I did a lot of reading about the polygraph prior to taking the FBI poly. Was I worried about the test: No. Still, I wanted as much information as possible.
So I run across this site and after reading many threads came to the conclusion that the only people in here are those that have shady backgrounds and are trying to defeat the system for their personal gain.
As a soon to be special agent, I hope that anyone that tried to defeat the poly using countermeasures with the FBI, CIA, USSS or DEA have failed. I sure as hell don't want you covering my back in the field.
If there are some of you that are truly innocent then this doesn't apply to you. But why would you attempt to deceive your employer in the first place? I didn't and I passed. As a matter of fact, the FBI polygrapher does everything in his/her power to help you get through the test, as long as you are honest with past discrepancies up front (and they aren't to serious.)
That all being said, can honest people fail the poly? I think that it is possible. However, after going through a 2 hour polygraph, I found it very accurate.
My suggestion to anyone that is going for the poly, is to be truthful and forget about this whole business of sphincter clinching, breathing wrong, tac in the shoe or biting the tongue business. Be a man and be honest. If you're not honest, I can only pray that you fail.
Future FBI agent, I couldn't more than agree with you in the aspect that people should be honest about their backgrounds. Yes I feel it kills the integrity of a certain LE agency when liars are coming aboard.
What about those individuals who have put in their time and hard work with agencies such as the one you aspire to be in and come out being accused as spies and deceptive, when the simple fact is that there not. I would think a thorough background investigation should gather up all the necessary material needed to determine one's suitablity for certain employments.
The simple fact with the polygraph is that it truly doesn't work. Why should an honest individual who has put in so many years of hard work i.e. school, experience, and have it all go down the drain, b/c if you fail one poly for federal jobs, your gone, no chances of getting hired for other ones?
Another thing is that the polygraph is used to weed out applicants in certain processes. For example there are some agencies who have their hiring preferences, e.g. Chief wanting his nephew to get hired, and there are applicants who have nothing against them that can dq them in processes, so they use this exam as the sole reason of denial of employment. Pretty shady if you ask me.
I agree with you that LE agents should encompass the highest degree of integrity, but I for one would not want to have my dreams ruined just because of reasons beyond my control.
Why do they allow these polygraphs admissible for hiring governmental agents, but are inadmissible in court, does that tell you something in itself. I think the main fact is that the hiring processes and promotion processes themselves need to be revamped. Better background investigations should yield all the results needed to determine suitability. To be accused of being a foreign spy, or a crack addict is immoral itself. If there are any group of individuals who have shady characters it's these individuals who make such determinations regarding this pseudoscience. I agree poly's are great for interrogation and intimidation of criminals, but that's it. Well there you have my opinion.
therock,
You make some valid points, and I don't neccessarily agree that polygraphs should or shouldn't be used in the hiring process, but the simple fact is, they are used.
I guess my point here is that, lying on the polygraph is not the way to go, contrary to what this site says.
Let me explain my situation: I am a 9 year military intelligence veteran (not a veteran yet, sinse I'm still in) with operation experience in Operations Joint Forge/Guard, Allied Force and Southern Watch. I have dealing with outside government agencies. So because I have the clearance I have, the polygrapher had to get some additional questions. In my past, I have cheated on a test in high school (over a decade ago), been arrested for excessive speeding and spent time in jail (again over a decade ago), but have never used drugs of any kind. After giving the polygrapher all of my details, he reworded the questions to move around certain security issues, and my test I cheated on.
If you are truely honest and are up front with the polygrapher, there is no reason for you to fail. Especially with the USSS, DEA, CIA or FBI. This isn't the local sheriffs office we're talking about with the good ole boys network going.
Regardless of the validity of the poly (or whether or not you agree or disagree that it should be used) it's something that is required. I would suggest to everyone, not to use countermeasures, because if you do, then you have something to hide.
Duc748,
There are several logical inconsistencies within the body of your last post...unfortunately beyond the time which I can devote a response to. But let us address your note title, "Honesty is better than deception." The use of countermeasures by an innocent polygraph examinee has nothing to do per se with either honesty or deception. The same answers will be given to the questions asked during the exam regardless of the use or lack thereof of countermeasures. The use of countermeasures by such a person rather is to affect the outcome of a polygraph exam, i.e., more likely assure a correct (honest, if you will) result, that of non-deception indicated having been rendered by the polygraph examiner. This activity (utilization of countermeasures) is not only advisable but unfortunately one I deem necessary due to the nature of the error involved in the process. As a growing countless number of individuals who visit this site can attest to, polygraph error negatively impacts the lives of innocent examinees. The only way this situation can be remedied is for either those who presently give polygraph (screening) exams to cease and desist from so doing or for examinees to adequately prepare themselves and to take those actions (i.e., polygraph countermeasures) necessary to protect their welfare. Your devotion to your country's security needs is no doubt quite admirable, but your blind faith in its (including the federal agencies you specify) ridiculous tools equally astonishes...Drew Richardson
Bottom Line:
Polygraph is inaccurate.
Innocent people are accused of lying.
Guilty people can fool the "system" and get away with it.
Therefore, relying on it to "weed out" risky people is stupid.
Think about it. If there was a device that could accurately tell if someone was lying, we would not need a justice system. There is no science in poly. Instead, it is a voodoo process that relies on fear and intimidation and is not accurate.
Duc748,
I neglected to compliment you on your choice of career. Having served 25 years as an agent of the FBI, I can appreciate something of that which awaits you. As has been said by many of my age and status (now retired from the Bureau), I am envious of you in terms of the opportunities and life/work experiences that await you. That having been said, I will simply encourage you to hone your critical thinking and analysis skills and to do so quite apart from the bureaucratic doctrine and policy(ies) that you will soon be a part of. Although I would not advise you to demonstrate this critical thinking too early in your Bureau experience (during your training and early career), do not let the development of those skills go wanting and don't let that which you have developed wither and die in the midst of functioning in a para-military organization. The Bureau, your case-work, and the American people will best be served if you can maintain well developed independent-thinking skills.... Best wishes and good luck, Drew Richardson
Duc748...
Here is the problem that many of the people who frequent this site are facing:
They once took part in activities that are AUTOMATIC grounds for disqualification from the testing process for every and any Law Enforcement agency, regardless of the proximity of the incidents to the time of testing.
For example, a person who was a stoner, crack-head, or serious thief as a young adult will automatically be rejected from the testing process as soon as this information is conveyed in pre-test interview--rejected and ejected.
The true problem lies in the fact that Law Enforcement agencies cannot assure themselves that the person who "once was," "isn't today." They can't determine whether or not the person that once was a crack head will go back to his old ways.
Background investigators and Civil Service Board members don't really have a way of truly knowing whether or not a person has ultimately changed...even though the person being investigated may have turned around his or her life in the greatest of degrees.
This unfortunate aspect of the testing process FORCES--yes, FORCES--candidates who were serious trouble-makers in the past (assuming they didn'g get caught for anything serious) to lie and use countermeasures. To tell the truth and claim that they are a changed person will only lead to rejection and disqualification...regardless of just how truly changed they are.
Duc748...if you can't see where I am coming from than you truly lack a good understanding of the way the testing process works. People who have truly changed from the horrible ways and problems of their past have no other alternative. The truth will only set them free--free like a bat out of hell from the testing process.
I am one of those people who did some stupid things in the short past, but have changed as a person. Consequently, I am forced to lie and use countermeasures on the polygraph test (I already have done it successfully). To tell the truth of my concealed problems of the past would be my end.
But I can say this with the utmost of sincerity: You better hope like hell that you have someone LIKE me covering your back.
Duc748,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, and welcome to the AntiPolygraph.org message board. I noticed your earlier post (http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/000094.html) to the PolygraphPlace.com message board, and I would have posted a reply there except for that that message board, which is run by polygraphers, is censored, and polygraph critics like myself are not permitted to post messages there. This message board, by contrast, is uncensored. Unlike the good people at PolygraphPlace.com, we don't fear contrary viewpoints.
I agree with the sense of the title of your post, "Honesty is better than deception." In fact, based on what you've written here, it seems our backgrounds are not dissimilar. I suspect that you, too, once subscribed to an honor code not to lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. I don't claim perfection, but I still do my best in my daily life to live up to that commitment. Too often, those who adhere to this code in their youth forget it in their later years.
With that in mind, let's move on to polygraph "testing." You write that you "did a lot of reading about the polygraph prior to taking the FBI poly." I'm not sure just what you read, but if you did your homework, you should be aware that "control" question "test" (CQT) polygraphy (the kind relied upon by the FBI and other federal agencies for polygraph security screening) is theoretically dependent on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving the person being "tested." Polygraph "testing" relies on deception not in a minor ways, but in a fundamental ways. The polygrapher must lie to and deceive the subject from beginning to end. In short, polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. If this comes as news to you, see Chapters 1 & 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml)
Honesty is better than deception. But honesty is a two-way street. The FBI applicant who reports for his polygraph "test" will in each and every case be lied to by his/her FBI polygrapher, regardless of whether he/she decides to be honest with the polygrapher.
You, my friend, were lied to by your FBI polygrapher. He falsely led you to believe that he expected you to answer all questions truthfully. He didn't explain that he secretly expected your answers to the probable-lie "control" questions to be lies (or that you'd at least feel considerable doubt about the truthfulness of your answers, and that he expected that that doubt would create physiological reactions that he could compare to your reactions to the relevant questions), even after all the admissions you made. You see, the FBI (like other agencies) fully expects that every applicant who passes its pre-employment polygraph examination has been less than honest during the polygraph examination! If you have any doubt whatsoever about this, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources referenced there.
In fact, CQT polygraphy is inherently and perversely biased against the most conscientious of applicants, because the more honestly one answers the probable-lie "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail!
This being the case, I submit that it is not unethical for truthful applicants to use polygraph countermeasures to protect themselves against the very real possibility of a false positive outcome.
AntiPolygraph.org exists not to help liars beat the system, but to help protect the innocent against the fraud that is polygraphy.
If you have done your homework, you know damned well that polygraph testing is a pseudoscientific fraud that fundamentally depends on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving each and every examinee. In the case of polygraph security screening, the vast majority of those thus lied to and decieved are honest, law-abiding citizens. You say that honesty is better than deception. Are you, my friend, willing tolerate lies merely because of the rank of those who are telling them? When I swore not to lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do, there was no caveat about the number of stars on the shoulder boards of the liar, cheat, or thief.
