Thanks to this site, I have passed my polygraph phase of my investigation.
In the past I have smoked A LOT of marijuana, I stopped over 3 years ago, and I know what I did was a waste of time and money. Even though things like that made me the person I am today, it does not reflect who I am. So in order to give myself a fair chance, I read a lot of the posts on here as well as a few chapters of TLBTLD.
I used the sphincter pucker as well as counting my breathing and that is all. The breathing was hard to maintain as I was pretty much nervous just being there, the worst part is probably the pressure cuff that was cutting off all the circulation in my hand. Used the pucker and dropped my breating pattern on the control questions and relaxed on the relevant questions and produced the chart they wanted to see. I also used body language techniques. I have always been pretty good at catching people lying, so I knew what not to do.
My examiner was extremely nice, even though there is a lot of information about the examiners in the book and on this board, I would have to say, from the start to the end of my examination, this person was genuinely extremely pleasant and respectful. There were no accusations, there was small talk inbetween phases about various things. I went in there expecting a hard ass and I didn't get it. There were quite a few things that were correct about the head games involved in the whole procedure, namely the small room to wait in, the immobile chair vs the mobile chair, facing a wall with my back towards the door, etc.
With all of this though, I do not know if I agree that the polygraph should be banned from preemployment screening, as it will weed out a lot of people that should not be there... (ironic isn't it? :P ) In the same respect, the people that fail falsely due to just being nervous, more than likely will get their second chance at the poly. The people that fail knowing they have done things wrong, will probably not put up much of an arguement anyway.
I know some people will come in here and say a bunch a crap from the other side of their monitors, but do yourself a favor and save it. I am not a hardened criminal, I am not trying to avoid a serious crime that I have comitted, I am simply trying for a job I highly desire and will commit myself to 100%. I have grown up a lot from who I was then.
Thank you George for this information.
Anonymous wrote:
"Thanks to this site, I have passed my polygraph phase of my investigation. In the past I have smoked A LOT of marijuana"
Congratulations Cheech. Just what we need - another pot-head police officer. Care to do your first public service announcement and tell us where you will be toking and ticketing?
Annonymous also has the hypocrisy to say: "With all of this though, I do not know if I agree that the polygraph should be banned from preemployment screening, as it will weed out a lot of people that should not be there"
Guess you don't think your weed use should "weed out" a pot head like you.
This post is wrong. The 3 month period mentioned s/b 3 years. The sentiment expressed represents my reaction under that mistaken impression. [Marty]
Quote from: Anonymous on Jan 05, 2003, 03:40 PM
I know some people will come in here and say a bunch a crap from the other side of their monitors, but do yourself a favor and save it. I am not a hardened criminal, I am not trying to avoid a serious crime that I have comitted, I am simply trying for a job I highly desire and will commit myself to 100%. I have grown up a lot from who I was then.
You want to give 100% to a career yet 3 months ago you were doing weed? And you want to use polygraphs on others? I won't attack you personally but your attitude makes me nauseous. Please, do not go into LE.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Jan 05, 2003, 09:56 PM
You want to give 100% to a career yet 3 months ago you were doing weed? And you want to use polygraphs on others? I won't attack you personally but your attitude makes me nauseous. Please, do not go into LE.
-Marty
Hmmm, please read again and see that I wrote 3 years, not months.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on Jan 05, 2003, 08:52 PM
Anonymous wrote:
"Thanks to this site, I have passed my polygraph phase of my investigation. In the past I have smoked A LOT of marijuana"
Congratulations Cheech. Just what we need - another pot-head police officer. Care to do your first public service announcement and tell us where you will be toking and ticketing?
Annonymous also has the hypocrisy to say: "With all of this though, I do not know if I agree that the polygraph should be banned from preemployment screening, as it will weed out a lot of people that should not be there"
Guess you don't think your weed use should "weed out" a pot head like you.
"With all of this though, I do not know if I agree that the polygraph should be banned from preemployment screening, as it will weed out a lot of people that should not be there... (ironic isn't it? :P )"
The entire quote. Thank you.
Quote from: Anonymous on Jan 05, 2003, 10:08 PM
Hmmm, please read again and see that I wrote 3 years, not months.
Sorry. 3 Years is quite different from 3 months.
How would you have felt if you had been (accurately) given a DI? How would you have felt if you hadn't used weed at all and were called a liar?
-Marty
What is wrong with you polygraph people? Don't you believe anyone but yourselves can turn their life around? Although I deplore drug use, I believe some people can change and become model citizens.
I know a guy who fell in love with and married a prostitute, who had been in the business for 6 years, 30 years ago. They are a wonderful family today. They have very good kids and grandkids. The gal is completely devoted to her family. Not once has she cheated on her husband. Therefore, I submit to you that some weed users can turn their life around and become model LE officers. They should make good narcs.
Why don't you condem prospective hires and on board LE officers that has been dog drunk a dozen times or more? Maybe that reaches too close to home, huh? Alcohol has killed more people and loosened more tongues than weed ever will. It's, also, more addictive.
Touche!
Quote from: Marty on Jan 05, 2003, 10:41 PM
Sorry. 3 Years is quite different from 3 months.
How would you have felt if you had been (accurately) given a DI? How would you have felt if you hadn't used weed at all and were called a liar?
