Interviewing with the NSA 379
George Maschke writes "'Interviewing With an Intelligence Agency (or, A Funny thing Happened on the Way to Fort Meade)' is a humorous and entertaining account of one man's recent experience seeking employment with the National Security Agency (NSA). But this story, newly posted to the Federation of American Scientists website, is also one with a serious message. Written under the pseudonym 'Ralph J. Perro,' it includes discussion of the job interview, psychological testing, polygraph, and background investigation. It will be of interest to anyone contemplating employment with a federal intelligence agency."
Obligatory "CIA Interview" post (Score:5, Funny)
The final candidates consisted of two men and one woman. The men administering the test took the first candidate, a man, down a corridor to a closed door and handed him a gun saying, "We must be completely assured that you will complete your assignments and follow instructions regardless of the circumstances. Inside this room you will find your wife, seated in a chair. Take this gun and kill her." The man, looking completely shocked said, "You can't be serious! I could never kill my wife." The CIA man said, "Well, then, you're obviously not the man for the job. Take your wife and go home."
They brought the next candidate in, the other man, and repeated the instructions. This man took the gun, walked into the room and closed the door. However, after five minutes of silence, the door opened and the man handed the CIA tester the gun, saying, "I just couldn't do it. I couldn't kill my wife. I tried to pull the trigger but I just couldn't do it." The CIA man said, "Well, then, you're obviously not the man for the job. Take your wife and go home."
Then they brought the woman down the corridor to the closed door, handed her a gun, and said, "We must be completely assured that you will complete your assignments and follow instructions regardless of the circumstances. Inside this room you will find your husband, seated in a chair. Take this gun and kill him." The woman took the gun, walked into the room, and before the door closed all the way, the CIA men heard the gun start firing. One shot after another, for thirteen shots, the noise continued. Then all hell broke loose. For the next several minutes, the men heard screaming, cursing, furniture crashing and banging on the walls; then suddenly, silence. The door opened slowly and there stood the woman.
She wiped the sweat from her brow and said, "You guys didn't tell me the gun was loaded with blanks! I had to beat him to death with the chair!"
Obligatory NSA Recruiting Joke (Score:5, Funny)
"NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and ask for one."
Re:Obligatory NSA Recruiting Joke (Score:3, Insightful)
Sample application question (Score:5, Funny)
Which of the following words does not belong with the others?
"Federal, Intelligence, Agency"
Re:Sample application question (Score:2)
Indeed, that should be Central.
Important warning to the /. crowd... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Important warning to the /. crowd... (Score:2)
Re:Important warning to the /. crowd... (Score:5, Funny)
How right you are.
I'm at work on a 'doze box where we're not allowed to install "freeware" or "shareware" (a psuedonym for "anything GPL or BSD licensed" to our idiotic paralegal group). I got into a fight about it and pointed out, rightly so, that according to the legal group's lousy definition of "freeware", acrobat reader is "freeware" and therefore a liability.
Now, nobody at work has Acrobat reader. Oops.
Of course, you may be wondering why I'm reading Slashdot at work. To that, I can only respond: shut up.
(Seriously though: I'm killing time while waiting for a Perl process to quit hogging all the resources.)
Idea (Score:5, Funny)
/. and PDF files?? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the deal with people on slashdot not wanting to read PDF files? Why do we need warnings that a link is to a PDF?
It's certainly not about standards compliance (Slashdot generating incompliant HTML 3.2 code anyone?) And, it's not about supporting patent encumbered file formats (GIF instead of PNG, multiple articles on MP3 players)
So tell me, honestly. Why do people have such a hard time with PDFs?
Re:/. and PDF files?? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:/. and PDF files?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:/. and PDF files?? (Score:5, Funny)
So, let me make sure I have this correct:
Re:/. and PDF files?? (Score:4, Funny)
I guess the moral is that people are willing to compromise their values for the sake of entertainment - I know I am!
Re:/. and PDF files?? (Score:3, Funny)
You forgot to add the score for today's article and the fact that it's Friday:
NSA: 31337
CIA: w00t!
