4 ms·

For the written form, I've always been told to be 100% truthful. During the polygraph though I've had several antagonistic interactions similar to yours. Its al

For the written form, I've always been told to be 100% truthful. During the polygraph though I've had several antagonistic interactions similar to yours. Its all part of the game though at that point. They are trying to get under your skin. My personality does not play well in that scenario. Glad to be out of that line of work now, and I generally say no to anyone asking if I'd be open to having a clearance again.

WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago
Bro, they brought the girl that talked to me on campus to confirm it was me at the polygraph.
sizzzzlerz 4y ago
Over my years working for defense contractors, I've held clearences from multiple agencies and have gone through 5 or so polygraph tests. In everyone of them, the examiners were professional in every sense of the word. They clearly explained the procedure, went over what questions were to be asked, and ran the tests calmly and fairly. I never had a reason to complain about any one of them. Now, I didn't like to be tested but it was part of process to get and hold the clearance so I could do my job so I went through it. I never heard of any of my colleagues complain either. Still, every job has its assholes and you were unlucky to encounter one.
- JamesSwift 4y ago
  Thats.... the exact opposite of my experience lol. I was at a 3 letter agency for ~5 years and close to everyone I knew failed the first poly of every round. IMO its a ploy to raise the stakes and get you on edge.
  - sizzzzlerz 4y ago
    I wonder if that's because you were working for the agency instead of as a contractor. Since the testing costs the company money, they might get pissed if too many of their employees kept failing and require a retest. For large contractors like LMSC or Raytheon, that can be a sizeable expense. Of course, it goes into the overhead charges when they bill but still, not something they want.
    - JamesSwift 4y ago
      Well I was actually military (which is a non full-scope poly) then contractor (full-scope poly) : )
  - Cyberdog 4y ago
    Did they fail the polygraph? Or were they told they failed a sham polygraph in the hopes that they would confess their crimes afterwards? The police do this tactic often; if you are suspected of a crime, never consent to a polygraph not done by a neutral party no matter how not guilty you are, or you will probably "fail." (Polygraphs are pseudoscientific BS in the first place, but I know there are some cases where you must undergo them for whatever reason.)
    - JamesSwift 4y ago
      Yes, its all part of the game. The failures are real, but the reasons might be BS. In any case, you have to do another poly and now the stakes are higher. Its hard to understand the stress around the process without experiencing it. Passing the poly is a very important step in be able to get/keep your clearance so you can actually work. Otherwise you need a new profession. I miss the work itself but I dont miss the process. EDIT: I'm not aware of any polys leading to discovering enemies of the state. Its all self-elected information from my understanding, in line with your suggestion.
      - sizzzzlerz 4y ago
        You may remember the Aldredge Ames spy case some years back. Supposedly, his CIA polys revealed some strange results but rather call him on it and investigate it further, they shuffled him off to the FBI, still holding his clearances and accesses where he continued to pass classified information to the russians for several more years. Polys are not the end-all for detecting bad guys but if you choose to ignore it anyway, it certainly becomes useless.
        JamesSwift 4y ago
        I think thats basically an indictment of the system. They are so unreliable that even the practitioners dont believe what it says as a scientific tool. I hadn't heard of the Ames poly history but I just looked it up and its interesting because apparently he had the same mindset that I do about polys in general [1], and basically when the poly tech said during the interview that they were getting some weird results, he essentially told them the same thing [2] and they were like "yeah youre right" lol. [1] - https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/polygraph/ames.html [2] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/04/16/failure-of-the-polygraph/07c406a5-0aa3-4e20-8dcc-89781162aaa8/
ActorNightly 4y ago
I got put in for a poly for one of my older job. Naturally being of a rational mindset, I started googling how to beat a poly. During the poly, few question in, guy asked me if I ever looked up how to beat a poly. I naturally said yes cause I was startled that this in fact could be one of the questions, which automatically ended the interview. Thats when I realized that smart people don't work in the government.
- walrus01 4y ago
  What if you're being recruited for a counterintelligence job for a 3-letter agency and part of the job definition is being intimately familiar with the details of how persons might attempt to beat a polygraph? That's definitely something a person in that specific field would spend a good deal of time studying. I guess this is sort of a chicken/egg problem since you can't or won't get hired for the job if you appear too familiar with the workings of the recruitment process. But then if you don't get hired, they might be leaving out one of the better informed candidates. Anecdotally from the defense contractor industry I've known a number of people who have a whole bookshelf of books on subjects like cold war era espionage, are deeply familiar with some of the most noteworthy moles/spies that were publicly prosecuted and jailed (or north korean, chinese, soviet officers and officials who were just straight out executed with a bullet to the back of the head). It didn't seem to prevent any of them from passing their clearances. Some jobs want to know that you're motivated to learn the subject matter at hand and research its past 60+ years of history.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Polygraphs are very unreliable in general, so this was never anything other than security theater.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Hell, I never even had an interview like that (what an insane thing btw), and even I have looked up how to beat a poly at some point. What a silly question.
- JamesSwift 4y ago

WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago

Bro, they brought the girl that talked to me on campus to confirm it was me at the polygraph.

sizzzzlerz 4y ago

Over my years working for defense contractors, I've held clearences from multiple agencies and have gone through 5 or so polygraph tests. In everyone of them, the examiners were professional in every sense of the word. They clearly explained the procedure, went over what questions were to be asked, and ran the tests calmly and fairly. I never had a reason to complain about any one of them. Now, I didn't like to be tested but it was part of process to get and hold the clearance so I could do my job so I went through it. I never heard of any of my colleagues complain either. Still, every job has its assholes and you were unlucky to encounter one.

JamesSwift 4y ago
Thats.... the exact opposite of my experience lol. I was at a 3 letter agency for ~5 years and close to everyone I knew failed the first poly of every round. IMO its a ploy to raise the stakes and get you on edge.
- sizzzzlerz 4y ago
  I wonder if that's because you were working for the agency instead of as a contractor. Since the testing costs the company money, they might get pissed if too many of their employees kept failing and require a retest. For large contractors like LMSC or Raytheon, that can be a sizeable expense. Of course, it goes into the overhead charges when they bill but still, not something they want.
  - JamesSwift 4y ago
    Well I was actually military (which is a non full-scope poly) then contractor (full-scope poly) : )
- Cyberdog 4y ago
  Did they fail the polygraph? Or were they told they failed a sham polygraph in the hopes that they would confess their crimes afterwards? The police do this tactic often; if you are suspected of a crime, never consent to a polygraph not done by a neutral party no matter how not guilty you are, or you will probably "fail." (Polygraphs are pseudoscientific BS in the first place, but I know there are some cases where you must undergo them for whatever reason.)
  - JamesSwift 4y ago
    Yes, its all part of the game. The failures are real, but the reasons might be BS. In any case, you have to do another poly and now the stakes are higher. Its hard to understand the stress around the process without experiencing it. Passing the poly is a very important step in be able to get/keep your clearance so you can actually work. Otherwise you need a new profession. I miss the work itself but I dont miss the process. EDIT: I'm not aware of any polys leading to discovering enemies of the state. Its all self-elected information from my understanding, in line with your suggestion.
    - sizzzzlerz 4y ago
      You may remember the Aldredge Ames spy case some years back. Supposedly, his CIA polys revealed some strange results but rather call him on it and investigate it further, they shuffled him off to the FBI, still holding his clearances and accesses where he continued to pass classified information to the russians for several more years. Polys are not the end-all for detecting bad guys but if you choose to ignore it anyway, it certainly becomes useless.
      - JamesSwift 4y ago
        I think thats basically an indictment of the system. They are so unreliable that even the practitioners dont believe what it says as a scientific tool. I hadn't heard of the Ames poly history but I just looked it up and its interesting because apparently he had the same mindset that I do about polys in general [1], and basically when the poly tech said during the interview that they were getting some weird results, he essentially told them the same thing [2] and they were like "yeah youre right" lol. [1] - https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/polygraph/ames.html [2] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/04/16/failure-of-the-polygraph/07c406a5-0aa3-4e20-8dcc-89781162aaa8/

ActorNightly 4y ago

I got put in for a poly for one of my older job. Naturally being of a rational mindset, I started googling how to beat a poly. During the poly, few question in, guy asked me if I ever looked up how to beat a poly. I naturally said yes cause I was startled that this in fact could be one of the questions, which automatically ended the interview. Thats when I realized that smart people don't work in the government.

walrus01 4y ago
What if you're being recruited for a counterintelligence job for a 3-letter agency and part of the job definition is being intimately familiar with the details of how persons might attempt to beat a polygraph? That's definitely something a person in that specific field would spend a good deal of time studying. I guess this is sort of a chicken/egg problem since you can't or won't get hired for the job if you appear too familiar with the workings of the recruitment process. But then if you don't get hired, they might be leaving out one of the better informed candidates. Anecdotally from the defense contractor industry I've known a number of people who have a whole bookshelf of books on subjects like cold war era espionage, are deeply familiar with some of the most noteworthy moles/spies that were publicly prosecuted and jailed (or north korean, chinese, soviet officers and officials who were just straight out executed with a bullet to the back of the head). It didn't seem to prevent any of them from passing their clearances. Some jobs want to know that you're motivated to learn the subject matter at hand and research its past 60+ years of history.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Polygraphs are very unreliable in general, so this was never anything other than security theater.
Aeolun 4y ago
Hell, I never even had an interview like that (what an insane thing btw), and even I have looked up how to beat a poly at some point. What a silly question.
JamesSwift 4y ago