George,
Actually the polygrapher did not lie to me during the entire process. There was no stim test, and there were only 3 control questions. He told me up front that the test was not perfect science which is why he did 6 runs. Unlike a lot of people, I've been working with FBI agents, who happen to know the polygrapher, and told me the guy is up front with all applicants.
I had no reason to lie, and therefore did not and didn't need nor want to use your countermeasures.
I would equate using countermeasures to cheating in school. You only do it if you know you can't pass it truthfully.
I also look at it this way...if you lie to the FBI then you are untruthful. Doesn't matter how you look at it, you've lied. If you can lie on the polygraph and feel comfortable about it, then who's to say you won't lie in the future. Would you plant a gun on a guy you just shot (thinking he had a gun), to cover up that you made a mistake to save your hide? You're basically doing the same thing by trying to cheat the polygraph. Trying to save yourself.
I do admit that honest people may in fact be passed over because of the polygraph. I can't say for certain, as I've only had this one. Would I ever want to take a poly again? Hell no!!!
And as for the comment:
AntiPolygraph.org exists not to help liars beat the system, but to help protect the innocent against the fraud that is polygraphy. I think you're fooling yourself if you really believe that. That may be your intention, but I doubt it's really the case.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Feb 27, 2002, 05:07 PM
Duc748,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, and welcome to the AntiPolygraph.org message board. I noticed your earlier post (http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/000094.html) to the PolygraphPlace.com message board, and I would have posted a reply there except for that that message board, which is run by polygraphers, is censored, and polygraph critics like myself are not permitted to post messages there. This message board, by contrast, is uncensored. Unlike the good people at PolygraphPlace.com, we don't fear contrary viewpoints.
I agree with the sense of the title of your post, "Honesty is better than deception." In fact, based on what you've written here, it seems our backgrounds are not dissimilar. I suspect that you, too, once subscribed to an honor code not to lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do. I don't claim perfection, but I still do my best in my daily life to live up to that commitment. Too often, those who adhere to this code in their youth forget it in their later years.
With that in mind, let's move on to polygraph "testing." You write that you "did a lot of reading about the polygraph prior to taking the FBI poly." I'm not sure just what you read, but if you did your homework, you should be aware that "control" question "test" (CQT) polygraphy (the kind relied upon by the FBI and other federal agencies for polygraph security screening) is theoretically dependent on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving the person being "tested." Polygraph "testing" relies on deception not in a minor ways, but in a fundamental ways. The polygrapher must lie to and deceive the subject from beginning to end. In short, polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. If this comes as news to you, see Chapters 1 & 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml)
Honesty is better than deception. But honesty is a two-way street. The FBI applicant who reports for his polygraph "test" will in each and every case be lied to by his/her FBI polygrapher, regardless of whether he/she decides to be honest with the polygrapher.
You, my friend, were lied to by your FBI polygrapher. He falsely led you to believe that he expected you to answer all questions truthfully. He didn't explain that he secretly expected your answers to the probable-lie "control" questions to be lies (or that you'd at least feel considerable doubt about the truthfulness of your answers, and that he expected that that doubt would create physiological reactions that he could compare to your reactions to the relevant questions), even after all the admissions you made. You see, the FBI (like other agencies) fully expects that every applicant who passes its pre-employment polygraph examination has been less than honest during the polygraph examination! If you have any doubt whatsoever about this, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and the sources referenced there.
In fact, CQT polygraphy is inherently and perversely biased against the most conscientious of applicants, because the more honestly one answers the probable-lie "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail!
This being the case, I submit that it is not unethical for truthful applicants to use polygraph countermeasures to protect themselves against the very real possibility of a false positive outcome.
AntiPolygraph.org exists not to help liars beat the system, but to help protect the innocent against the fraud that is polygraphy.
If you have done your homework, you know damned well that polygraph testing is a pseudoscientific fraud that fundamentally depends on the polygrapher lying to and deceiving each and every examinee. In the case of polygraph security screening, the vast majority of those thus lied to and decieved are honest, law-abiding citizens. You say that honesty is better than deception. Are you, my friend, willing tolerate lies merely because of the rank of those who are telling them? When I swore not to lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do, there was no caveat about the number of stars on the shoulder boards of the liar, cheat, or thief.
Duc748,
You wrote:
QuoteActually the polygrapher did not lie to me during the entire process.
Did your polygrapher explain to you what a probable-lie "control" question is, and that he didn't expect your replies to these questions to be honest? If so, he was not following the protocols taught at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, which is responsible for the training of all federal polygraphers. The FBI agents who told you that this polygrapher is "up front with all applicants" are either ignorant or were lying to you. The polygrapher who is "up front with all applicants" is not performing his job to standard, will get no admissions, and won't last long as a polygraph examiner. Again, if you have any doubts about this, read Chapter 3 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and then please tell me whether:
a) you believe anything we've written there regarding polygraph procedure is untrue;
b) you find the kind of institutionized dishonesty that polygraph screening represents to be morally defensible;
c) if you do find this officially-sanctioned fraud acceptable, how long you think the charade can continue?
QuoteI also look at it this way...if you lie to the FBI then you are untruthful.
Again, I remind you that the FBI assumes that every applicant who "passes" the "test" has been less than truthful in his or her responses to the probable-lie "control" questions. This procedure is in-principle designed to pass through people who would lie to the FBI cover up a mistake.
QuoteI do admit that honest people may in fact be passed over because of the polygraph. I can't say for certain, as I've only had this one.
This website was created by people who went in and told the truth on their polygraph examinations and were wrongly branded as liars. Perhaps you won't believe that honest people can fail a polygraph "test" until it happens to you, but you might consider Drew Richardson's 1997 testimony (http://antipolygraph.org/hearings/senate-judiciary-1997/richardson-statement.shtml) before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Until his retirement last year, Dr. Richardson was the FBI's senior scientific expert on polygraphy. He testified that polygraph screening "is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity" and that "because of the nature of this type of examination, it would normally be expected to produce large numbers of false positive results (falsely accusing an examinee of lying about some issue)."
This being the case, it is only prudent for honest people to do what they can to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. You write:
QuoteI would equate using countermeasures to cheating in school. You only do it if you know you can't pass it truthfully.
You make a false analogy. To begin with, a polygraph "test" is not a genuine "test" at all: it has no scientific basis and no validity. Using polygraph countermeasures to protect oneself from the risk of error is not the same as lying with regard to the relevant issues, and there is every reason for the honest but informed examinee to employ them. It is because of the significant risk of a false positive outcome that Professor David T. Lykken concludes at p. 277 of
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed.,
Plenum Trade, 1998):
Quote...if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven countermeasures rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards...
Finally, you wrote:
QuoteAnd as for the comment: AntiPolygraph.org exists not to help liars beat the system, but to help protect the innocent against the fraud that is polygraphy. I think you're fooling yourself if you really believe that. That may be your intention, but I doubt it's really the case.
Your reasoning here is flawed. AntiPolygraph.org indeed exists for the purpose of protecting the innocent from polygraph abuse. That's why we created it. That's why all the information on this website is provided for free. We're under no illusions regarding the fact that the information provided here may also be helpful to liars seeking to beat the system, but that can't be helped, and we make no apology for it.
Duc748
If you can't understand why people like myself--people in situations like mine--are forced to lie within the realm of the testing process, then I would have to conclude that you have poor judgment.
You seem to be MISSING THE POINT that people who were once involved with disqualifying behaviors and activities--but who are now TRULY changed people, and intend nothing but good--have no other choice but to lie and use countermeasures on the polygraph.
Tell me...as a god damned human being, do you really feel that it is fair for a person who did wrong in the past to be ruined as far as aspirations towards a career in law enforcement?
The fact is that a reborn person who has changed for the good will be automatically disqualified if they reveal that they were involved heavily with drugs, or stole something over a certain amount in value (etc).
This aspect of the testing process is simply not fair...I hope you agree. People shouldn't be damned for life.
Do you still feel that a person should just go ahead and tell the truth knowing that they will automatically be disqualified?
Or do you suggest that they shouldn't even bother trying to start a career in law enforcement?
If your answer to either of the above questions is yes, then you, my friend, are a totally irrational and unreasonable person.
You seem to be entirely missing the point that good-hearted people who made mistakes in the past are left with no option other than concealing the truth if they are striving to work for a law enforcement agency.
I'm getting sick of repeating myself to you over and over.
Go buy yourself a heart, go over (for the second time) what I just posted, and understand where I and others like me are coming from.
As for your belief that you weren't lied to during the course of your polygraph examination, you are clearly clueless as to the theory behind the control questions test polygraph exam.
The whole damn test is based on you believing a lie.
Let me put it to you in simple terms:
THE EXAMINER EXPECTS YOU TO BE LYING ON THE CONTROL QUESTIONS. HE OR SHE MAKES YOU BELIEVE THAT CONTROL QUESTIONS ARE SERIOUS ISSUES, WHEN THEY ARE NOTHING MORE THAN WAYS TO GET YOU TO DEFINITELY LIE DURING THE EXAM (TO CREATE A REACTION OF WHAT YOUR BODY IS LIKE WHEN YOU ARE LYING). THE EXAMINER ULTIMATELY TRICKS YOU AND PLAYS GAMES WITH YOU IN ORDER TO SCORE THE RESULTS.
Simply put, if you believe that your examiner didn't lie to you during your exam, then either your test was a figure of your imagination, or you just have no idea of how the test works.
There are no other explanations.
George,
My control questions weren't ones designed for me to lie. They were "known truth" questions. And there were only 3 of them. Do you live in blank state? Is your name so and so? Are you blank years old? The answer was yes to all three.
I can only stress this: the polygrapher was working with me and around my profession. I passed the poly using truth. I've shown it can be done and therefore people need to be aware that being truthful will not damn you, as it has been posted on this site.
Netnin: I responded to your foul language filled private post already. There is no need to discuss anything with you further.
Duc 748,
Like George, I also welcome your decision to join the discussion
.
QuoteThat all being said, can honest people fail the poly? I think that it is possible. However, after going through a 2 hour polygraph, I found it very accurate.
Just because you "passed," it is foolhardy to generalize your own single experience to everyone. The fact remains that the polygraph has not been proven by peer-reviewed scientific studies to be better than chance.
Your argument is analogous to stating that the Ford Pinto was a well designed car because you drove one that got hit in the rear and you lived to tell about it. I'm sure that quite a number of Pintos were hit in the rear and did not explode. Nonetheless, this does not change the fact that a tremendous and disproportionate number of them did. The vehicle was an engineering disaster and responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of innocent people.
