will simply magnify the responses. The irony here is that by following poor advice you may very well be a "false positive," not through any failure of the polygraph, but through your own actions.
I think you're missing a fundamental point though, LieBabyCryBaby.
Not everyone who has posted here about how one of you guys ruined their life had even known about this site prior to being branded a false positive...I guess it would be relevant to mention that one of those people is the creator of this website.
Do you honestly think the host of this website knew 'countermeasures' prior to taking the polygraph? No. His crusade against them didn't begin until he got dealt a bad hand. So you can't tar them all with one brush. Sure maybe reading some CM info might increase the chances one could fail.
That's irrelevant though... one because that's not the only circumstance it can fail and two because it's not even the countermeasures that worry me. What worries me is the fact that my chances of being accepted into any government intelligence agency is basically a coin toss. A 50% chance. Not based on my record or the accuracy of what I say, but because a polygraph expert saw me 'tap my fingers' or 'sweat a little bit' then that means I shouldn't be hired. I'm sorry, but that's just a lot of you know what.
Ghon,
First, rest assured that your post does not in any way break any rules of this website. All points of view are welcome.
With regard to your questions, "What the hell do I do? Where do I go from here?" I would suggest that you not pin all your career plans and hopes on a career in intelligence. If your polygraph squiggles zig when polygraph dogma says they should have zagged, you're shit-out-of-luck.
So if I were in your shoes, I would continue to study the topics you find interesting while keeping career options other than intelligence in mind. You might also consider intelligence-related work that doesn't require polygraph screening. For example, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (http://www.state.gov/s/inr/) (like the rest of the State Department) does not require polygraph screening. And if you were to become a staffer with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (http://intelligence.senate.gov/), you wouldn't be required to submit to polygraph screening (and might be able to help persuade members to put an end to our government's insane reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy).
QuoteJust based on everything I've read - whether it's skimming the suggested countermeasures (I refuse to read them), the testimonials here, the history of the polygraph's use - I can pretty much guarantee you right now that if I were administered a polygraph test I would more than break a sweat with all of this stuff in mind. I don't see myself passing at all, and it's not because I have a skeleton in my closet.
With a preemployment polygraph at NSA/CIA/FBI it is NOT a bad chart reading that will do you in. Like I've told you, the whole goal of this type of polygraph is to fluster you and "see what we can get you to say". So it is more YOUR MOUTH, than a blip on a chart, that will do you in.
At the NSA, if the hiring committee thinks you are a really promising applicant, they will have security test and retest you hoping you pass. They even retested me after I ripped the straps off my chest in a fit of anger and frustration during my polygraph!
But if you SAY something during the polygraph they can distort and use against you, THAT along with the chart is what will do you in. A bad chart WITHOUT a confession leads to an "inconclusive" not a "fail" And with the former, there is hope.
This is especially true for an existing employee taking a periodic update polygraph. An existing employee can not be legally fired based solely on a polygraph CHART READING. But what an employee SAYS during a periodic polygraph CAN be used to fire them! So that should tell you something.
Never forget it is an INTERROGATION, the machine is a fancy "prop". And as with ANY "interrogation" it is "what they get out of you" that matters most.
So cheer up, go out and get drunk/laid this weekend. And start fresh on Monday.
TC
Quote from: PhilGainey on Jan 31, 2009, 03:25 AMWith a preemployment polygraph at NSA/CIA/FBI it is NOT a bad chart reading that will do you in.Like I've told you, the whole goal of this type of polygraph is to fluster you and "see what we can get you to say".So it is more YOUR MOUTH, than a blip on a chart, that will do you in.
Yes, polygraph screening is an interrogation in disguise. But applicants for intelligence positions can be and indeed
are disqualified based on polygraph chart readings alone. No admissions are necessary.
QuoteCullen:
But if you SAY something during the polygraph they can distort and use against you, THAT along with the chart is what will do you in. A bad chart WITHOUT a confession leads to an "inconclusive" not a "fail" And with the former, there is hope.
QuoteGeorge:
But applicants for intelligence positions can be and indeed are disqualified based on polygraph chart readings alone. No admissions are necessary.
And you see, this is what's getting me here. I do not know which one of you to believe. In George's statement, he did not say anything that could be used against him. All he did was answer the questions with a yes or a no and then he was called a liar. That experience of his doesn't seem to flow with what you're saying, Cullen.
It seems either you got lucky, or he got a bad apple doing his poly test, or something else is going on here.
QuoteThey even retested me after I ripped the straps off my chest in a fit of anger and frustration during my polygraph!
I thought you said in another post that you shouldn't express anger or contest the polygraph results?
Ghon,
T.M. Cullen's experience is with the NSA polygraph program, and I think he has perhaps overgeneralized his experience to all federal polygraph screening programs. The NSA is, to my knowledge, one of only two federal agencies (the other being the CIA) that routinely use the Relevant/Irrelevant technique to screen applicants and employees. It is quite common for NSA and CIA applicants to be accused of "having problems" during their first polygraph session, to be grilled about what they were thinking about when they answered the questions, and then to be brought back for one or more follow-up sessions. No doubt, some applicants who might have ultimately passed -- had they kept their mouths shut -- make disqualifying admissions. (I'm not particularly troubled about this.)
But sometimes, as T.M. Cullen alluded to, innocuous admissions are blown out of all proportion by polygraphers who are rated based on their confession rates following "deception indicated" polygraph charts. And some applicants who make no substantive admissions at all are indeed disqualified based on their polygraph chart readings alone.