-Marty
If I had failed the poly, I would have been disapointed in myself, not the machine, but I also would have made it clear that I wanted a retest. After that, I would have dropped it. I wouldn't have come on here bitching that it was unjust, in reality, based on "their" (the departments) standards what was "unjust" was me passing. Is what I did right? For my benefit, yes, for the department's, I can honestly say yes also. Again, what I have done in my past, does not reflect on who I am now.
If I hadn't smoked marijuana ever, and I was accused, I would do exactly the same as I would've done in this situation. Though, I wouldn't have dropped it. I probably would have absolutely no faith in LE jobs and find a different path in life. It sucks, though I do understand that it happens.
I really think that the information here on this site is incredibly valuable to people that will be taking a polygraph for employment purposes, whether for people like me that need a little assitance, or people that genuinely have nothing to hide just to know what to expect. Aside from the counter measures, just knowing what to expect helps A LOT.
All in all, am I proud I had to lie? No. But I cannot change my past, I can only work at my future, which is what I did.
Quote from: Anonymous on Jan 07, 2003, 07:48 PM
If I had failed the poly, I would have been disapointed in myself, not the machine, but I also would have made it clear that I wanted a retest. After that, I would have dropped it.
Why? The machine is no indicator of your worth.
Quote
I wouldn't have come on here bitching that it was unjust, in reality, based on "their" (the departments) standards what was "unjust" was me passing.
I agree on both counts.
Quote
Is what I did right? For my benefit, yes, for the department's, I can honestly say yes also. Again, what I have done in my past, does not reflect on who I am now.
Given a 3 year clean period, I think that is enough, though you are right, it's the department's call.
Quote
If I hadn't smoked marijuana ever, and I was accused, I would do exactly the same as I would've done in this situation. Though, I wouldn't have dropped it. I probably would have absolutely no faith in LE jobs and find a different path in life. It sucks, though I do understand that it happens.
All too often, it seems. Even worse, as many have pointed out, the more honest a person is the more likely they will fail a CQT polygraph. This fact is not disputed, rather, it is just termed an acceptable loss.
Quote
I really think that the information here on this site is incredibly valuable to people that will be taking a polygraph for employment purposes....
Clearly.
-Marty
Anonymous and Marty,
I am not a believer in countermeasures. They allow unqualified applicans to get through the application process to important positions. Agencies set up their qualifications for a reason. It's harsh to say, but it is the truth.
I don't believe the polygraph is an effective way to screen applicants. The tool does not give accurate results. And it can be beaten through countermeausres.
So the sytem is flawed in both directions -- people who shouldn't get the job like Anonymous (sorry, but it's the truth) can get in, while someone like me gets bounced. It's not a fair system.
If the agencies relied on investigation only, the results would be a little more fair. If Anonymous had been smoking pot in the last 3 months, investigators would probably uncover it. 3 years, maybe not.
And investigators would never once think to check if I was really a spy. That's how off base the polygraph is.
So, Agencies have to decide how they want their dose of human error in screening applicants - investigators or polygraphers. Agencies choose polygraphers, because the machine screens scientifically -- no human error there.
See above story and all of the personal statements on this site for examples of human error.
Chris
Quote from: steincj on Jan 08, 2003, 06:09 PM
Anonymous and Marty,
I am not a believer in countermeasures. They allow unqualified applicans to get through the application process to important positions. Agencies set up their qualifications for a reason. It's harsh to say, but it is the truth.
I don't believe the polygraph is an effective way to screen applicants. The tool does not give accurate results. And it can be beaten through countermeausres.
So the sytem is flawed in both directions -- people who shouldn't get the job like Anonymous (sorry, but it's the truth) can get in, while someone like me gets bounced. It's not a fair system.
If the agencies relied on investigation only, the results would be a little more fair. If Anonymous had been smoking pot in the last 3 months, investigators would probably uncover it. 3 years, maybe not.
And investigators would never once think to check if I was really a spy. That's how off base the polygraph is.
So, Agencies have to decide how they want their dose of human error in screening applicants - investigators or polygraphers. Agencies choose polygraphers, because the machine screens scientifically -- no human error there.
See above story and all of the personal statements on this site for examples of human error.
Chris
Your opinion is respected as it is your opinion.....
Please explain to me though why I am considered "people who shouldn't get the job..."?
Because of something I have done over three years ago, that did no harm to anybody? The only harm it caused me is possibly bad lungs, which I think smoking cigarettes have probably done more damage to in the 10 years I have been smoking for. What is the difference if I had smoked marijuana the 15 or less department required times as opposed to my more regular usage over 3 years ago. Would it have been better if I only smoked it 5 times, but the last time was 6 months ago?
3 years. I have made myself a different person. I think at this point, I am not a person who shouldn't get the job. Good for me that I researched the polygraph. I win.
Quote from: Anonymous on Jan 08, 2003, 09:56 PM
Please explain to me though why I am considered "people who shouldn't get the job..."?
Please don't take my comments personally. What I am merely trying to show is that agencies have set standards for their jobs. Whatever their reasoning is for having those standards and whatedver the public feels about those standards is irrelevant. The Agencies have standards -- countermeasures allow the standards to be circumvented, whether for noble or malicious intent.
If I personally say that what you did three years ago is OK, then what about 2 years? What about 1? The moment we bend the rules or allow standards to be overlooked, the sytem is corrupt.
I'm sorry, Anonymous. You may be a great person, but I believe in standards. Please don't take it personally.