FBI: pwn3d
Re:/. and PDF files?? (Score:3, Funny)
windowsXP Loaded.
READY
RUN
* Syntax error in line 10 *
*cursing* -- fix, fix -- * wrenching socket sound * CLANGG!!
(wipes sweat off brow)
(Prays)
RUN
"Hello, World!"
** Much rejoicing **
Re:/. and PDF files?? (Score:5, Insightful)
So tell me, honestly. Why do people have such a hard time with PDFs?
For me, it's not just PDF but anything that isn't HTML. I don't want my flow of browsing interrupted without any immediate visual indication. I don't care if it's some format there's a browser plug-in for, either. When I click a regular link, my expectation is to go to a regular page, not download a movie or Word document or whatever. It's the principle of least surprise being violated that pisses people off.
Re:Important warning to the /. crowd... (Score:3, Funny)
And whatever you do, don't read the blacked-out-by-stupid-software parts of the PDF when a good PDF reader skips over the blacked-out parts!
(This public service message brought to you through a web browser compromised by the Committee for the Preservation of the Pointy Haired Boss in Intelligence and Law Enforcement Environments.)
This is a repost that needs to be said.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is a repost that needs to be said.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me, if they scare people into thinking that, then they are effective. Not functional, but effective.
Re:This is a repost that needs to be said.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is a repost that needs to be said.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is a repost that needs to be said.... (Score:3, Funny)
it just sounds like a word the marketing department made up.
Re:"The everything graph" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is a repost that needs to be said.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I honestly dont think i would be too freaked out about some putz from a police station interviewing me, but when you are in a room with an NSA police officer who specializes in counter-intelligence and has been giving them for 15 years, it all feels really freaking scary.
I knew that i had nothing to worry about, and that polygraphs are inaccurate, but when taking an NSA polygraph, you have to remember you are dealing with the best, and people who activly train people evasion techniques. You cant help but feel a little scared, even though you are innocent of anything. Dont knock it till you've tried it
I applied, was offered a crypto position, and got sufficently annoyed/concerned after the polygraphs had dragged on for a few months, that i withdrew my application.
Working for the NSA sounds cool, until you get there and you feel a little too trapped.
Re:This is a repost that needs to be said.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the NSA, like all government agencies, is bureaucracy not maleficence. They kept having you come back for polygraphs because some rubberstamper would give you a stamp of approval until your polygraph test was perfect. Even though everyone knows that a polygraph test is unreliable. What you should have done is taken some yoga classes and then you would have passed. But instead you continued to view the NSA officer as some Wizard of Oz type character so you could never pass the test.
Do not taunt happy-fun-ball.
Re:This is a repost that needs to be said.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thinking I had secured a position in either of a couple departments that I interviewed with, I spent the summer mountain biking rather than frantically searching for a job. I was confident that my background check would clear as I've never been in any legal trouble or anything of that nature.
I repeatedly "failed" the polygraph, the examiner claiming that I had committed some felony after the age of 18, that I had abused/sold/bought illegal drugs, and some other completely ridiculous claim. It was also probably a mistake to be conscious of my breathing, but it is difficult not to be since they strapped on the abdomen apparatus pretty tightly.
Perhaps it was all just a psychological exam, but apparently I didn't pass anyway (three times). I called them twice a week until they told me late October that they couldn't keep the positions open any longer and that my clearance was not finished. The Sept. 11 attacks probably did not help my situation either.
Now I've found myself at a large IT company in another country making less money than the average Wal-Mart cashier. For anyone applying for a job there, don't expect their process to be quick and make sure you have a current job that you can fall back on. Hope this bit of knowledge helps others.
Re:This is a repost that needs to be said.... (Score:5, Informative)
The polygraph machine records various parameters {heart rate, skin resistance, movement} on a moving paper roll as a series of questions are asked. These questions fall in three distinct groups. Now let's pretend we have two candidates: Honest Jane {goody two-shoes} and Harry the Knife {low-life}, going for the same test, and look at their answers to each type of question.
- Control Questions - e.g. "Have you ever lost your temper?" Jane answers truthfully "yes", Harry answers mendaciously "no".
