Quote:

When I failed my test at the NSA, no follow investigation was even done to establish whether I was deceptive on the test



Croddy V FBI pretty much established that NSA doesn't have to conduct followup investigations on applicants to verify polygraph results if they don't want to.



When a hiring authority uses polygraph screening tests for employment purposes they accept the possibility of false positives and false negatives and adjust their scoring criteria to purposely reduce the likelihood of a false negative with the full knowledge that by reducing false negatives they will have an increased rate of false positives. They can do this because the potential cost to National Security is much greater from a false negative than the consequences of failing to hire an applicant because of a false positive. They are the ones with the jobs to fill and they get to decide who they will hire and what criteria they will use. Polygraph employment tests for government jobs are legal. When you entered the application process you were not entitled to a job and they were not obligated to hire you whether you passed or failed your polygraph exam. You really don't know why you were rejected by NSA it may have been something in your background they didn't like. One of your neighbors may have told them some negative information about you. Maybe it was a combination of polygraph and negative background. YOU DON"T KNOW. You just assume it was only because of polygraph because they told you failed your test. Neither one if us know if you really failed your test or maybe the spooks at NSA just told you failed to get you into a "Stress Interview" situation to monitor how or IF you react under pressure.



If NSA has 25 jobs and 50 applicants 40 of which pass their polygraph test. Why should they bother at all with the 10 who failed? It would waste time and resources because they have enough people who passed to fill their needs?



You can Boo Hoo all you want, but NSA didn't owe you anything, They used a screening tool that it was legal for them to use and you don't have to like it, but you need to learn to live with it.



As to your constant commentary about the NAS study, maybe you should read the whole thing. If you did, you would find that it is not the scathing indictment of polygraph you seem to think it is. You would also find that the National Academy of Sciences did not conduct any new or original laboratory or field research on polygraph testing.



Their effort was confined to a review of the research on polygraph testing and in particular to that which pertains to personnel screening. In doing so, the academy relied on only 57 of the more than 1,000 research studies available.



They also lost any semblance of a balanced inquiry by inviting persons against polygraph to offer testimony and prohibiting polygraph experts from giving testimony at any point during their review.



All that being said, in the five years since the release of their report, completed studies and studies now under way have taken NAS recommendations and included them in their research.



Quote:

Read the quote at the bottom of my posts.

I read it and I tried to find some study conducted by or paper or book published by Dr. Zimbardo that contained the statement. I even went to his website for information. THE ONLY PLACE I CAN FIND ANY REFERENCE TO THIS ALLEGED STATEMENT IS IN POSTINGS ON THIS SITE. Did you read this in a study somewhere or are you simply quoting from someone elses posting. Please provide some sort of reliable reference for the quote. if one exists.



Sancho Panza

Croddy V FBI pretty much established that NSA doesn't have to conduct followup investigations on applicants to verify polygraph results if they don't want to.When a hiring authority uses polygraph screening tests for employment purposes they accept the possibility of false positives and false negatives and adjust their scoring criteria to purposely reduce the likelihood of a false negative with the full knowledge that by reducing false negatives they will have an increased rate of false positives. They can do this because the potential cost to National Security is much greater from a false negative than the consequences of failing to hire an applicant because of a false positive. They are the ones with the jobs to fill and they get to decide who they will hire and what criteria they will use. Polygraph employment tests for government jobs are legal. When you entered the application process you were not entitled to a job and they were not obligated to hire you whether you passed or failed your polygraph exam. You really don't know why you were rejected by NSA it may have been something in your background they didn't like. One of your neighbors may have told them some negative information about you. Maybe it was a combination of polygraph and negative background. YOU DON"T KNOW. You just assume it was only because of polygraph because they told you failed your test. Neither one if us know if you really failed your test or maybe the spooks at NSA just told you failed to get you into a "Stress Interview" situation to monitor how or IF you react under pressure.If NSA has 25 jobs and 50 applicants 40 of which pass their polygraph test. Why should they bother at all with the 10 who failed? It would waste time and resources because they have enough people who passed to fill their needs?You can Boo Hoo all you want, but NSA didn't owe you anything, They used a screening tool that it was legal for them to use and you don't have to like it, but you need to learn to live with it.As to your constant commentary about the NAS study, maybe you should read the whole thing. If you did, you would find that it is not the scathing indictment of polygraph you seem to think it is. You would also find that the National Academy of Sciences did not conduct any new or original laboratory or field research on polygraph testing.Their effort was confined to a review of the research on polygraph testing and in particular to that which pertains to personnel screening. In doing so, the academy relied on only 57 of the more than 1,000 research studies available.They also lost any semblance of a balanced inquiry by inviting persons against polygraph to offer testimony and prohibiting polygraph experts from giving testimony at any point during their review.All that being said, in the five years since the release of their report, completed studies and studies now under way have taken NAS recommendations and included them in their research.I read it and I tried to find some study conducted by or paper or book published by Dr. Zimbardo that contained the statement. I even went to his website for information. THE ONLY PLACE I CAN FIND ANY REFERENCE TO THIS ALLEGED STATEMENT IS IN POSTINGS ON THIS SITE. Did you read this in a study somewhere or are you simply quoting from someone elses posting. Please provide some sort of reliable reference for the quote. if one exists.Sancho Panza