Quote
Good for me that I researched the polygraph. I win.
Like I said all along, the polygraph is a game. You won, but you had to cheat to do it. Normally, I would look down on someone who had to cheat to win, but with a broken system like the polygraph that executes applicants at will, you have to take every precaution to survive. For that, you earn my praise.
Again, this is all an example of a flawed system. The polygraph, in order to maintain the integrity of the applicant pool, should be eliminated.
Chris
Fortunately, whether you agree with polygraph or not, it kept you and your stilted logic out of the "pool". I am glad I do not have to sit in a classified briefing with you and wonder if you can be trusted or not.....I am inclined to think not.....because of your efforts to identify ways to circumvent the system!
Guest,
I think you miss the point of what that aspect of "the system" you refer to is about and set up to accomplish. It is NOT about having polygraph exams unaffected, but with having truthful and deceptive examinees correctly identified. IMHO, the utilization of polygraph countermeasures which leads to a correct NDI result for an innocent examinee is far better and in keeping with the goals of "the system" than is an unaltered polygraph exam leading to an erroneous result.
Quote from: guest on Jan 09, 2003, 10:57 AM
Fortunately, whether you agree with polygraph or not, it kept you and your stilted logic out of the "pool". I am glad I do not have to sit in a classified briefing with you and wonder if you can be trusted or not.....I am inclined to think not
guest,
Who are you talking to? Your comments seem to attack me, and your attempt to attack my credibility in keeping classified secrets is pathetic. To have a polygrapher make such accusations based on an error prone machine is bad, to have that information mar a person's career is terrible, and for you to believe all of it on blind faith is laughable.
Quote
.....because of your efforts to identify ways to circumvent the system!
If you are refering to me as the person who is identifying ways to circumvent the system, you are sadly mistaken. If you know anything about me from this site, you know that am quite strong in my opinions. Never have I endorserd coutermeausres -- I only endorse that an APPLICANT (for a screenig test, not a criminal for a specific incident test) read TLBTLD to understand the polygraph "test." If a person goes in and just tells the truth, like I did, there is a good chance that they can fail. Any bias introduced during a truthful applicant's polygraph can generate the deceptive result. Reading TLBTLD can inform an applicant on how to reduce the random errors.
Be a little more specific in your posts, guest, or don't write anything at all
.
Quick comment on your take on "standards." Yes, standards exist for a reason. But that does not inherently make them correct, valid, reasonable, fair, etc. Standards are often created on the basis of institutional bias. For example, excluding women from FD jobs or even African Americans from many branches of the military (pre-Truman reforms). Many "drug standards" for PD(s), particularly for marijuana, are ridiculous. Why should people respect standards that reflect an antiquated institutional bias? Once again, I draw upon my extensive prior exposure to the FD/PD communities. What is the point of making a candidate minutely detail marijuana use – and then subjecting them to instant judgment based on a machine – when many times they cannot prevent members of their own ranks from legally drinking themselves into oblivion and hiding behind the blue wall of silence?
Unfortunately, society now demands that people use countermeasures if they want to combat unfair standards to obtain employment.
If standards are so important, I am oh so grateful for the fact that you got screened out of your application process. After all ... we cannot compromise on standards!
The last line of your post refers to no 9-11 "hero" ever taking a polygraph exam to get their job. You're flat wrong. Check your facts before attempting to exploit such a sad day for your anti-polygraph movement.
Quote from: stopnik on Jan 09, 2003, 08:34 PM
Standards are often created on the basis of institutional bias. For example, excluding women from FD jobs or even African Americans from many branches of the military (pre-Truman reforms).
And it was the job of the intitution to change those standards, not the public. Now the public may exert pressure on institutions to change standards, but it is up to the institution to make the change.
QuoteMany "drug standards" for PD(s), particularly for marijuana, are ridiculous. Why should people respect standards that reflect an antiquated institutional bias?
When you are the head of said institution/agency, you can make the changes you want to the standards.
Quotethey cannot prevent members of their own ranks from legally drinking themselves into oblivion and hiding behind the blue wall of silence?
Because there is no standard prohibiting alcohol consumption, because alcohol isn't illegal. When you become head of said institution, you can ban alcohol or allow smoking pot, but the institution has to change itself (public pressure helps to do this, of course).
QuoteUnfortunately, society now demands that people use countermeasures if they want to combat unfair standards to obtain employment.
Now this is where your argument truly goes awry.
1) Society demands nothing of an applicant. An applicant chooses to use countermeasures out of free will.
2) Countermeasures don't combat unfair standards. Countermeasures combat an unfair, biased testing system. The test is supposed to provide an accurate measure to adherance of the standards; however, the test itself is flawed, so countermeasures result. This flaws the entire applicant system, as institutions do not get accurate reads of whether or not their applicants have conformed to their pre-employment standards.
3) If an applicant deems an institution's hiring standards to be "unfair," then the applicant should seek employment elsewhere. No one is forcing the applicant to seek employment with the institution, and the institution's standards are non-negotiable. Not even if the standards "seem" unfair. If they are unlawful, then you have a case.
QuoteIf standards are so important, I am oh so grateful for the fact that you got screened out of your application process. After all ... we cannot compromise on standards!
I was not screened out because of standards. The standard for the FBI is that you not be a spy. I am not a spy, yet the flawed test has deemed me so. I want an opportunity to clear my name of these false accusations.