- Test Questions - e.g. "Have you ever stolen anything?" Jane answers truthfully "no", Harry answers mendaciously "no".
- Dummy Questions - e.g. "Is it Friday today?" Jane answers truthfully "yes", Harry answers truthfully "yes".
Dummy questions are not the same as control questions, because the answer to a dummy question is obvious - even Harry cannot lie. But with the control questions, the "wrong" answer is less obvious. But even Jane must have lost her temper at some stage. Harry is obviously lying. A lie in response to a dummy question will be found out straight away. So the dummy questions appear to provide the calibration data. In fact, it is the control questions which determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the subject, because Harry and Jane would answer them differently. Even the test questions, where Harry and Jane would give the same, desirable answer, are not much use.Most of the test is in the structuring of the questions, and the machinery is a prop. If you ever have to take a Polygraph test, this is what to do {assuming you don't have access to drugs, either stimulants or sedatives, which would balls up the result}. Imagine Jane and Harry. Run each question by both of them in your mind, and see how they would answer. Then say what Jane would say. You will pass the test with flying colours.
Re:This is a repost that needs to be said.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I see what you're saying, but that was my first impression. Ironically, that's pretty true. If you can lie in the fashion as you tell the truth without getting bothered about it, it will be impossible to tell the difference. If you're scared, it's almost impossible not to give yourself away. You don't need a machine to tell if a scared person is lying, but as a parent up there said, the machine itself provides a good source of fear.
Re:This is a repost that needs to be said.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is a repost that needs to be said.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I took a polygraph 2 days ago for my security clearance to work at the NSA as a contractor (very top-level clearance, after months and months of background checks and questionnaires). I have never done anything seriously wrong, aside from shoplifting some things while a teenager and various other small-time things
Re:This is a repost that needs to be said.... (Score:4, Funny)
Ralph J. Perro?! (Score:5, Funny)
Same in the UK (Score:5, Funny)
actual story about a co-worker who went nsa (Score:5, Informative)
here's the interesting (or frightening) part. two weeks before he left for his new job, i had to send a bunch o sensitive data to some management type. so i called up our spook-to-be and said "point me to yr public key so i can send you this data pgp'd and yout can pass it on." his response?
"i don't have a public key. that cryptography stuff is a waste of time."
good luck national security association in all your future endeavors!
Re:actual story about a co-worker who went nsa (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Same in the UK (Score:5, Funny)
> the British version of the NSA.
Heh - yeah, in the same way that the Monkees were an American version of the Beatles.
Just wondering ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Legality of information (Score:2)
Re:Just wondering ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just wondering ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just wondering ... (Score:5, Funny)
Yah, he also posted a Yahoo e-mail address which I'm guessing the NSA just might be able to penetrate... ;-)
and everything else there is to know about him..
Wow, I had no idea the NSA is that good!
Re:Just wondering ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just wondering ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that the guy was turned down during his security clearance check. I guess maybe they had a good reason to suspect that he would not be able to keep secrets?
Re:Just wondering ... (Score:3, Informative)
Casually mistreating that kind of information will get you a reprimand and in the nearly worst case, lose you your clearance and your job, but there's little risk of prosecution unless they have reason to believe that you had malicious intent.
If you don't work for them (as in this case), they're pretty much asking you for a favor to pretty please, don't blab about our sensitive information. Again, however, if they have reason to believe that y
Are you sure this is a good idea? (Score:3, Interesting)
And here's Slashdot, linking directly to a glaring example of #3. I don't know why exactly this guy decided to write up an experience and procedures which they tell you at the door are secret, but I know that the government isn't going to take too kindly to this web site giving Al Queda what is nearly a HOWTO document for infiltrating the NSA. I think we all remember the last time the Secret Service had to delete content from Slashdot [slashdot.org]. I hope the administrators have the good sense to pull this before the men with the folding uzis visit again.
Re:Are you sure this is a good idea? (Score:5, Funny)
Wow groovy! And I assumed only the Church of Scientology could do that!
Sth new to learn every day!
