Quote:


Both quotes are word for word and right out of the NAS report.  Would you like the page numbers?   

If you don't agree with the NAS report quotes I pasted, just say so.  You'd be more credible if you did.  Making false accusations just makes you appear psychotic and paranoid.

What do you have against cutting and pasting relevant quotes from scholarly sources?  I didn't come unglued when you cut and pasted from JAMA.

TC

Quote:


"We have reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph with the goal of assessing its validity for security uses, especially those involving the screening of substantial numbers of government employees. Overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak." (NAS Report p 212)

Read it an weep Sancho!

Quote:


The line Gino cited is the take home conclusion of the NAS report. It's not cherry picked to support a conclusion that the report doesn't make, or a view that the polygraph review committee members didn't voice.

Quote:


T.M. Cullen's citation of the NAS report is not deliberately misleading in the manner you suggest. He highlighted quoted passages in blue. (It would be preferable to have used quote tags for this purpose.) The first passage cited in his last post is from pp. 212-13 of the NAS report. The second passage, also in blue, is found at pp. 214-15.

Earlier in this thread you wrote:

Quote:


I have never claimed to be a scientist, never allowed myself to be erroneously characterized as such, nor have I tried to create any such impression.

Cullen, I don't see why are you still ignoring the American Medical Association aren't they scientific enough for you?

Gino  everyone can take a line from a lengthy report out of context to support their position.  
I KNOW I KNOW   You guys do it all the time.  

For example: in Cullens post, better known a s a "cut and paste".Those EXCERPTS he talks about do not appear anywhere in the sudy in the context he alludes. He has CUT a sentence from one part of the report and a piece of a sentence from another part of the report, added sentences that don't appear anywhere in the report and pasted them all together in a phrasing designed to support his argument and calls it an excerpt. He is using the word EXCERPT, a different colored font, and underlining to attempt to convince a naive reader that this mishmash of lies and half-truths appear in the NAS report.

And you insinuate I am deceptive. Clean your own house Gino.

Do you also think Columbus discovered the Earth was round?

The following excerpt from the "Conclusion and Recommendations" section of the NAS review doesn't sound like they concluded "it works", from a scientific standpoint, anyway:


Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.


OTOH, they concluded the polygraph does have "utility", since many people are  dumb enough to believe it is valid, and can actually detect lies.  Of course, we know the polygraph is nothing more than an interrogation, and interrogation techniques can be quite effective.

Polygraph examinations may have utility to the extent that they can elicit admissions and confessions, deter undesired activity, and instill public confidence. However, such utility is separate from polygraph validity.  There is substantial anecdotal evidence that admissions and confessions occur in polygraph examinations, but no direct scientific evidence assessing the utility of the polygraph. Indirect evidence supports the idea that a technique will exhibit utility effects if examinees and the public believe that there is a high likelihood of a deceptive person being detected and that the costs of being judged deceptive are substantial. Any technique about which people hold such beliefs is likely to exhibit utility, whether or not it is valid. For example, there is no evidence to suggest that admissions and confessions occur more readily with the polygraph than with a bogus pipeline—an interrogation accompanying the use of an inert machine that the examinee believes to be a polygraph. In the long run, evidence that a technique lacks validity will surely undercut its utility.

This is why it is important to go into the test "akamai" (informed).  Reading TLBTLD at a minimum!  Know beforehand that the machine DOES NOT detect lies.  Read about some of the interrogation techniques that are likely to be used against you, and the real purpose of a polygraph examination.

Oh yeah, the NAS review also mentioned the high expected number of "false positives" that occur, and conclude that screening polygraphs can be expected to do more harm than good, eliminating qualified TRUTHFUL applicants from employment by falsely labeling them as "deceptive".

Quote:

The NAS report did not come close to saying that 56 studies supported the validity of polygraphy. The actual language of the report stated that only 56 of roughly 1,000 printed studies were worth reviewing. Stretching that to argue that all supported the validity of polygraphy is a huge distortion. Some might even call it "deceptive."

While everyone can take a line from a lengthy report out of context to support their position, the bottom line conclusion of the NAS report is "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."