Also, the FBI standard is that you have to pass an FBI polygraph to get in. I didn't, therefore, I am seeking employment elsewhere (while alos requesting a second polygraph).
And yes, we cannot compromise on standards. It makes us weak. Example: airport security. Everyone bitches when the 80 yr old woman with the metal hip gets wanded and strip searched. The day we make exceptions to the security standards is for sweet old grandmothers is the day that terrorists start looking for 80 yr old women to carry bombs onto planes.
Hope this clears my view on standards.
Chris
Quote from: steincj on Jan 10, 2003, 06:00 AMAnd it was the job of the intitution to change those standards, not the public. Now the public may exert pressure on institutions to change standards, but it is up to the institution to make the change.
If the abolishment of polygraphy as a pre-employment screening tool is the goal, then by necessity the public will be the catalyst, not the institution, for change. This must be the case as more and more members of the public (from whom of course the applicant pool is created) become aware of the lie behind the lie detector at some point either completely before their application process begins, during the application process but before the polygraph interrogation, or afterwards (usually this last demographic consists of those who were incorrectly labeled as liars). I have noted healthy numbers of all three demographics on the board. By 'institution', in this case I think we'll agree that it is not the sum total of the employees of said institution, rather it is a select few who make such policy decisions-- and unfortunately these select few are more often than not highly biased against change for a number of subjective,
self-serving reasons. Among these include:
1. Basic lust for power and control
2. The commensurate financial and social rewards for remaining in such a position
3. The fear that the change will affect 1 & 2
4. The fear that the change will bring about a discovery that these select few have been duped, leading to their downfall
5. The fear of admitting to themselves they have failed to provide for a rigorous and thorough screening system by their unnatural reliance on the polygraph
Coupled with these few examples one can add the constant desperate harping of the polygraphers themselves into the ears of these select few that the polygraph really truly does work, the polygraph really truly is '99.998% accurate', the polygraph really truly has caught spies (but we just can't tell you who), countermeasures DON'T work (but we can't tell you how we catch them), just stick with us, shut up and everything will be fine. Oh and occassionally say things like "we need more research", "nothing is perfect", "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs", etc.
QuoteWhen you are the head of said institution/agency, you can make the changes you want to the standards.
If we're talking about the Federal Government, that would be somewhat accurate within a narrow scope. Thomas Sowell once wrote,
"The most basic question is not what is best but who shall decide what is best."For the reasons I note above (as well as I'm sure many similar) I submit that the head of a Federal Government agency should rarely if ever be the 'who' of who shall decide what is best.
Quote2) Countermeasures don't combat unfair standards. Countermeasures combat an unfair, biased testing system.
I submit that countermeasures do both, and more. Countermeasures render as totally impotent the polygraph examination phase of the screening process.
If a standard is 'unfair', say if only applicants who are of Hawaiian parentage will be considered, or only applicants who have a mole on their cheek, or only applicants with a surname that begins with 'J', these are clear and egregious unfair standards that serve no possible purpose. The standard that an applicant pass an unscientific physiologically measured interrogation (in which the truly honest have a high likelyhood of failing, owing to their lack of response to control questions) is, I submit, an unfair standard.
QuoteIf an applicant deems an institution's hiring standards to be "unfair," then the applicant should seek employment elsewhere. No one is forcing the applicant to seek employment with the institution, and the institution's standards are non-negotiable. Not even if the standards "seem" unfair. If they are unlawful, then you have a case.
Speaking personally, I would not let an unfair standard set by a select few who have the concerns I noted above dictate my pursuit of happiness. If a standard such as education, prior experience, physical agility, or even age must be met, these are all standards one can meet given the will of the applicant.
QuoteAnd yes, we cannot compromise on standards. It makes us weak. Example: airport security. Everyone bitches when the 80 yr old woman with the metal hip gets wanded and strip searched. The day we make exceptions to the security standards is for sweet old grandmothers is the day that terrorists start looking for 80 yr old women to carry bombs onto planes.
Well, here is another kettle of fish entirely. Suffice to say you are sorely mistaken if you think the currect security standards accomplish anything except inconveniencing travelers and flight crews and are bringing about the ruination of the airline industry.
Sincerely,
Dave
Quote from: beech trees on Jan 10, 2003, 11:42 AM
Well, here is another kettle of fish entirely. Suffice to say you are sorely mistaken if you think the currect security standards accomplish anything except inconveniencing travelers and flight crews and are bringing about the ruination of the airline industry.
First off, I just want to kill this before it sparks a huge tangent. I used airport security as an example of how compromising set standards can be detrimental. I too think the security in place now is a joke. It will be years before they get that right, and at the expense of the industry itself.
Quotethe abolishment of polygraphy as a pre-employment screening tool is the goal, then by necessity the public will be the catalyst, not the institution, for change.
I agree, except that the public cannot physically make the change to the institution. That change must be made internally, under intese public pressure. But I think we are basically saying the same thing here.
Quotethese select few are more often than not highly biased against change for a number of subjective, self-serving reasons.
Totally agree. In my experience, the individuals who were most resistant to any sort of change to a system (for the better) were the ones who skated throught that system and continued to excel, with little to no effort on their part.
QuoteCoupled with these few examples one can add the constant desperate harping of the polygraphers themselves into the ears of these select few that the polygraph really truly does work
I can hear the polygraphers in their boss's office now -- "You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall!"
