TC, there is validity to what you say.  But it doesn't explain the actions of the polygraph community.  They (1) claim to be helping, (2) admit they have no evidence that they're helping, but (3) don't want to obtain that evidence, though it could be easily done.   

This seems to indicate that they know they're really lying when they claim to be helping.  That is, they know they're lying when they claim to be helping society; they are being perfectly honest if they claim they are helping themselves.  That's what it's all about to them: get what you can and train/program yourself so that it doesn't bother you to screw over other people.  That's what drug dealers do.  Ever talk to people who sell drugs?  Ask them about it.  Listen to the way they rationalize it; it'll prove interesting.  I think most know that they're contributing to the crapping up of society, but they don't care because it helps them; it pays for them to deceive themselves.

Anyway, the APA really should look into declaring itself a religion.  Each polygrapher's office could count as a church and be exempted from property taxes.  And their fees could be considered offerings and also escape taxation.  And they could mail out their publications at non-profit bulk rates, too.  It sounds like a winner to me.

Quote:


Remember, you're talking about politicians and government bureaucrats.  They're not going to change policy because to do so would be an admission on their part that the poly policy of the last few decades has been a mistake.  Einstein himself could return from the grave, study the polygraph, and conclude what we already know about it, and it wouldn't matter.  There are two major rules in Washington:

1.  Trust no one!

2.  Never, EVER admit you screwed up.  COVER YOUR ASS!

There are basically two things the polygraph industry has going for it.  Few people will ever have to take a polygraph and therefore ever be in a position to experience what a fraud preemployment polygraphy is.  Also, the media (along with the population in general) are oblivious.

But that is okay.  This site still serves a function.

TC

Thank you, T.C.  A very interesting article--and by real PhDs to boot!

It was interesting to look at their example of the agency with 10,000 employees and 10 spies.  To get 80% of the spies more than 99.5% of the failed exams belonged to innocent people.  So, the average polygrapher would need to fail 100 people before there was even a 50% chance that he'd stopped a spy.  That's not an argument for or against anything, simply something interesting to consider.  I'm sure similar stats apply to screening exams.

It's scary how little evidence there really is that the polygraph actually helps make anything better in the real world.  But it is even scarier that polygraphers don't care and have no interest whatsoever in seeking such evidence. They've already got theirs, so what difference does it make if they're actually just screwing everyone else over?   

It would actually be fairly easy, using data that's already been collected for other purposes, to test whether pre-employment screening actually improves an agency's workforce.  Not theoretically, but actually.  Cold, hard data, right there waiting to be analyzed that can tell us what we're getting for our tax money.  But polygraphers don't want such a study to take place.   

I wonder why?  Doesn't the truth set you free?

The link in the original post has been fixed.

T.M. Cullen wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 7:25pm:


Link didn't work,

http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~fienberg/faigman-polygraph-issues-2003.html

Titled  "The Limits of the Polygraph".  They do a very good job of covering the issue of court admissibility.

And, no, the authors are NOT phony Ph'Ds,  but rather well respected researchers from academia. 

TC