The thing is, the general direction of human societies has been from less fairness and equality to more.  Feudalism and monarchy could have been justified (in fact, I'm sure they were) on the grounds that "life isn't fair".  Yet, we found ways to make it more fair.

No, perfect equality and fairness are not attainable, and perhaps aren't even desirable.  But for the most part, blatantly unfair and foolish practices can be and are correctable.  If your goals are improving security against espionage and treating applicants well (so more qualified people will want to apply), then the polygraph should be eliminated.  Although I'm not as optimistic as "anonymous", I can see it happening.

Skeptic

Matt,

Although fairness does come into play as well as due process, right to confront witnesses against oneself and a variety of other constitutional and other issues that we are all rightly concerned about, polygraph screening could easily be eliminated on a very analytical basis--cost to benefit ratio.  The costs are enormous in terms of damage to the reputations of innocent examinees, danger to national security (no spies caught/several well-known spies having gotten past polygraph examinations), the government being denied the services of competent and talented individuals with the benefits largely imagined (other than full employment for the polygraph industry) and certainly not well documented and statistically demonstrated.  As I told Breeze regarding high level political decisions (Spencer Abraham and DOE) based on different considerations, even for considerably lower level managers and operational employees this decision is a no-brainer--get rid of polygraph screening!!

George, 

You have a good web site here and did a nice job with all the options.  I actually found this web site by mistake looking for a website that just talked about the testing processes of different law enforcment agencies.  Thanks everyone for the interesting conversations, and yes Skeptic comon sense isn't a science but I like to use it just the same.  I don't think it's a weakness, but a strength if used carefully.  This will be my last post.  Good luck on the fight for justice.

Bye all,
-Matt

Hi George,

I respect your efforts to remove unfairness.  I really do.  I too believe in justice for all.  However, it’s a goal you will never obtain because there’s no such thing as equality in any society.  You preach fairness in the hiring system yet fail to tell anyone how to make it fair.  The reason is you can't.  No matter what system you design there will be unfairness present.  Please tell me how you would change the poly test?

I recommend you read a book called "The Death Of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America"  I can't remember the author off the top of my head.

Let me give you one of many examples from the book.  A minority group (such as yours) realized non-whites were getting overlooked more often then whites when it came time for promotions throughout American companies.  After lobbying for equality and winning by getting laws changed companies were forced to keep a close eye on every employee’s progress out of fear of a law suit.  (Forgive me for my vagueness, the author gives specifics in the book and you would need to read it)  After law suits started pooping up (due to the new law) companies saw every non-whites applicant as a potential law suit so they stop hiring them.  Now non-whites were not getting hired as much and again they were back to lobbying for new hiring laws.  The new laws finally passed saying 15% of your company needs to be non-white.  Now more qualified applicants are dismissed in an effort to meet the 15% requirement.  So qualified whites are being treated unfairly.   

Here’s another example that happened a few months ago.  Recently my company laid off about 30% of the folks.  Each manager was told to provide a list of the 30% in their department that they are letting go.  I have a good relationship with my manager and he told me at lunch that Human Resources returned his list and told him he needs to add one white male around 30 to the list because they needed to make it more “racially equal”  to prevent a law suit.  He only has 3 people that fit into that category (me being one of them).  The three he has are all vital to the department because we all do a unique job that has no other person as a back up.  Is that fair to the three of us?  (by the way I didn’t cry about it I told him do what you have to because I understand how the system works and sometimes you just end up on the short end of the stick).

My father is career Air Force, and last week he commented how the hiring system is a joke because after the government looks at all the scores and ranks the folks for jobs… quote: “we (himself and the other managers) hire who we want”.   

If you can come to the realization that inequality is going to be around no matter what then you can focus on looking at what inequalities are least damaging and offer the most pros and least cons.  I feel all agencies need the power to make their own choices and no matter what laws people get passed those agency will still hire who they want (for the most part).  That is how I can support the poly test.  I know it’s not fair or perfect but NOTHING is.

