Saidme,

You write:

Quote:


Could you explain the basis for your opinion? Let's suppose someone facing a polygraph examination stops by AntiPolygraph.org, downloads TLBTLD, and reads Chapter 3. He/she now understands the trickery behind the "test," including that:

• the "stim" test is just a gimmick intended to dupe him/her into believing that the polygraph can actually detect lies;
• he/she is secretly expected to be less than truthful in answering the "control" questions;
• the irrelevant questions don't actually serve as any kind of "baseline for truth" at all, and are in fact not scored;
• the polygrapher will lie to and attempt to deceive him/her about the above points.

On what basis would you expect a truthful/innocent person so informed to react more strongly to the "control" questions than to the relevant questions?

On what basis would you expect a deceptive/guilty person so informed be "more susceptible" as a result of his/her knowledge? 

Regarding the NAS's conclusion that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures" you write:

Quote:


Your above rebuttal is less than compelling. You may honestly believe that you and other polygraphers have the ability to reliably detect countermeasures. But the scientific evidence reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences does not support any such belief. On the other hand, the evidence does suggest that polygraphy is vulnerable to countermeasures. The NAS report discusses countermeasures in greater detail beginning at p. 139.

You also ask:

Quote:


If you re-read my above post, I think you will find that I have made it abundantly clear which portions are quoted from the NAS report and which are my own.

I note that you chose not to comment on the 5th point of my above post (regarding the lack of any evidence regarding the incremental validity of polygraphy).

Saidme wrote on Jun 15^th, 2003 at 1:27am:


Be that as it may (I'm not sure why you'd think that knowing about the trickery and suggestion upon which the polygraph depends would make someone more susceptible to such; perhaps you could explain further), the fact remains that the conditions upon which the NAS reviewed specific-issue criminal testing are not realistic; therefore, deriving the notion that any sort of validity has been shown for such testing from the NAS report is at best a dubious venture.

Quote:


I think it's fairly evident: another way of putting it would be that there's little solid evidence that countermeasures can, themselves, be countered (e.g. detected and compensated for).

In other words, the claims of polygraphers that countermeasures can be detected remain just that: unverified claims (much like the claims of psychics and faith healers).

Skeptic

George

You wrote:  2) The authors' conclusion that polygraph tests "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance" is conditioned upon the subject population being similar to "those represented in the polygraph research literature," that is, ignorant of polygraph procedure and countermeasures. Such ignorance cannot be safely assumed, especially with information on both polygraph procedure and countermeasures readily available via the Internet. 

I disagree with that assertion.  Just because someone reads something on the internet (your stuff or anyone else's) does not make them less susceptible to responding to polygraph.  In my opinion it makes them more susceptible based on their psychological state when they enter the room.

Your wrote further:  3) If the authors' conclusion that "the evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy..." is correct, then it (a fortiori) follows that software algorithms peddled by polygraph manufacturers such as Axciton and Stoelting that purport to determine with mathematical precision the probability that a particular individual is lying or telling the truth are worthless. 

I concur.  Those algorithms are garbage.

You wrote further still:  4) The authors conclude that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."  It is not safe to assume that anyone passing a polygraph "test" has told the truth. 

What a tap dance that BS is.  "Does not provide confidence".  What kind of crap is that.

And finally:  Did you write this or was this part of NAS's report?

The NAS's conlusion that "specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection" with naive subject populations is hardly a vindication for the validity of CQT polygraphy, and those in the polygraph community are formally cautioned against publicly misrepresenting it as such, as you can expect to be publicly called out on it. 

I was just wondering if you were putting your spin on this.

Saidme,

Why do you find my rejection of the use of polygraphy "in light of derogatory information" to be "disheartening?" Do you actually believe that CQT polygraphy has any scientific basis and/or any diagnostic value? If so, you are sadly deluded.

The National Academy of Sciences in fact did not find specific-issue polygraph examinations to have any scientific basis or any incremental validity. I think it's appropriate to re-post here a message I posted earlier in the thread, NAS Polygraph Report:

What the NAS Report Says About the Accuracy of Specific-Incident Polygraph Testing

The following is an excerpt from the conclusions of the NAS polygraph report (p. 214 of the HTML version):

Quote:


Note that:

1) This estimate of accuracy does not specify what kind of polygraph tests, e.g., CQT vs. R/I vs. GKT "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance."

2) The authors' conclusion that polygraph tests "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance" is conditioned upon the subject population being similar to "those represented in the polygraph research literature," that is, ignorant of polygraph procedure and countermeasures. Such ignorance cannot be safely assumed, especially with information on both polygraph procedure and countermeasures readily available via the Internet.

3) If the authors' conclusion that "the evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy..." is correct, then it (a fortiori) follows that software algorithms peddled by polygraph manufacturers such as Axciton and Stoelting that purport to determine with mathematical precision the probability that a particular individual is lying or telling the truth are worthless.

4) The authors conclude that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."  It is not safe to assume that anyone passing a polygraph "test" has told the truth.

5) The last sentence of the above-cited paragraph is the key one with regard to polygraph validity (as opposed to accuracy): "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods." What this means is that there is no evidence that polygraph "testing" provides greater predictive value than, say, interrogating a subject without the use of a polygraph, or with a colander-wired-to-a-photocopier that is represented to the subject as being a lie detector.