The reason you have received such hostile responses from a number of others is because
you have done the equivalent of going to a message board run by families of those who have died a fiery death in poorly engineered Pintos to offer up the argument of I drove a Pinto once and got bumped from behind and I'm still alive. The Pinto is a perfectly safe vehicle."The fact remains that with both the Pinto and polygraph situations, there is irrefutable independent evidence that there was/is a problem. A single anonymous Internet post created by someone who admits to having friends that knew his polygrapher is hardly convincing when weighed against peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Gino,
I was expecting to get flamed. That being said, my point of posting was to also show that honest people can pass the test. If you were like me and have never taken the test before, go onto the internet, then find a site like this that tells people to lie, because honesty will kill you on the poly, blah blah (run on sentence)... it can scare people. They may have nothing to hide, but now they doubt whether they should use these counter-measures.
It's not neccessary to use the counter-measures (IMHO) if you know you have nothing to hide. You can pass the test.
I only brought up the fact that I know agents, who know the polygrapher, because I wanted to find out if the polygrapher was a straight up kind of guy. They say he is, and I believe them.
Unlike Netnin, I'm not here to throw around insults and foul language. I'm throwing in my point of view on the whole process.
Here's what Netnin sent me via instant message:
"You are a totally unreasonable piece of fucking dog shit.
Are you one of those people who has been absolutely and totally brainwashed by society? Be a fucking individual you god damned piece of fucking crap."
As you can see, unfortunately, these are the type of people that can be attracted to your site.
By the way, I actually did read chapters 3 and 4 of your book, just to get a sense of what this site was about. I found it interesting reading. Although polygraphs may not be completely scientific, I think you'll see technology advance and new "polygraphs" will come on line. i.e. pupil dialation.
Duc748,
You wrote:
QuoteMy control questions weren't ones designed for me to lie. They were "known truth" questions. And there were only 3 of them. Do you live in blank state? Is your name so and so? Are you blank years old? The answer was yes to all three.
These "known truth" questions are not control questions. They are irrelevant questions, and are not scored. But by DoDPI doctrine, the polygrapher is to falsely explain the purpose of these questions to the subject. Here is the textbook lie that is to be told to the subject:
QuoteThe final diagnostic questions you may hear are ones you will answer truthfully so that I can see how you are responding when you tell the truth. It will be obvious that you are telling the truth....
Again, these questions are actually not scored at all, as you would know if you had read Chapter 3 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector more carefully.
Now you say that those three irrelevant questions were the only "control" questions your polygrapher used. It is conceivable that he used a Relevant/Irrlevant technique for your "test." But I'm curious. You mentioned that you admitted to cheating on a test in high school. What question brought that up? And how did your polygrapher re-word it after your admission?
Duc748,
I had not intended to spend very much time devoted to responding to this thread, but it has become sufficiently interesting and because a couple of important topics have been raised or alluded to, I now believe it a worthwhile investment to do so. The two topics being "the friendly polygraph exam" and the notion that technology (e.g. your mention of pupil dialation [sic]) will somehow dig polygraphy out of the morass it now wallows in. With regard to the first...
This site now contains material related to a study dealing with the notion of possible racial bias in polygraphy (see home page for a download). This type of bias is but one of several that may affect control question test (CQT) polygraphy. Another would be the bias generated through investigative hypotheses and changes in any such hypothesis (es). We may well have witnessed such in the rather bizarre flip flop(s) and differences of opinions regarding polygraph exam results in the Wen Ho Lee matter. Another type of bias with parallel outcome in a polygraph exam exists because of prior expectations due to familiarity and bureaucratic position. And thus, we arrive at the so-called "friendly polygraph exam." Two types of people are highly unlikely to ever be found deceptive through polygraph exams with the various federal agencies that you listed somewhere early on in this thread. Those two types of exams would involve polygraph examiners polygraphing other polygraph examiners and polygraph examiners polygraphing agency executives. The exception to this would be if either group were under investigation for some matter (again perhaps even leading to the opposite result through the previously mentioned investigative bias). This friendly polygraph result relates to the bias developed from familiarity and collegial trust in the case of fellow polygraph examiners and position and authority (and negative consequences of a false positive result) in the case of executives. Your situation is quite interesting. You apparently are a known quantity through some indirect route to your Bureau examiner, but much more importantly you are a member of some standing (through your past employment) with the intelligence community. With you one of two things could happen with your polygraph exam--you could be found non-deceptive which apparently you were (and I presume are) with the only consequence of a wrong decision to the polygraph examiner is that at some distant point in the future this false negative result would be exposed and the associated damage to the country would be investigated. A somewhat low probability scenario at best...And of course the other substantive possibility is that you could have been found deceptive. In your case as opposed to most applicants (who simply would have been denied employment), a full field espionage investigation would ensue with the obvious consequences/effects to all involved. The consequences of an error with this decision (a false positive) would be immediate and personally catastrophic for the examiner involved. Because of all this I believe two things likely come in to play with you (I am not suggesting for a minute that the result obtained is not the correct one). Because of direct/indirect familiarity with you and because of the threat of most immediate danger (the more immediate consequences of a false positive than a false negative result in your case--all humans are prone to reacting to such influences) there would be some unconscious and unspoken bias leading naturally to the result obtained. This rationale is why I believe it is highly unlikely that a major spy will ever be revealed through a polygraph examination as currently conducted. Again, I have no reason to believe the correct determination was not made in your case---I would just never leave it to a polygraph exam to determine such....
And the second issue you raise....
You suggest that perhaps pupil dilation may lead us out of the desert. Although I would be happy to discuss in detail why I do not believe that to be the case, let me just briefly tell you where I stand on the issue... Neither pupil dilation nor any other new dependent measure (in any organ system whether it be central (brain and CNS) or in the periphery (the types of things which are now and might be measured through conventional polygraphy), nor any data transformation of any or all dependent variables, nor any scoring algorithm applied in connection with computerized data acquisition and analysis will ever make a hill of beans bit of difference in CQT polygraph validity. The reason that I come to this conclusion is that the problem with control question polygraphy does not lie (no pun intended) with the various existing and possible dependent variables but with the independent variable, i.e., the nature and underlying assumptions of the basic test at the time various aspects of physiology are being recorded. In a nut shell, because the assumed and critical relationships between the emotional affect of control and relevant questions is quite unsound, NO and I mean NO new or modified physiological modification or add-on will ever correct the existing shortcomings of control question polygraphy, particularly for the screening application which because of its "fishing expedition" nature has its own additional problems....
Best again and good luck in your new career...
Quote
Now you say that those three irrelevant questions were the only "control" questions your polygrapher used. It is conceivable that he used a Relevant/Irrlevant technique for your "test." But I'm curious. You mentioned that you admitted to cheating on a test in high school. What question brought that up? And how did your polygrapher re-word it after your admission?
George,
I have a feeling that testing may have changed recently in the FBI.
Drew,
I really don't know what to say. Will technology advance to a point where a computer will know you are lying. No one can say for sure, but technology and people are merging closer and closer every day. It may come to a point where a computer will hook into you and know your every thought in say 50 years.
At this point in time however, I think it's known that the polygraph is not 100%, but it is a cog in the wheel of the selection process and just one more hurdle for many to face. I have faced it and passed by it. Many others will do the same. Many will not. That can be good and that can be bad. It's just like life.
Duc748,
You write:
QuoteI have a feeling that testing may have changed recently in the FBI.
That is indeed a possibility, but I think it's more likely that you were treated to a standard probable-lie "control" question "test" and never figured it out. Although you say you've read Chapters 3 & 4 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, the fact that you mistook irrelevant questions for "control" questions suggests to me that you didn't read very carefully.
Let me explain why I asked what question brought about your admission that you had cheated in high school. You see, the most direct question that might bring about such an admission is, "Did you cheat in school?" This is a standard probable-lie control question used by federal agencies in pre-employment polygraph screening. If your polygrapher asked you this question, and then modified it after your admission to something along the lines of, "Other than what you told me, did you ever cheat in school?" or, "Did you ever cheat in college?" the question remained a probable-lie "control" question, and your answer to it would have still been assumed to be less than truthful.
Duc748,
Your experience is a fairly simple one with a fairly simple interpretation. You passed a polygraph exam. Because there existed only two substantive possibilities (pass/fail), had your fate been determined by the flip of a coin, you would have had a 50 percent chance of obtaining the result you know to be true and presumably the result you obtained. Because of the bias and various pressures on examiners that I addressed in my previous posting, I believe your chance of passing was higher than that of other innocent examinees with work circumstances different than your own. Take home message: the significance of your result is a thank your lucky stars and keep your head down message for you, not an object lesson in behavioral modification for others and certainly not one from which any statistical significance can be drawn. With regard to reading minds, there is but One who reads the hearts and minds of men and He does not depend on today's or tomorrow's technology.... Technology is not and will not put us any closer to such....cheers
Duc748
I thought your whole intent by coming on to this message board was to demonstrate just how truthful a person you are.
Now your going to start playing games with me because I beat you in the game of logic?
You know damned well that I didn't waste my time verbally assaulting you outside the board itself...I think I did a fine enough job of that in this chain of posts.
If your intent is to insult me, then you take the time to private message ME, and we can work our differences out.
I ask you to personally apologize to Gino for your false accusations. He believed your faulty claim and took a great deal of time to write out a code of ethics statement to me, via private message.
Act like the truthful person you claim to be and grow up.
Netnin
QuoteLet me explain why I asked what question brought about your admission that you had cheated in high school. You see, the most direct question that might bring about such an admission is, "Did you cheat in school?" This is a standard probable-lie control question used by federal agencies in pre-employment polygraph screening. If your polygrapher asked you this question, and then modified it after your admission to something along the lines of, "Other than what you told me, did you ever cheat in school?" or, "Did you ever cheat in college?" the question remained a probable-lie "control" question, and your answer to it would have still been assumed to be less than truthful.
George,
I guess I don't see the question as a probable-lie question. Besides what I told him in the pre-interview, and after he reworded the question, I passed with only a slight hill. A couple of my questions were reworded, in particular some security questions related to my job. This was for obvious reasons.
Anyway, instead of
"probably-lie", I'd call it
"probable-truth" questions. Maybe they assume people will lie, but I would hope that in most cases people would be truthful. They know that most kids cheat at some point in high-school. This is a "known" fact. Cheating in college is much more severe.