Re:Are you sure this is a good idea? (Score:3, Interesting)
This kind of information is practically public knowledge, and they can't reasonably expect it not to leak out. "howto document for infiltrating the NSA", my hairy backside.
Re:Are you sure this is a good idea? (Score:5, Interesting)
"This web site" is The Federation of American Scientists and they have released information on nuclear policy, WMD's and intelligence since the early fifties. They are in a somewhat uniqe position.
I'm pretty sure that would not release anything unless they thought they could get away with it without problems. And they have alwayse stretched the limit of what's acceptable.
Inside Info (Score:3, Funny)
I tried (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I tried (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry, not clear: I passed up the opportunity to fly out there.
Re:I tried (Score:2, Informative)
http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml [antipolygraph.org]
(If you'd like to submit such a statement of your own, contact info@antipolygraph.org.)
Re:I tried (Score:5, Interesting)
That's the problem. Questions such as "did you ever steal candy when you were a kid" are so-called control questions, which are intended as a calibration tool for the polygraph. The idea is that everybody hoes done these, but nobody admits, so everybody will lie. Now they know what the subject's biological parameters are when he lies. This is important to have, as each person reacts differently.
Now, if you answer every control question truthfully (whether by admitting that you did indeed steal candy, or if you are one of those rare guys that really never did such a thing...) they have trouble properly calibrating the polygraph. So they might pick up just some general excitedness/exam-stress as a sign of lying, and if they find the same signs of excitedness in the real questions ("Do you work for al Qaeda"), they naturally assume that you are lying on that one as well...
Conclusion: to successfully pass a polygraph, you have to lie to some of the questions, or else they won't know the difference...
Re:I tried (Score:5, Insightful)
Either way, it tells them that they can't tell when you're lying. Which, conversely, means they can't tell when you're telling the truth either. Which means they can't trust you enough to hire you -- no matter how trustworthy you really may be.
Re:I tried (Score:5, Interesting)
Bingo.
So they might pick up just some general excitedness/exam-stress as a sign of lying,
BZZZT! Thanks for playing.
This is the NSA, not the Goober County Sheriff's office. If they can't calibrate, they realize they can't evaluate. The candidate is thus an unknown quantity. They look at the long line of applicants, most of whom are known quantities, and decide this one's not worth the trouble.
Re:I tried (Score:5, Interesting)
The author made many mistakes durning the interviews. The main one that comes to mind was getting in the car and answering questions without checking the persons ID and confirming they are from the NSA.
Little things like that are the real test, how careful you will be with secrets, who you trust, how normal do you look and how you react under pressure and stress.
Re:I tried (Score:3, Interesting)
One day he mentioned that he was short of workers. I told him I'd like to apply for a job there.
He said to not bother. It turned out that they had changed polygraph examiners about six months earlier and that since then not one person had passed.
That was why they were short on personnel.
Re:I tried (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I didn't actually say "part time", but I figured that should have been intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.
I also dispute your "employment of no consequence" remark. I've known many people who worked at minor jobs while pursuring their education. In general, I thought more of them than those who never needed such jobs.
For what it's worth, as an undergraduate, I worked as a waiter, bus driver, mechanic, and gas station attendant d
Re:I tried (Score:5, Interesting)
My experience (Score:5, Informative)
When I interviewed (~1999, pre 9/11) it was pretty relaxed. None of the cloak and dagger, don't admit your are interviewing with the NSA stuff.... I pretty much called and explained I needed a flight for an NSA interview, a hotel for the interview, etc. No one ever told me not to talk about it, or keep it secret.
I did, however, sign a non-disclosure agreement that said I wouldn't talk about what I saw inside their facility (and thus I'm not), but that makes perfect sense.
Re:My experience (Score:2)
Did they have any vending machines? Like coke for example?
"Polutrocluckophobia" (Score:2)
What's wrong with this picture?
