I recently got a letter from the FBI saying I do not qualify for a polygraph retest. Back in the summer I took and "failed" the exam. The original rejection letter claimed I made an "admission" after the exam and that my results were not within acceptable parameters.
Before the exam I told the tester I had been in rooms where pot had been smoked, but had never inhaled. He cut me off and said he was not interested in any situations unless I used drugs. I then went through the test and afterwords he interogated me. I admitted to once putting a pot pipe to my mouth, but never inhaling (which was the worst I ever did). That was my "admission" even though in my mind it had been disclosed before the exam in my previous statement.
Anyway, if I had simply said I put a pot pipe to my mouth BEFORE the exam would the FBI then just disqualify for "using" drugs. Would I still have been screwed? Was I doomed either way or do you think they would have disregarded the one pot-related situation?
Ok, President Clinton. That almost worked for him because he was President.
One important fact here is that you lied. First you say you never tried it then you say you didn't inhale. The FBI knows that people your age (average age of a new applicant is 25) have done some partying. Thats normal. If you have tried pot more than 15 times then , for FBI standards , your out.
You got bounced because you lied. The FBI takes a zero tolerance to those who lie.
Sorry for the bad expierience.
OK. That is a elementary way to look at it. "I lied" but so did the polygrapher when he said he did not want to hear about instances unless I used marijuana. I guess this is how law enforcement deals with polygraphs, because I know the CIA and NSA would have given me a second chance. I told the f-king polygrapher before the exam that I had been in situations where I was exposed to pot, but had never inhaled it. The bottom line is we are talking about a miniscule instance. Anyway, I'll be making 7 times what this FBI support position paid once I am done with law school, so forget government civil service jobs.
anon02,
Note the cynical, accusatory mind of a polygrapher at work in Polylawman's smug, accusatory reply to you. When he concludes, "Sorry for the bad expierience [sic]," you can be sure he isn't.
When you began to tell your polygrapher about your previous contact with drugs, he cut you off. Then in the "post-test" interrogation, when you provide further details, this information is used to portray you as a liar. I believe that the polygrapher's conduct in cutting you off during the "pre-test" phase while you were telling him about a matter that concerned you regarding a relevant question was completely inappropriate.
In any event, I suggest that you file a Privacy Act request for your complete FBI file, including the polygraph report and charts. See Chapter 5 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml) for suggestions on how to proceed. FBI polygraphers have in the past exaggerated and even fabricated admissions, so it is important that you know what admission(s) your polygrapher may have attributed to you.
You may also wish to contact attorney Mark Zaid <ZaidMS@aol.com> about possibly joining the ongoing federal polygraph lawsuits (http://antipolygraph.org/litigation.shtml#Zaid) that he is litigating. Apart from e-mail, you can also reach him at (202) 223-9050.
On a final note, Polylawman's claim that "The FBI takes a zero tolerance to those who lie" is untrue. The FBI expects applicants to lie with regard to the probable-lie "control" questions that it uses in its pre-employment (and post-employment) polygraph screening examinations. Among the matters about which FBI applicants are expected to lie is whether or not they have ever driven under the influence of alcohol.
Once again we chose to blame the polygraph examiner for are past and present mistakes.
anon02 states, "I had been in rooms where pot had been smoked, but had never inhaled..." and "I admitted to once putting a pot pipe to my mouth, but never inhaling..."
So when asked if he had ever used illegal drugs he proceeds to tell the examiner about being around pot but never inhaling. I guess he just held his breath the whole time. But the examiner says he is not interested about the times anon02 has simple been around it, he wants to know has he ever used it. So anon02 says what, "No"? Then he fails and adds a little info by now saying he has had a pot pipe in his mouth, but again never inhaled. A slight difference from simply being in a room where pot was being smoked. Does anyone really doubt that anon02 has in fact smoke a little of the funny weed?
So he holds out, and who is to blame, the polygraph examiner of course, HE CUT ME OFF! And what advice does he get from Mr. M, sue the bastards! It's not your fault that you did a little drugs and then decided to lie about it when asked. And how dare this agency expect you to be truthful when in fact they want you to be dishonest during your polygraph exam. Great comparison George. You sure can put a good twist on things.
Yup, why woufd anyone want to portray anon02 as a liar? How unfair. I guess the simple fact that he lied about his drug use (yes, I'm making the quantum leap that anon02 did in fact inhale) certainly does not qualify him as a liar. On the other hand, the polygraph examiner, well, he's probably one of the biggest liars known to man.
Batman
Batman,
You write:
Quote...On the other hand, the polygraph examiner, well, he's probably one of the biggest liars known to man...
Biggest, perhaps....most consistent, definitely! How many occupations can you cite that require a participant to lie each and every time he performs his chief function (i.e., give polygraph exams in your case)?? Even politicians and a used car salesmen occasionally lapse and find themselves in the midst of the truth ;D
What about the substance of the issue Anonymous? Who do we blame here for anon02's failings? In this particular instance is the polygrah examiner at fault, is it the agency doing the hiring, or does anon02 shoulder responsibility for his actions?