It is the most self serving system I have seen. How does a polygrapher justify his work? By how many suspected spies and druggies he "catches?" Where is the quality control on the false positives he generates to bump up his numbers? No, if you complain about failing a polygraph, your voice isn't even heard. (My letter of appeal to the FBI is still sitting in the Local Division HQ SAC's office -- over 2 months and no action has been taken. Unbelievable.)
Quote
Thomas Sowell once wrote,
"The most basic question is not what is best but who shall decide what is best."
For the reasons I note above (as well as I'm sure many similar) I submit that the head of a Federal Government agency should rarely if ever be the 'who' of who shall decide what is best.
Great quote. Of course these individuals rarely make decisions without input and suggestions from their staff, as well as precedent set by sister agencies. But unfortunately, for the system to work properly, the agency has to change itself. The people can't cheat the system because they feel it is "unfair." This undermines the authority of the system and in turn, makes the agency weak. (see example of old lady getting strip search).
QuoteCountermeasures render as totally impotent the polygraph examination phase of the screening process.
Using countermeasures is like a form of vigilanteism -- the people know it is the right thing to do and the system won't do it so damn it, we'll take matters into our own hands.
It's wrong. You won't convince me otherwise. I know the system sucks, I know it is flawed. But their wrong doesn't allow me to do another wrong (two wrongs don't make a right?). The best I can do is try my damndest to gain employment
within the confines of the system, and if not, apply as much public pressure to the institution so that a change is made, not for me, but for those like me down the road.
Quotethese are clear and egregious unfair standards that serve no possible purpose.
Your opinion of the standards set is your opinion, and unfortuantely, has no bearing, unless of course the standard is unjust. But unfair (subjective) does not equal unjust (objective).
QuoteThe standard that an applicant pass an unscientific physiologically measured interrogation (in which the truly honest have a high likelyhood of failing, owing to their lack of response to control questions) is, I submit, an unfair standard.
I agree, it is unfair, but not unjust. The EPPA does not cover all agencies, so this remains unfair. Public pressure, of course, can be the catalyst (as you said) to make the change.
QuoteSpeaking personally, I would not let an unfair standard set by a select few who have the concerns I noted above dictate my pursuit of happiness. If a standard such as education, prior experience, physical agility, or even age must be met, these are all standards one can meet given the will of the applicant.
I agree, but I will stop short of taking matters into my own hands. I couldn't live with myself, even though I was right, if I used countermeasures to pass a polygraph. It's a sophisticated form of lying, just like the polygraph "test". Again, I'm not compounding the polygraph problem with a lack of morals in using countermeasures. It's just not for me.
Chris
Quote from: steincj on Jan 10, 2003, 06:00 AM
I was not screened out because of standards. The standard for the FBI is that you not be a spy. I am not a spy, yet the flawed test has deemed me so. I want an opportunity to clear my name of these false accusations.
Also, the FBI standard is that you have to pass an FBI polygraph to get in. I didn't, therefore, I am seeking employment elsewhere (while alos requesting a second polygraph).
Chris,
You've hit the nail on the head with your second statement. It is, indeed, an FBI "standard" that one must "pass" a polygraph, just as it is evidently a "standard" at other agencies that an applicant not have a negative polygraph report from an outside source.
While I may disagree with you somewhat that an agency has the right to set any standard they please and that one has no right to try to circumvent a truly foolish and unfair rule (especially one that ends up not only disqualifying an applicant but also branding him as less-than-desirable to other agencies, and one that causes definite harm to national security), I think your logic is internally consistent.
Skeptic
Quote from: Skeptic on Jan 10, 2003, 06:36 PM
While I may disagree with you somewhat that an agency has the right to set any standard they please and that one has no right to try to circumvent a truly foolish and unfair rule (especially one that ends up not only disqualifying an applicant but also branding him as less-than-desirable to other agencies, and one that causes definite harm to national security), I think your logic is internally consistent.
Thank you, Skeptic, for the vote of confidence reagrding my logic.
I am worried that someday, I may just lose it.
Like you said, I was disqualified from employment opportunities with the FBI. That hurts. I was deemed deceptive regarding national security issues, and that hurts more. My truthfulness, integrity, and dedication while serving our nation both here and abroad was questioned. That will scar me permanently. Like you said, I was branded as less-than-desireable with other government agencies. That hurts my future, a future in which I desired to uphold the principles of national security, an opportunity I left a job in national defense to pursue. All of this has hurt me deeply.
But, no matter what they do to me, they can't make me sacrifice my own morals. My morals tell me using countermeasures is wrong. I won't do it, even if the system I were to use them on is as flawed as the pre-employment polygraph. I have nothing but my morals, dignity, and integrity and no pathetic mind test, wannabe pschologist, or any other reprehensible treatment of me will make me change that.
I know who I am, despite what the polygraph says, and I will do nothing to compromise that.
And to all of you pro-polygraph posters on this site who deem me "unfit for LE duty," I ask you this: If I am unfit for LE duty, then who is fit? Someone who sacrifices their morals by using countermeasures to pass a polygraph they knew they would fail?
The sytem is FLAWED and has to change, yet you all do NOTHING to change it for FEAR of your precious little jobs. Now tell me this, pro-polygraph types, who is the greater threat to national security?