Drew,
"Thank my lucky stars..." I wish I could understand the deep resentment you have in your heart towards the FBI.
Not knowing you personally, you seem to be a very intelligent, articulate person. I've enjoyed the discussions thus far, with you and George and therock. Cheers.
QuoteNow your going to start playing games with me because I beat you in the game of logic?
Beat me in a game of logic? All you did was throw words like fvck around. I will not have discussions with someone that lacks vocabulary to express his feelings.
QuoteYou know damned well that I didn't waste my time verbally assaulting you outside the board itself...I think I did a fine enough job of that in this chain of posts.
So this wasn't you?:
Netnin
Senior User
Posts: 66
(No subject) on: 02/27/02 at 22:22:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are a totally unreasonable piece of fucking dog shit.
Are you one of those people who has been absolutely and totally brainwashed by society? Be a fucking individual you god damned piece of fucking crap. You really are a complete and utter liar. You have just proven that fact to everyone here.
QuoteI ask you to personally apologize to Gino for your false accusations. He believed your faulty claim and took a great deal of time to write out a code of ethics statement to me, via private message.
Gino,
Please tell me how to send personal messages. I see how to respond to them, but not how to create them. Is it also possible to forward private messages sent to me by other members?
And my apologies to you for having to deal with things like this.
Duc748,
What you mistake as resentment for a given agency is in fact great distaste for a practice (polygraph screening) that is utilized by that and other agencies and which is the cause of the victimization of thousands of people. I most assuredly do not resent the FBI, nor even those who practice polygraph screening within it--a group of individuals who are largely well motivated and of honorable intent but nevertheless ignorant of that which they do. I too have enjoyed our chats and will look forward to more in the future...
Duc748,
You write:
QuoteAnyway, instead of "probably-lie", I'd call it "probable-truth" questions.
Respectfully, it is apparent that you are unclear on the concept of probable-lie "control" questions. This is something you really need to grasp before you can make a reasoned judgment regarding the morality of using polygraph countermeasures.
QuoteWhat you mistake as resentment for a given agency is in fact great distaste for a practice (polygraph screening) that is utilized by that and other agencies and which is the cause of the victimization of thousands of people. I most assuredly do not resent the FBI, nor even those who practice polygraph screening within it--a group of individuals who are largely well motivated and of honorable intent but nevertheless ignorant of that which they do. I too have enjoyed our chats and will look forward to more in the future...
Thanks for the clarification Drew. Maybe one day, the practice of poly's will fall by the wayside, or replaced by something better, but until that day, it's part of the process and as such, I support its use. If it ever becomes history, then I will support its disuse. (As I've said, I NEVER want to go through another one. To mentally draining.)
I guess that my mentality has been shaped by the military environment for the last 12 years. Good or bad, I support the decisions made by those agencies for which I work.
Duc748,
Quote...I guess that my mentality has been shaped by the military environment for the last 12 years. Good or bad, I support the decisions made by those agencies for which I work...
If that be the case, let us both be glad you were not employed by the German Gestapo during the time period 1939-1945...
Duc748:
Are you going to claim that you didn't send the following post?
Duc748
New User
Posts: 11
(No Subject) on: 2/28/02 at 13:52:32
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Netnin: You are almost as utterly pathetic as the so- called "men" who are running this site. I find it absolutely entertaining to come see what lousy excuses you liars come up with in each new post that you put out. To listen to an ex- FBI agent and self-proclaimed "military hero" try and rationalize why they are helping criminals and liars pass the polygraph test is almost as entertaining as going to the movies. I seriously doubt the validity of their prior professional positions. Like I said, the only reason one would risk using countermeasures is because they are liars. Only the truly truthful deserve spots in law enforcement. Since you have claimed to have used countermeasures to try and pass a polygraph test, I conclude that you are untruthful and undeserving of any spot on any law enforcement agency. And to respond to your earlier statement: No...I wouldn't want someone like you covering my back.
Duc748
The above is a private message sent from the two-faced Duc to myself on 2/28/02. Some food for thought for those of you who think the Duc is conversing on this board simply for for the sake of an intellectual conversation. Seems to me like he is using us as his pawns in his game of humor.
Peace,
Netnin
Ahhh.... The bonds of institutionalized thinking....
Duc748,
Like Drew, I was also an FBI Agent (for nine years). Seven years into my career, I "failed" a routine national security screening polygraph, which instigated a massive investigation of me which 2 years later ended in a grudging exoneration. You can read a summary of it on this web site, in the Personal Statement section.
Anyway, you seem to take an uncritical attitude toward polygraphs, thinking that as long as the FBI employs them, you should support that policy, since you are an FBI Agent.
You are not seeing the terrible price of using polygraphs. Aldrich Ames "passed" his polygraph, and continued to spy thereafter. Larry Wu Tai Chin "passed" his polygraph, and continued to spy thereafter. Cuban double agents routed the CIA in the 1980's by beating polygraphs.
Had someone in the FBI had the courage to question the polygraph in my particular case, the FBI would not have wasted 2 years, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, and thousands of man-hours on a fishing expedition. All those considerable resources could have been used on real cases. What was the cost of that? We'll never be able to quantify it, but for every wild goose chase the FBI goes on, criminal enterprises benefit because the FBI is diverted on nonsense.
As an agent, would you want to spend 2 years of your career on an investigation which is premised on a polygraph? Before doing so, wouldn't it make sense to determine whether this polygraph is valid before devoting all that time and energy? Unfortunately, the people running my investigation seemed to have an attitude similar to yours, one of uncritical acceptance.
Perhaps you might see that critical thinking is one of the most important qualities of a good investigator.
I wish you good luck in your career.
Mark Mallah
I'm commenting on Duc748's posted message of 2/27. I have a problem with your title, "Honesty is better than deception." I agree with that statement, but not in the context of poly. I gave honesty in my poly. answers, I was accused of "deception." Unlike many others who have posted messages here, I have nothing to hide; I have never done anything seriously bad or illegal in my life. I never visited this site prior to my poly. (I wish I had). I was not worried about it. I thought, "you tell the truth, you pass." I really thought that it worked the other way; ie, you always pass if you tell the truth; but sometimes you may lie and still pass. Little did I know. I was totally honest, before, during and after the test. Now, after reading more on this site, I learned that the test was never properly explained to me. I thought that the fact that the examiner kept asking me the same questions meant that my answers were either inconclusive or deceptive. I think that made me worry, when I should not have. I started thinking and analyzing my answers more and more; and I think that gave wrong impressions/answers. I had 2 tests. The first was inconclusive. When I went to my second test, I explained to the examiner that I had known that I was having problems with my answers during the first test because the examiner continued to ask me the same questions. The second examiner never corrected me or advised me that I may not be asked any other questions (other than those discussed prior to the test). When he followed the same procedure in the second test, I really became nervous because, of course, he too kept asking the same questions we had discussed prior to the test. I was going through the test thinking that I was again either giving inconclusive answers and or the answers recorded were deceptive. I don't understand how you defend the poly. I don't understand how you attack this site. It is this site that explained to me the process (not the examiners). Unfortunately, I went on this site too late. This site is meant to educate people. I bet if you had failed the poly. test, you would have taken a different position. Honesty alone does not work. Believe me, I tried it. My honesty led to my labeling as a deceiving person. I'm honest regardless of what a machine said or an examiner thought. The FBI and other agencies have the means to run a thorough background on any person (at least, I hope they do). They should use those means. After all it is the Department of Justice. Justice must be done to all, including the applicants. The poly. test does not do and did not do justice to many, including me. Please rethink your position and put yourself in the shoes of the many innocent people who have been labeled as liars and in many instances criminals as a result of the poly. test.
I wanted to add something to my earlier message, something about how this site helps many, including me. Having failed a federal agency's poly. is not something you would like to disclose and or discuss with others. It is not an "honor." People automatically assume that if it is a requirement of the feds, then it must be accurate; and if you failed, then you must have done something horrible. Not so. I have not. Whenever I feel down because of my poly. test (and believe me that happens often because noone has ever attacked my honesty and integrity before as it's been done through the poly. test and its inaccurate results), and because I can't talk about it to anybody since it is embarassing (even my husband asked me following the rejection if I had ever done drugs but never talked about it; I could not believe that my own husband of 15 years doubted me for a second because of the poly. test), I go on this site. I read about others who share my experience and feelings. It helps. In fact, it helps a lot.
Quote from: Netnin on Feb 28, 2002, 06:02 PM
Duc748:
Are you going to claim that you didn't send the following post?
Duc748
New User
Posts: 12
(No Subject) on: 2/28/02 at 13:52:32
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Netnin: You are almost as utterly pathetic as the so- called "men" who are running this site. I find it absolutely entertaining to come see what lousy excuses you liars come up with in each new post that you put out. To listen to an ex- FBI agent and self-proclaimed "military hero" try and rationalize why they are helping criminals and liars pass the polygraph test is almost as entertaining as going to the movies. I seriously doubt the validity of their prior professional positions. Like I said, the only reason one would risk using countermeasures is because they are liars. Only the truly truthful deserve spots in law enforcement. Since you have claimed to have used countermeasures to try and pass a polygraph test, I conclude that you are untruthful and undeserving of any spot on any law enforcement agency. And to respond to your earlier statement: No...I wouldn't want someone like you covering my back.
Duc748
The above is a private message sent from the two-faced Duc to myself on 2/28/02. Some food for thought for those of you who think the Duc is conversing on this board simply for for the sake of an intellectual conversation. Seems to me like he is using us as his pawns in his game of humor.
Peace,
Netnin
Netnin,
I find your lack of intelligence truely enlightening. Since you have tried to lie once to the board (Gino in particular) and now again, let me tell you the mistake you just made.
You have attempted to tell people that I sent you that quote from above. However, you neglected to check the number of posts that I have made. Amazingly enough, I have two #12 posts. The one you just made up, and my true post #12 here on this thread which I wrote to Drew at 14:36. Kind of hard to have made a 12th post (according to you) at 13:52. Don't you think?
Your attempt to fake a quote also tells the members on this board how you feel about them. I have had off topic discussions with Drew and Gino and both know that I don't talk like that.
I have no need to converse with you further. As an FBI agent, I think you would have failed based on this.
Quote from: Drew Richardson
that be the case, let us both be glad you were not employed by the German Gestapo during the time period 1939-1945...