He chose to lie during the hiring process (regardless of what steps that process included), and he put his application in question due to his lie. So should he file against the agency? Should he jump up and down about how unfair the system is? Should he scream and yell about the big, bad polygraph examiner who had the audacity to "CUT HIM OFF"?
Or should he accept responsibility for his actions, and maybe next time try telling the whole truth, right from the start?
Apparently a novel concept for some who offer advice on this site.
Batman
Batman,
Because anon2 would have no motivation to lie (a single time usage (inhaled or otherwise) of marijuana would not necessarily be a violation of FBI drug-usage guidelines (would not be if said occurrence was more than three years in the past)), I tend to give some credibility to his claim of not initially being allowed to tell his story unimpeded (having been cut off). Additionally I find it conceivable that a situation might exist in which a young person who had no interest in drug use but who wanted to retain the "respect" of his drug-using peers might (if placed in the awkward situation of being asked to share in the activity) might (thinking he was accomplishing both purposes) place a pipe in his mouth and not inhale. This is one more case where a videotape of what transpired during the polygraph examination would be useful in determining whether the fault for a lack of timely full disclosure lay at the feet of the examinee or the examiner and continued evidence for why this practice (audio/videotaping) should be mandated.
Quote from: Batman on Dec 01, 2002, 08:10 PM
What about the substance of the issue Anonymous? Who do we blame here for anon02's failings? In this particular instance is the polygrah examiner at fault, is it the agency doing the hiring, or does anon02 shoulder responsibility for his actions?
He chose to lie during the hiring process (regardless of what steps that process included), and he put his application in question due to his lie. So should he file against the agency? Should he jump up and down about how unfair the system is? Should he scream and yell about the big, bad polygraph examiner who had the audacity to "CUT HIM OFF"?
Or should he accept responsibility for his actions, and maybe next time try telling the whole truth, right from the start?
Apparently a novel concept for some who offer advice on this site.
Batman
Dear Batman,
I have never advocated nor endorsed lying on any part of any application. We both know that in order to pass a pre-screening polygraph that the examiner has to get the examinee to lie on the control questions in order to "pass" the test. Even knowing this, I have never endorsed an applicant to falsify applicant information.
I have never used drugs nor do I believe that any law enforcement officer should but this is my personal opinion. If the examiner in this case let his personal bias overide the actual drug policy of the FBI, it is not right.
I have signed the FBI policy many times during my application. A good examiner should ask if the applicant has ever violated the FBI drug policy after explaining it word for word to the applicant. The specific question "Have you ever used drugs?" over extends the intent of the policy. The only time that a one time use can disqualify an applicant under any conditions is if he was in a position of responsibility in government or law enforcement at the time of the incident or use of any drug within the last ten years other than "where pot had been smoked or putting a pot pipe to one's mouth."
At no time during the application process does any paperwork ask you if you have done drugs. At no time during the interview process does anyone ask you specifically if you have done drugs. An applicant is only asked if they clearly understand the drug policy and signs that they have not violated the policy.
There is more to this situation then meets the eye in this story. Without a videotape to review which came first, the polygraph accusation or the admission before the polygraph, it is a very blurry story indeed.
If the session had been videotaped one of two things would be happening right now:
A) The examiner could prove that the applicant never tried to admit to drug use or clarify his extent of usage and confessed after being interrogated (witnessed by the videotape).
B) The examiner poorly worded the question or did not allow the examinee to clarify the drug use which was within FBI policy guidelines.
I have defended polygraph examiners if what they do is within the policies of the agencies they work for. I have been attacked by opponents to my ideas comparing my argument to the "Nuremberg Defense" which did not sit well with them. I do so because as a law enforcement officer, I am obligated to enforce all laws and policies regardless of my personal opinions. I only hope that the Special Agent administering this test did not allow his personal bias to interfere with the FBI's intended policy.
Regards.
Quote from: Batman on Dec 01, 2002, 08:10 PM
What about the substance of the issue Anonymous? Who do we blame here for anon02's failings? In this particular instance is the polygrah examiner at fault, is it the agency doing the hiring, or does anon02 shoulder responsibility for his actions?
He chose to lie during the hiring process (regardless of what steps that process included), and he put his application in question due to his lie. So should he file against the agency? Should he jump up and down about how unfair the system is? Should he scream and yell about the big, bad polygraph examiner who had the audacity to "CUT HIM OFF"?
Or should he accept responsibility for his actions, and maybe next time try telling the whole truth, right from the start?
Apparently a novel concept for some who offer advice on this site.
Batman
I would submit that it's more likely a novel concept to an acknowledged cynic such as yourself that the guy could be telling the truth, Batman. For myself, his story is plausible and without any corroborating information, it's impossible to know for sure. Allegations (proven and otherwise) of polygrapher misconduct are not exactly unheard-of.
If his story is true, then the polygrapher clearly acted incorrectly (barring any discussion of whether the polygraph should be used for screening in the first place, of course).