According to retired CIA polygrapher John F. Sullivan, it was once the case in the CIA that the only persons who failed the pre-employment polygraph were those who made disqualifying admissions. He reports that the CIA first denied an applicant a security clearance based solely on polygraph results in 1979. (See, Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner, Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books, 1979, p. 79.)
Rest assured that nowadays, both NSA and CIA will disqualify applicants based on polygraph results alone. Admissions are not necessary.
There is one agency (the Department of Defense) where it appeared (at least as of 2002, when the last data were publicly reported) that the only persons who failed the polygraph were those who made "substantive admissions." See the message thread, How to Pass the DoD CI-Scope Polygraph (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=42.msg130#msg130).
With regard to the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies that require pre-employment polygraph screening, applicants who don't pass the polygraph are disqualified -- no admissions required.
See the "Public Statements" page for polygraph experiences from applicants with a variety of agencies:
https://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml
Quote from: George_Maschke on Jan 31, 2009, 11:08 AM
According to retired CIA polygrapher John F. Sullivan, it was once the case in the CIA that the only persons who failed the pre-employment polygraph were those who made disqualifying admissions. He reports that the CIA first denied an applicant a security clearance based solely on polygraph results in 1979. (See, Gatekeeper: Memoirs of a CIA Polygraph Examiner, Dulles, Virginia: Potomac Books, 1979, p. 79.)
Rest assured that nowadays, both NSA and CIA will disqualify applicants based on polygraph results alone. Admissions are not necessary.
I'm confused about something. A polygraph's intent is to judge the honesty of an individual. How can someone fail a polygraph based on something they admit (which does not qualify under the Bureau/Agency's rules?)
...erm, in other words, I'm saying that the polygraph's chart isn't affected by what you openly admit, it only gets affected by whether you feel pressure upon hearing a certain question, which may make you react emotionally in ways to modify the chart reading. So how can an admission make you fail a polygraph?
QuoteThere is one agency (the Department of Defense) where it appeared (at least as of 2002, when the last data were publicly reported) that the only persons who failed the polygraph were those who made "substantive admissions." See the message thread, How to Pass the DoD CI-Scope Polygraph (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=42.msg130#msg130).
Meaning that the experience people like yourself have had is not going on at DoD?
QuoteWith regard to the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies that require pre-employment polygraph screening, applicants who don't pass the polygraph are disqualified -- no admissions required.
See the "Public Statements" page for polygraph experiences from applicants with a variety of agencies:
https://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml
Speaking of admissions. It was posted by Cullen in another thread that if you let the polygrapher know, in any way shape or form, that you are aware of the existence of this website and aware to some extent that there are countermeasures or even criticisms of the polygraph device, then you will be failed or disqualified. Is this true? So, what am I supposed to say when they ask the question, "Are you aware of any anti-polygraph website, or are you aware of the existence of any counter-measures to the device you are being administered with?" I would almost certainly have to lie to get past such a question, or face the consequences (whatever they are) of telling the truth and letting it be known that I have read this website.
Also isn't it possible that the government is able to see who visits this site? I know that might sound a bit paranoid, but I'm going to ask that question anyway.
I feel like I have made my efforts even harder just having found this website.
QuoteAnd you see, this is what's getting me here. I do not know which one of you to believe. In George's statement, he did not say anything that could be used against him. All he did was answer the questions with a yes or a no and then he was called a liar. That experience of his doesn't seem to flow with what you're saying, Cullen.
It's not necessarily an "Either or" proposition. Don't make admissions or play the "gee what's bothering you about this question?" game regardless of which agency you've applied to. If it's an agency where a chart alone can disqualify you, and there are no "control" questions to apply CMs to, you then have no control over that.
As for my experience. I tested both in 1995 and in 2000. Passed it in 1995 but only one linguist my language was being hired ("Clinton cuts"). In 2000, they offered me GS-13 (which was one level higher than I asked for), but I took passing the poly for granted and to my great surprise (having passed it in 1995) I failed. It was during the last day of testing during the post test interrogation that I got angry and riopped off the straps and told them how "bogus" I thought the polygraph was. I got a call six months later from personnel wanting to test me again.
TC
QuoteSpeaking of admissions. It was posted by Cullen in another thread that if you let the polygrapher know, in any way shape or form, that you are aware of the existence of this website and aware to some extent that there are countermeasures or even criticisms of the polygraph device, then you will be failed or disqualified. Is this true? So, what am I supposed to say when they ask the question, "Are you aware of any anti-polygraph website, or are you aware of the existence of any counter-measures to the device you are being administered with?" I would almost certainly have to lie to get past such a question, or face the consequences (whatever they are) of telling the truth and letting it be known that I have read this website.
"Yes, Mr. Polygrapher, I did try to research the polygraph a little, but I found that there is so much controversy over the topic, it quite honestly, just confused me! So how accurate is it? 98%? Wow! That's pretty accurate!"
That would be a TRUTH statement, wouldn't it. As opposed to:
"Look, this test is bogus! 98% accurate? Yeah right! I went to 'anti-polygraph.com' and got the real facts about this so-called test of yours! I'm not going to fall for your tricks Mr. Polygrapher!"
QuoteAlso isn't it possible that the government is able to see who visits this site? I know that might sound a bit paranoid, but I'm going to ask that question anyway.
I seriously doubt that. Is your name really Ghon?
TC
Quote from: PhilGainey on Jan 31, 2009, 03:27 PM
It's not necessarily an "Either or" proposition. Don't make admissions or play the "gee what's bothering you about this question?" game regardless of which agency you've applied to. If it's an agency where a chart alone can disqualify you, and there are no "control" questions to apply CMs to, you then have no control over that.
So basically, in George's case, there was nothing he could do, but I should still heed your advice anyways. Just a note here...when you say 'dont make admissions' are you saying I SHOULD hide some things?