Chris
Chris,
Although I don't agree with your take on the issue, I think you are perfectly entitled to choose not to use countermeasures on a polygraph exam. That having been said, since you have already failed one exam while telling the truth and not using countermeasures, I don't think if I were you I would pursue another exam if you plan on doing the same thing again. Einstein is credited with having said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different outcome.
Quote from: Anonymous on Jan 10, 2003, 09:13 PM
since you have already failed one exam while telling the truth and not using countermeasures, I don't think if I were you I would pursue another exam if you plan on doing the same thing again. Einstein is credited with having said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting a different outcome.
Anonymous,
Call me insane if you wish, but I'd rather walk out of the examination with a failure and my morals rather than using countermeausres.
The real reason is that during my first exam, a serious bias was introduced to both me and the polygrapher. Needless to say, I failed because of it. I'm hoping that a my truthfulness and no bias in a second poly will get me a passing mark.
Chris
Chris,
You write:
Quote...I'd rather walk out of the examination with a failure and my morals rather than using countermeausres...
This is not the choice I suggested was before you. I suggested you consider not taking the exam.
You further write:
Quote...The real reason is that during my first exam, a serious bias was introduced to both me and the polygrapher. Needless to say, I failed because of it. I'm hoping that a my truthfulness and no bias in a second poly will get me a passing mark....
You now face a more serious bias and that stems from already having failed a Bureau polygraph exam on the issues for which you will be tested. In order for you to prevail, a second Bureau examiner will have to say the first was wrong and allowed himself to be unduly influenced by investigative bias (which happened to be wrong). I do not know what the statistics are on Bureau applicants passing second exams having failed an initial one, but I would respectfully suggest that if such a statistic were known, it would not be viewed as an encouragement for you.
Chris,
Although I do not believe it is unethical for truthful (with regard to relevant questions) applicants to employ polygraph countermeasures to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome, I think your decision to adopt the "complete honesty" approach (among the options discussed in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml)) is commendable. But in pragmatic terms, in view of your public statement about your polygraph experience, it is also the only viable option to you (apart from refusing the polygraph altogether, as suggested by Anonymous).
There can be little doubt but that FBI polygraphers have read your public statement on this website. The polygraph unit at FBI HQ must realize that it made a colossal mistake by accusing you of espionage. It is to be hoped that the FBI will give you the chance to "prove your innocence" with a second polygraph "test."
But in view of your adoption of the "complete honesty" approach, the ones who will actually be tested in any second polygraph examination will be the FBI polygraphers themselves. Will they administer you their fraudulent probable-lie "control" question "test," even after you admit (when asked what you know about polygraphy) that you understand "the lie behind the lie detector?"
Or will they fall back to a relevant/irrelevant "test," a procedure that is thoroughly discredited, even in the polygraph community itself, and completely unsupported by any peer-reviewed research whatsoever? Will they lie to you and tell you that it's a highly reliable technique? What will they do when you explain that you know that the relevant/irrelevant technique is also a fraud?
The FBI's actions (and omissions) in your case will be a watershed test of the FBI's "fidelity, bravery, [and] integrity" (FBI motto).
Ray - NYPD FDNY does not require polygraphing. Please tell me how I am wrong?
Your argument is very articulate although I do not agree with it. I would sooner flaunt ludicrous standards with countermeasures and get a job -- then get yanked around by narrow thinking instititutional leadership (not the distinction -- leadership, not sum). When I was younger, I was into the holding my head high crap. Now a days, if you want something and you know how to get it -- and there is a way to circumvent dumb rules -- that is how I would go for it. If you are going to poly for other govt. agencies, you know what needs to be done if you want to pass. Whether you do it or not is your choice.
Anonymous,
Your suggestion to me is that I refuse a second polygraph. There is no way that will happen. I want it, badly. I know I did nothing wrong, and I want the opportunity to prove that. I think the Bureau knows that -- probably the same reason my request for a second polygraph has been idle in my Local SAC's office for over 2 months (and remains idle).
George,
I think we all know I am doomed to fail an FBI second polygraph. Apart from my hopes of passing the test, I am also curious to see how the FBI will try to fail me agin, whether it be the same espionage, drugs, or countermeausres.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jan 11, 2003, 04:05 PM
There can be little doubt but that FBI polygraphers have read your public statement on this website. The polygraph unit at FBI HQ must realize that it made a colossal mistake by accusing you of espionage. It is to be hoped that the FBI will give you the chance to "prove your innocence" with a second polygraph "test."
I do hope that the FBI polygraph HQ did see my statement. I hope it makes them think how many more honest Americans' lives will be ruined by this wretched procedure.
And if the FBI knows it erred on my test, it could be more reason as to why my appeal and retest request is still sitting in someone's inbox.
Quote
The FBI's actions (and omissions) in your case will be a watershed test of the FBI's "fidelity, bravery, [and] integrity" (FBI motto).
Does this motto apply to FBI polygraphers as well as regular Special Agents? There's got to be some fine print on that seal somewhere . . .
And stopnik,
Thank you for the compliment regarding my argument. Maybe I am young, which you might mean "naieve," in keeping my head held high. Well, like I said, my morals and my dignity are all I have left -- I won't do anything to compromise them. But I can understand why you feel differently in your pragmatism. It's why they make vanilla and chocolate . . .