/quote]
Come on Drew, you're drawing simplistic analogies here, although I see the humor at my expense. And it is funny... ;>)
Duc748
I think that is the absolutely poorest excuse I have heard from you yet in you attempts to cover up the fact that you have insulted everyone and anyone who frequents this board.
Kind of like the pathological liar who continues to make things up until they are backed up against the wall...and then THEY STILL make things up!
Do you think the masses of intelligent people who frequent this board are going to fall for your illogical defense?
Duc...I expected better than that from you.
QuoteHowever, you neglected to check the number of posts that I have made. Amazingly enough, I have two #12 posts. The one you just made up, and my true post #12 here on this thread which I wrote to Drew at 14:36. Kind of hard to have made a 12th post (according to you) at 13:52. Don't you think?
Do you really believe that the people that read this board are going to overlook the fact that a PRIVATE MESSAGE is not considered a post/not added in to the "total posts" sum? Your 12th post is your 12th post, and your 13th your 13th.
Private messages aren't considered posts, and most who use this site are aware of that. Nice try, but the people who use this site aren't the pathetic people you claim them to be.
Netnin
Quote from: Netnin on Feb 28, 2002, 09:43 PM
Duc748
I think that is the absolutely poorest excuse I have heard from you yet in you attempts to cover up the fact that you have insulted everyone and anyone who frequents this board.
Kind of like the pathological liar who continues to make things up until they are backed up against the wall...and then THEY STILL make things up!
Do you think the masses of intelligent people who frequent this board are going to fall for your illogical defense?
Duc...I expected better than that from you.
Do you really believe that the people that read this board are going to overlook the fact that a PRIVATE MESSAGE is not considered a post/not added in to the "total posts" sum?
Your 12th post is your 12th post, and your 13th your 13th.
Private messages aren't considered posts, and most who use this site are aware of that. Nice try, but the people who use this site aren't the pathetic people you claim them to be.
Netnin
I know I said I wouldn't converse withyou any further, but feel the need to explain so you can understand...
Okay, let me try to explain in simpler terms for you since my last attempt was to complicated.
You say that I wrote something to you via private message bashing people on this board. However, in your attempt to brand me with your lie, you put down that I had 12 posts on this board with a time of 13:52:32. See below and look at the time and # of posts:
QuoteAre you going to claim that you didn't send the following post?
Duc748
New User
Posts: 12
(No Subject) on: 2/28/02 at 13:52:32
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Netnin: You are almost as utterly pathetic as the so- called "men" who are running this site. I find it absolutely entertaining to come see what lousy excuses you liars come up with in each new post that you put out. To listen to an ex- FBI agent and self-proclaimed "military hero" try and rationalize..."
However, my 12th post didn't occur until my message to Drew at time « Reply #27 on: 02/28/02 at 14:36:16 ».
So how, according to you, could I have 12 posts 44 minutes prior to my 12th post. You screwed up and it's hard to defeat hard, cold facts.
You lied, tried to cover it up with another lie, but you've been caught and everyone here sees it. Stop the lying and just leave. You have a problem.
Quote
Like Drew, I was also an FBI Agent (for nine years). Seven years into my career, I "failed" a routine national security screening polygraph, which instigated a massive investigation of me which 2 years later ended in a grudging exoneration.
Mark,
As I don't know you, I really don't know what to say. I think polygraphs for "pre-screening" applicants is one thing, and polygraphs for individuals with many years of experience is another. Typically, pre-screening polygraphs are for individuals like myself. People that have never had a polygraph before and attempting to join an LE organization. We have no experience with the federal LE agencies. I think the poygraph has a place for individuals like myself in helping to "weed-out" certain individuals. I'm not going to go into the politics of possible racism or anything of the such, as I can't discuss issues like that with any knowledge.
I can only talk about "my" experience with the system. As time goes on, I'm sure I'll learn more, but for now I can only go on what I know. I believe that the honest will pass the poly and those like Netnin will fail.
Your troubles sound familiar to those of CDR. Dick Marcinko, founder of Seal Team 6 and Red Cell. Investigated for many years by the government, but nothing was ever found on him. They created charges of theft (at least that's his side of the story) of a case of grenades and sent him to a federal pen for a couple of years.
Fightback,
I can empathize with you and glad you have found other people to help you cope with your situation. I think this site has a positive side to go along with the "potential" negative side.
You and everyone here knows that the knowledge gained from the book advertised will be used by individuals who should not be in federal LE positions. These are the people that have done illegal things in the past and are attempting to deceive the government.
I too was very nervous when taking my poly. That's normal. However, a polygrapher is supposed to "dial out" that nervousness. The polygrapher showed me all 6 of my paper tests and I could clearly see my heart rate/breathing/sweat lines on the paper. As the tests moved on, my lines became smoother and smoother, as I calmed and relaxed.
I'm sorry for your poly experience. My only intent with this thread is to show that honest people can pass the poly and that I feel you should not use countermeasures if you truely have nothing to hide.
This doesn't mean I'm calling anyone a liar. It's just my point of view. Nothing more and nothing less.
Duc748,
Earlier today I was somewhat upset at the fact that Netnin claimed you sent him an inappropiate mail regarding the administrators and users of this site, but upon closer scrutiny
one can see you have been falsely accused.
The #12 Post and all that makes sense as your defense, but the thing that jumped at me was the fact that in your supposed instant message, you signed your name at the end "Duc748". But in your style of writing you have never signed any of your posts with your name at the end. Netnin on the the other hand does....
This looks like an open and shut case.
Live long and prosper
Liar-Liar,
Yes, some people really do lie, then attempt to cover it up, only to be caught in another lie.
Maybe we can ask Netnin to submit to a polygraph on this? ;>) I think we would all see what a polygraph is supposed to look like with him.
Is it me, or is this the hottest topic going?
DUC 748
I too believe in being honest all the times.
I have some questions that I wish you to answer truthfully:
1. How did you hear of this site?
2. Did anyone direct you to this site? If so, who?
3. Why would a new hire, who just passed a polygraph, come on this site and extol the virtues of the polygraph when you know nothing of the operation of the machine or it's operators? It seems to me you should be preparing for your new job instead of spending so much time defending the polygraph.
4. Is your new job a polygrapher for the Feds?
5. Will you answer every question truthfully?
Personal statement: My hobby has been exposing government corruption at city, county, state and federal levels. In my retirement years I find a lot time to work on this. I exposed lies and corruption in the polygraph industry, private employment sector, in the late 1970's. My daughter took an employment polygraph and one of the questions was "have you ever used drugs? She answered yes. (she smoked pot 3 or 4 times before I caughter her and was deathly afraid to do it again) The polygrapher flunked her and labeled her a liar. The company hired her because she was truthful and NEVER used a polygraph again. BTW, she made them an excellent employee.
TRUTHFULLY your posts sounds exactly like a ploygrapher (or wannabe) attempting to discredit this site and those who use countermeasures to protect themselves. There is too much scientific evidence against this machine and operators for people like you to succeed.
Quote1. How did you hear of this site?
I typed in polygraph on yahoo prior to my polygraph. This and the polygraphpalace were two sites that came up.
Quote2. Did anyone direct you to this site? If so, who?
As I said, I typed in polygraph on yahoo. No one directed me to the site.
Quote3. Why would a new hire, who just passed a polygraph, come on this site and extol the virtues of the polygraph when you know nothing of the operation of the machine or it's operators? It seems to me you should be preparing for your new job instead of spending so much time defending the polygraph.
I am expressing my point of view on the process. Should I be censored for this? There maybe some individuals who are getting ready for the polygraph, that get on the internet, come across this site, then become terrified of the polygraph. I want those people to realize that you can pass the polygraph and that countermeasures don't need to be used.
Quote4. Is your new job a polygrapher for the Feds?
No. Nor do I want such a position. To boring in my point of view.
My poly was just passed and now it's a matter of waiting on the background investigation before I get my class date. I've had 2 SSBI's in the past already, for my current clearance, so this is pretty mucha non-issue to me.
Quote5. Will you answer every question truthfully?
I just did.
QuoteTRUTHFULLY your posts sounds exactly like a ploygrapher (or wannabe) attempting to discredit this site and those who use countermeasures to protect themselves.
Sorry. I'm not here to discredit the site. Knowledge is a good thing and I find this site interesting, personal points of view aside.
You won't find any gov't conspiracy here.
Duc...
You would make an outstanding Lawyer...
You have a great way of totally misleading people.
Did anyone who has taken Duc's side even bother to take the time to look at the private message Duc had sent me (that I copied and pasted onto the board)...?
Liar-Liar stated,
QuoteThe #12 Post and all that makes sense as your defense...
Did Liar-Liar even bother to read my post???
QuoteDuc748
New User
Posts: 11
(No Subject) on: 2/28/02 at 13:52:32
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Netnin: You are almost as utterly pathetic as the so- called "men" who are running this site. I find it absolutely entertaining to come see what lousy excuses you liars come up with in each new post that you put out. To listen to an ex- FBI agent and self-proclaimed "military hero" try and rationalize why they are helping criminals and liars pass the polygraph test is almost as entertaining as going to the movies. I seriously doubt the validity of their prior professional positions. Like I said, the only reason one would risk using countermeasures is because they are liars. Only the truly truthful deserve spots in law enforcement. Since you have claimed to have used countermeasures to try and pass a polygraph test, I conclude that you are untruthful and undeserving of any spot on any law enforcement agency. And to respond to your earlier statement: No...I wouldn't want someone like you covering my back.
Duc748
You all seem to have missed the fact that Duc changed his 11 to a 12 when he copied and quoted my(his private message to me) post (Duc copying and editing my post):
QuoteDuc748:
Are you going to claim that you didn't send the following post?
Duc748
New User
Posts: 12
(No Subject) on: 2/28/02 at 13:52:32
I'll have to admit I totally missed what you were trying to pull off...I wasn't even concerned about the numbers (or looking at them for that matter):
QuoteDuc748
I think that is the absolutely poorest excuse I have heard from you yet in you attempts to cover up the fact that you have insulted everyone and anyone who frequents this board.
Kind of like the pathological liar who continues to make things up until they are backed up against the wall...and then THEY STILL make things up!
Do you think the masses of intelligent people who frequent this board are going to fall for your illogical defense?
Duc...I expected better than that from you.
Quote:However, you neglected to check the number of posts that I have made. Amazingly enough, I have two #12 posts. The one you just made up, and my true post #12 here on this thread which I wrote to Drew at 14:36. Kind of hard to have made a 12th post (according to you) at 13:52. Don't you think?