The poll is just a poll, but it is a replicated poll and was not proferred for its scientific accuracy. It was proferred to refute your insipid insistance that "science" has determined that polygraph doesn't work.
Thats a false conclusion based on your own opinion not scienific study. Polygraph Works. 56 peer reviewed studies that were approved as having sufficient quality to satisfy the NAS say it works. The NAS says it works, the American Medical Association says it works and the poll by Gallup that was replicated by Amato and Honts establishes that the majority of psychophisiologogists agree that it works. Unless you can find fraud they are all still awaiting someone to refute the findings,

The issue is not whether or not polygraph works, IT DOES, It just doesn't work well enough to suit YOU and GEORGE. but just to make you guys happy research is ongoing. 

Cullen I don't see why are you still ignoring the American Medical Association aren't they scientific enough for you?

I quote: "The American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Scientific Affairs has reviewed the data on the validity and accuracy of polygraphy testing as it is applied today. The use of the control question technique in criminal cases is time honored and has seen much scientific study. It is established that classification of guilty can be made with 75% to 97% accuracy, but the rate of false-positives is often sufficiently high to preclude use of this test as the sole arbiter of guilt or innocence. This does not preclude using the polygraph test in criminal investigations as evidence or as another source of information to guide the investigation with full appreciation of the limitations in its use."
Link: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172

Once again,  Ask a mathmatician or statistician if 75% to 97% is significantly better than chance. I'll save you the time. They'll tell you that it is significantly better than chance. 

Polls, schmools!

Whatever happened to the "scientific method" we were all taught in school?   If the theory that a polygraph machine can reliably detect lies is valid, don't take a poll, PROVE IT!

And if you CAN'T prove it, don't claim the theory is still valid just because the opposing side hasn't proved it NOT to be valid!

And that goes equally well for the theory of man-made global whining, I mean warming.

TC

pailryder wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2009 at 7:24pm:


I agree with David Lykken, who discussed these polls in Chapter 12 of A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector. His key criticisms of these polls are 1) the fact that respondents were asked about the usefulness of polygraph test interpretations, rather than their validity, and that even those who reject the latter may concede the former, 2) that no distinction was made between the CQT and the GKT, and respondents who thought polygraph interpretations useful may have had the latter technique in mind, and 3) the Honts-Amato poll had a low response rate.

In a better constructed poll by Lykken and William G. Iacono, only 36% of SPR members and 30% of APA Division One fellows responded "yes" when asked, "Would you say that the CQT is based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory?" More than a decade has passed since that poll, and I suspect that if a new poll were conducted today, those numbers would be lower.

Cullen the point is if you presume polygraph research is inherently biased by their financial or prejudicial interest in the outcome. Then the NAS study is equally biased. Your bias argument absent proof of intentional falsification of results is neutral so you should move on. 

But in George's response did you note how he carefully ignored, as you have, the convergence of opinion between the AMA and the America Polygraph Association regarding how pre-employment testing should be used?

Then there are the poll citations that show that your comments and his regarding how the scientific community views the polygraph wererefuted by Gallop and Amato-Honts poll results. Artfully ignored; at least until one of you figures out some way to accuse Gallup of bias. 

He also seems to believe that research and changes in polygraph scoring criteria haven't occurred because nobody mailed him a copy. 

If he wants to look at some of the new stuff he needs to start with the names I gave him. Heinz and Susan Offe, Stuart Senter, etc. 

I would expect that type of artless or naive reasoning from someone who thought that Columbus was the one who discovered the world was round, but George has a Phd. and appears to wish people regard him as a scientist, although I don't really know if he has published anything but TLBTLD since his doctoral dissertation or anything that has ever been subjected to the peer review process.

Mr Cullen

I don't have any problem with the NAS report.  Polygraph as a profession has nothing to fear from valid, thoughtful criticism.  We get our share, much of it richly deserved.  In fact, much can be learned from it.  Everyone knows I visit and post often and will say again I have learned much here. 

The NAS took great pains to explain that while the accuracy rates of the 56 studies it accepted as valid ranged between 70 and 90 percent, they were not really that high.  But they did not cite any studies to back that conclusion.

If a technique with a long history of use has a 70 to 90 accuracy, as determined by its harshest critics, and 56 valid studies to back it up, wouldn't you like to be able to cite at least one study to support your opinion?

