Answers

I was really surprised to learn that they only instituted the polygraph test in 1994 as part of the screening process; I would've thought that was something they'd done way before that. I can remember back in the early 80's several retail stores that included lie detector tests as a part of pre-screening.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

******Employees face reassignment if they refuse to take them.*******

They would be reassigned right out to the sidewalk if I were in charge. But then I think they need to take the tests all the way to the top of the dept. Taz

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

But then I think they need to take the tests all the way to the top of the dept.

Absolutely! Gotta wonder how many vacancies that'd produce though. . .

And what's with "reassignment"?? Why aren't they being told they'll be thrown out on their ass if they don't consent? Or is that just another way of saying it? Somehow, I don't think it is, and that gripes me.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Brooke, Taz,

This test is notoriously inaccurate, with lots of false-positives and false negatives, even after years of development. That's why it is still not used as evidence in court. It's more of an art than a science, heavily dependent on the skill of the tester, and there are no standards for training this skill. Typically, a contractor administers the testing, and this often goes to the lowest bidder.

It can be circumvented (I know how). In addition, anyone with "performance anxiety" will set the arousal "bar" so high as to invalidate the results.

The testing requires that the person feel guilty or anxious about a deceptive response to show physiological changes. Sociopaths (by definition) do not feel or show guilt for their behavior, and would tend to pass the test.

Traitors in positions of high trust who betray their country for monitary gain tend to be sociopathic. They are not usually caught by this test. Rather, they tend to get a thrill from beating the system.

On the other hand, an honest government employee taking this test has a valid fear for his/her career, even though he/she knows that no laws or trusts have been broken. One single question mark is enough to sink any chance of advancement, even after years of perfect service.

Lie detector tests are only a small part of the answer. More extensive background checks and monitoring works better, but how many quality people are willing to put up with that much invasion of privacy? I really don't have a good answer.

Andy N.T.A.

-- Anonymous, March 25, 2001

Thanks for explaining that, Andy. I had no idea how they really work, but what you've said makes sense, and I can see how they might be circumvented by folks who have sociopathic tendencies.

Yes, I realize that privacy issues could be raised. I might be naive in thinking this, but it would seem to me that if one chooses to enter this line of work, one would understand that the level of privacy/intrusion that you or I might expect (as just an 'average citizen') should be different than what they expect, considering the sensitive nature of the work, and the potential for damage that could be wrought if the trust placed in them were to be abused.

I guess I've always thought that if you choose to work for an alphabet soup agency, your life is pretty much open for inspection to "TPTB", somewhat akin to a "No knock" raid; anytime the agency wanted to know something, they had an absolute right/duty to ask/demand, and would, without warning.

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001

i bet that "double-agent" they just caught would have passed with flying colors!

(after all....the story goes that his family had no idea)

-- Anonymous, March 26, 2001