You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.
In addition, check out our SimpleX Chat-based chat room.
The NAS states that no employment decision should be made strictly on the basis of polygraph results. They made no distinction whether or not the polygraph operator was good or bad so this becomes a moot point.
Regards.
Posted by: Anonymous Posted on: Dec 20th, 2002 at 2:52pm
You are close, but no cigars. The situation we are faced with is that examiners are using invalid polygraph formats (every single one that is and has ever been used for polygraph screening) for completely unsound applications (generalized screening of job applicants, employees, convicted sex offenders, etc.) For the situation that exists involving the aforementioned invalid formats/applications, the personal incompetence you speak of and which may well exist becomes moot. All examiners become incompetent with poor formats/applications. Under those circumstances, the more accurate version of your little ditty then becomes:
"The Problem is EVERY Examiner, not the Polygraph."
Posted by: G Scalabr Posted on: Dec 20th, 2002 at 7:19am
....and your field is more competent......yeah! right!
If there is anything that George or I have written on the accuracy of polygraphy--either in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector or on this website--that you feel is untrue, please feel free to point it out and cite peer-reviewed research that supports your point of contention. We will be happy to retract our statements and properly acknowledge your contribution.
Until then, you simply make yet another self-interested gratuitous assertion.
Posted by: Guest Posted on: Dec 20th, 2002 at 1:07am
Eastwood: Incompetent examiners = an incompetent product.
I agree. Unfortunately, the field as a whole is incompetent when it comes to determining truth from deception. I am not aware of peer-reviewed research proving that any examiner has demonstrated the ability to reliably determine truth from deception at better than chance levels under field conditions. If you know of something I have missed, please post a citation for it here.
Posted by: Eastwood Posted on: Dec 17th, 2002 at 6:30am