Do you really believe that the people that read this board are going to overlook the fact that a PRIVATE MESSAGE is not considered a post/not added in to the "total posts" sum?
Your 12th post is your 12th post, and your 13th your 13th.
Private messages aren't considered posts, and most who use this site are aware of that. Nice try, but the people who use this site aren't the pathetic people you claim them to be.
Netnin
What I thought you were trying to say was that your private message to me counted as a post--when in actuality you were trying to turn this whole thing around on me.I haven't given you enough credit Duc...you are much more sneaky than I thought. The FBI will undoubtedly benefit from your employment. You just better hope your boss isn't like me...if they are you better not try and pull anything over them, because you will DEFINITELY get caught.
Netnin,
You really need help.
What's wrong Ducster? Run out of defenses?
You know you really quack me up. :D
(yeah you're right...this is the hottest damn chain of posts on the boards!)
;)
While it is AntiPolygraph.org's policy to not to censor posts to this message board, the need has arisen to set the record straight.
In a message to this thread dated 28 February 2002 at 15:02 hrs and last modified at 2203 hrs, registered user Netnin posted what purports to be the text of a private message dated 28 February 2002 at 13:52:32 from registered user Duc748.
Because of the derogatory nature of Netnin's claim, and the unprecedented controversy that has ensued, we have taken the unprecedented step of referring to the website's access log file to verify the truth of the matter, which is that no private message was posted to the message board at 13:52:32 hours on 28 February 2002, or within the ten minutes before and after.
Netnin, to send a profane private message and then falsely deny it reflects poorly on one's judgment and credibility, but to fabricate defamatory words and falsely attribute them to others is downright slanderous. Such behavior is unwelcome here. Please cease and desist.
Thank you Administrator. Appreciate the help.
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Duc, and to all those who I have misled. I am simply a sicko who thrives in the light of controversy.
Upon recognition of Duc748's strong character, competitive nature, and strong will, I found him to be an easy target for a posted verbal war...something I tend to get off on.
But let us not forget Duc's first post that started this chain--a cocky post that expressed the power-trip he is experiencing now that he is in with the Feds. Hell...the guy came in here shooting his mouth off like a cannon in the 100-years war.
And please...I ask that no one take the time to prove or disprove whether or not cannons were used during the 100-years war...it was a lousy attempt at a joke. (By the way...how long did the 100-year war last?)
But, as I said, the Duc has strong character and a strong will. He took criticism well, and took part in extensive dialogue to help further understand the fraud behind the polygraph. (Though I find that he still seems to fall into the "institutionalized thinking" catagory, as Taz had suggested.)
I must say though, I did a pretty good job of deceiving people. My ability to falsify a private message with great precision, create a nearly full-proof defense for every mistake I made (note: the mistake I made by not looking at the time of the posts), and dramatically turn the tables on Duc shows that I have a truly MAD mind.
The fact that the administrators had to clarify the situation by checking the post log is proof enough of my effective ability to create and modify lies into solid defenses.
I bid peace to all, and to all a good morning, noon, and night!
Netninio the Sickio
(Ahhh...the beauty of the anonymity of the internet!)
Duc,
I am worry what will become of your faith when you eventually fail a polygraph. Just telling the truth, regardless of how much you believe that, will not guarantee that you will "pass."
If it is any indication, I told the complete truth on two seperate "tests", one I was labeled a liar and druggie, the other, I "passed" with flying colors. This should raise your eyebrows regarding the accuracy of this "test." If it doesn't, then perhaps you ARE just the sort of agent the feds are looking for.
Good luck in your career.
Eyes Wide Open...
Trust me...he is exactly what the Feds are looking for.
Totally loyal to authority, accepting their words as a devout Christian might accept the word of God.
I'm not going to suggest that something will go wrong, but could you imagine if Duc's polygraph results show deception some day down the road...even though he knew that he told the truth?
I could just see him now...after years of total loyalty and dedication, he would run up to his boss and say, "But you guys aren't going to believe those results are you? You've watched me grow into a dedicated, loyal, and professional agent. Surely you will give me another chance to prove my innocence....to show something went wrong during the test...?"
And then the dark cold reality will set in....
His boss's look that always was so accepting and warm and kind will turn to a cold and unaccepting stare...a stare like he has been betrayed.
Years of creating a life solely dedicated and based around
a career in the FBI right
down
t
h
e
d
r
a
i
n.
...All because of a machine thought up by the creator of a comic strip. Humorous? I think not.
Quote
Duc,
I am worried what will become of your faith when you eventually fail a polygraph. Just telling the truth, regardless of how much you believe that, will not guarantee that you will "pass."
And who says I have faith in the polygraph? All I'm saying here is that I told the truth and passed my poly. I'm also saying that
I would avoid the use of countermeasures, for it, too, will not garauntee you pass the poly. I do believe the being truthful is far better than being dishonest. Call it a fault of mine if you'd like. And by the way, I never plan to take a poly again. I've been in the intelligence field for too long now, and I don't ever want to deal with this field again, ergo nullifying my need to take another one.
QuoteIf it is any indication, I told the complete truth on two seperate "tests", one I was labeled a liar and druggie, the other, I "passed" with flying colors. This should raise your eyebrows regarding the accuracy of this "test." If it doesn't, then perhaps you ARE just the sort of agent the feds are looking for.
Good luck in your career.
The polygraph is not a "test", and no one, not even polygraphers, will say it's 100% accurate. This is why I was given 6 different runs on my poly.
As for your comments directed towards the FBI, I take it they are the ones that failed you. It seems that a lot of people on this board have their anger directed towards this one agency. That's unfortunate, but I hope that you have gotten into the field you were looking for and are doing well. Cheers.
Duc748,
You wrote:
QuoteThe polygraph is not a "test", and no one, not even polygraphers, will say it's 100% accurate.
Agreed. But federal polygraphers will falsely claim to subjects that it's, say, 98% accurate.
George,
My polygrapher didn't give me a percentage, but he did say it's not an exact science. I think the idea is to take several samples and note the question(s) that continue to present problems. If that one or two questions continue to spike, say after 6 runs, then it's safe to assume the subject hs issues with that question. At least that's how it looked to me and that makes sense. I mean if a guy shows no spikes on every question but one or two, that tells me deception is being shown.
Okay, before anyone flames me on what I just said, that's my take on what the process "looks" like in my view. I may very well be wrong and if so, please tell me.
Duc748,
You're wrong, as you predicted you might be. A person might show a physiological response to a question for any number of reasons, none of which necessarily have anything to do with deception, such as embarrassment, anger, and importantly, fear of the consequences of not being believed. As David Lykken has explained, any physiological response that you might show when telling a lie, you might exhibit another time, when you are telling the truth.
Duc748,
Although I have been occupied over the last couple of days and during numerous successive posts to this thread, I would like to return to what I believe was your last reply to me. You suggested a statement that I had made was simplistic as an analogy, but humorous in content. Actually I intended neither. I simply stated that which I believed to be factual, your preceeding and quoted statement having been taken at face value. But with regard to analogies that might be made...I would agree with an assessment that the victimization of thousand's of polygraph screening victims is qualitatively and quantitatively different than the extermination of six million Jews in Eastern Europe during World War II. If one were to draw an analogy it would not be from that comparison, but in the responsibility that you as a future FBI agent share with a German Gestapo agent of the past. You both clearly and equally share the responsibility to evaluate critically the activities of your respective bureaucracies and to boldly oppose unethical and invalid practices that lead to victimization. Willful ignorance on either of your parts is totally unacceptable. Looking the other way out of personal or bureaucratic loyalties will just not do. And there the possible parallel and or analogy might lie...
The FBI Oath:
I, [insert name here], do solemnly swear to support, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to obey the lawful orders and directives of those appointed before and above me, and that I enter into this office without any mental reservation whatsoever, so help me GOD.
Quote
The FBI Oath:
I, [insert name here], do solemnly swear to support, uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to obey the lawful orders and directives of those appointed before and above me, and that I enter into this office without any mental reservation whatsoever, so help me GOD.
beech trees, here's what we say in the military and those appointed to congress, senate and office of the President. We have one portion that should be added to the FBI (in bold)...
'I "name", do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely; without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.'
I've taken this oath several times at each promotion in the military.
Quote from: Duc748 on Mar 03, 2002, 07:22 PMbeech trees, here's what we say in the military and those appointed to congress, senate and office of the President. We have one portion that should be added to the FBI (in bold)...
'I "name", do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely; without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.'
I'm not certain if this is supposed to be a devastating riposte or not. It would appear you're making sly reference to my using countermeasures during my polygraph exam, and how the oath above would make a person hypocritical and a liar by doing same.
Unfortunately, the 'purpose of evasion' part means that one is not enlisting for the purposes of fleeing prosecution or as the result of being blackmailed.
I find it kind of funny that the INS requires those being naturalized to say:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
And those being commissioned to the armed forces and those taking office say it, yet the FBI does not.
and beech trees, upon reading it further, it does sound as though I was taking a jab, but that wasn't my intent. I simply find it ironic that several oaths include this phrase, but for some reason the FBI does not. You actually brought that to my attention with your post.
Quote I too was very nervous when taking my poly. That's normal. However, a
polygrapher is supposed to "dial out" that nervousness. The polygrapher showed
me all 6 of my paper tests and I could clearly see my heart
rate/breathing/sweat lines on the paper. As the tests moved on, my lines
became smoother and smoother, as I calmed and relaxed.
Duc748,
I have been reviewing this topic with great interest for a while and caught this quote the second time through. I have been victimized by polygraph and didn't know it until I discovered this site.
For myself this site gave me some valuable insight to how I was "duped" into believing that telling the truth and as you say "Be a Man" really didn't matter because the polygrapher does what he wants.
I would like to direct you to your quote above. If the FBI gave you a paper trace polygraph versus a computer oriented one, and you say you have security clearance? That raises a huge red flag. The largest most modern crime fighting organization in the world still resorting to antiquated technology to test for "deception". I suppose that a "senior" polygrapher performed the test as well. If I could see and watch the needles move, I would relax as well just from the fascination of the golden age technology.
Now I know why Ed Curran wanted someone with 20 years "experience" doing his "test".
I await your response Sir. Your opinion and vigorous defense of the same are good reading
Fred F. ;)
Fred,
QuoteFor myself this site gave me some valuable insight to how I was "duped" into believing that telling the truth and as you say Be a Man really didn't matter because the polygrapher does what he wants.