And for a security clearance ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And for a security clearance ... (Score:4, Interesting)
When one of my friends and I were both getting our clearances, we joked ahead of time about the final step, the one-on-one interview with a Very Serious Agent[tm]. He suggested:
"One of my fondest childhood memories was laying in a crib, and a man with a heavy Russian accent leaning over me and saying, 'Excellent, Boris, now his mind will be putty in our hands.'"
or
Agent: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of any organization whose stated goal is the violent overthrow of the United States government?" [*]
Hapless Geek: "Uh, not sure, lemme check with the {Boy Scouts, IEEE, marching band director} on that one."
Both of us had the same experience: we each kinda had it in the back of our heads right up until the agent asked some very heavy question which let you know that it was not a game at all, and then the joke went right out the window. I at least told the agent some of the jokes after the interview was over. :-)
[*] Actual question, just like the 60's spy movies. No kidding. Word for word. It was not a forgettable moment, let me assure you.
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
security (Score:3, Interesting)
The extensive psychological testing of NSA would-be employees is a Good Idea. Remember that the major security leaks from the Mannhattan Project were government scientists who decided that it was their duty to humanity to hand nuclear secrets over to the communists. (We now know exactly who the commie spies were thanks to the declassification of old Soviet Union documents... None of the people McCarthy accused were on the list, but multiple scientists from Los Alamos were.)
Friend of mine intereviewed with the CIA (Score:5, Interesting)
"Have you ever inserted your finger into your asshole for pleasure?"
The guy was straight faced and did not even show the slightest sign of thinking this question was odd or funny.
A couple other things he mentioned where much much interesting than that... but I don't know, after hearing it I haven't ever mentioned it to anyone (not even my wife)
Been there, done that (Score:5, Interesting)
15 page background info to fill out, security interview, polygraph, the whole works. The interview was really, really bizarre. They basically want to know every bad/weird thing you've ever done, so you're pretty much baring your soul to these people.
What amused me the most, though, was when he asked if I had ever looked at pornography (who hasn't). And if I still do (who doesn't).
Well! You'd think I just admitted to killing Kennedy. What followed was probably 10 minutes solid of questions relating to it: What kind do you like (and he broke down into specific categories, some of which *I've* never even heard of, and I click on random Slashdot links all the time
I walked out of that room after 3 hours feeling like I had just run a marathon. To be honest, the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth, and I ended up taking another job in the private sector. But it bugs me - the feds basically have every little thing about me on file. Would suck if our government decided to be less than ethical, now wouldn't it?
Looking back on it, it was an interesting experience, and while I have nothing to hide (the "worst" thing I've ever done is summed up in my nick) it's still unsettling. I now understand a lot better why privacy as a value in and of itself is a GOOD thing.
I kinda regret going through the process now, but *shrug*.
PDF Warning!!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
@#@#$@ PDF plugin crashed Moz.
Re:PDF Warning!!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
The Questions on the test (from the article) (Score:4, Interesting)
The handwritten questionnaire asks for a lot of information already supplied on the security forms, such as:
Name, age, education, marital status, children (if any), etc.
The more interesting questions were (as best I can recall):
- Describe the relationship to your mother
- Describe the relationship to your father
- Describe your parent's relationship to each other
- Have you ever had psychological counseling? (when/how long, etc.)
- Have any relatives ever had psychological counseling?
- Have you ever attempted suicide?
- Have you ever had a substance abuse problem?
- Do you drink? If so, how many drinks per week? per day?
- When was the first time you drank alcohol?
- Have you ever had interpersonal issues at work? (e.g., work relationships)
- Have you ever had disciplinary issues at school/military?
- Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor/felony?
- Have you ever been questioned by the police/authorities? (N.B., this would appear to be the catch-all, in case
someone wasn't convicted)
- Do you have any relatives that were in trouble with police/authorities?
- Have you ever taken something that was not yours? (This may have been worded as something slightly different.
but this was the intent)
- Have you ever committed computer abuse? (N.B.: whether deliberate or not, I recall the term 'abuse' being left
unspecified, ostensibly leaving the door open for all sorts of self-reporting ranging from checking personal email at
work, to having used Napster/Morpheus etc., to writing viruses, hacking websites and stealing credit cards
numbers.)
- Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime?
- Have you ever clucked like a chicken? If so, did you scratch backward or frontward?
- Describe your relationships to chickens.