QuoteAs for my experience. I tested both in 1995 and in 2000. Passed it in 1995 but only one linguist my language was being hired ("Clinton cuts"). In 2000, they offered me GS-13 (which was one level higher than I asked for), but I took passing the poly for granted and to my great surprise (having passed it in 1995) I failed. It was during the last day of testing during the post test interrogation that I got angry and riopped off the straps and told them how "bogus" I thought the polygraph was. I got a call six months later from personnel wanting to test me again.
TC
I see, so you were already hired. That gives you a little bit of leeway. I thought you meant that you did that pre-employment.
Quote"Yes, Mr. Polygrapher, I did try to research the polygraph a little, but I found that there is so much controversy over the topic, it quite honestly, just confused me! So how accurate is it? 98%? Wow! That's pretty accurate!"
That would be a TRUTH statement, wouldn't it. As opposed to:
"Look, this test is bogus! 98% accurate? Yeah right! I went to 'anti-polygraph.com' and got the real facts about this so-called test of yours! I'm not going to fall for your tricks Mr. Polygrapher!"
So then are you saying I SHOULD admit that I'm aware of countermeasure techniques and controversies surrounding the use of the polygraph? I wasn't going to say the second statement. I just wanted to know whether or not the fact that you know about a site like this and the existence of a Book/PDF file like the one on this website is a potential disqualification or in some way casts a shadow of doubt over how honest you will be judged to be. Does it?
Quote
I seriously doubt that. Is your name really Ghon?
TC
As I'm sure you're aware, there's plenty of ways for your personal information to be uncovered on the internet other than screen names or what you tell people. For example, George W. Manschke posted in another thread that he was able to track the IPs of people who voted in a poll. Who's to say that my IP couldn't be traced and my name revealed, to then be put on a blacklist? Yes I am being serious.
QuoteJust a note here...when you say 'dont make admissions' are you saying I SHOULD hide some things?
I mainly mean if they try to tell you the machine is detecting deception on your part, or that something must be "bothering you", when in fact you are NOT being deceptive, and nothing is bothering you about your answers leave it at that.
They WANT you to start yapping your jaws off and tell them your life story to see if you give them anything "juicy". But if you answer the relevant questions truthfully (e.g. about drug usage...etc.)? Then you are not hiding anything! You've disclosed all drug usage, criminal activity if any, indebtedness...etc.!
Some polygraphers here have suggested people write down anything that could possible have bothered you about the questions. But if there is nothing bothering you (other than the fact they say you're lying when answering the question, when you ain't) what is there to write?
It's a game to see what they can get you to say. They want to totally focused on the machine, to believe the machine! The machine is good, the machine is invincible. You must be "one with the machine"! They want you to speculate, and delve into your inner mind. To ponder your soul and see what is there. All to make the machine like you. All so the machine takes pity on your soul. They do it so well, they make you forget the original freaking questions! But that is EXACTLY what you should be focusing on, the original relevant questions.
"Gee Mr. Polygrapher, there is nothing bothering me about that question, and I have answered it truthfully. What more do you want me to say?" What is so hard about saying that?
Anything you say in addition to that concerning relevant questions should not be anything that would "raise any eyebrows". And believe me, that are real good at getting you to say some pretty embarrassing things!
If there are control questions, you can consider using CMs, but you need to be able to identify control questions, know how (and when) to employ CMs, George is the guy to talk about that. But you probably don't have enuf time for that.
QuoteI see, so you were already hired. That gives you a little bit of leeway. I thought you meant that you did that pre-employment.
No, I was an applicant given a conditional offer at GS-13. All I had to do was pass the polygraph. Which i took for granted (after all i passed one five years earlier). And ended up failing and was not hired. So now I live on the North Shore or Oahu manage real estate and write pornographic novels in the evenings
TC
P.S. Stop overthinking and worrying. You're starting to remind me of me!
Quote
So then are you saying I SHOULD admit that I'm aware of countermeasure techniques and controversies surrounding the use of the polygraph? I wasn't going to say the second statement. I just wanted to know whether or not the fact that you know about a site like this and the existence of a Book/PDF file like the one on this website is a potential disqualification or in some way casts a shadow of doubt over how honest you will be judged to be. Does it?
^ I would still like an answer to this if you have time.
Quote
"Gee Mr. Polygrapher, there is nothing bothering me about that question, and I have answered it truthfully. What more do you want me to say?" What is so hard about saying that?
Nothing, except in George's case it ruined his career...hence why I am so worried
Quote
No, I was an applicant given a conditional offer at GS-13. All I had to do was pass the polygraph. Which i took for granted (after all i passed one five years earlier). And ended up failing and was not hired. So now I live on the North Shore or Oahu manage real estate and write pornographic novels in the evenings
TC
P.S. Stop overthinking and worrying. You're starting to remind me of me!
WHAT! Are you serious? How is it you tell me I'm 'overthinking this' and worrying too much 4 lines after a paragraph about how your career was ruined and you're stuck with making porn??
My God, this is getting crazier by the minute.
Ghon
Examiners assume educated subjects google and find these sites. The information available at these sites can be useful, but the problem is the overwhelming amount of information spun to support one point of view. I estimate it would take a year for the average person to read and understand what is presented at this site alone. You are asking people who hate polygraph to tell you what polygraph examiners think. They think they know, but they do not. Their reasoning is colored by their hate. I can tell you that there is no single point of view in our community about this question.
I suggest you pose your question on a pro site and see what examiners, the ones who really know, have to say.
Candid honesty is the best policy, not a sure thing, but the way to go.