Mr Maschke

How do you square your claim of a scientific consensus against polygraph with the Gallop and Amato-Hounts poll results?

Quote:


It is true that funding for the NAS study was not directly appropriated by Congress. The direct source was the Department of Energy (which is funded by Congress). Then Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, a prominent advocate of polygraph screening, agreed to fund the polygraph review at the behest of Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), a member of the Senate Energy Committee.

The bottom line is that your claim that the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph was biased because the panel was "funded by donations by the...scientists at DOE" is unfounded (not to mention ludicrous).

Quote:


Perhaps, but major changes in polygraph scoring criteria are not (and as a practical matter cannot) be effected in secret. And I've seen no evidence that the kind of change you suggest has occurred.

Quote:


I surmise that you're proabably referring to Objective Scoring System developed by Raymond Nelson and others. But no amount of computerization can compensate for polygraphic lie detection's lack of scientific underpinnings. As Dr. Al Zelicoff, speaking at the first public meeting of the NAS polygraph review panel, aptly put it: "From a medical and scientific standpoint, it is not sufficient to measure well that which should not be measured in the first place."

Computerization of polygraph chart readings may help to standardize the scoring of polygraph charts, but it can no more add validity to the underlying procedure than can the computerization of astrological chart readings.

Quote:


I thought you said the reason you decline to cite studies is that you "have no intention of doing research for [my] next edition." I don't buy either explanation. When you decline to cite studies to back your claims, I think the more likely explanation is that...you can't.

Quote:


In earlier posts, you said the source of funding and peer reviewing of studies don't really matter that much.  That regarding polygraph studies funded by the APA.

All of a sudden, the NAS report is biased because you claim funding came from private sources.

At any point, as I've asked pailryder, what is it precisely in the NAS report do you find to be so much in error, and why?  Particularly, in the conclusion section of the report.

TC

You may have done your homework  but obviously not too recently

#1   No You're wrong. The National Academy of Sciences was created by the federal government to be an adviser on scientific and technological matters. However, the Academy and its associated organizations are private, not governmental, organizations and do not receive direct federal appropriations for their work.
#2 I see its time for you to start another FOIA request

#3 I see you agree  that peer reviewed polygraph research moves forward post NAS and since NAS recommended computerized analysis,
Polygraph now uses several tools for computerized analysis that are readily available for scrutiny if you care to look for them. 

You see George, The reason that I don't cite studies for you is that I have seen what you do with the old ones. I don't think you even bother to read them if they happen to disagree with your preconceived notions.  All you intend to do is research the persons who participated in the studies and then accuse them of bias like it is somehow wrong for a researcher to have any interest in the outcome of the study. 

That is a spurious and ad hominum argument because you know, or should know, that researchers don't research anything in which they don't have an interest. The proper way to refute a study is to replicate or conduct your own research and see if it refutes the findings of the previous study. Then both sets of results can be weighed by the scientific community. But wait, you don't have the qualifications to do that and it doesn't seem like you have the ability to find someone who does, or willing to take on the project. 

Whenever you read studies by polygraph researchers like Heinz and Susan Offe, Stuart Senter, etc who are qualified to conduct polygraph research and have completed studies post NAS all you can do is cry bias because to can't refute their findings.

You make broad claims about scientists negative opinions about polygraph, but pay little attention to the convergence of opinion between the AMA and the America Polygraph Association regarding how pre-employment testing should be used.

You ignore that in the 80s a Gallup poll of the membership of the Society for Psychophysiological Research which indicated that approximately two-thirds of the scientists polled reported favorable opinions concerning the usefulness of polygraph tests, only one percent believed polygraph had no value. Ten years later the study was replicated by Honts and Amato with virtually the same results except they asked additional questions to separate out the respondents who reported themselves highly informed about polygraph. 83 % of this "highly informed" subset gave favorable responses towards polygraph the usefulness of polygraph.

Gallup Organization (1984). Survey of the members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research concerning their opinions of polygraph test interpretation Polygraph, 13, 153-165

Amato, S. L., & Honts, C. R. (1994). What do psychophysiologists think about polygraph tests? A survey of the membership of SPR. Psychophysiology, 31, S22

So  are you going to refute their findings or criticize the source for bias? 

