I think that even if they progress (or regress) to the point where examinees are stripped naked and strapped to a respirator during the test, there will still be many false allegations of countermeasures.  And there will also still be many successful uses of countermeasures.

At some point it would be reasonable for the people who make these policies to decide that the time of the polygraph is over.  Why would they want to deny themselves and their agencies the opportunity to hire the best-qualified people because of a “test” which is really no better or more accurate than flipping a coin?  Unless a damaging admission is elicited by the test you don’t know any more after the test than you did before the test, regardless of whether the subject “passed” or “failed.”  Why put any credibility in a test that provides no information regardless of how it is answered?

It is reprehensible that so many municipal, state, and federal agencies are still denying people employment based on nothing more than a “failed” polygraph.  While the polygraph has undoubtedly caused many applicants to admit to a disqualifying act that would not have otherwise been discovered, how many other outstanding applicants has it unjustifiably weeded out?

A diligent background investigation would produce the same results as an admission on a polygraph exam, and there wouldn’t be the possibility of a false positive.

A thorough, perceptive investigator and adept interrogator wouldn't need to use a polygraph.

My two cents:

In both of the polygraph exams I've taken the examiner sat to my side, once to my left and once to my right.  The examiners each studied my face during the exams as well.  The first examiner was quite concerned with countermeasures as he had the seat pad as well as a mirror next to my foot which was angled for his viewing pleasure.  For some reason, the first examiner directed me to lower my suspenders from my shoulders and remove all contents in my pockets (shirt and pants).

I have heard of examiners requesting the test subject remove his or her shoes.


To Nonombre:  As far as finding admissions during a background investigation that would not otherwise be found except through polygraph (these are not my words or belief but the words and belief of many a polygraph examiner) why not do what investigators have done for ages?  Play the bullshit card.  The ole' "Well we don't think you have been completely honest with us, through our background investigation we have found (insert bullshit).  If the applicant provides an admission zap him from further consideration.  If not, he continues.  It would basically be the polygraph without the "instrument."

Quote:

FYI 
#4 & #5 can be detected by the seat cushion.

Quote:


Most Govt Examiners sit so they can see the examinee's face from the side.

nonombre wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2006 at 5:16am:


Nonombre,
Who qualifies as being a polygraph expert in your book?  Do non-polygraph experts ever have anything intelligent to say about the polygraph?

Nonombre

This post is not ment to be insulting or as a stinger, although I am guilty of spouting a couple on this site mostly in fun, and I am not an expert on polygraphy. Having been on my college debate and never losing one, I know an intelligent debate when I see one and doggone it guy, you expert polygraphers can't seem to hold your own with "experts" (your quote) on this site. When you get into trouble and can't/wont answer ligitimate questions you resort to trash rhetoric (which brings on responces of same) or "we won't give away our secrets". Don't ask me for examples. That would be a cop out. There are too many to even start listing. All you have to do is review your past posts and their responses. Although I have done a lot of research on the polygraph over the years, I do not enter into the debates because I don't know enough to effectively debate the issues and I hate to lose at anything. My question is: will you people return to ligitimate debate?

Your question is probably: Then why are on here. And the answer is !!!! It is a forum where I can promote my views on government waste and corruption of which I believe polygraphy is an example. And yes, my field (mining) has corruption and I expose it whenever I run across it. Gets a little sticky at times but, what the hell, I'm still alive. This is my hobby.

nonombre wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2006 at 2:00am:

Nonombre,

I guess it is a matter of opinion.  I believe we are losing more good applicants through the polygraph process than we are weeding out bad applicants.

Your experience of running down every possible lead on outstanding applicants and having them confess to serious crimes has happened, in your own words, “more than once.”  If you can quantify that more precisely it would be helpful.  However, to me that phrase implies that, although such a thing has happened, and has happened more than a single time, it has not happened on a regular basis, nor has it happened often enough on a sporadic basis to justify a description of anything other than “more than once.”

You wrote that you have done thousands of background investigations, yet the number of times an apparently “outstanding” applicant has unexpectedly confessed to serious crimes because of the polygraph is probably less than ten or you would have likely phrased it differently.

I have no idea how many BI’s you have conducted, but since you characterize it as “thousands” it would be safe to assume you have done at least two thousand.  In that span you have encountered, say, ten applicants who passed the BI but unexpectedly confessed to serious crimes when they took the polygraph.  

Using those numbers (which I realize involve assumptions on my part) means that utilizing the polygraph weeds out .05% of applicants who otherwise would have moved on in the application process if only the background investigation was used.  One-half of one percent.  That’s it.

As you may recall, I failed my first three polygraphs and was removed from the application process at each of those agencies.  The fact that I told the complete truth during each polygraph, did not withhold any information, and had never even heard of countermeasures apparently did not matter – I failed anyway and was not hired, even though I was an outstanding candidate.  In my fourth polygraph I answered the questions the same way I had on my first three and inexplicably passed.

Using my own experiences as a guide, the polygraph disqualifies outstanding applicants, who have already passed the background investigation, at a rate of 75%.  I realize my experiences may not be typical, but the massive disparity in numbers is striking.  

If agencies relied solely on a thorough background investigation, and eschewed the polygraph completely, it might very well result in a fraction of unsuitable applicants “sneaking” through without their illegal activities coming to light.  According to my admittedly rough estimates, it could result in, say, five bad applicants out of every thousand.  While no one wants any dishonest or lawbreaking police officers at all, I think we can all agree that no matter what the application process consists of there will, sadly, always be a small percentage of “bad” cops.

I believe that tiny percentage would be more than made up for by the large numbers of outstanding candidates who successfully pass the background investigation and are not mindlessly removed from the process because of the polygraph exam.