Skeptic
Batman: all the polygrapher had to do was ask me about the specific instances where I had been in rooms with pot smoke. I would have gladly told the SOB what occured BEFORE the exam. The fact that he caught me off on this question and several of the control questions just made me shut up until AFTER the test. A profession examiner would not do this. Bottom line.
The fact is FBI polygraphers are mostly stereotypical law enforcement donut boys. Anyone who spends at most 2 hours a day at work (i.e. lying to honest job applicants) and the rest of the day reading newspapers is a loser in my book. The only people who still support the polygraph are these worthless donut boys who would be running gypsy mind reading shops in New Orleans if Congress abolished or minimized the polygraphs use.
"Does anyone really doubt that anon02 has in fact smoke a little of the funny weed?"
In fact, I have never been able to inhale smoke so how the hell can I have inhaled weed? I have never used marijuana, unless you consider putting a pot pipe to my mouth "inhaling."
Give me 7 more years and I'll be an Assistant U.S. Attorney having FBI Agents bring me donuts and sandwiches from local shops.
"Or should he accept responsibility for his actions, and maybe next time try telling the whole truth, right from the start?"
I did by telling the examiner I had been in rooms where pot was present but had never inhaled it. Maybe I should have just employed countermeasures like perhaps 10-20% of successful FBI applicants and that would have been more ethical right?
At most we are talking about a 22 year old kid putting a pot pipe to his mouth on ONE occasion and not inhaling.
Anon02
Goodness, you seen positively overcome with anger at your once chosen profession. Did you get the warning yet from the guards here about casting personal, small minded comments? You may yet. Skeptic, anonymous...no high ground advice for this poster?
Donut remarks and assumptions that an FBI polygrapher is working 2 hours a day is based on what exactly? your great experience in the field? In seven years, you may be merely still an angry young lad blaming others for your own personal failure. And as to the smoking gun of your polygrapher cutting you off, its pretty standard that when someone begins to rationalize, or bring in distracting detail (often intentionally) unrelated to the issue, a detective may firmly steer you back to the point. If I was asking you about personal use, and you started to tell me how you have seen it done, or that your uncle died of an overdose, I would of done what your polygrapher did. Interview a couple hundred story tellers and you will understand.
I think with your new found antipathy twords law enforcement you will make a fine attorney!
And by the way, cops dont like donuts anymore-we go for starbucks.
Quote from: The_Breeze on Dec 06, 2002, 08:20 PM
And by the way, cops dont like donuts anymore-we go for starbucks.
Dear Breeze,
Welcome back, are you tired of running in the woods chasing Bambi or is your freezer overflowing with venison that you can't handle anymore? I prefer the French-Vanilla in my Starbucks! You know where I stand but I do also get tired of the donut fetching stuff. I do wish we could see a videotape of this particular episode.
This is an excellent example of how a videotape could quickly exonerate the examinee or examiner.
I do admire the fact that you do videotape all of your exams.
Regards.
Fair Chance
Once again you have the courage not to be blatantly partisian, which is why I am slowly growing to like you. (a little bit)
It is beyond old to hear the braintrust here question intelligence or cast aspersions, then attack when the pro polygraph folks do the same.(check the latest responses re: Eastwood)
I think personally the rhetoric would turn down a notch if there was something to respect in skeptic, anonymous or George's posts. Extreme positions and close mindedness will invite attack. The fact is, and I do not mind repeating myself, that the polygraph has proven to be valuable as used in our agency. I truly resent the fact that someone not connected with the difficulties and complexities of this work would seek to limit any tool that makes our job more effective.Thats about like one of our cadets missing a baton strike, and seriously hurting a citizen, then local activists deciding that we no longer need such a tool.
I think what most complainers here have run into is a hurried polygraph given by an examiner who does not have the time or flexibility to give an extra 10%.
Before someone calls me stupid for comparing an impact weapon with a diagnostic device, ill just say that they both have public safety applications.
As to killing Bambi (a comment made twice now) that particular piece of anti-hunting propaganda fed to kids is how rap music got started! Ok maybe not, but its at least as bad as donut jokes by LE wanna be's.
It has indeed been a banner year in the bloodsports. I would recommend this to the deskbound anti polygraph folks here, a little exercise outdoors, thrill of the chase, mastering of nerves and the realization that this crusade is a waste of time!
Breeze,
You wrote:
Quote...I would recommend this to the deskbound anti polygraph folks here, a little exercise outdoors, thrill of the chase, mastering of nerves and the realization that this crusade is a waste of time...
Many in your camp miscalculated what the NAS polygraph panel was to conclude and report. It appears that you are one of the flag bearers for those who are likely to miscalculate the impact and long-term ramifications of that report.
QuoteThe fact is, and I do not mind repeating myself, that the polygraph has proven to be valuable as used in our agency.
Herein lies one of the major differences in argument between the pro-poly and the anti-poly sides, at least on these boards:
The pro-poly side says: I don't care what anyone else says, my personal experience, and that of my agency, is that the polygraph works, albeit not perfectly. Trust me.