Quote:


I've done my homework, and I can tell you that:

1) You're wrong about the NAS polygraph review having been funded by DOE scientists. It was funded by Congress.

2) The scoring criteria mentioned in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are current and based on DoDPI/DACA documentation.

3) Very little peer reviewed polygraph research has been published since the publication of the NAS report, and the shortcomings of polygraphy enumerated in that report have not been mitigated in any significant manner.

I'll do the first one for you, but for the rest you'll have to do your own homework. I have no intention of doing  research for your next edition. 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/04/national/main157220.shtml
"The polygrapher concluded that Lee was not deceptive. Two other polygraphers in the DOE's Albuquerque test center, including the manager, reviewed the charts and concurred: Lee wasn't lying.

The polygraph results were so convincing and unequivocal, that sources say the deputy director of the Los Alamos lab issued an apology to Lee, and work began to get him reinstated in the X-Division. Furthermore, sources confirm to CBS News that the local Albuquerque FBI office sent a memo to headquarters in Washington saying it appeared that Lee was not their spy.

One question at hand is how could the exact same polygraph charts be legitimately interpreted as "passing" and also "failing?" CBS News spoke to Richard Keifer, the current chairman of the American Polygraph Association, who's a former FBI agent and used to run the FBI's polygraph program.

Keifer says, "There are never enough variables to cause one person to say (a polygraph subject is) deceptive, and one to say he's non-deceptive...there should never be that kind of discrepancy on the evaluation of the same chart."

As to how it happened in the Wen Ho Lee case, Keifer thinks, "then somebody is making an error."

We asked Keifer to look at Lee's polygraph scores. He said the scores are "crystal clear." In fact, Keifer says, in all his yeas as a polygrapher, he had never been able to score anyone so high on the non-deceptive scale. He was at a loss to find any explanation for how the FBI could deem the polygraph scores as "failing.""

Quote:


Dr. Lee wasn't cleared by the polygraph. Although he initially passed his DOE polygraph screening examination, the FBI claims to have interpreted his charts as "inconclusive, if not deceptive," although this is contradicted by Dave Renzelman, then chief of the DOE polygraph program, who reached the conclusion that Lee's polygraph examination was "not finished" (whatever that's supposed to mean). In this regard see my 26 July 2001 "OPR Referral Regarding FBI Testimony on Wen Ho Lee."

Note that Lee later "failed" an FBI polygraph interrogation that may well have been rigged: it was reportedly conducted in an overheated room with a painfully overtightened thumb cuff. See Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for more on the use (and abuse) of polygraphy in the Wen Ho Lee investigation.

Quote:


Where did you get the notion that the NAS research review was funded by donations from DOE scientists?

Quote:


Which scoring criteria mentioned in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (4th ed.) do you maintain are "no longer considered valid by modern polygraph examiners?"

Quote:


Citations?

Wen Ho Lee?  Oh yeah that was the DOE Scientist that was CLEARED BY POLYGRAPH. 

Christopher Columbus. Famous for getting lost, right? Never did find what he was looking for.  The "Wrongway Feldman" of his era. He first claimed that Cuba was Japan and stummbled onto San Salvador. Then in a feeble attempt to wrench success from the jaws of ineptitude he renamed the natives "Indians". He then went back to Spain and lied about his findings and was well rewarded. He then made three more tries to find India.  All of them failed. Yes I guess you could say he was the "Anti" of his time.  I see the similarities. 

Optional history lesson ...But you're also wrong about something else. Aristotle first postulated the shape of the earth in the 3rd century BC after viewing a lunar eclipse and determining it was caused by the shadow of the earth and that if the earth was flat the shape of the shadow would change depending on the location of the sun. . By the time that Columbus made his voyage 1600 years later, only uneducated peasants believed the earth was flat and the members of the Spanish Court most certainly knew the earth was round because it had been taught in their schools for hundreds of years. Most educated and civilized people believed the earth to be round for hundreds of years  before Christ even though the flat earth idea did briefly resurge during the height of the Roman Empire. The maps and charts Columbus carried with him on his first voyage while containing significant errors clearly showed that the world was round/spherical. End of History lesson.

See what happens when you get your polygraph information from George and your history from School House Rock? Errors caused by false information or unjustified beliefs may arise.  Columbus was really little more than a courageous buffoon. I believe that George is sincere and courageous, but he's not a buffoon.  It's just too bad he's wrong. You should really try for a more flattering comparison.