QuoteQuote:
So then are you saying I SHOULD admit that I'm aware of countermeasure techniques and controversies surrounding the use of the polygraph? I wasn't going to say the second statement. I just wanted to know whether or not the fact that you know about a site like this and the existence of a Book/PDF file like the one on this website is a potential disqualification or in some way casts a shadow of doubt over how honest you will be judged to be. Does it?
^ I would still like an answer to this if you have time.
Ghon,
At this point maybe you should take pailryder up on his advice to go to a prosite. I recommend "The Polygraph Place" http://www.polygraphplace.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi
There would be two advantages:
1. Get their point of view for comparative purposes, just realize that they make their living off the polygraph, and are just as biased as we are, albeit in the opposite direction. Be sure to take them to task if you don't understand their responses or you don't think they are giving you the full story about the polygraph. Sometimes you have to probe "both sides" to get a feel for who is giving you the straight dope. For example, if you bring up the topic of CMs, they will probably claim they can easily detect them. Then ask them how they could possibly detect someone biting their tongue, or doing difficult math questions in their head when being asked questions.
2. If your polygraph operator asks you if you've researched the polygraph, you can THEN tell them in good faith you've been to BOTH anti and PRO sites in an effort to educate yourself on the topic.
3. I still recommend you read the National Academy of Sciences Report http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369 (especially the "conclusion" section). At the request of congress, they examined what few peer reviewed studies were out there which met adequate standards for scientific research (only 57 out of 1,000 studies available), as well as industry standard operating procedures and practices, then reported their assessment to congress. So if you want an QUALIFIED and UNBIASED opinion concerning the likely accuracy and scientific validity of the polygraph by a prestigious body of scientists (and anyone sked to take a polygraph SHOULD), read it. Sometimes that if better than getting caught up in a polarized debate on a topic of interest.
At any rate, please come back after your test and let us know how it went.
Good Luck,
TC
Quote from: pailryder on Feb 01, 2009, 08:48 AMGhon
Examiners assume educated subjects google and find these sites. The information available at these sites can be useful, but the problem is the overwhelming amount of information spun to support one point of view. I estimate it would take a year for the average person to read and understand what is presented at this site alone. You are asking people who hate polygraph to tell you what polygraph examiners think. They think they know, but they do not. Their reasoning is colored by their hate. I can tell you that there is no single point of view in our community about this question.
I find it interesting that you say this about them, yet the presence of that quote in your signature clearly suggests that they must be right about
something.
Quote
I suggest you pose your question on a pro site and see what examiners, the ones who really know, have to say.
Such as?
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 01, 2009, 03:44 PM
2. If your polygraph operator asks you if you've researched the polygraph, you can THEN tell them in good faith you've been to BOTH anti and PRO sites in an effort to educate yourself on the topic.
So let me give you an example. The question is, "Are you aware of any resources that oppose/criticize the use of the polygraph and/or provide countermeasures to 'beat the system' so to speak?"
My answer:
"Yes."
Is that a fail, an inconclusive, a deception indicated, or a pass?
Quote
At any rate, please come back after your test and let us know how it went.
I am years away from taking a polygraph. I am still in college. I came here, primarily because I read a statement by someone who 'went to college to work in intelligence' and once they went through college and got their degree, it turns out they were SOL and got f'ed out because they failed a polygraph. That concerns me very much because i'm taking the academic route right now.
Lastly, i don't mean to be offensive or anything, but was that statement about you working in real estate and writing pornographic novels in jest or being serious?
If it's true that you're doing that simply because you failed a polygraph at a federal agency, then I think some people need to be put behind bars.
QuoteI am years away from taking a polygraph. I am still in college. I came here, primarily because I read a statement by someone who 'went to college to work in intelligence' and once they went through college and got their degree, it turns out they were SOL and got f'ed out because they failed a polygraph. That concerns me very much because i'm taking the academic route right now.
I must be mistaking your from somebody in another thread. But GREAT! Most people come here AFTER failing the polygraph after having gone in the examination room believing in the popular myth of it's accuracy. So you have one leg up. You've got time to research it.
Read TLBTLD and the NAS report. Then go to the Pro-site I mentioned and see what a "snow job" you get there.
QuoteLastly, i don't mean to be offensive or anything, but was that statement about you working in real estate and writing pornographic novels in jest or being serious?
I retired from the military in Hawaii as a Chinese Linguist having held a TS/SCI for 20 years working in the SIGINT field. Hawaii was one of the main duty stations for a person in my field and I managed to acquire some rental properties over the years. So the bit about managing real estate is true.
Of course the porn ref was in jest. I may be a dirty old man, but I am not a perve. Remember, it is poloygraphers who employ one way mirrors! :D
TC
P.S. If you are years away from taking the polygraph then you shouldn't even be hypothesizing about imaginary conversations with polygraph operators that may or may not happen at some point in the distant future. And if I was young like you, I'd take Jack Nickelson's advice in "One flew over the coo-coos nest" I'd be:
"Chase'n skirts and bang'n beaver!" >:(
Quote
Read TLBTLD and the NAS report. Then go to the Pro-site I mentioned and see what a "snow job" you get there.
Will do.
Quote
I retired from the military in Hawaii as a Chinese Linguist having held a TS/SCI for 20 years working in the SIGINT field. Hawaii was one of the main duty stations for a person in my field and I managed to acquire some rental properties over the years. So the bit about managing real estate is true.
So while China is stealing every last one of our country's secrets, someone in a position to help guard against that is barred from serving..