The anti-poly side says: Don't trust me, look at what the outside studies say. And don't even trust our interpretation of those outside studies, look at what the NAS--who reviewed all those outside studies-- says.
The pro-poly side confines itself to its own experiences and its own tendentious intepretations of those experiences, and, it seems to me, resists bad news. Thus, as Anonymous pointed out, they will be surprised when the end comes.
Hey Breeze,
Last year I got an eleven point, non-typical, 165 #er field dressed. Haven't had time to go this year YET. Maybe this week. Have you topped that this year?
BTW, I called him in with a modified polygraph machine that imitates a "doe in heat" call. Just couldn't resist that one, could I?
Ahh yes, but Mark
I do care what other people say, especially when they have experience to back it up. Simply having failed a polygraph, or subjected to agency abuse is not enough for me, however regrettable. Sympathy does not always equel respect.
And as you know, this field is filled with pro-polygraph studies of varying quality-enough so that anyone could back up any position they want. Please do not try and portray LE use of this tool as unenlightened knuckedragging. When the anti's
speak of those studies and reports that serve thier position do you want me to believe that is the entire truth in this matter?
Dont you trust your own experiences and observations? you almost make it sound like a bad, delusional thing. And I dont want to convince the unconvincable of anything-by the same token I do not need to be restricted by someones negative screening exam. Tell me that you do understand this at least as a concept.
I read your statement, and now remember I read it long ago. I thought there was something else like mis-handling classified. Am I thinking of another case? (not Wen-ho) It seems to me from casual reading that alot needs to be explained about FBI conduct in your case. I do not know how an investigation of this magnatude could be continued on a polygraph alone.
Two block
Nice start, then you lapse into propaganda!
I shot a 4x4 mule deer in November. You seem to be using eastern count on blacktails, at least I thought you said you were from Alaska. Since I hunt way in, I can never weigh, so yours could be bigger-but mine was heavy enough to require a few trips out with the quarters.
Did you get that Doe in heat call from beech trees?
QuoteSimply having failed a polygraph, or subjected to agency abuse is not enough for me, however regrettable.
Exactly. It's anecdotal, just as some of the successes trumpeted by the pro-poly side.
QuoteAnd as you know, this field is filled with pro-polygraph studies of varying quality-enough so that anyone could back up any position they want. Please do not try and portray LE use of this tool as unenlightened knuckedragging. When the anti's speak of those studies and reports that serve thier position do you want me to believe that is the entire truth in this matter?
I'm surprised to see you, a conservative Republican (?) take this very relativistic position, that anyone can back up anything they want with a study. You're essentially saying that no study has any real value, because whatever it says, someone else can do a study that says the opposite. It's a very short trip from this position to one of moral relativism and cultural relativism, e.g. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
QuoteDont you trust your own experiences and observations? you almost make it sound like a bad, delusional thing.
You can't say that a failed polygraph or being subjected to agency abuse is not enough for you, then put such primacy on one's own experiences.
I do trust my own experiences and observations, but know that they are not enough to arrive at a determination of the truth in a matter such as polygraph validity or invalidity. Just as the fact that I "failed" a polygraph does not mean that the polygraph is invalid, if I "passed," that would not mean that it is valid.
QuoteI read your statement, and now remember I read it long ago. I thought there was something else like mis-handling classified. Am I thinking of another case? (not Wen-ho)
You must be thinking of another case, because there was no fallback accusation in my case of mishandling classified information.
QuoteIt seems to me from casual reading that alot needs to be explained about FBI conduct in your case. I do not know how an investigation of this magnatude could be continued on a polygraph alone.
Ain't that the truth.
Quote from: The_Breeze on Dec 09, 2002, 07:09 PM
Ahh yes, but Mark
I do care what other people say, especially when they have experience to back it up. Simply having failed a polygraph, or subjected to agency abuse is not enough for me, however regrettable. Sympathy does not always equel respect.
It is a source of ongoing frustration for me that you seem to dismiss any and all anti-polygraph sentiment as being anecdotal and personal in origin. I originally came to this site having never taken a polygraph (but having a psychological education that informed me of the polygraph's flaws). I considered the evidence, read what studies and reviews I could, and came to the conclusion that the device doesn't do what its purported to do.
Even now (after voluntarily ending my candidacy for the NSA position I was trying for), I have no idea whether I truly "passed" or "failed" my polygraphs. I do know that they were among the more unpleasant experiences of my life (despite answering all questions truthfully), but for all I know I would have gotten the job for which I applied. I voluntarily withdrew my application in part because of the extremely negative experience I had, one which I was unexcited about repeating every five years or so. However, my criticism of the polygraph remains that it is demonstrably inadequate (by scientific, not anecdotal standards) for the tasks to which it is routinely put. That criticism would remain the same regardless of how my polygraphs had gone.