NAS Study or Review or what ever you want to call it funded by donations by the scientists  scientists at DOE who formed the opinion that because of their lofty "qualifications", THEY shouldn't have to submit to the indignity of security screening while they were working on weapons of mass destruction. The fact that they bought and paid for the this NAS "Study/Review" ALSO provides a significant potential for bias and conflict of interest on THEIR findings as well.

But even then acfter their review they did state that the polygraph was the best tool currently available  "ALTERNATIVES AND ENHANCEMENTS TO THE POLYGRAPH
CONCLUSION: Some potential alternatives to the polygraph show promise, but none has yet been shown to outperform the polygraph. None shows any promise of supplanting the polygraph for screening purposes in the near term."

Chart analysis may have been largely subjective in the 70's, but now evaluation is by and large objective. (meaning that most modern examiners use objective scoring criteria) Many of the scoring criteria mentioned in George's book are no longer considered as valid by modern polygraph examiners. 

The NAS Study/Review also stated that Computerized analysis of polygraph records has the potential to improve the accuracy of test results by using more information from polygraph records than is used in traditional scoring methods. Polygraph now uses several tools for computerized analysis that are readily available for scrutiny if you care to look for them. 

You err when you presume that the NAS Study/Review was the end of polygraph progress. Many studies have been produced since their report which address the kinds of research improvements recomended by the NAS.  

But Mr Cullen, it should be so easy to debunk a false science.  One good antipolygraph scientific study in 100 years is not asking too much, is it?

Even if NAS only found 56 valid polygraph studies, that is still 56 to 0 our way.

Quote:
 

Is that how the "scienfic method" is suppose to work?  One group claims they have a magic box that can distinguish lies from truth.  Is the onus on THEM to prove that theory, or on some "anti" group to prove them wrong?

People assumed the world was flat for centuries.  It wasn't a theory, like polygraphy, it was an unproven and largely unquestioned claim.  Along came Columbus.  The "anti" of his day who dared to question that dogma.  And of course, no one likes to have their dogma questioned, whether it be the 15th century "flat earth" crowd, or the modern practitioners of polygraphy.

Quote:


It wasn't a "study".  Congress tasked the NAS to REVIEW the research out there on the polygraph and assess it's scientific validity, probably reliability...etc. in light of the DOE security debacle.  Remember WEN HO LEE?

They found only 56 of 1000 so called studies worth reviewing.  Most lacked scienfitic rigor.  They found that in many ways polygraphy doesn't even lend itself to scientific scrutiny due to it's subjectivity (even chart analysis is subjective), lack of standarization...etc.  

Don't YOU find it strange that such esteemed body found so much wrong with the polygraph?  For example, they concluded that employment screening polygraphs did more HARM THAN GOOD, and should be stopped.

Maybe you should point out what part of the NAS report findings you disagree with, and why.  Polygrapers don't like the report findings would be more credible, and frankly appear less arrogant, if they did that.  Though I understand that people who make a living off the test would not like the report, and criticize it.   That is just human nature.

TC

Cullen, I'll take that as an admission that you couldn't name any peer reviewed studies about anything conducted  and funded by anyone who doesn't have some stake in the outcome. 
You also don't appear to have any basis, general or specific, that applicants are currently being rejected solely on the bass of polygraph.

Why didn't you just say so?

My illustrated point, which you mislabel a diatribe was merely given to emphasize your ridiculous position that in order for research to be valid it must be conducted by disinterested parties. That never happens. Everbody involved in any study has a stake in the outcome. Otherwise they have no incentive to do the study in the first place. I'm sorry the simple logic of that statement seems to escape you. The Crewes Study is the only part of my post that makes a direct comparison to polygraph screening and medical screening and as I posted previously, to date no-one has successfully refuted the findings of his study.


"If a police agency lined up all their applicants, had them count off, and then summarily removed all the even numbers from the hiring process, would you think it reasonable to argue that none of those applicants were entitled to a job in the first place, so they have no reason to complain? "

They might have a reason to gripe but they would be laughed  out of court or arbitration because whether you like it or not the procedure you described is a perfectly LEGAL way to eliminate applicants because it does not discriminate against the applicant on the basis of race, gender, religon or political beliefs.  Polygraph is a perfectly legal way to eliminate applicants and it that context (and only in that context) it really doesn't matter whether it works or not.  

