The_Breeze wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 5:48pm:

George You still seem angry.

I take umbrage at your unfounded accusation that "[my] research is selective to [my] viewpoint."


Quote:

Faulty: "having a fault or faults, defective".  Like all who post here, I am stating an opinion. Posting here can never be mistaken for actual proof, although you evidently believe your words meet that standard.  Yes, I do believe that your and others advice could hinder, confuse or delay fact finding in a criminal or screening exam.  So, I find that faulty in the sense that it is counterproductive and potentially dangerous.  It is defective in my view because our culture is filled with selfish examples, and the over riding importance of the one.

So when you earlier spoke of "[my] crew...disepensing faulty advice," you didn't mean to say that anything we are saying here is untrue?


Quote:

You claim I am boasting when I simply point out that my experience base on this topic is much greater than yours- then you immediately throw up a few texts that you have skimmed as an example of your detailed research.  I have read all but the Reid text (although I have others by this author team) I would not consider this extensive, and it is clear from reading your work (yes I have) that you needed to provide authoritative descriptions and test sequences.  You were not looking for a discussion on possible efficacy, just detail to reinforce your pre-existing view.

Your assumption that I have merely "skimmed" the works referenced above is erroneous, as is your assumption that I was just looking for "detail to reinforce [my] pre-existing view." I approach the subject of polygraphy with an open mind, and am willing to change my views in light of new evidence. But at this point, I find that the case against CQT polygraphy (and especially, polygraph screening) is compelling.

You say you've read the Polygraph archive, Matte's Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, Harrelson's Lie Test, and the DoDPI documentation referenced in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (as well as The Lie Behind the Lie Detector itself). I invite you then to please point out any factual error(s) you believe you may have found in the latter.


Quote:

Let me ask you a serious question now that we have defined faulty in my opinion: Do you believe there is a chance that the high failure rate in Federal LE screeing is intentional, possibly as a result of no other means of reducing a largly talented but unremarkable applicant pool?  I ask because this failure rate of half, is way out of line with my experiences.  Perhaps this is more of a desirability issue than a polygraph issue. In other words, I am an administrator at the FBI and am faced with hundreds of applicants who are qualified, and sucessfull through the process.  How then do I legally weed out such numbers for my limited openings?  I suggest that now minor admissions become significant (absent same in others) and the trimming process begins.  The failure is placed at the polygraph for simplicity sake (no video, no background check, no proof) and an applicant is told they are not within parameters.  Your thoughts?

Yes. I think it's likely that the high FBI special agent pre-employment polygraph failure rate (currently over 50%) is the result of a deliberate decision made by FBI management suddenly faced with a surfeit of qualified applicants following the tragic events of 11 September 2001. At some time prior to that date, the polygraph failure rate had "only" been about 20%. Note, however, that no admission(s) is/are necessary for an applicant to be accused of deception and/or countermeasures by the polygrapher, rejected for FBI hire, and blacklisted from employment with other federal agencies.