The last page had about 20 sentences for the applicant to complete. Some that I remember were...
- Men should ____
- Women should ____
- I get angry when/because ____
- Chickens should ___
Given the theme, I would hazard a guess that the other sentences were ones that touched on potentially strong
emotional reactions like "I most regret," "If I only could", "I won't" and things like that.
The Computerized Test
As close as I can remember, these were some of the actual questions on the test. (true/false)
- I would like the job of a forest ranger
- I hear voices in my head
- I read the crime reports in the newspaper
- I have a mortal fear of earthquakes
- I have neck/hand pain
- I usually know what's going on (with my circle of friends)
- People are out to get me
- I would like the job of a librarian/florist (I can't remember which one it was, and it might have been both)
- I often feel that I can't get out of bed
- If someone has their possessions stolen from their unlocked car they had it coming.
- I like/enjoy children
"Animal-relationship"-type questions (e.g., "I enjoy animals", "I don't enjoy animals", "I like hurting animals", "It
bothers me when I hear about animals getting hurt" etc.)
- I am totally insane and like to stand on tables and cluck like a chicken
A few previous questions might not have actually been on the exam or the handwritten portion, but you get the
point. The questions went on and on.
exams and BI (Score:2)
I know, been there, done that. It's where I got my electronics background.
a side story... (Score:5, Interesting)
Most relevant question (Score:5, Funny)
NSA: "Sir, have you at any time read or posted to Slashdot."
Interviewee: "Well, yes, I have."
NSA: "Arrest this man."
PDF gateway (Score:2)
What it takes to join the NSA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What it takes to join the NSA (Score:3, Insightful)
The question that lost the job: (Score:5, Funny)
Will Hunting's take (Score:5, Funny)
WILL: Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. So I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never had a problem with get killed.
(rapid fire)
Now the politicians are sayin' "send in the Marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some guy from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And he comes home to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile my buddy from Southie realizes the only reason he was over there was so we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the skirmish to scare up oil prices so they could turn a quick buck. A cute, little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. And naturally they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink seven and sevens and play slalom with the icebergs and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil, and kills all the sea-life in the North Atlantic. So my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive so he's got to walk to the job interviews which sucks 'cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue-plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State.
(A beat.)
WILL (cont'd): So what'd I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure I'll eliminate the middle man. Why not just shoot my buddy, take his job and give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? Christ, I could be elected President.
Chickens (Score:3, Insightful)
Psychological test (Score:3, Interesting)
The test is very thorough. The scoring process includes statistical analyses to determine how much you're lying and whether you're trying to "fake good" or "fake bad". There are also a large number of scales that report how likely you are to be an alcoholic, have some kind of schizotypal personality disorder or depression, levels of anxious/antisocial/obsessive behavior, etc., etc.
Re:Psychological test (Score:4, Informative)
while the MMPI may no *longer* have credibility, as someone has already pointed out, the MMPI-II has tremendous volumes of research validating its clinical scales.
However, unlike a previous poster suggested, the MMPI-II in no way suggests a probability that a mental illness is present or not. The MMPI-II very simply looked at the response patterns of different groups of patients, and looks at the degree to which your response patterns matched theirs.
So for example, a question like "I like mechanics magazines" does not in and of itself, having anything to do with a psychotic disorder. However, if 85% of schizophrenic patients endorsed this item as "True" and 10% of Depressed patients report "True", then an endorsement of "true" puts you closer to the Schizophrenic camp and further from the Depression camp. But that is just *1* item. The MMPI-II has hundreds of items, so it's a very good identifier of pathology. Not perfect, but very good.
Over the years, there has been tons of psychometric research trying to further figure out what items can help discriminate one group of clinical patients from another, or distinguish clinical patients from "normal" persons.
hth, and yes IAALP (I am a licensed psychologist)
jeff
I have to agree (Score:5, Interesting)
I went through the 10+ page background information packet and even had to ask my dad for his naturalized citizen number! I couldn't explain why other than to say, "I need it for a form I'm filling out."
