Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 7 post(s).
Posted by: Fair Chance
Posted on: Dec 20th, 2002 at 3:02pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
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
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Eastwood,

You began this thread with the title:

"The Problem is the Examiner, not the Polygraph."

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
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
....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
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I was speaking you you Mr. Scalabrini!
Posted by: Guest
Posted on: Dec 19th, 2002 at 6:25am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
....and your field is more competent......yeah! right!
Posted by: G Scalabr
Posted on: Dec 17th, 2002 at 7:24am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
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
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I would opine that the polygraph instrument is not the problem - it's who is operating it.  Incompetent examiners = an incompetent product.
 
  Top