I’m not racist in anyway.  I believe that each person in society needs to do their best no matter what life tosses them and to see people sit around and cry like “babies” about failing a test unfairly is disturbing.  George, you seem like a determined guy and maybe some day your group will win the fight against the poly.  Sadly if you do another group will spring up to protest it’s “unfair” replacement and your group will then be on the other side of the fence defending the “new” system just like the supporters of the poly are doing now against you.  There’s countless injustices in life and everyone has to pick what ones are worth fighting for.  In my opinion and experiences with injustice, the change of the polygraph is just not worth fighting for.  There’s bigger fish to fry.

Matt,

You write in part:

Quote:


It's a good tool for booting out people one does not like for completely arbitrary reasons, like the color of their skin. In a suppressed Department of Defense Polygraph Institute study (1.3 mb PDF), for example, innocent blacks were falsely accused of deception at roughly twice the rate of innocent whites.

The arbitrariness and capriciousness of the polygraph process, along with the attendant false (and unappealable) accusations of deception, should not be tolerated in a civil society.

You say, "I know this isn't fair but it's reality." You seem to condone this unfairness. But the completely unnecessary unfairness surrounding polygraph screening is created by people, and people have the power to end it. Those of us you have previously described as "a pack of babies and liers (sic)" are working to end it, and we will prevail.

Why do you embrace unfairness and castigate those who would end it?

The federal goverment (CIA excluded) uses the merit hiring system.  If you don't know what this is let me explain.  It's a point system that is used in an effort to promote equality. Right or wrong it's what the feds use.  Let me take you along the hiring process of the FBI since I know this one very well.

Step one is the pre-application:  the application is reviewed with a check list and score card.  No matter what you are like an equal scale is used on all appplicants.  The highest scores are then selected for the first test.

Test 1:  it's a computer graded test sent to Washington and no one has any say to who passes or fails.  The computer has a set score and if you make it you pass.  If not, you fail.  

If you pass this step your are instructed to send a full application to the FBI.  This again is reviewed with a scoring card and the highest grades get an interview.  That's what the 10 point for veterens prefrence means.

At the interview you are asked 15 questions by 3 agents.   Everyone gets the same questions and the interviewers use score cards (there's a very good book explaining this score card called Law Enforcment Officer by Craig A. Zendzian, PhD).  The interview is also tape recorded and stored to help enforce the interviewers to stay fair.  If your score card meets a grade you pass this step.

Let me stop here for a second and tell you why this is so important.  In the government's effort for fairness everyone is treated as equal as possible so far.  What this means is if you totaly don't have the attitude the FBI wants they can't do anything to you.  Thier hands are tied so far. You can be a good test taker yet the Agents are looking at you saying "my god we don't want to hire this clown".  And don't give me some post about how you can't be a clown and make it this far because you can and it's done all the time in every job.


Now here's where things get interesting.  The poly is the next step.  This is done by an FBI agent and the power is in his or her hands.  No more equal rights.  No more score cards.  No more Office of Personel Managment checking your score cards and looking over your back.  This is the time to get rid of the dead weight without anyone stopping you.  

This is why so many people mysteriously fail the poly.  The agency they were applying for just didn't want them on the team and had to wait for the poly to give them the boot. 

That my friends is the real world.  Any managers reading this know the back door games used to get rid of people, and do it in a way to prevent law suits and ways to promote people you like.

I think the poly is a good tool for booting out rejects.  How many of you out there would want to run an orginization where uncle sam says you have no say in who you hire?

Again, I know this isn't fair but it's reality.

Matt
You sound like another poster I know from a short time ago.  Hang in there and hold on, the indoctrination phase has failed and you will shortly meet one of the more interesting and experienced members of the staff.

Polyman2002 wrote on Oct 30^th, 2002 at 3:36am:


Polyman, 
This site mainly exists because of good people who failed the polygraph (sometimes multiple times) for no good reason. Judging by your screen name alone, you may be a recent polygraph trainee -- if so, you'll learn, when you get to the real world, that the polygraph doesn't always do what it should.   

However, there are some few of us here simply because we have a good sense of justice and recognize a fraud for what it is.  And, of course, some of us just like to argue

I, for one, have no interest in letting the polygraph's fraud endanger the national security upon which we all depend.  I also have no interest in seeing good people go to waste, not to mention the integrity of those people wrongly maligned.