According to the American Medical Association Polygraph performs significantly better than chance.  "It is established that classification of guilty can be made with 75% to 97% accuracy, but the rate of false-positives is often sufficiently high to preclude use of this test as the sole arbiter of guilt or innocence."
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/9/1172

Ask any statistician if you want to know whether or not 75% to 97% can be properly characterized as "significantly better than chance."


But once again The American Polygraph Association Policy for pre-employment testing clearly says: 
"Polygraph test results should never be used as the sole basis for the selection or rejection of a law-enforcement or public-service applicant"
http://www.polygraph.org/files/delPolicyLE-PublicServicePre-employmenttestingJan...

It appears that the American Polygraph Association and The American Medical Association are in full agreement that polygraph results should not be used as the sole basis for a hiring decision.

It isn't very likely that polygraph will ever be eliminated from law enforcement hiring procedures. Not likely at all. 

If you want to have a significant positive effect on leveling the playing field in the hiring process where polygraph is concerned, why don't you try to identify those agencies that are still using polygraph as the sole arbitor in hiring, failing to use the successive hurdles approach, or violating the American Polygraph Association Policy in any manner and encourage rejected applicants to base their appeals on APA policy violations?  The APA may never publicly censure those agencies who violate their policies but neither will they voice support for anyone who fails to follow them. 

The questions I would ask a rejected applicant would be along the lines of.

How many tests were you given? 
A failure on a single test question series of 3 or 4 charts without a follow-up test is a strong indcation that the successive hurdles approach was not followed. 


Who told you that you were rejected? 
How did they tell you? 
Did you get anything in writing? 
This information might provide evidence of an APA policy violation. 

Did you lie or omit any information before or during the test that pertained to a past criminal act or falsifying of application documents?
If they did, they were rejected because they lied and got caught. You can't help them. 

Did you attempt or were you accused of countermeasures?
If someone was caught using countermeasures there isn't much you'll be able to do to help them because they got caught cheating. 

If any of these questions lead you to believe that APA policy was violated refer them to the APA policy and suggest that they read it thoroughly and point out any potential policy violations in their appeal letter. You should also suggest that they sit down immediately and commit to paper every thing they can remember about the test and what was said by whom and when it was said. This will enable them to better respond to any questions raised in the appeals process.

You'll never beat them by griping about it or by using George's book. 
If you want to whip them, whip them with their own switch, in this case the APA preemployment testing policy.

Mr Cullen
 
Do you find it strange that considering polygraph has been around for almost one hundred years and has allegedly ruined thousands of lives, that the antipolygraph side has produced so few studies to back up their opinions?  Even your beloved NAS study only looked at existing research, they did not contribute anything new.  After all, there are so many of you to help with funding and if you don't do it, who will?

Quote:

The testing process should be fair, and it is not.  That is how people are "getting burned."

It has nothing to do with feeling entitled to the job.  It has everything to do with telling the truth on a test that supposedly detects lies and being told you lied and therefore won't get the job.

If a police agency lined up all their applicants, had them count off, and then summarily removed all the even numbers from the hiring process, would you think it reasonable to argue that none of those applicants were entitled to a job in the first place, so they have no reason to complain?

Quote:


If yo can't cite any credible study concluding the polygraph to be a good screening tool, just say so.  No need to go into a long and lame diatribe comparing the pseudo science of polygraphy to podiatry, radiology or any other scientific practice.  It's frankly an insult to podiatrists!  They actually have to go to medical school to earn a doctorate, not some 14 week polygraph school!  Ditto, to those polygraphers using the term "psycho physiologist".  I believe physiologist have doctorates also.

You're starting to remind me of Sancho Panza (aka Capt Phillip Queeg).

Quote:


If you don't pass the polygraph, you will not meet requirements and will not be hired.  People are routinely presented with a conditional offers of employment at these agencies.   Conditional upon passing the polygraph.  They fail the polygraph and are not hired.  Some letters even state that they've been rejected because their polygraph results were not "within acceptable parameters". 

TC