Does what he wants?
QuoteIf the FBI gave you a paper trace polygraph versus a computer oriented one, and you say you have security clearance? That raises a huge red flag.
Why does this raise a red flag? Apparently, some places haven't updated their equipment. I didn't even know there was such a thing as computerized polygraphs until mentioned on this board. And what does my security clearance have to do with a paper polygraph?
QuoteThe largest most modern crime fighting organization in the world still resorting to antiquated technology to test for "deception". I suppose that a "senior" polygrapher performed the test as well. If I could see and watch the needles move, I would relax as well just from the fascination of the golden age technology.
I couldn't see the polygraph. I was facing a white wall, but could vaguely hear the needles moving over the paper. And was he a "senior" polygrapher? I don't know? He said he'd been in for 20 years, but how long of that time he did poly's, I couldn't tell you. He didn't tell me.
QuoteI await your response Sir. Your opinion and vigorous defense of the same are good reading.
Am I defending the polygraph here? Or am I saying that honesty is better than disception?
I'm only posting here for one reason. To tell people that visit your site that countermeasures aren't neccessary. I'm not saying I have vast experience with this subject, because I don't. But I am saying, that I am one person, that took a poly, told the truth, and passed. I didn't use any c/m's.
I realize that the majority of the people that visit this site have failed a poly. I would say that the majority of them deserved to.
Not all, but the majority. This is just my personal opinion after reading a lot of the posts. However, there are people out there, that have nothing to hide, that may come to this site and change their mind and use c/m's because of this site. (run on sentence, I know) Then they fail, because they did use c/m's. What do you tell these people? "Oh well, you chose to do so."
I'm just giving those that come to this site another point of view. I don't think that's a bad thing, and I don't think Drew, George or Gino would argue with me on that. I believe that different points of view spark good discussions and bring life to a thread.
I hope I have answered some of your questions Fred, and if you could, please answer mine. I'm curious about the security clearance and use of an old polygraph in particular. Cheers.
Duc748,
QuoteDoes what he wants?
The basic premise of the polygrapher's success is to promote an environment of fear. If the polygrapher isn't successful he can resort to other "measures" such as the post-poly interrogation, badgering, or since the examinee has signed a release of liability, the polygrapher has
carte blanche to manipulate the outcome since they are not accountable for it. For example, if you anger the polygrapher, he can claim you are "deceptive", their peers will support it and you have failed when you actually may have "passed". Of course, this is my opinion, I was truthful, and still was "deceptive"
QuoteIf the FBI gave you a paper trace polygraph versus a computer oriented one, and you say you have security clearance? That raises a huge red flag.
Sir, Like I stated in the other post, The FBI is the largest and most modern (or so I thought) crime fighting organization in the world. Paper trace polygraphy is akin to tube radio and television versus the modern curcuitry of todays audio-visual equipment. You cannot get the same accuracy(or lack of) from antiquated technology than from modern technology. You would think that when National security is on the line you want the best technology available to determine fitness for this clearance. I am not saying that you are not deserving of your clearance, but I am appalled at the way it is determined, thus the red flag.
Finally, I am not and will not attack you for your position. Your point of view is welcomed and as you have seen, has sparked some spirited debate. That is what this website is all about.
I hope I answered your questions satisfactorily
Fred F. ;)
Fred,
Although I do not have time for a long explanation, I will briefly address one of your comments from your last post. You referred to antiquated polygraph and its abilities or lack there of. I assume you were referring to the analog polygraph instrument. Contrary to your beliefs, the analog instrument produces as good if not better physiological tracings in some of the components. There are pros and cons to both instruments.
Fred,
I currently hold a TS/SCI clearance with my current job. Once I go in the FBI my clearance will be downgraded to what I'm assuming will be Secret.
Just to let you know...every officer in the military holds a Secret clearance. No polygraph or questionaire, just carte blanc (sic?) clearance to all.
So it's not a big surprise that a clearance would be given to FBI agents. And besides it's not the clearance that counts...it's the need to know.
You could have a secret clearance, but never see secret material, simply because you don't have that need to know.
Cheers.
Quote from: J.B. on Mar 07, 2002, 02:05 AM
I assume you were referring to the analog polygraph instrument. Contrary to your beliefs, the analog instrument produces as good if not better physiological tracings in some of the components. There are pros and cons to both instruments.
J.B.
I cannot concur with your analogy. I have worked in the medical field for many years and have seen the impact of digital technology on medical care. Granted that mercury/analog gauged sphygmomanometer can still deliver a measurement that is reliable for screening and routine tests. When dealing with more critically ill patients that require precise monitoring of body functions, you seldom see analog equipment used. Most of EKG and EEG testing uses digital measurement for precision.
Can it be possible that polygraphy doesn't require precision measurement to be accurate? Is it also possible that the margin of error polygraphic testing is very broad?
I read you and Dr. Richardson discussing variance, How much variance is excusable?
Fred F. ;)
Fred,
So does technology = better? Have you used Windows XP yet?
However, if the computer and the analog poly both use the same sensors to measure bodily functions, why would the computer be any more accurate?
And the reason why the HQ I went to didn't have electronic poly's, is because they haven't been budgeted for them yet.
Quote from: Duc748 on Mar 09, 2002, 01:14 PM
Fred,
So does technology = better? Have you used Windows XP yet?
Duc748,
I run XP now, I have no problems to report because XP is similiar to NT and thats what OS we run at the job. I do object to having my usage patterns downloaded to Microsoft every day.
The computer may be able to detect smaller nuances in patterns than an analog machine. That is my opinion and it may be wrong as well. Just a thought.
You also made a comment in another post comparing physicians and polygraphers making mistakes and not acheiving 100% accuarcy. Bear in mind that physicians spend 12 years from college to medical school to post graduate internships, residency, and fellowships. A polygrapher is trained in 8-10 weeks, and may or may not be college educated. A physician has to pass state boards to become licensed and also test to become board certified in their chosen specialty. Polygraphers don't have malpratice insurance because before every test they do, they have the examinee sign a
RELEASE OF LIABILITY to release them from being responsible for the outcome of the test.
Can you imagine having your personal physician requesting that you sign a release of liability before he examines you, performs surgical procedures, and interprets laboratory and other tests? that is a frightening scenario.
Bottom Line, you can't compare a physician and a polygrapher, there is none
Fred F. ;)
Fred,
Both the computer and analog polygraph use the same measurement devices. The computer digitizes the mechanical movements. Although a computer may measure and calculate for a greater number of inputs/outputs with less cumbersome equipment, there usually is physical data loss within the digitizing process of a mechanical movement. This loss of data is so minute that it does not effect the end product.
You asked about acceptable variances. An acceptable variance is based on a subjective criterion that is related to the obtained accuracy of a given method. If a variance exists but shows minimal adverse results in the overall accuracy, the variance may be considered acceptable. However, a variance that forgoes or eliminates a process in the confirmation and validation process of the method would most likely render the process invalid.
Quote from: J.B. on Mar 12, 2002, 02:08 PM
An acceptable variance is based on a subjective criterion that is related to the obtained accuracy of a given method. If a variance exists but shows minimal adverse results in the overall accuracy, the variance may be considered acceptable. However, a variance that forgoes or eliminates a process in the confirmation and validation process of the method would most likely render the process invalid.
JB,
With the above quote in mind, what are acceptable variances to the polygraph process? Also what is the possibility that the variance can produce a negative effect on the results or alter the validity of the process?
Thanks
Fred F. ;)
This entire thread only supports the total lack of critical thinking that makes the FBI the inept agency that it is (and the type of people that it employs). I submit that duc748 is the typical non-thinker that makes it so. I enjoy the contradictions that are pointed out by others, and i find it beyond belief that Duc748 bases his facts on his one experience.
John_F
I couldn't say it any better than that!
I'm starting to doubt the validity of Duc's claims.
Like others have pointed out, there is the plausible chance that the Duc is a total fraud. His intent might solely be to scare people off from using effective countermeasures.
Hell...I could claim I'm a 30 year veteran of the FBI for that matter!
But, getting back to your point John...your statement is a good one (assuming this narrow-minded airhead is truly preparing for a career in the FBI).
It is the narrow-tracked mind that has helped deteriorate the effectiveness of the FBI.
When Duc first entered this board and posted his first message, he didn't take the time to consider any other people's life experiences but HIS OWN.
Like a popular fast-food commercial suggests, "THINK OUTSIDE THE BUN!"
George, et al.
I don't understand why a person with no experience taking polygraphs thinks that they will be successful in "fooling" the polygrapher, who is trained and does this eveyday for their living.
I can understand (trying to) employing countermeasures if you have been polygraphed and have failed. At that point, you have nothing to lose by employing coutermeasures. But what if you incorrectly employed countermeasures and got caught? At least if you are honest ( with no countermeasures).. you know the result is a bi-product of the machine/polygrapher.. not you. If you employ countermeasures and fail.. then all you can "blame" is yourself.
I personally do not believe in the polygraph and wish it was not part of the process.
dispatchgal,
You wrote:
QuoteI don't understand why a person with no experience taking polygraphs thinks that they will be successful in "fooling" the polygrapher, who is trained and does this eveyday for their living.
There is no reason to believe that polygraphers can detect the kinds of countermeasures described in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better than chance levels of accuracy. Peer-reviewed research suggests that even experienced polygraphers can't.
QuoteI can understand (trying to) employing countermeasures if you have been polygraphed and have failed. At that point, you have nothing to lose by employing coutermeasures. But what if you incorrectly employed countermeasures and got caught? At least if you are honest ( with no countermeasures).. you know the result is a bi-product of the machine/ polygrapher.. not you. If you employ countermeasures and fail.. then all you can "blame" is yourself.
The risk of a false positive outcome can be quite significant. For example, in the FBI, about 20% of applicants who make it as far as receiving tentative job offers are disqualified as a result of their polygraph chart readings. In the Los Angeles Police Department, the polygraph disqualification rate is at or above 50%. But "Control" Question "Test" (CQT) polygraphy has not been proven to work better than chance by peer reviewed research. As readers of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector know, far from being a genuine test grounded in the scientific method, CQT polygraphy is a
pseudoscientific fraud that is completely bereft of any diagnostic value whatsoever.
Faced with such risks, the truthful applicant might be well-advised to employ countermeasures to protect him- or herself against a false positive outcome. Again, there is no published evidence that actual countermeasure use has any correlation with increased risk of failure and/or an accusation of countermeasure use from the polygrapher.