Chris
Quote from: steincj on Jan 13, 2003, 04:18 PM
Anonymous,
Your suggestion to me is that I refuse a second polygraph. There is no way that will happen. I want it, badly. I know I did nothing wrong, and I want the opportunity to prove that. I think the Bureau knows that -- probably the same reason my request for a second polygraph has been idle in my Local SAC's office for over 2 months (and remains idle).
George,
I think we all know I am doomed to fail an FBI second polygraph. Apart from my hopes of passing the test, I am also curious to see how the FBI will try to fail me agin, whether it be the same espionage, drugs, or countermeausres.
I do hope that the FBI polygraph HQ did see my statement. I hope it makes them think how many more honest Americans' lives will be ruined by this wretched procedure.
And if the FBI knows it erred on my test, it could be more reason as to why my appeal and retest request is still sitting in someone's inbox.
Does this motto apply to FBI polygraphers as well as regular Special Agents? There's got to be some fine print on that seal somewhere . . .
Chris,
I believe there are only two possible outcomes of your request to be tested. The first is that they will fight tooth and nail against retesting you -- the least work for them and the least risky, as well, although you can still generate negative publicity regarding your first test.
The second is that they can try to "neutralize" your PR damage potential by retesting you and claiming you employed countermeasures.
Skeptic
Chris,
Here's my take on this:
I agree with Anonymous that the chances of a polygrapher being overturned on a finding of DI (deception indicated) is minimal. Maybe...maybe...it will get changed to inconclusive, but not to NDI (no deception indicated).
You seem to assume, as I once did, that the error of their ways will be staring the FBI and their polygraph unit in the face, and logic, reason, and common sense will compel them to reform their methods. It won't happen that way. Only pressure from the outside will bring change.
I would not ascribe any meaning to the fact that your file has been sitting in someone's in-box for the past 2 months. Lots of files languish in lots of in-boxes.
Good luck.
Young is synonymous with naive...sometimes. Either way, I can tell that you are a good, honorable person and the FBI is losing out on a very strong candidate. Your decision whether or not to use CM(s) is personal -- like you aptly put it, chocolate and vanilla. For the sake of federal service, though, I would much prefer someone of your integrity and caliber to use the CM(s) and get the job! But that is your choice...what loss for all of us due to that silly, silly machine.
On 12/18 Chris wrote:
"Maybe then will I bow down to the "I can't make a difference in this noble effoert attitude." But I can't see how you could possibly pass up the opportunity to get back in the chair. As far as the second poly goes, well, I hate to see your defeatist attitude regarding it. Just because everyone says that you're doomed to fail a second chair ride means you will."
On 01/13 Chris wrote:
"I think we all know I am doomed to fail an FBI second polygraph. Apart from my hopes of passing the test, I am also curious to see how the FBI will try to fail me agin, whether it be the same espionage, drugs, or countermeausres."
Chris, you may owe me an apology?
Second Chance,
You are right -- my words are slightly confliciting. Bottom line is, no matter waht, given the opportunity, I would jump back into that chair and try to clear my name.
Quote from: SecondChancePoly on Jan 13, 2003, 08:22 PM
On 12/18 Chris wrote:
"Maybe then will I bow down to the "I can't make a difference in this noble effoert attitude." But I can't see how you could possibly pass up the opportunity to get back in the chair. As far as the second poly goes, well, I hate to see your defeatist attitude regarding it. Just because everyone says that you're doomed to fail a second chair ride means you will."
I think I said it best -- just beacause everyone says I will fail, doesn't mean I will. I want a chance to prove everyone wrong, but if the FBI wants to continue their charade of labeling me a spy, I'd like to see how they will try to do it.
Quote
On 01/13 Chris wrote:
"I think we all know I am doomed to fail an FBI second polygraph. Apart from my hopes of passing the test, I am also curious to see how the FBI will try to fail me agin, whether it be the same espionage, drugs, or countermeausres."
I'm sorry for my wording. My refernce in saying this was Geoge's comments regarding the probablility that the entire FBI polygraph community has read my personal statement. My involvement in this site is almost certain death, as I found proven true through a prominent outside source. Had I retained anonymity, I might have a chance.
If the FBI believes in its motto of "fidelity, bravery, and integrity," they should applaud my efforts in using my real name and freely speaking my mind regarding my morals and potential use of countermeasures, especially since countermeasure is a large part of how this site informs citizens about the polygraph.
But why should I put my trust in the FBI to treat me fairly? Since 3 Oct 2002, they have done nothing but treat me poor.
So, SecondChance, sorry for the apparent double talk. Just remember that alot can happen in a month.
Chris
Chris wrote:
"So, SecondChance, sorry for the apparent double talk. Just remember that alot can happen in a month."
Chris, I understand... Good luck with your future endeavors.
I see the responses from this thread. And these are my thoughts.
First, Let's look at the story. WE take a person that had some problems with drugs in the past! Whether 3 yrs ago or not and whether it was Marijuana or cigarettes is not the issue. AND MARIJUANA IS A DRUG! And never hurting anyone but yourself is not commendable but shear LUCK! And whether the issue of this person turning their life around is irrelevent and Commendable, But, The Bottom line is this person was deceiving and lied to get their way. And was grateful for learning to deceive!("Yeah, this is the person I want to be pulled over by"!) And I'm assuming that person is looking for a future LE position... I am new on this site, and was looking for the truth about Lie Detectors. Not looking for a way to lie to pass one. I feel that telling the truth in all situations is more
important and more commendable and satisfying to myself and everyone around me than being able to say " Hey, I passed the test". And if the test comes back negative against me. So be it. It will work out in the end.