The NAS's conlusion that "specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection" with naive subject populations is hardly a vindication for the validity of CQT polygraphy, and those in the polygraph community are formally cautioned against publicly misrepresenting it as such, as you can expect to be publicly called out on it.

George

Your decision not to use polygraph in light of derogatory information is disheartening.  I think it's probably for the best you didn't make it into law enforcement.  With the liberal leaning courts and the obstacles already put in place by our legal system, tools such as polygraph are excellent avenues to resolve criminal specific issues.  Even your coveted NAS report noted criminal specific issue testing is "better than chance".  Your failed exam with the FBI must be eating away at you more than we all know.  Regards.

Quote:


The only FBI applicants who fail the polygraph because of "legitimate derogatory information in their past" are those who admit to the same. I do not know what percentage of applicants this is.

Everyone else who fails does so based on the outcome of a procedure that has no more diagnostic value than astrology or tea leaf reading.

Quote:


If you would privately put me in touch with these individuals (or put them in touch with me), I would be willing to reconsider my conclusions based on new information.

Quote:


No. I don't believe that specific-issue polygraph examinations of job seekers based on derogatory information developed in the course of a background investigation is a suitable use for CQT polygraphy, either, because it still has no scientific basis and no diagnostic value whatsoever.

George

Answer this question for me if you can.  If the failure rate is 50% for FBI applicants.  What percentage of those who failed would you say failed because of legitimate derogatory information in their past?  What percentage would you say were false positives?  I disagree to an extent with your statement "Failing an FBI polygraph examination has lasting career consequences".  I know several federal agents whom have failed FBI polygraph examinations and went on to have very successful careers in other federal and state agencies.  I agree that some have continued to have problems but I think those are exceptions to the rule.  FYI:  I'm in favor of pre-employment polygraph testing only if dergoatory information comes forward through a background investigation.  The test would then be a specific issue test.  Wouldn't you agree that would be a suitable use for polygraph?

Saidme,

Qualified, truthful applicants have much to fear from an FBI pre-employment polygraph examination. For special agent applicants, the failure rate is about 50%. Failing an FBI polygraph examination has lasting career consequences. See my article, "Just Say 'No' to FBI Polygraphs" for more on this.

Funny Feeling was wise to withdraw his/her application.

I didn't speak for him, as I explicitly said.

If you hadn't punctuated your question with that "cool" emoticon, I actually wouldn't have inferred anything from it.

Not to mention, if you want to ask him a question without anybody else chiming in, try sending him a message.  I'll comment on anything I want to.

Then don't speak for him.  I'm just asking him a question.

Saidme wrote on Jun 13^th, 2003 at 3:43pm:


I can't speak for him, but let's get past the assumption that you will only fail a polygraph if you have committed transgressions and you lie about these acts during your test.

Funny_Feeling

You stated in your text "I decided I didn't want the FBI position badly enough to risk having a failed polygraph on my record". 

You never indicate why you think you might have failed the polygraph examination.  Was it because of past transgressions?   8)

funny_feeling wrote on Jun 12^th, 2003 at 10:20pm:

Many polygraph proponents would say "good job" to have scared off someone who was not committed to be ready to sacrifice "their integrity" for the common good of the "FBI".  As a taxpayer, it is a shame to have spent so much money getting this person to be "conditionally accepted" only to lose them when they learn of the inappropriate use of the pre-screening polygraph. 

I wish Funny Felling good luck in his endeavors to find work in the government.  We can use thinking people who talk to family and friends before making decisions that affect them for the rest of their lives.

I can only wonder of my own decision to go through having my reputation dragged through the mud only to be vindicated more than a year afterwards.  As I have told Marty on many occasions, the poor forensic quality of the pre-screening test does not reflect well on an organization that is suppose to protect my Constitutional Freedoms with the highest technology in the Nation.

Regards   

Your pre-test interview lasted 2 hours?  Did you have a security interview with another agent before your polygraph appointment?

My own interview was much, much shorter.

An report that the examination is "incomplete" is definitely less prejudicial than a "deception indicated" outcome.

See Chapter 5 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for tips on how to file a comprehensive Privacy Act request for records related to your application, including all polygraph-related records.

I think it might be wise to wait a few days before filing, because if  I understand the law correctly, agencies are only required to disclose records that existed on the date of your request. It's possible that additional paperwork will be generated in the coming days.

I think your polygraph examination would have to be considered "incomplete" since there was no chart collection and no decision rendered.

It would be wise to file a Privacy Act request for all FBI records related to your application for employment to find out just how the polygraph session has been characterized.

Funny-feeling,
See my modified comment, above.  Without having been hooked up to the machine, I would think the average person would say you haven't "taken a polygraph"; therefore, you couldn't have "failed" one.  I would imagine the FBI would describe it this way, as well.

You're much more likely to be questioned on why you withdrew from the process itself, IMHO.

Skeptic

Funny Feeling,

I think they'd have a hard time describing what transpired as a "failed" polygraph, since you never took one.  You simply withdrew your application at a point before your polygraph test.  What transpires in a polygraph "test" is wide open to interpretation, but the fact that you never took one is pretty clear-cut.  To most people, "taking a polygraph" means you get hooked up to the machine.  The pre-test phase alone, I would think, would be seen simply as an interview.

Skeptic