As an aside, I would like to mention that I am sorry you find my comments to you so content-free and derisive. I tend to value truthfulness very highly, and feel you have been rather dishonest with several comments you've made, relying on the quantity of words in your posts to deflect criticism rather than correcting or withdrawing your words. It is this dishonesty with which I have a problem, much more than any position (pro-or otherwise) you have on the polygraph.
Breeze, I've argued politics online extensively for more than six years. I've seen pretty much all of it: well-formed arguments, dishonesty, ideologues, out-and-out lies, etc. I know bullshit when I see it, and few things bother me more.
I respect your position on the polygraph, even though I disagree with it and your stated rationales for holding that position. It's a number of your ad hominem statements that I have found reprehensible.
Skeptic
Breeze,
The remark wasn't meant for propaganda, It was a joke. Hope you took that way.
I only mine in Alaska from May to middle Sept. I want no part of 24 hr. darkness where the temp. reaches 0 below. I may be crazy but I ain't dumb. However, next year I hope to get a big moose. I saw one this year with shovels big enough with which to mine. They do have blacktails there also.
I hunt whitetails in So.Central Missouri and Okla. And I doubt that it was as big as your mulie.
Since these boards are ment for polygraph discussions, I will refrain from using them for this type of personal message. Just thought I would lighten up the discussion. Hell Santa Clause is near and he may be wanting to polygraph me to see if I have been good.
I will take this opportunity to wish all a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS and a better year next year. Yeah,, that includes you Breeze.
Breeze writes in part:
QuoteI would recommend this to the deskbound anti polygraph folks here, a little exercise outdoors, thrill of the chase, mastering of nerves and the realization that this crusade is a waste of time!
If the antipolygraph crusade is such a "waste of time," then why are
you wasting so much of
your time here? Seems like you're terribly afraid it just might succeed. ;D
A2
Point not taken. I spend little time here and have taken to posting sporadically. Is this a waste of time?.....probably. My interest here is to point out the very real, and I believe serious ethical considerations in much of the "advice" presented here by those around the periphery of LE polygraph.
I do not agree with being limited by those who have failed what I believe to be an important information gathering process. Of course, I also accept the fact that our agency puts more effort into the process, and is not involved in the numbers game, with an endless stream of applicants. (I have already spoken of this)
So I just do not see the abuses that are so frequently talked about here, even if they may exist to some extent. Since I know abuse in hiring processes extends to several problem areas, I dont single out the polygraph as a tool of oppression. Unfairness exists in many forms.
I may have a focused and realistic outlook to applicants since I have been involved in the Academy process. Many applicants have been found to have committed crimes undetected by the background, by polygraph interview alone. These applicants were just as adamant ( re: their innocence)as some of the posters here when confronted with DI results until eventually revealing why it was that they failed.
Call me a jerk for pointing out the obvious:
Many Applicants Lie.
I fear Grizzly bears and Great white sharks. If polygraph goes away tomorrow, not only will my paycheck be unaffected, but I will continue business as usual.
Dear Breeze,
I may be entering this discussion late, but I think my point applies.
You say that "many applicants lie." That may be true, but I didn't. My story is the truth, and if you haven't already, I suggest you read it.
You may want to lale me as an angry "LE wannabe." Do so if you wish, but beforewarned - my father spent 27 years in LE. I know the system.
As far as the pro-polygraph, anti-polygraph debate, believe it or not, I am split. There is a time and a place to use the polygraph. It is a powerful interrogation tool, but should only be used to interrogate. It will help bring out a confession where there is something to confess. Many times my pather put a suspect on the poly, and many times he got a confession. Although, in NY, the preferred method for getting confessions was the phonebook, window, and unloaded weapon. But the polygraph proved and continues to prove itself a useful interrogation tool when there is reason to interrogate.
I disagree with the use of the polygraph as a pre-employment screening device. Polygraphers are trained to use the machine to intimidate and bully confessions out of suspects. Why then does the Bureau treat applicants (who have proven themselves enough to recieve conditional employment) like suspects?
The polygraph is used in pre-employment screening to gather discriminating information that would not be listed on the application and may not be uncovered in a background investigation. And in some cases, the polygrapher gathers that information, pats himself on the back for not letting low-life scum linto the Bureau. But these methods force a polygrapher, in order to be successful, to find faults with every applicant. Why then have an application process?
In my case, the polygrapher was going on supposition and erroneous information given to him by another agent. And I failed because of it. I never lied, and I never made any "admissions" regarding the national security issues for which I was deemed deceptive. But when it was all over, the polygrapher still pats himself on the back.
And now I'm the low-life scum.
Chris
Chris
I dont think I've called you a liar, low life or wannabe, but Ill have to check since my honesty gets questioned around here. (but interestingly, only here)
I think I reserve criticism for writers that want to be LE one day, fail a test through thier own shortcomings, then want to denigrate the profession.
Are you polygraph trained? Looking through the APA standards, I dont see where using the tool as a ruse is on the syllabus. I have talked to old time polygraph operators that said much the same as you: that the device was more of a prop to illicit a confession. This arguement is still made by the anti folks here, even though in my opinion it is without merit.