Skeptic

Matt B. wrote on Oct 30^th, 2002 at 7:15am:


Introspection is indeed a poor substitute for comprensive scientific study with representative samples.  You will note, however, that you have likewise failed to back up your assertion regarding the polygraph and deterrence.  You may in fact be correct in your beliefs; however, informal observation and inference is also fraught with bias and carries little scientific weight.

Skeptic

Matt B. wrote on Oct 30^th, 2002 at 5:04am:


In general, I'm willing to bet that most of the people who are actually interested in (and eligible for) a position that requires a polygraph fall into the former category -- people with above-average mental ability.  Applicants to the NSA, CIA and FBI are prime examples. 

Quote:


Likewise, I have a background in psychology.

Quote:


Again, the average person does not apply for a position that requires a polygraph, and most likely this generally has nothing to do with having to take a polygraph.

And I will reiterate: common sense is no substitute for scientific fact on this matter.  We simply don't know how effective the polygraph is as a deterrent.  All we can do is guess.

Skeptic

Matt,

You write in part:

Quote:


The purpose of this website is to expose and end polygraph waste, fraud, and abuse, and to help the truthful protect themselves against the very real danger of a false positive outcome.

I suggest that you read further before drawing any final conclusions regarding the nature of this website, and the motivations of those who contribute to the discussions here.

That large numbers of truthful persons are falsely accused of deception through the polygraph screening process is beyond dispute. You might care to re-read these personal statements by some of those you have characterized as "babies and liars."

As for the damage that reliance on polygraphy is causing to both the national security and to individuals, read Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

I know this isn't going to go over well but here it goes...   I've been reading posts all over this web sight and all I can think of is what a pack of babies and liers.  It's mostly people that are still upset they got caught telling a lie during a, ready,..lie detector test (regardless of it's authenticity).  The entire theme of the web site is how to sneak dishonest people past the poly to serve America.  It truly sickens me.  The 5 or so major voices on the web site talk about "don't let yourself fail due to chance, so learn to squeez your butt checks now while you still have a chance".  Almost every person says "I'm honest, really, I just need to cheat to be sure I pass."  Truly honest people don't think that way in the first place and only truly honest people understand this statement.  

Another note: Dispite the major voices on this sight's claim that Joe Average is learning more and more about the poly, this group is very very small for an internet sight.  I think the only people willing to learn about the "Lie Behind the Lie" are the liers.

Thanks George.  I'm official now.  

Good point on the lock pick example.  I do see the tension bar used every so often, but you're right most peope are under the impression it takes one pick.

As far as the "keeping the sniper on the phone"  they were dispatching officers to the phone location and were buying time.  (I think that's how they ended up snagged the white van later at the phone booth.  Staking out the number they traced.  Not 100% sure on that fact,)

My father is career AirForce and when he watches any movie with the AirForce in it he shakes his haead at how fake parts are.  I think we all do that on topics we know about.  Research shows that TV can drop IQ about 10 pints over prolonged vewing (Social Psychology, David G Myers sixth edition).

One of the major pitfalls in anyalyzing people/society is doing it based from one's own self perspective.  It's the worse form of bias and many folks on this message forum are very bias against the poly (mostly because they failed it at one time or another).

Matt B. wrote on Oct 30^th, 2002 at 4:40am:


Registered users can opt to hide their e-mail addresses from public view. For extra privacy, you can create an anonymous e-mail account with ZipLip for use with this board.

Matt B. wrote on Oct 30^th, 2002 at 5:04am:


ROFLMAO,

I remember watching the talking heads discussing the Sniper and hearing many parrot exactly that. I think some knew better and were actually trying to get the sniper to talk longer, suggesting it would take 2 or 3 minutes to trace. It was interesting to watch because of the clear effort made to talk only about what was fairly widely known if it could have helped the sniper at all and I believe they knew the phone tracing was disinformation.

One of the classic, multi decade, pieces of Hollywood misinformation is the missing torque bar when you see people picking locks.

Frankly, I think that was responsible journalism and moviemaking.

Still, the idea that people should be kept ignorant  for their own good is overall rather repellent, even if sometimes warranted.

-Marty

>BTW, most of my friends are aware, thanks to my efforts, >that the polygraph is bogus.  Too late for that poll, I guess.