I drove down to the interview location and was told in my pre-interview packet to avoid urinating in the morning before I came down as there would be a urinalysis test. Let me tell you, it's darn near impossible not to take a piss in the morning even if you don't have anything to drink later than 8 pm the previous night.
I did stop on the way down because I knew I wouldn't make it but drank a load of water to hopefully help compensate. (not like I had any worry about what they might find mind you).
The tests on the first day were urinalysis, blood test, sight test, hearing test and after lunch the big one, polygraph. We got to watch a short video about how a polygraph works and what to expect and then one-by-one we were taken to a room for our exam.
The first of my two polygraphs was given by a woma who was polite but professional. We went over the questions she was going to ask so there was no confusion as to whether I understood them or not. In some cases where clarification was needed I wrote down why I was going to say what I eventually said. In my case a relative was working for the federal government and I did have a relative who was not a native-born or naturalized citizen.
While most people are anxious when taking a polygraph I can tell you I was completely bored and almost fell asleep a few times during the questioning. I had to fight to stay awake and resorted to looking at different spots on the wall in front of me.
The two funniest parts of the whole situation were these: initially when she asked me baselining questions she told me I had given excellent responses. Exactly what she needed. Then, after the round of questions was over she walked in front of me and told me, "You're lying. These are the worst readings I've ever seen from anyone."
I had to really fight not to smirk, smile or laugh and finally ended up saying I don't know what she's reading but I answered everything truthfully. She said she'd let me alone for a while to "think over what I had said" and walked out of the room. What did I do? I closed my eyes and rested myself.
When she came back in the second funny thing happened. As she standing there with a cup of coffee in her hand she proceeds to tell me I'm lying again, all the while she's yawning her head off. Again I had to force back a smile and repeated that I was truthful in my answers.
She gave a second round of questions (I was able to stay awake more easily) and was once again told I was giving bad readings. Thus endeth my first day.
The second day was composed of my second polygraph, a booklet of questions (Do you care what happens to yourself?) and finally the meeting with the psych doc.
My second polygraph was with a man who was slightly more pleasant to deal with who, when asking me how things went the previous day, was told, "Apparently I gave the worse readings the previous examiner had ever seen".
We went through the same process of reading over the questions beforehand and then answering. At one point late in the process he asked, "What are you doing?"
I was puzzled and asked what he meant and once again was told I was giving bad readings. I certainly wasn't nervous though I was very relaxed. He came over and adjusted the blood pressure sleeve on my arm (I have small upper arms) and back we went with the questioning.
The only real difference between the second exam and the first was that in the second exam I could see the two-way mirror to my right at about the 1 o'clock position (so obviously was being watched) whereas on the first day it was behind me.
At the end of the second exam the examiner st
Re:I have to agree (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying I'm a huge proponent of their procedures, I just can see their point as to why such peop
Re:I have to agree (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, if you're denied a security clearance, you have the right to appeal. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals [defenselink.mil] takes care of this.
According to about.com, "If you are denied a security clearance, or an assignment to a sensitive position or a position of trust, or your current clearance or access is revoked, you have the right to appeal the adjudicative decision. Under such circumstances you will be provided a statement on the reason(s) why you are ineligible for the clearance and the procedures for filing an appeal. If you believe the information gathered about you during the investigation is misleading or inaccurate, you will be given the opportunity to correct or clarify the situation."
Way back when... (Score:3, Insightful)
Without going into specifics, I'll say that their methods of checking someone out were very thorough. They didn't bother with polygraphs because they know as well as anyone how unreliable they are. But a highschool friend's dad happened to be an investigator who did part of my background check and the amount of crap they dug up was astounding. Some of it was stuff that I didn't know about myself before then.
Looking back, I'm almost surprised that I got the TS/SCI clearance based on their criteria (special compartmented intelligence is only one step below 'eyes only' and strictly 'need to know'). But nearly all of us took our work and the need to keep secrets very seriously. 'Gig talk' in a bar would cost you a round.
Speaking of lie detection (Score:4, Interesting)
The "Analysys" section of that NSA interview document is definitely interesting, sort-of playing on the "AH HA! Made you look!" way of getting info out of people. Has anyone had similar experiences with lie detectors (that they're willing to admit)?