So now that everyone has ragged you for the "pot smoking" I just want to say this, Congratulations on being free of drugs. It does make you a better person. But now you have become a liar! which can hurt just as many people! SO, if you come here for sympathy or a pat on the back. Maybe you should seek counseling. Im glad you cleared your conscience about the drugs and feel better about yourself, But now, maybe you should be PUNCHED in the face for making things harder on the people in this world that tell the truth and have it backfire on them because of people like you!
Quote from: guest65 on Jan 16, 2003, 01:18 AM
I see the responses from this thread. And these are my thoughts.
First, Let's look at the story. WE take a person that had some problems with drugs in the past! Whether 3 yrs ago or not and whether it was Marijuana or cigarettes is not the issue. AND MARIJUANA IS A DRUG! And never hurting anyone but yourself is not commendable but shear LUCK!
And whether the issue of this person turning their life around is irrelevent and Commendable, But, The Bottom line is this person was deceiving and lied to get their way. And was grateful for learning to deceive!("Yeah, this is the person I want to be pulled over by"!)
And I'm assuming that person is looking for a future LE position... I am new on this site, and was looking for the truth about Lie Detectors. Not looking for a way to lie to pass one. I feel that telling the truth in all situations is more
important and more commendable and satisfying to myself and everyone around me than being able to say " Hey, I passed the test". And if the test comes back negative against me. So be it. It will work out in the end.
So now that everyone has ragged you for the "pot smoking" I just want to say this, Congratulations on being free of drugs. It does make you a better person. But now you have become a liar! which can hurt just as many people! SO, if you come here for sympathy or a pat on the back. Maybe you should seek counseling. Im glad you cleared your conscience about the drugs and feel better about yourself, But now, maybe you should be PUNCHED in the face for making things harder on the people in this world that tell the truth and have it backfire on them because of people like you!
How is not hurting anyone by smoking marijuana sheer luck? Did I say where I have smoked it? Did I say what I was doing while I smoked it?
I never said I came here for sympathy or a pat on the back, I was just acknowledging the site and it's members for helping me pass.
Tell me, how am I personally making anything harder on anyone? I did not change the dynamics of all polygraphs with my situation. Nor am I affecting anybody's individual test.
But thanks for the kind words anyway, especially the punch in the face part, scary. ::)
So I guess we can expect when you have to take a polygraph, on the question they ask about "researching the poly", you're going to say yes to it? If you do, come back and post the results. ;)
Gentlemen,
I have been through three FBI polygraph test: one inconclusive, one "countermeasures" accused, and one non-deceptive. I am the same person I was before the first test. The "test" in my mind is now completely irrelevent in forming any opinions of other persons. I know it to be no better than a "crapshoot".
Take the polygraph test out of the above experiences. An applicant should be able to answer all questions on the application in a truthful matter. This has been my philosophy and will always continue to be my philosophy.
This website was not created to hide anyone's shortcomings. This website was created to give information about the severe shortcomings of the polygraph method of determining "truth."
If the polygraph was gone tomorrow, how would you handle your application?
This is the way you should proceed in life.
Regards.
QuoteHow is not hurting anyone by smoking marijuana sheer luck? Did I say where I have smoked it? Did I say what I was doing while I smoked it?
I never said I came here for sympathy or a pat on the back, I was just acknowledging the site and it's members for helping me pass.
Tell me, how am I personally making anything harder on anyone? I did not change the dynamics of all polygraphs with my situation. Nor am I affecting anybody's individual test.
But thanks for the kind words anyway, especially the punch in the face part, scary.
So I guess we can expect when you have to take a polygraph, on the question they ask about "researching the poly", you're going to say yes to it? If you do, come back and post the results.
Well let's see, Maybe we should lite up, go for a drive and talk about it... But i'm sure since you didn't tell us where you smoked it, I will assume you told your Mother you where just burning incense. And I don't think anyone has to think very hard to figure out what you where doing while you were doing it , you were getting high!
Next, Your comment about being a past "POT HEAD" But now you're straight was begging for a huge pat on the back! And then, The one about passing your test? Geez man, Here's your pat!!!! "I always congradulate a cheater".(yeah right)
About making things harder on people? It's just like the guy who keys his own car to get the insurance to pay for a new paint job. It makes my rates go up! And So, Future tests rely on Past Statistics to be accurate! That's how it hurts everyone else. That should be easy for an upstanding person like yourself to understand. About taking the test and answering the Question about researching the polygraph, I would still tell the truth, If i decided to take the test to begin with! And when you say "WE" I'm assuming you have a pothead helping you write your response to my post. Don't assume everyone is backing you up in your reply!
And about the Punch in the face. Scary Huh? GOOD! Think about it!
Just so you people who read my last post think i'm being a little hard on this person, This is what the person wrote.
QuoteIn the past I have smoked A LOT of marijuana, I stopped over 3 years ago, and I know what I did was a waste of time and money. Even though things like that made me the person I am today, it does not reflect who I am.
You Dumb ASS! First of all, That is a contradiction! If it made you the person your are today, Then it exactly represents or reflects the person or as you said "who you are" today!