But lets talk about your question. "Why have an application process?" . Are you suggesting that everyone applying for sensitive positions of great trust and access should be taken at face value? what utopian perspective is this. Im sure I just do not understand you (happens often) and you are not advocating making hiring decisions based on a resume' alone (or even background check).
And dont read too much into the FBI making conditional offers prior to polygraph, a quick view of ADA rules will inform that if medical questions are to be asked (and they will be) a conditional offer must be extended. Such offers are largly worthless as future employment indicators, as you know.
Thank your father for his long service, he worked in better and more effective times!
I admit, I have not read your story but will when I can.
Mark
Sorry it took me awhile to respond to your well written post, I am indulging myself with staying logged on to this site as I look up from more meaningfull work!
I have a couple of degrees, and am not usually confused, but I am not sure what you mean when calling me a cultural relativist. My personal politics aside, I am saying that there are well researched, opposite studies to support both views. I have read much of each and see good points. So, when there is no universal truth, one has to choose dont they- if they wish to be effective and not merely theoretical? I have chosen based on my observations and experience, which I believe is greater than many who post here.
So, my anecdotal observations of a rapist for example being called DI, confessing and closing a case are stronger than reading here how an applicant was not given due consideration. I think some who post here are truthfull, but many others are selfish blamers that lack maturity, and want to blame an object for lack of success. Many undoubtably would not of been hired even with an acceptable polygraph. Of course to limit my hate mail, this is only my opinion.
But lets change the subject if you will. You said that you were acused during a screening exam. A couple things trouble me;
1) Does any agent with similiar results trigger an identical use of resources? If not, why you?
2) You mentioned you took almost every test known to man, surely the investigation became specific at that point. If it was specific, what were the results of your numerous additional polygraphs? And if you will say, what was the issue?
Quote from: The_Breeze on Dec 11, 2002, 07:13 PM
My personal politics aside, I am saying that there are well researched, opposite studies to support both views. I have read much of each and see good points.
In their recent exhaustive investigation of the available literature, the National Academy of Sciences seems to have come to a very different conclusion.
QuoteSo, my anecdotal observations of a rapist for example being called DI, confessing and closing a case are stronger than reading here how an applicant was not given due consideration.
You have admitted that you do not see all of the polygraph resolutions in your department, so it's very possible what you do see serves to reinforce an existing bias.
This is
precisely why double-blind studies are used for scientific studies. They are, quite simply, far more reliable.
QuoteI think some who post here are truthfull, but many others are selfish blamers that lack maturity, and want to blame an object for lack of success.
While this is entirely possible, my subjective impression of most of the regulars to this site is quite a bit different. Frankly, I find your point-of-view jaded and cynical.
Skeptic
QuoteBut lets change the subject if you will. You said that you were acused during a screening exam. A couple things trouble me;
1) Does any agent with similiar results trigger an identical use of resources? If not, why you?
2) You mentioned you took almost every test known to man, surely the investigation became specific at that point. If it was specific, what were the results of your numerous additional polygraphs? And if you will say, what was the issue?
Breeze,
I really don't want to get into answering an ongoing series of interrogatories, but I'll answer for now:
1) I'm not in a position to know if any other agent triggered similar results. I was told "no".
2) It never became a specific issue exam because there was never a specific incident, just a vague, nebulous, amorphous, and absurd charge of unauthorized contacts with Israeli intelligence. No names, no dates, no information compromised, nothing specific. It was never fleshed out because there was nothing to flesh it out with. The FBI's position essentially became, "we can't figure out the details of your espionage, therefore it's your job to tell us in order to resolve the case."
I suspect the reason for the fury was that I "failed" several polygraphs, thus "confirming" each time that I must have been lying. But if you've got a faulty test, you can "confirm" it 800 times with the same result, yet it's still wrong.
Also note that after my investigation, Earl Pitts and Robert Hanssen, both FBI Agents, were caught. It is possible that the FBI believed that I was the spy they were looking for. If that is the case, reliance on the polygraph cost us several years and untold damage.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT YOU LIED...NO MATTER HOW MINOR IT WAS.....IF YOU WILL LIE NOW....WHAT ABOUT LATER IN YOUR CAREER WHEN YOUR LOOKING AT A WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSED BY YOU OR A FELLOW OFFICER...WILL YOU LIE THEN TO PROTECT YOUR JOB JUST LIKE YOU DID TO GET IT....OMITTING A FACT IS AKIN TO LYING
"Shitty Rogers,"
The FBI uses a probable-lie "control" question "test" for pre-employment polygraph screening. Bureau polygraphers assume that all applicants -- even those the Bureau would hire -- will be less than completely truthful in answering the "control" questions.
In fact, the polygraph process will tend to screen out those most willing to make admissions against interest, because the more candidly an applicant answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely the applicant is to fail. By contrast, the applicant who perhaps makes a few minor admissions with regard to the "control" questions, but then blatantly lies in response to them (and as a result experiences heightened anxiety) is most likely to pass.