Re:Speaking of lie detection (Score:3, Informative)
[off topic]
I read an article on a new method some company discovered that can detect a specific kind of lie, and is actually based 100% in science.
Aparently there is a specific reaction in the brain, that happens when a thought triggers a memory, and they seemingly know how to detect this now.
The idea is they can have a number of objects on a table, one of which being say for example the exact murder weapon.
If you are the murderer, when you saw
Well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, a great read. I had to laugh out loud many times
psych test questions were very much like... (Score:4, Funny)
Government Jobs and Security Clearances (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of a story (Score:5, Interesting)
Note: My father was a Navigator on some of the "Looking Glass" flights during Vietnam.
Seems the man was up for promotion and needed to go through a background security check to get his grade increase. After filling out the stack of forms and giving the addresses of every relative, he sat back and waited for final approval and clearence.
After three months of no word, and finding that his C.O. was told to ground him until further notice, he felt he needed to call around to his relatives to find out what the problems were and to find out what, if anything was said.
Being from a very small town in the back hills country of the Ozarks, it took a little while to locate the troubles and find out what went wrong. The man finally got in touch with his own father and asked if Air Force Security had sent someone out to interview them. His father replied, "Yep. Them revenuers been sniffin 'round here askin all sorts of questions 'bout you. But don't worry none. We didn't tell them nothin!"
It took about an hour to straighten out his father and after asking his C.O. to re-submit the paperwork, he got his promotion in about a month.
-Goran
The problem with this kind of testing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Meanwhile (Score:2, Funny)
who are we talking about here? Clinton or JFK?
Re:Meanwhile (Score:5, Insightful)
Espionage often starts very simple. One instance I was told about was about a civilian consultant who asked a military person to buy them cigarettes at the Post Exchange (to avoid taxes). They worked together and the soldier didn't see anything wrong with helping the guy out. More purchases were made with the soldier accepting cash kickbacks on the savings.
This was used as leverage to get him to give them some information. The soldier thought the info was harmless and that this would get him out of it but really he was just more involved. From there it can just get worse and worse and he has more to hide.
The NSA doesn't really care that you tried pot 6 years ago as long as you're not trying to hide that fact. Someone that wants that fact hidden is a prime candidate for getting started down that slippery slope. It would probably start with something harmless, "Tell me what time so-and-so gets to work or I'll tell your entire church you smoked dope." If you're a neurotic person that needs to hide your past actions and pretend you were always the law-abiding, church goer that you are now then that may be perceived as a real threat that you'd go for.
Re:Meanwhile (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:i feel sorry for this guy (Score:3, Interesting)
For what you know he might have cleared this with the NSA in advance.
What's a more likely reason for the pseudonym is that he made very clear choices as to which information he think is acceptable to post, and that he don't want t
Re:"Ralph J. Perro" is a complete puss (Score:4, Interesting)
If I'd ever applied for a job like that, and I ended up with the "dentist chair" reaction to the polygraph, I would've screwed up exactly the same way as him - if I'm trying to stay still and calm my breathing subconsciously slows A LOT, and 20 seconds between each breath would certainly not be unusual (I tend to suddenly notice because I get out of breath)
I'd certainly be unhappy if I thought that was a reason for a rejected clearance - if I'd been prepared in advance I would have concentrated hard on breathing regularly, as I wouldn't see any point in trying to lie or evade questions (if I did go for an interview with the NSA, I'd expect them to figure out any lies by secondary means, and would assume that I should focus on ensuring that no dirty little secrets show up during interviews or other background checks without me having already disclosed it to them directly, so lying would be counterproductive), but I know it would be unlikely to be my natural reaction.
But apart from a few gripes relating to their personell policy, I didn't see any condemnation of the NSA, or of what they do - on the contrary.
Re:Looks liike they did well. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would security through obscurity work any better in government than in software? Honestly, if the interview is true, and the NSA is still using pseudoscientific crap like lie detectors, the Psychic Friends Network is probably more useful to national security. What a waste of tax dollars.