What if question (re: FBI polygraph)

[The_Breeze]

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!

[Anonymous]

Breeze,

You wrote:

...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.

[Mark Mallah]

The 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.

[Twoblock]

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?

[The_Breeze]

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.

[The_Breeze]

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?

[Mark Mallah]

Simply 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.

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?

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.

Dont 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.

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)  

You must be thinking of another case, because there was no fallback accusation in my case of mishandling classified information.

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.

Ain't that the truth.

[Skeptic]

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

[Twoblock]

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.

[Anonymous2]

Breeze writes in part:

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!

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.  

[The_Breeze]

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.

[steincj]

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

[The_Breeze]

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.

[The_Breeze]

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?

[Skeptic]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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