Quote from: The_Breeze on Dec 11, 2002, 06:40 PM
But lets talk about your question. "Why have an application process?" . Are you suggesting that everyone applying for sensitive positions of great trust and access should be taken at face value? what utopian perspective is this. Im sure I just do not understand you (happens often) and you are not advocating making hiring decisions based on a resume' alone (or even background check).
Breeze,
What I meant was, "why have an application process when the polygraph determines eveything in one small step?"
Polygraphers are the judge, jury, and executioner for applicants. Does it matter if the applciant has gone through almost a year of screening prior, or if they just walked in off the street? They will still be subject to a very fuzzy "test." It is assumed that they are lying, whether they were a prior LE officer, distinguished military veteran, or begging for change on the street corner. This type of screening is assinine.
Since the polygraph really doesn't take in to account the applicant's background (although that isn't what the applicant is told), why not do it first? The FBI could save tons of money on paperwork and trips to interviews if they just eliminate the "scum" out of the applicant pool right off the bat.
And, polygraphers need more work to do -- you said it yourself:
QuoteI am indulging myself with staying logged on to this site as I look up from more meaningfull work!
Maybe if you had more to do, you could find a way to make the machine truly work.
I know, I know, it works fine. You and all your polygraph buddies tell yourselves that at your polygraph meetings you go to. More like perpetuating a lie for self-preservation, I think.
But that's my opinion. Oh, and the NAS, too. But we don't count.
Chris
C'mon Mr. Stein, have you never heard of the job that ajudicatorts are expected to perform? I do not mean to tossing the "blame" over to them, but to say that the polygraph examiner is the judge, jury and executioner is a bit overstated. But hey, wait, perhaps with all of this responsibility, maybe the polygraph examiner should be asking for a raise. I do not mean to be "snippy", biut you DID ask for it.
Quote from: touche on Jan 02, 2003, 06:17 PM
C'mon Mr. Stein, have you never heard of the job that ajudicatorts are expected to perform? I do not mean to tossing the "blame" over to them, but to say that the polygraph examiner is the judge, jury and executioner is a bit overstated. But hey, wait, perhaps with all of this responsibility, maybe the polygraph examiner should be asking for a raise. I do not mean to be "snippy", biut you DID ask for it.
I would think you'd want to pay them not only based on how much responsibility they bear, but also how well they meet those responsibilities.
That being the case, I wouldn't be eager to deal out the raises :)
Skeptic
I guess those polygraph guys should be relieved that you are not the comptroller. It was noted however that you chose to avoid my comment about judge, jury and executioner. And you say that polygraph folks are less than honest? Fingers point in both directions.
Quote from: touche on Jan 02, 2003, 08:02 PM
I guess those polygraph guys should be relieved that you are not the comptroller.
Indeed they should. If I were, I would be constantly recommending to my superiors that the polygraph should be scrapped and polygraphers reassigned elsewhere in counterintelligence.
QuoteIt was noted however that you chose to avoid my comment about judge, jury and executioner. And you say that polygraph folks are less than honest? Fingers point in both directions.
It wasn't my intent to say either way. I was responding to a one-liner with one of my own ;)
Skeptic
Touche
How about two out of three. The polygrapher is certainly the judge and jury. The executioner is the #+%@! who wields the axe to cut the applicant off based on the judge and jury's "assumption, NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE" that the applicant is a liar. This is why I advocate a lawsuit, if the applicant told the whole truth, to make them prove their charges. I say again, if he didn't tell the truth, he should walk out the door with his tail between his legs and do something else. It still boils down to ONE person holding the livelyhood, and future, of the applicant in his/her hands. This is wrong. There should, at least, be a background investigation to prove the polygrapher's charges.
Quote from: touche on Jan 02, 2003, 08:02 PM
I guess those polygraph guys should be relieved that you are not the comptroller. It was noted however that you chose to avoid my comment about judge, jury and executioner. And you say that polygraph folks are less than honest? Fingers point in both directions.
Dear touche,
As of today in the current system, the FBI does not do any investigation before a polygraph. The FBI will not corroborate any negative findings found during the polygraph interview. There are no formal appeal procedures and it is not videotaped for examination for possible procedural flaws or examiner bias. Any negative "interpretations" never get to an adjudicator. It is not inappropriate to state that the polygraph examiner is the "judge, jury, and executioner" of integrity and career of an applicant for any additional federal opportunities beyond the original FBI application.
Regards.
Quote from: Fair Chance on Jan 03, 2003, 09:38 AM
Dear touche,
As of today in the current system, the FBI does not do any investigation before a polygraph. The FBI will not corroborate any negative findings found during the polygraph interview. There are no formal appeal procedures and it is not videotaped for examination for possible procedural flaws or examiner bias. Any negative "interpretations" never get to an adjudicator. It is not inappropriate to state that the polygraph examiner is the "judge, jury, and executioner" of integrity and career of an applicant for any additional federal opportunities beyond the original FBI application.
Regards.