Quote
P.S. If you are years away from taking the polygraph then you shouldn't even be hypothesizing about imaginary conversations with polygraph operators that may or may not happen at some point in the distant future. And if I was young like you, I'd take Jack Nickelson's advice in "One flew over the coo-coos nest"
I don't know what you mean. If you meant to say that the polygraph will be 'out of use' by then, I seriously doubt that. I would put no more than 5 years on the timeframe of when I'll be taking a polygraph, and I doubt so many agencies and branches of service are going to abandon the use of it. Oh, also, was the example I put forth a pass, fail, inconclusive, or deception indicated?
QuoteOh, also, was the example I put forth a pass, fail, inconclusive, or deception indicated?
Please...
Ghon
You are unlikely to be asked if you are "aware" of antipolygraph sites or countermeasures. You may be asked if you have "used or attempted to use" countermeasures, or you may be asked nothing at all. The majority of examiners never mention cm's, especially after they detect their use. Of course if Mr Cullen is correct and your examiner is unable to detect such clever tactics as tongue biting or mental math, then you have nothing to fear but fear itself.
http://books.google.com/books?id=USg-j9esZagC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=polygraph++%22detecting+countermeasures%22&source=web&ots=eM1Vd4CZW3&sig=ZYxhGwxqdFI04xiymgXP_kjPxHE&hl=en&ei=gPiLSemGOIKOsQP_g_z-CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
Sorry about the long link.
Only the first couple of pages pertains.
Like I said, you have to know WHEN and HOW to use CMs. If you pucker your butthole like you're trying to eliminate a tortoise shell, when they ask you if your name is XXX, that probably won't be of much help. Some studies claiming that CMs do more harm than good, and makes a person more likely to fail, do not really take the level of proper CM usage on the part of the examinee into consideration.
There is NO field studies that empirically prove that CMs in general work or don't work, or that polygraphers can detect them. I think that iis the drift in the above link.
TC
What exactly is meant by 'pucker your butthole'? I noticed it in George's statement as well. What role does your rear play in a polygraph examination?
Quote from: 715E5958360 on Feb 06, 2009, 10:36 AMWhat exactly is meant by 'pucker your butthole'? I noticed it in George's statement as well. What role does your rear play in a polygraph examination?
It means constricting the anal sphincter muscle. It's a technique that can be used to produce a reaction when asked a control question, increasing the likelihood of passing a probable-lie control question test. For reasons explained in Chapter 4 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf), AntiPolygraph.org no longer recommends this countermeasure method.
Thank God, I don't want to do anything with my ass in a polygraph exam.
There's already enough to worry about. Seriously, I am not handling this well. I'm losing sleep, I'm getting angry and worried. My hands shake just reading some of the stories here. I don't like the idea that all this education is just going to be for nothing because of this machine.
Quote from: 6D4245442A0 on Jan 30, 2009, 08:48 PMI think you're missing a fundamental point though, LieBabyCryBaby.
Not everyone who has posted here about how one of you guys ruined their life had even known about this site prior to being branded a false positive...I guess it would be relevant to mention that one of those people is the creator of this website.
Do you honestly think the host of this website knew 'countermeasures' prior to taking the polygraph? No. His crusade against them didn't begin until he got dealt a bad hand. So you can't tar them all with one brush. Sure maybe reading some CM info might increase the chances one could fail.
That's irrelevant though... one because that's not the only circumstance it can fail and two because it's not even the countermeasures that worry me. What worries me is the fact that my chances of being accepted into any government intelligence agency is basically a coin toss. A 50% chance. Not based on my record or the accuracy of what I say, but because a polygraph expert saw me 'tap my fingers' or 'sweat a little bit' then that means I shouldn't be hired. I'm sorry, but that's just a lot of you know what.
The polygraph is not perfect. But it is much better than a 50% chance. Some people call it a "lie detector." It doesn't detect lies. All it does is show what is going on inside you when your are asked and you respond to a particular question. But when you consistently respond to the same question many times, something is definitely going on inside you with regard to that question. Only YOU can answer what that is.
My point has nothing to do with the subject of countermeasures, to which this thread has detoured. It also has nothing to do with why a "false positive" is a possibility, although a very slim one. My point is that when a person gets all caught up in "this question is a comparison" and "this question is a relevant," I think they make the relevant questions MORE relevant than they would otherwise be if they had just gone through the test without worrying about all that stuff.
The advice on this website can hurt you more than it can help you. There's some good stuff on here, but there's also pure drivel on here, much of which is posted here by non-polygraphers, phonies, and self-proclaimed experts.
The polygraph isn't perfect, and there IS an extremely slim chance that you could end up as a "false positive." But I believe that chance is much, much smaller if you don't screw with your own head by following the advice of people who failed a polygraph. I've passed multiple polygraphs myself, and I am a polygrapher. Trust me more than George and all these phonies on this website.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Feb 07, 2009, 05:25 PMhe polygraph is not perfect. But it is much better than a 50% chance.
Wrong, LBCB. I took 2 polygraphs. My answers were the same both times. Yet, I was deemed "deception indicated" on the first one and "no deception indicated" on the second one. There it is, a 50% chance of passing.
Of course, the complainant involved had zero credibility. It baffled me when the polygrapher accused me of lying. Nothing that she alleged was true; everyone involved with the investigation realized that. Even the FBI dicks (I don't mean penises; as Rowan and Maartin said, look it up in your Funk and Wagnals if you don't know what it means) agree she was not credible, but (I) "must have been hiding something." OK, if I were hiding something, what in the world was it? The FBI dicks didn't know because there was nothing to hide!
Mr. Maschke is correct about so-called "lie detectors," they are junk science and nonsense.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Feb 07, 2009, 05:25 PMThe polygraph isn't perfect, and there IS an extremely slim chance that you could end up as a "false positive."