I guess so.  I deal with a wide range of folks daily. From computer programers to thieves.  Mostly upper middle class folks.  The smarter ones are unsure if the poly works and have their doubts.  The others just assume it works.  I overheard one lady (computer tech) yesterday say "all they have to due is keep the sniper on the phone for a minute or so and they will trace the call"  I had to ask here how she knew that and she said "TV and movies".  I mentioned how caller ID is instant and wouldn't see think the police can get instant too?  She's a smart lady but so many people are not as well informed about the truth as you think.  I also find that many people that hang out on the web and post on decent message boards (like you do Skeptic) tend to have above average IQ and are more inquisitive by nature.  I use to be a school teacher and I've seen a wide range of intellect.  Folks in this message board are not the norm when it comes to polygraph knowledge. 

If you can't use the lie detector test on your friends just ask them about how long it takes to trace a phone call. (the correct answer is before it rings, just like on a caller ID box, and no you can't block caller ID on a line used for criminal comunication, such as the line set up for the sniper)

Thanks George for the idea of registering.  After all I am the king of typos.  However I'm using a fake name and e-mail to make these posts because of the nature of the web site.  If registration requires an "activation" e-mail to be sent to me then I can't register.  I hope you understand.

Most everyone is missing the point.  If someone goes through life thinking the poly is a good tool (and most people do) to weed out their dishonesty then they never bother to pursue a career in jobs that require a poly and therefore never research them .  If you can't understand that then there's nothing more I can say to you and elaborating on any topic around that principle is a waste of my time.

Skeptic,

You must have taken a lot of polygraph examinations and failed miserably

Matt B. wrote on Oct 29^th, 2002 at 8:58pm:


Matt,
As George pointed out, most people don't apply for positions that require a polygraph.  In most cases, this has nothing to do with having to take a polygraph; rather, most people simply aren't interested in the position, or want one with better pay, or don't know anything about what sorts of positions are available, or don't have the education or aptitude, etc.

I am sure that some people don't apply for positions because they've done things they don't want a polygraph to reveal.  However, there's no way to know how many people fit this bill.  For that matter, some might simply be scared off by the prospect of a background check.   

On the other hand, there are probably quite a few very qualified people who have done nothing wrong, who nontheless don't apply for positions because they know the polygraph is bogus, and don't want to go through such an invasive and potentially humiliating process.

Among qualified people who would be interested in a position that requires a polygraph, I think it stands to reason that many would look into what it's all about.  I think it also stands to reason that the number is increasing as the word is spread about the polygraph's problems.

And yes, I've dealt with people and the public for much of my life.

Skeptic

BTW, most of my friends are aware, thanks to my efforts, that the polygraph is bogus.  Too late for that poll, I guess.

Matt B. wrote on Oct 29^th, 2002 at 8:46pm:


Matt,
I understood you perfectly.  You missed my point.  I was attempting to demonstrate the fallacy of using common sense in lieu of scientific study by pointing to another example where common sense fails.  "Common sense" is often a poor tool for determining truth.

Skeptic

Matt,

While it may be true that the average person does not bother to research polygraphy on-line, the average person does not face a polygraph examination, either. Those who do face a polygraph interrogation presumably have more incentive to look into it (and perhaps, especially, those who would be motivated to lie with regard to the relevant issue(s)).

I think it stands to reason, as Skeptic noted, that as more and more people discover that polygraphy is a fraud (as more and more are doing), it will lose its utility.

PS: You may wish to register on the message board; doing so will enable you to edit posts for typos, etc. (as I often do with my own).

Skeptic...

Anyway, you will note that the original claim was that as more and more people spend the 1/2 hour online required to learn of the polygraph's bogusness, it will lose its effectiveness.  And as the word is spread, even the "dumb ones" will find out about it.

Doesn't that seem like "common sense" to you?

I think you're impression of the world is distorted.  I'm not sure if you deal with the public often but most people don't research the polygraph in their free time.  Again you base life off of your experiences and not the norm.  Why not take a personal poll and ask 10 friends that don't work in law enforcment what their feelings about the poly is.  If you can't see the simplisity in what I'm saying then there's no sense in having anymore conversation.

Skeptic.  With all due respect, please read all the lessages and follow along beofre you coment.  It only waste everyone's time when you post something that twist a topic or statement.

The stament "common sense" was used to show the poly scares people away and had NOTING to due with the fact it's an inacurate tool.