Fair chance,
It should be noted that several federal agencies, including I presume the FBI, make use of so-called "quality control" systems that supposedly call for taking the final judgement of pass/fail out of the polygrapher's hands (I know you've become aware of this first hand). Thus, it may be more accurate to say that the
polygraph testing system as a whole is judge, jury and executioner.
However, it should also be noted that polygraphers, as has been conclusively demonstrated, can cause almost anyone to "fail" a polygraph at will.
Thus, the issue is a little nebulous, but I think we agree on the basics: the polygraph is given weight completely out of proportion to its ability to actually judge a candidate's trustworthiness and suitability to a position.
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Jan 03, 2003, 05:27 PM
the polygraph is given weight completely out of proportion to its ability to actually judge a candidate's trustworthiness and suitability to a position.
Thank you, Skeptic, that is truly my point. I went through 10 months of testing, applications, screening, and interviews. In 2 days, it was all over -- all in the polygrapher's chair.
I told the truth; however, my polygrapher was biased against me. He was told by the Agent conducting my PSI that I had omitted all of my foreign contacts on my application. Consequently, my polygraper labeled me a spy and failed me for reasons of National Security.
Of course I didn't omit my foreign contacts -- they were not supposed to be listed. The Agent doing my PSI made a huge mistake and it cost me my polygraph -- and a whole lot more.
So, touche, is it fair that I should fail for these reasons? Is it fair that the FBI polygrapher can fail me, erase almost a year of hard work, and most important, post his findings on my PUBLIC RECORD with the FBI so that no other gov't agency hires me? Don't say that won't happen, because it already has.
Judge, jury, and executioner is well justified in my case.
Chris
The polygraph examiner is, for all practical purposes, the judge, jury, and executioner because his or her decisions will never be overturned. Unless it is to adjudicate a matter to greater disadvantage to the subject than the polygraph examiner recommended (e.g. the examiner said the subject was truthful, "quality control review" says deceptive).
But "quality control review" will NEVER deem a subject truthful who the polygraph examiner said was deceptive. And no amount of investigation, no matter the dearth of evidence to corroborate the polygraph, will ever result in a renunciation of a polygraph examiner's finding of "deception indicated".
Can anyone prove me wrong?
Mark,
Best Wishes and Happy New Year. You are quite correct in the assessment that you made in your last post. I was told a number of years ago by a member of a well known quality assurance (more about that notion shortly) program that his group never over turned a DI call by the original examiner to a NDI result (would occasionally change to INCL) but would occasionally completely overturn a NDI original examiner call.
Aside from this prejudicial practice, the term quality assurance in the polygraph world generally indicates less than applies with other practices. What is generally reviewed is question choice and polygraph scoring (along with basic instrument operation and chart notation). Unfortunately these two areas are not the weaknesses of control question test polygraphy which in turn, unfortunately, are not and can not be meaningfully addressed by existing quality assurance programs. With regard to what is done...polygraph scoring is relatively reliably (albeit not accurately) done--it is fairly easy and routine for a group of beginning polygraph students to be able to score polygrams arriving at similar qualitative and quantitative endpoints. Very little is gained in this area by review of senior polygraph personnel. With regard to question formulation, the process for relevant questions is rather simple minded. The elements of the crime are simply presented in interrogatory form, i.e., for a bank robbery a logical relevant question would be "Did you rob the bank?" As David Lykken would say, hardly rocket science :) Control question selection is largely a matter of choosing from a list of approved questions for various subject/investigative areas, again hardly a difficult task requiring a great deal of oversight.
I believe the reason polygraph "quality assurance" programs are largely meaningless is that the real problem with probable-lie CQT is the lack of a theoretical basis for the test in the first place (i.e., fear of consequences vs. fear of (lie) detection mechanism discussed elsewhere) and a lack of scientific control. Even if the first problem did not exist, the inability to objectively and quantitatively describe when a control question has been "set" and when the proper balance for relative affect for control and relative questions has been achieved for a given examinee prior to polygraph examination, makes quality assurance as presently practiced an exercise in futility. And once again, even if this latter problem did not exist (along with the basic theoretical considerations), those polygraph programs that do not audio/video tape examinations provide no conceivable opportunity for quality assurance programs to accomplish this(ese) needed task(s). For all of the above considerations, I find little quality control in present polygraph quality assurance/quality control programs. Currently utilized methodology does not allow for it. Best Regards...
Touche
Re: your subject "judge, jury, and executioner"
Haven't you seen enough posts to respond or, are you (like) PolyLawMan "hit and run"? He says the government has "0 tol"
of being lied to. I wonder what he thinks about the government constantly lieing to us? The ones who pay their lieing salaries.
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jan 04, 2003, 02:53 PM
And once again, even if this latter problem did not exist (along with the basic theoretical considerations), those polygraph programs that do not audio/video tape examinations provide no conceivable opportunity for quality assurance programs to accomplish this(ese) needed task(s).
Once again,
Thank you Mr. Richardson for your concise and articulate opinion.
Regards.