Breaking News - If you are denied SCI, you are in deep SH*T! - Start writing letters to congress if you ever failed a poly for no reason. LET'S START THE "NO MORE POLY" MOVEMENT TODAY!

[No More Poly]

See this new Oct. 2011 article.  It says if you fail a poly, you're career is basically done everywhere!
http://www.sheldoncohen.com/publications/SCI%20Access%20Article%20sec.02.pdf

And the OP in this other forum has apparently felt the full blow.  I think it is time we all start writing letters to congress/senate.  Seriously.  If you've ever had your career ruined by a poly, especially if it was recent, please write a letter.  Time to really start a movement and end this crap.  Polygraph has to go!

[quickfix]

Where have you been? the movement started 10+ years ago, and in that time, at least three more federal agencies have added polygraph programs.  Get real!  We're not going away;  but idiots who attempt countermeasures ARE!

[Sergeant1107]

Where have you been? the movement started 10+ years ago, and in that time, at least three more federal agencies have added polygraph programs.  Get real!  We're not going away;  but idiots who attempt countermeasures ARE!

Well, the people who use countermeasures are either going away, or are passing their polygraphs.  The only way you would ever know if someone successfully used countermeasures is if that person passed the polygraph and then admitted they did so by using countermeasures, which hardly seems likely to happen.

[stefano]

Get real!We're not going away;but idiots who attempt countermeasures ARE! 

My dear Quickfix. I hope you can find the courage to stop digging in your heels and really try to perceive the damage that is being done to people through the abuse of the instrument you hold so dear. Perhaps some dirt bags may have been filtered out of the hiring process, but the majority of the posters here are decent candidates trying to serve in a law enforcement capacity.

Regarding the polygraph technique, I know as much as any, and more than most. I don't see it being properly employed: There are no successive hurdles as promoted by the APA and the "examiners" are given free and unfettered reign to impose their will with no oversight.

While some haphazard attempts to affect the polygraph charts may be detectable, properly executed mental countermeasures are impossible to detect. And the reason for that is the human body will produce psycho-physiological reactions to a stimulus regardless of the origin. There is no difference between an externally applied stimulus and one that originates in the brain--the resulting psycho-physiological reactions are identical.

Your assertion that you are not "going away" may be undermined as the collateral damage piles up and law makers begin to take notice, just as they did prior to the enactment of the the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988.

[quickfix]

My dear Stefano: to show how naive you are, let's stroll down memory lane:  pre-EPPA:  polygraph limited to the military services, CIA, NSA, and maybe a couple of agencies beyond that.  Fast-forward 23 years:  by my count, we're up to around 26-27 federal intell/law enforcement agencies with polygraph programs in place (I do not count state or local law enforcement);  EPPA has had no effect on the federal community, nor will it.  Polygraph has been recognized as the valuable tool that it is, evidenced by the number of federal agencies now using it compared to pre-1988.  That's some "collateral damage".  And yes, there are dirtbags in every profession, including polygraph, but the APA is a private organization with no authority to enforce proper oversight;  that's why we have quality control oversight in the federal community.  Inept, incompetant, and/or unethical examiners are not tolerated, and weeded out, at least in the agencies I've been employed with.  And the same thing applies to unethical examinees.  This site is chock full of boo-hoo-hooers, who cry that they were denied employment because they were "accused" of engaging in countermeasures;  these "accusations" are well-founded, and they deserve their fate.

[stefano]

Quickfix, you really should read the details of what people post before launching one your vituperative Attila the Hun tirades. I never indicated that the EPPA related to the feds. I simply said that lawmakers may begin to see the damage being done and act in a similar manner.

"that's why we have quality control oversight in the federal community.  Inept, incompetant [sic], and/or unethical examiners are not tolerated, and weeded out"

Really? I have never seen anything to support this. If you can substantiate this claim, it would steal much fire from the posters on this website.

[Bill_Brown]

After examining 57 polygraph studies the NAS concluded: "In populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection." Their analysis of the 30 most recent polygraph data sets showed an overall accuracy of 85 percent, and an analysis of seven field studies involving specific incidents showed a median accuracy of 89 percent

Polygraph wil be around for a long time. 

[Sergeant1107]

This site is chock full of boo-hoo-hooers, who cry that they were denied employment because they were "accused" of engaging in countermeasures;these "accusations" are well-founded, and they deserve their fate.
           

And what about the people like myself who did not attempt countermeasures and were wrongly accused of lying?  Do I and others like me deserve that fate as well?

The answer, of course, is no.  Anyone who answers all questions truthfully and does not withhold any information during a polygraph examination should NEVER fail.  It really is that simple.

Regarding Bill Brown's post, I don't believe it is possible to verify whether a test subject is untrained in countermeasures, which appears to be part of the "given" set of data in the cited study.  Also, a median accuracy of 89 percent in seven studies is irrelevant unless the scores of each are given, since "median" simply means it was the middle number in a list of accuracy scores.

Possible Accuracy Scores:
Test #1= 1% accurate
Test#2= 2% accurate
Test#3 = 3% accurate
Test#4= 89% accurate
Test#5= 90% accurate
Test#6= 91% accurate
Test#7= 92% accurate

That would give you a "median" accuracy of 89%, but an average accuracy (assuming each test contained the same number of data points) of 52.5%, which would be a far more accurate description of the data.