QuoteI personally do not believe in the polygraph and wish it was not part of the process.
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Quote from: dispatchgal on Mar 19, 2002, 04:10 PM
George, et al.
I don't understand why a person with no experience taking polygraphs thinks that they will be successful in "fooling" the polygrapher, who is trained and does this eveyday for their living.
Ms. Dispatchgal,
While I cannot speak to everyone's experiences, I successfully employed countermeasures, and my polygrapher does little else *except* polygraph people all day long. In fact, he has decades of experience. Having read of others' experiences and having spoken to many others who have successfully employed countermeasures, I think perhaps you're labouring under false impressions if you think the countermeasures described in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) are easily detected, if at all.
QuoteI can understand (trying to) employing countermeasures if you have been polygraphed and have failed. At that point, you have nothing to lose by employing coutermeasures. But what if you incorrectly employed countermeasures and got caught? At least if you are honest ( with no countermeasures).. you know the result is a bi-product of the machine/polygrapher.. not you. If you employ countermeasures and fail.. then all you can "blame" is yourself.
I have yet to read one posting on this website from a person who employed the countermeasures discussed in The Lie Behind The Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) and have then been failed, either from a Deception Indicated score or because the polygrapher concluded countermeasures were used. Indeed, even very crude countermeasures (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=320.msg1458#msg1458) have worked.
QuoteI personally do not believe in the polygraph and wish it was not part of the process.
Ditto that.
Although I have been monitoring this post over the past few weeks, I haven't had the pleasure (due to other obligations) of adding my two cents to this topic until today.
First, with regard to whether or not honesty is better than deception I would say that honesty (in almost every case) is better. However, with that being said, I don't think it inconsistent to advocate the use of, or to actually use, countermeasures. As Dr. Richardson pointed out: "The use of countermeasures by an innocent polygraph examinee has nothing to do per se with either honesty or deception." An innocent examinee employing countermeasures is simply making sure the correct outcome (non-deception indicated) is reached.
In 1997, the venerable FBI had this to say about the polygraph "technique" in an affidavit (USA v. ENS Patrick J. Jacobson, USN) signed by, James K. Murphy, Chief of the FBI Laboratory's Polygraph Unit:
"...the polygraph technique has not reached a level of acceptability within the relevant scientific community, [and] scientific research has not been able to establish the true validity of polygraph testing in criminal applications..."
This should give polygraph proponents and non-independent thinkers (sorry, Duc748) food for thought. To those true believers: Don't you find the FBI's polygraph policies inconsistent? On one hand, they are the gospel truth when it comes to screening prospective employees, on the other, well, you can read it again for yourself.
To Duc748, I would say:
You should be very happy that you passed your polygraph. However, please keep in mind that many honest Law Enforcement applicants have been falsely branded as liars. (I would suspect that this means little to you though.) Your many posts have been both entertaining and mortifying in that your blind allegiance to "the process" has totally clouded both your judgment and objectivity. This is truly scary given the position you will ultimately hold.
There was a time when I was as naïve as you seem to be now. Given that, I often wonder what my feelings on the polygraph would be had I passed my first "test." I may have very well taken the position you hold, but now know from first hand experience that honesty does not guarantee a favorable outcome. Additionally, I know from my second test that countermeasures do in fact work.
The fact that "Good or bad [you] support the decisions made by those agencies for which [you] work" scares me as well. Like you, I am a military officer (that is, I assume you are), but unlike you, I believe in loyal dissent. As former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Krulak, noted in a speech regarding integrity and moral courage, you have be willing to tell the emperor he has no clothes. You would do well to remember that.
V/r
AMM
WOW enjoyed your response....I'm glad we heve and have had persons such as yourself in the armed forces....it makes me feel safer...
I am currently in the FBI specail agent selection process. I was wondering what happens on a polygraph if you don't know the answer to the question?
The polygrapher will review all questions with you during the "pre-test" phase. Not knowing the answer to a question can be a problem in some instances. For example, one FBI polygrapher has suggested that the applicant who admits to having smoked marijuana in the past but who cannot remember the exact number of times that he smoked it is "going to fail."
However, with regard to the probable-lie "control" questions, the polygrapher will secretly want there to be some doubt in your mind as to the complete truthfulness of your answers even as he tries to steer you into a sweeping denial.
For further reading on what to expect during your polygraph interrogation, see Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml).
DUC - So nice to see there are still honest, upfront applicants for LEO positions out there. I took my Federal exam quite some years ago, and was also totally honest, and passed a "probable lie" exam. I also told my examiner about the mistakes I had made (cheated on a test, lied to a boss) and passed the exam. Why? Because I was telling the truth!! Polygraph does work, and like everything else in life, it's not perfect. What I say to those who profess that they have done "bad" things & now changed their lives, that's great, but it doesn't make you suitable for law enforcement. Stop pining over something you simply don't deserve, & move on! Also, couldn't agree with you more on the point that if these people will go to these attempts to get something they think they were born entitled to, what else will they do that's unethical?? Makes you wonder, huh?
MSP,
You state:
[bold]...Stop pining over something you simply don't deserve, & move on...[/bold]
You are clearly as arrogant and foolish as DUC was naive and mindlessly loyal to bureaucratic doctrine, and, no, there are legions of people on this site (false positives) who will testify that polygraph doesn't work. A brief recounting of the who's who of major spies who've beat the polygraph exam will supply a convincing statement of polygraph screening's lack of merit (quite apart from the damage to individuals that it has caused). The dribble you offer with regard to polygraph being imperfect as all other things are imperfect is simply meaningless. Although there do exist shortcomings with all of man's endeavors, that phenomenon hardly leads one down a path to logically conclude that all endeavors are equally imperfect. Relatively speaking, polygraph screening is near the bottom of the barrel.
Quote from: MSP on Jun 22, 2002, 01:21 AMI took my Federal exam quite some years ago, and was also totally honest, and passed a "probable lie" exam. I also told my examiner about the mistakes I had made (cheated on a test, lied to a boss) and passed the exam. Why? Because I was telling the truth!!
No, you passed because your recorded physiological responses to the Control Questions were greater than your recorded physiological responses to the Relevant Questions. Truth, honesty, deception made no difference.
QuotePolygraph does work, and like everything else in life, it's not perfect.
Could you elaborate? If polygraphs 'work', how are they imperfect?
QuoteWhat I say to those who profess that they have done "bad" things & now changed their lives, that's great, but it doesn't make you suitable for law enforcement. Stop pining over something you simply don't deserve, & move on! Also, couldn't agree with you more on the point that if these people will go to these attempts to get something they think they were born entitled to, what else will they do that's unethical?? Makes you wonder, huh?
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement you judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.-- Matthew 7:1-2
As to your request to elaborate on how polygraph "works" if it is imperfect, I offer the following: It's no different than the doctor who takes an X-Ray and misreads it, advises the patient of one thing, and a second opinion comes up with another. How can you explain that? Should we now stop using this doctor, or X-Ray machine, because it's "out of control; ruining people's lives"? What about the test used on a pregnant woman to determine if she might give birth to an abnormal child (downs syndrome, etc), and for six months of her pregnancy she thinks she will be having an abnormal child? Yet on the day of the child's birth, it's completely healthy and normal. Should we now stop using that medical test? What about the brakes on your car? For the most part, they "work", but might inexplicably give out one day. What should we do? Rush to expose the ludicrousy of automotive brakes? How do you explain the rare incidences when DNA is wrong? Should we now toss that out and ban together to force it out of use? You have to be realistic in life, NOTHING is perfect, and NOTHING "works" 100% of the time, ever! Not even an eye witness. Obviously that's why the Feds run their programs with a sold quality control division in place. Never is it the case that one person is deciding anyone's future.
Nice quote on the judgement issue, but you chose to miss the point. My only argument is one of logic. Should a known pedophile be running a day care? Should we put an alcoholic in charge of bartending? Is it appropriate for a drug addict to become a pharmacist? People change in life everyday, I don't deny anyone that. My point is, if you've done some things/or have some problems which make you unsuitable for a particular position in life (& not just law enforcement, the ministry, teaching, whatever), step up to the plate & take responsibility for that. Stop playing the victim role and start to look for what it is in life you are gifted to do. You won't be able to grasp that until you stop pining away for something that wasn't meant to be. You could very well be letting another golden opportunity in life pass you by. Seems like a shame.
Unfortunately a lot of polygraph bashers use the argument that a good background investigation should/could uncover everything. So untrue. Who's going to tell us about the 10 month old baby you digitally penetrated when you were babysitting @ 17 years of age? Who's going to tell us about the GHB you slipped into a woman's drink & raped her? She doesn't know! Who's going to tell us about the motorcyclist you killed in that hit & run that was never solved? None of these issues would be uncoverable in even the most thorough background.
MSP,
It is you who miss the point. Polygraph screening is not in the class of DNA testing. Find a DNA research scientist who would assess the validity of that which he does in the same category of polygraphy. Give me a break :) If the reliability/validity of automotive brakes were no better than that of polygraphy, we'd still be relying on bicycles and horses for land transportation. Since when does a DNA analyst hide the details of the procedures he uses as does a polygraphist or the agencies which employ them (see Mr. Maschke's request to DSS for the Federal Polygraph Handbook). Since when does DNA analysis or brake operation depend on deception and fraud. I think you very badly need to take this analogy back to the drawing board. And with regard to the list of items you leave us with as being nice to know about, don't confuse problems/needs with solutions. Polygraphy is not a solution for confirming that which we know about, let alone shedding light on that which we don't know about.
Quote from: msp on Jun 22, 2002, 02:30 PM
...You have to be realistic in life, NOTHING is perfect, and NOTHING "works" 100% of the time, ever! Not even an eye witness. Obviously that's why the Feds run their programs with a sold quality control division in place. Never is it the case that one person is deciding anyone's future.
Based on a review of Chapter III of the Federal Psychophysiological Detection of Deception Handbook (http://antipolygraph.org/documents/federal-polygraph-handbook.pdf) ("Quality Control Procedures"), it appears that the federal polygraph community's much vaunted "quality control" procedures are little more than window dressing.
For those whose honesty and integrity is being judged based on the pseudoscientific fraud that is "control" question "test" (CQT) polygraphy, it is little comfort that one's fate is decided by several polygraph chartgazers rather than just a single one. A CQT polygraph examination, done precisely to standard, still has no scientific basis whatsoever.