Well, I agree with your first point :) and strongly disagree with your second one. >:( Polygraphs are like a coin toss, 50% heads (no decption indicated) and 50% tails (deception indicated). I know it's a small sample size but I know from my personal experience that a polygraph's outcome is a 50/50 propisition.
QuoteIt doesn't detect lies. All it does is show what is going on inside you when your are asked and you respond to a particular question.
Every polygraph operator I dealt with claimed it detected deception. Where they lying? How do you then explain use of the phrase "deception indicated"?
QuoteBut when you consistently respond to the same question many times, something is definitely going on inside you with regard to that question. Only YOU can answer what that is.
But deception is only one. There are other reasons why a person nervous system could register a "defensive" reaction. In fact, if a person had been repeatedly told he was lying on a given question
when he/she wasn't, his nervous system could just as easily react to that question. And a consistent reaction simply means he/she is consistently "reacting", whatever the underlying reason is.
Don't believe me, read the quote below from Dr. Zimbardo. Still not convinced, NAS report said the same thing about there being NO direct connection between an F3 reaction and "decption". It's just a huge supposition. That's why you need to badger, cajole or otherwise harrass the examinee until he/she gives you something you can twist, take out of context, or blow out of proportion, to prove your theory that the consistent reaction means "deception".
QuoteMy point has nothing to do with the subject of countermeasures, to which this thread has detoured. It also has nothing to do with why a "false positive" is a possibility, although a very slim one. My point is that when a person gets all caught up in "this question is a comparison" and "this question is a relevant," I think they make the relevant questions MORE relevant than they would otherwise be if they had just gone through the test without worrying about all that stuff.
I think the FIRST THING a person would be well advised to do is:
Know at both conscious (through study and learning) and subconscious levels that reactions on the machine don't mean a thing. The more one learns about what the polygraph machine actually does, and it's true limitations, the less afraid of it they will be. I mention "subconscious" above because it is at that level that "reactions" are produced.
Know also, that who process is nothing more than an interrogation disguised as a test. And that the polygraph machine is just a prop.
This is just the opposite of most examinees. Most believe (mainly from the "pop" culture) that the polygraph is extremely accurate and scientific. That is the polygraph claims the machine "indicates" deception, then "shoot! there must be something I did! What the heck could it be? Better start talking!" This is JUST THE OPPOSITE way they should be thinking!
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Feb 07, 2009, 05:25 PMThe polygraph is not perfect. But it is much better than a 50% chance.Some people call it a "lie detector." It doesn't detect lies. All it does is show what is going on inside you when your are asked and you respond to a particular question. But when you consistently respond to the same question many times, something is definitely going on inside you with regard to that question. Only YOU can answer what that is.
So, "something" is going on inside you when you consistently respond to the same question many times? Gee, that sounds scientific...
Supervisor: "Was the subject deceptive or truthful?"
Polygraph Examiner: "He was something!"
Supervisor: "Well done!"If only the examinee can answer what the "something" is, why do examiners score the charts? Why do they determine if deception was indicated or not?
Common sense indicates that polygraph examiners make a determination based on what they think. They do not leave it up to the examinee, and there is no way for the examiner to truly know if their guess is accurate or not.
Same old tired arguments from the same people who failed polygraph exams. Quite some time ago I grew tired of debating with this forum's pretenders, repeaters of questionable ideas, and polygraph failures. Believe whom you will, Ghon and others who are "scared out of your mind." Believe polygraph failures who get all of their knowledge and theories secondhand, or believe someone who actually has a lot of experience with the polygraph. Use their faulty advice at your own peril. I've caught many people who have tried, and I know what to look for. That doesn't mean all polygraphers are the same, though. Take the serious chance of failing the polygraph due to poor advice, or follow the voice of experience and increase your chances of passing the polygraph. It's not by any means perfect, but it's a whole lot more accurate than these pretenders wish to believe.
LieBabyCryBaby:
Retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Dr. Drew C. Richardson -
"[Polygraph screening] is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity... the diagnostic value of this type of testing is no more than that of astrology or tea-leaf reading. ...(A)nyone can be taught to beat this type of polygraph exam in a few minutes."
I suppose this is secondhand information? I also suppose you have the credentials to challenge this individual's opinion?
The American Psychological Association -
"There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious."
"For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph."
Psychologist Dr. Carol Tavris -
"There is no reliable way to tell if someone is telling the truth or not."
"People who offer hi-tech solutions and all kinds of fancy gizmos that promise a way to give you the answer - that's a very appealing promise to be able to make. But they're dead wrong."
Psychologist Dr. Phil Zimbardo -
"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal..."
National Academy of Sciences -
"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"
"The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially
in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states
that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions"
I could go on listlessly.
The bottom line is that the professionals who spend years researching the science of human behavior have concluded that the polygraph is not scientifically sound, accurate, or valid. Yet you and other polygraphers with self serving interests stand all out there on your own insisting your little machine works. It does not take much common sense to see which side has more credibility.
If someone legitimately does not give a rat's ass about the polygraph, does not fear it, and does not believe it works, the polygraph is ultimately useless, and therefore its accuracy is nil. You cannot argue this. With no fearful responses from a subject, the polygraph has absolutely no utility. And this is why your subculture relies on spreading the myth of "lie detection" and "98% accuracy," when in all actuality, such claims are BS.
The myth is dying, and eventually you will be confined to strip malls with psychics, tarot card readers and the rest of your kind.
QuoteLieBabyCryBaby:
Retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Dr. Drew C. Richardson -
"[Polygraph screening] is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity... the diagnostic value of this type of testing is no more than that of astrology or tea-leaf reading. ...(A)nyone can be taught to beat this type of polygraph exam in a few minutes."