[Bill_Brown]

Regarding Bill Brown's post, I don't believe it is possible to verify whether a test subject is untrained in countermeasures, which appears to be part of the "given" set of data in the cited study.  Also, a median accuracy of 89 percent in seven studies is irrelevant unless the scores of each are given, since "median" simply means it was the middle number in a list of accuracy scores.

Possible Accuracy Scores:
Test #1= 1% accurate
Test#2= 2% accurate
Test#3 = 3% accurate
Test#4= 89% accurate
Test#5= 90% accurate
Test#6= 91% accurate
Test#7= 92% accurate

That would give you a "median" accuracy of 89%, but an average accuracy (assuming each test contained the same number of data points) of 52.5%, which would be a far more accurate description of the data.

Sergeant1107,

I quoted from the NAS Study that you have access to online.  You are aware of the study and know they did not use the type analysis you suggested.  Your "POSSIBLE ACCURACY SCORES" were not used.  This same NAS Study is used on this site to show polygraph is a coin toss with 50% accuracy. 

Their analysis of the 30 most recent polygraph data sets showed an overall accuracy of 85 percent

You can work the same magic with the 30 other studies showing 85% accuracy, however the NAS did not.  They are scientists and looked at the studies and data. 

Polygraph will be around for a long time. 

[Sergeant1107]

and an analysis of seven field studies involving specific incidents showed a median accuracy of 89 percent

Bill Brown,

My post was not intended to be an attack on you.  You wrote that an analysis of seven studies involving specific incidents showed a median accuracy of 89 percent.  My response was entirely correct and on point.  Providing the median accuracy of a set of tests is meaningless, since the median is nothing more than the middle number of a set.  A median of 89 percent could mean three tests were 88% accurate, three were 90% accurate, and one was 89% accurate, or it could mean three were 1% accurate, three were 100% accurate, and one was 89% percent accurate.  The median of both sets is 89%, but you can see how meaningless that number is.

Providing the average accuracy of the seven studies would be informative, as would providing the actual accuracy of each study.  Providing the median really does nothing except imply that the median was higher than the average (otherwise the average would have been used, since it is much more informative.)

[Bill_Brown]

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=1

"Only seven polygraph field studies passed our minimal criteria for review. All involved examination of polygraph charts from law enforcement agencies' or polygraph examiners' case files in relation to the truth as determined by relatively reliable but nevertheless imperfect criteria, including confession by the subject or another party or apparently definitive evidence. The seven datasets include between 25 and 122 polygraph tests, with a median of 100 and a total of 582 tests. Figure 5-3 displays results in the same manner as in Figure 5-1. The accuracy index values (A) range from 0.711 to 0.999, with a median value of 0.89, which, given sampling and other variability, is statistically indistinguishable from the median of 0.86 for the 52 datasets from laboratory studies."

Sergeant1107, 

Above are the figures from the NAS Study we were discussing.  I hope this helps elucidate how the "median" was determined.  I don't feel attacked, and the clarification is requisite for individuals literate in statistical analyses. 

[George W. Maschke]

See this new Oct. 2011 article.  It says if you fail a poly, you're career is basically done everywhere!
http://www.sheldoncohen.com/publications/SCI%20Access%20Article%20sec.02.pdf

And the OP in this other forum has apparently felt the full blow.  I think it is time we all start writing letters to congress/senate.  Seriously.  If you've ever had your career ruined by a poly, especially if it was recent, please write a letter.  Time to really start a movement and end this crap.  Polygraph has to go!

No More Poly,

Thank you for sharing this information. The policy that Sheldon Cohen describes in his article is of tremendous significance. In view of this information, I think it would be prudent for anyone seeking a career in public service, or with a government contractor, to avoid applying for any position that requires polygraph screening.

PS: Owing to an ongoing wave of attempted spam postings to this forum, guest posting has been indefinitely suspended.

[No More Poly]

Re: If you are fail a poly and are denied SCI, you get a "Loss of Jurisdiction" in JPAS, and you're FUCKED...

Here is another article explaining the infamous "Loss of Jurisdiction" that one will see in JPAS.  This can happen due to a failed poly putting an "Incident Report" (red flag) in your file and screw you like a hooker.

clearancejobs.com/cleared-news/609/security-clearance-loss-of-jurisdiction-and-incident-reports


There are a couple of key statements here:

...many prospective employers may be reluctant to extend a job offer for a cleared position when a pending Incident Report and Loss of Jurisdiction are in your JPAS record.  It's usually faster for them to obtain a Secret clearance or an interim Top Secret clearance for an applicant who didn't previously have a clearance.

and

When Loss of Jurisdiction occurs in conjunction with an Incident Report, the person usually doesn't become aware of the problem until they apply for another job that requires a clearance.  Unfortunately the only way to resolve the problem is to find a prospective employer who is willing to sponsor the clearance and wait until the Incident Report is adjudicated.

[No More Poly]

You will need to include the standard url prefix for that web address to work.  I couldn't post a link since I'm a guest

[Twoblock]

quickfix

Do you think Obama could pass a polygraph? He has a built-in countermeasure. Uh oh. Maybe you shouldn't answer that. He just might be your boss. LMAO