wrote on Apr 5^th, 2004 at 9:03pm:

pillpopper, I absolutely agree with you.  In fact, from an examiner's own mouth - the polygraph allegedly works by determining which questions are most "threatening" to a person. If one understood the idea behind control questions (choosing to not attempt countermeasures), which questions would be more threatening?  At this point it isn't between deception and truth!  For this candidate, it is simply knowing that a control question won't get him/her disqualified but a relevant question could!  During my exam, that's what I found myself thinking about - not "hmmm, did I exceed the agency's drug policy?" (I didn't), but rather "shit, this is a relevant question - I can't react or I'll fail" (reaction given).   Seems pretty unfair to me.  Examiners - is this not at all the way things work?  Please enlighten us because I genuinely would like to know.

Anonymous,

This touches on exactly what I consider most problematic about the polygraph, ie: that knowledge about the polygraph obviates the assumumptions upon which it is based. I suspect this greatly concerns polygraphers but, for obvious reasons, they have difficulty addressing it.

This morning, David Kay (CSPAN) spoke on emerging terrorism issues and came down hard on the hostile environment scientists found themselves in working in critical govt. positions. I couldn't help but think about the contribution polygraph screening has in this. Scientists, by their nature, are highly suspicious of "sciences" that depend on ignorance to work. I fear the loss of needed human capability may outweigh the benefit (and I do believe there is some) provided by polygraph based filters. It's a serious problem that needs addressing. The National Academy of Science's report is a pretty fair and balanced attempt to do that - for the benefit of the country. The degree to which it has been ignored is not helpful in attracting talent. Far too easy just to go into the non-govt. private sector.

-Marty