I suppose this is secondhand information? I also suppose you have the credentials to challenge this individual's opinion?
"Anonymous," do you think I just popped onto this board for the first time? Read your so-called expert's "Countermeasures Challenge" thread. I've refuted Dr. Richardson many times, and you need only read my posts to see that. Here's one of my posts from 2006 to EosJ, who was more entertaining than you when it comes to spouting worn-out secondhand--or in your case probably hundredthhand--rhetoric:
EosJ,
I'm afraid I've shaken you too much. You can't even write complete sentences.
If the advice on this site actually did produce "inconclusive after inconclusive," that would be quite revealing indeed. What it would say is that a guilty examinee did just enough to pull himself or herself from the depths of failure to the gray area of inconclusive. If the information actually worked for innocent examinees, why would they end up inconclusive, going in the opposite direction TOWARD failure rather than away from it into higher positive numbers?
As for Drew's challenge, it is an empty challenge. It could only be done in a lab setting or, worse, in a public setting where outside factors would likely contaminate and skew the results. Lab studies can not duplicate real-world conditions. And where would we find REAL criminals willing to put their lives on the line simply to satisfy a bunch of disgruntled polygraph failures? Drew, George, and their minions make this challenge, but most of them know it isn't practical or even possible to implement an event that would prove anything one way or another. So, no serious polygrapher is going to bother responding to it.
I repeat, EosJ, where are all the criminals who have used the advice on this site to pass the polygraph? And where are all the applicants who have used this same advice to pass the polygraph while lying their asses off to relevant questions? All we hear on this site are a few people saying they used the information and it helped them pass, but can they prove they passed because of the information rather than simply because they were innocent to begin with? I think not. Dr. Richardson's "challenge" is without merit, and his actual experience as a polygrapher is a big fat 0. He's nothing more than a parrot like yourself who can quote other people's secondhand ideas. He barely passed polygraph school and never had any practical experience. So yes, I have more actual credentials than this pretender.
The advice on this site can do nothing to help the scared children pass a polygraph exam. But it can increase their chances of failure. For those of you who, like Ghon, are scared children when faced with the prospect of sitting in that polygraph chair, please ignore these pretenders because most of them are simply polygraph failures without any experience.
And yes, "Anonymous," I'm sure you could go on "listlessly." But you're sufficiently listless already, thank you. :D
LBCB,
You still haven't explained why, if the polygraph doesn't detect lies as you stated in an earlier post, do polygraph operators use the phrase "detection indicated" when referring to results as measured by the polygraph machine.
T.M., we don't use the words "detection indicated." It's "deception indicated." And the polygraph isn't a "lie detector." It simply monitors what your body is doing while the examiner asks you a series of questions. An analysis of your body's reactions can be summarized by several diagnoses, one of which is "deception indicated."
LieBabyCryBaby does not like us because perhaps because we are a constant reminder of the wreckage of polygraph screening. I do not doubt the polygraph as an interrogation tool or as a tool that accurately records stimuli to questions.
The fact is that the people on this board who have been on here for years are not on here because we are mad about being busted lying on polygraphs. There is for more outrage among the innocent accused than the guilty exposed.
you may or may not pass your polylgraph. my advice. quit obsessing, take the damn thing and good luck. if you make it you will have a nice career somewhere. If you dont make it, have a backup plan and join us on the forum. lol.
QuoteT.M., we don't use the words "detection indicated." It's "deception indicated."
I know, that was a typo on my part.
QuoteAnd the polygraph isn't a "lie detector." It simply monitors what your body is doing while the examiner asks you a series of questions. An analysis of your body's reactions can be summarized by several diagnoses, one of which is "deception indicated."
If "deception" is only one of many "diagnoses" behind an F3 reaction as measure by the machine, then why do polygraph operators confidently use the term "deception indicated" when they get certain measurements on the machine? Shouldn't it be "something, perhaps deception, but maybe not indicated"?
How exactly can you distinguish or "diagnose" deception, versus "something else" based on chart output?
TC
LieBabyCryBaby,
The words of a fraud: "Our method cannot be proven in controlled experiments. It only works in 'real world' settings." Does this work for ANYTHING legitimate? I cannot think of any psychological/medical/scientific application that is nearly unequivocally accepted that the aforementioned statement may apply to. That must mean one thing: the polygraph doesn't fall into any of those domains. Its domain lies here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psuedoscience
It is my understanding that Dr. Drew C. Richardson earned his doctorate in physiology in the process of studying lie detection. This is a legitimate doctorate from a legitimate university, mind you, unlike many of your peers who list phony degrees in an attempt to bolster their credibility. This equates to years and years of scientific research under academic, peer-reviewed scrutiny. He then proceeded to graduate from the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, which, from what I have gathered, is supposed to be something like the "holy grail" of polygraph schools. In addition, I hardly believe an individual who has earned a doctorate in science would have the slightest amount of difficulty with "polygraph school," especially given that the polygraph is infinitely simpler than the subject of physiology as a whole. Lastly, Dr. Richardson spent time in the FBI's polygraph research unit. Now, unless you have a similar degree, graduated from DoDPI, and spent time researching the polygraph for the federal government, it seems to me that Dr. Richardson has you outmatched in terms of qualifications. Do you even have a degree in a scientific subject from an accredited university? Oh, I forgot, science is wrong, why would you care about such an education.
I forgot to parrot one other resource for you.
The American Medical Association:
"The [lie detector] cannot detect lies much better than a coin toss."
Every REAL scientific body that the polygraph can be linked to has condemned the polygraph, be it medical, psychological or wholly scientific in scope. Your device has failed. It is not scientifically sound, accurate, or valid. It never will be because its premise is incorrect. And this causes innocent people to be barred from jobs they have spent years preparing for, and allows guilty people to go by undetected into jobs of public trust. Yet you attempt to insult us because we are using conclusions ("theories" you say) from these subject matter experts. Aren't theories supposed to be scientific?
I simply do not understand your scrutinizing others for using subject matter experts as means of gathering information. I suppose you get all of your information first hand? Maybe you simply are an expert in all things? Must one be a geologist to state that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old? Or a medical doctor to state that exercise is good for one's heart? Or is this merely useless parroting? Your logic is terribly flawed if you actually believe that all one's knowledge is either inaccurate or flawed unless it comes first hand. It's strictly nonsense.
I also don't understand why you attempt to belittle others by calling them "polygraph failures" when in reality failing a polygraph means little, given its low accuracy rate. Even you accept the fact that the polygraph is not 100% accurate and false positives are possible. Consider the reality that the polygraph is closer to 50% accurate and false positives are relatively common, and your behavior becomes even more asinine.
I refer you to the following sources if this site has not convinced you that many innocent people fail polygraphs.
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1352955&postcount=1
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1357603&postcount=10
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1651463&postcount=19
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1548760&postcount=43
http://forums.officer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1538719&postcount=1
There are MANY more of these posts. This is just barely scratching the surface. I could go on, but I fear it would take this whole thread over with examples.
You agree that the polygraph isn't a lie detector. Yet you still use phrases like, "deception indicated." I am hard pressed to believe one can be more hypocritical. What is the difference between the word "lie" and the word "deception"?
So what DOES the polygraph show going on inside people if it doesn't show deception? And when one consistently responds to the same question many times, what is it that is "definitely" going on inside his/her head?
Very well-organized post, "Anonymous." I've heard and debated most of those points before, to at least my own satisfaction, although obviously never to the satisfaction of you and other parrots (your word) on this forum. And in my opinion, and yours, it would be a waste of my time and effort to reply to everything you wrote.
A short word on experience: Don't belittle it when you have none. It means a LOT more than you think--and yes, much more than mere theory. At least I have it, so I can argue my opinions firsthand rather than by rote.
One thing that I would like to respond to is this:
How can you take these anonymous posts by people who failed the polygraph as any kind of proof of anything? First, we don't know whether they are telling the truth in their posts. Second, we weren't present for the polygraph examinations they failed, and we haven't seen the data. However, I will concede that it is possible that at least some of them may have screwed themselves prior to and during the polygraph exam by what they have read and possibly put in practice from this forum. Which brings us back to the original line of thought from which we strayed in this thread. I will repeat, therefore, what I have seen and believe to be true: Taking the advice of polygraph failures on this forum, almost all of whom have no practical experience as polygraph examiners, can have detrimental effects on your ability to pass the polygraph exam. Particularly when you convince yourself that you will respond to the "relevant" questions because you believe they are the only questions that really matter on the exam, you will fulfill your own prophecy of failure.
Anonymous: This is tha JAMA abstract you have cited several times. 75% to 97% is not only different than your previous post it indicates the AMA thinks polygraph is significantly better than a "coin toss" which implys 50%.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172
QuoteThe American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Scientific Affairs has reviewed the data on the validity and accuracy of polygraphy testing as it is applied today. The use of the control question technique in criminal cases is time honored and has seen much scientific study. It is established that classification of guilty can be made with 75% to 97% accuracy, but the rate of false-positives is often sufficiently high to preclude use of this test as the sole arbiter of guilt or innocence. This does not preclude using the polygraph test in criminal investigations as evidence or as another source of information to guide the investigation with full appreciation of the limitations in its use. Application of the polygraph in personnel screening, although gaining in popularity, has not been adequately validated. The few limited studies that have been performed suggest no greater accuracy for the types of testing done for this purpose than for the control question polygraph testing used in criminal cases. The effect of polygraph testing to deter theft and fraud associated with employment has never been measured, nor has its impact on employee morale and productivity been determined. Much more serious research needs to be done before the polygraph should be generally accepted for this purpose.
If you have a
first hand citation from the American Medical Association that uses the phrase "Coin Toss" why don't you post it and then we can all use it to ask AMA why they have two different opinions concerning the accuracy of polygraph?
A second hand quote from that guy who doesn't like red neck preachers and lithuanians doesn't really have much more compelling information to add to this discussion than someone who thinks Columbus discovered the earth was round.
LieBabyCryBaby seems to be on to some thing when he said
Quotewhen you convince yourself that you will respond to the "relevant" questions because you believe they are the only questions that really matter on the exam, you will fulfill your own prophecy of failure.
QuoteVery well-organized post, "Anonymous." I've heard and debated most of those points before, to at least my own satisfaction, although obviously never to the satisfaction of you and other parrots (your word) on this forum. And in my opinion, and yours, it would be a waste of my time and effort to reply to everything you wrote.
I'd be happy if you'd respond to my earlier question. You said that a reaction on the polygraph machine doesn't necessarily mean "deception", but it does mean "something is going on inside". Or something to that effect. If so then:
1. Why do polygraph operators use the phrase "DECEPTION indicated" when a subject "reacts" on the machine if a reaction doesn't necessarily mean "deception" Are they purposely lying, or just don't understand the underlying science?
2. How can you distinguish "deception" from "something else going on inside the subject" when you measure a reaction on the machine? Are you psychic? Do you go on instinct? Or are you actually unable to make a distinction and are just trying to convince the subject otherwise ?
TC
Anonymous Too,
I thought you didn't like "cut and paste" jobs?
TC