Quote:

The "Professor" talked himself into a cocked hat. nice when they screw up isn't it..

Who told you I was a professor?

Now that's arrogance.  I think you might want to look that one up.  (You'll find it before "gullible," but do you really need to be obnoxious?)

I'll answer and respond to intelligent and cordial questions, but I don't have time for foolishness.  You sound much like Gizmo...?


Quote:

Since you admit there are errors in the polygraph screening process, what makes you believe that when you lose a "good" (truthful) person you are replacing them with another "good" (truthful) person?

I work along side them.


Quote:

What would the difference be in the results if, instead of a polygraph, every applicant who passed the background investigation had to flip a coin?  If the coin lands on "heads" the applicant is disqualified.

If polygraph and coin-flipping were the same, then there would be no difference, but that's not the case.


Quote:

How would the results of such an obviously unfair and ill-conceived test be significantly different from the results of polygraph screening applicants who have already passed the BI?

Polygraph is part of the BI, so to say one "passed" that portion isn't necessarily true.  (I realize it may be in some places, but that's not the norm.  BI's may continue after polygraph based on what is learned at that phase.)  About 50% of the people that "pass" BI's admit to more drug involvement during the polygraph, so how effective is the BI?  When it comes to spies (a different animal, I agree), how many have been caught by an interview?  I haven't seen one published interview success story.

You are going to lose good people at every stage of the process, and not everybody is going to agree that is fair.  How good caandidates don't make ot through the interview... the test... psych / suitability... etc?  Do I like that? No, but it is a reality.


Quote:

Once having said Utah, 'their' would refer to Utah. Try to keep up. Utah = Utah uni crim faculty.

Again, why be obnoxious?  "Their" could refer to the cumulative findings of the UU researchers, or any mixed group.  After all, they didn't all walk the halls together, but I know what you mean now.

Backster came up with the idea of the seven-point system.  Utah modified it based on scientific findings.


Quote:

Computerised polygraphs first appeared in 1992. Polyscore was developed in 1993 by 2 statisticians from Hopkins uni.

What's your point?  Computerized polygraphs were available to examiners in 1992, but CPSLAB has been in continual development for about 30 years.  Computers were used in the lab before 1993, which is how examiners got them.

You try to sound as if you keep up with the research literature, but you fail to be aware of some of the more common studies.  Why is that?

The paper to which I referred was published in 1988, and yes, it was a peer-reviewed publication, and yes, it was a comparison of computers verses humans.


Quote:

I guess it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks outside of a narrow world.   Your response smacks of arrogance & egotism.

Read my response again.  Following legal orders is not arrogance.  Deciding I know better than my superiors about how to do their jobs would be arrogance.  I can voice my concerns, opinions, etc, but how they make decisions about whom to hire and where to draw the cut-off lines is up to them - not you and me.


Quote:

Talk about getting off topics......I bet you recite the magna carta in your sleep. Thank goodness I never asked you a long question.

I responded to your questions.  Have you any formal college education?  If so, go and review the basics.  If not, I don't have time to teach you statistics, research methodology and a host of other topics you need for a foundation to have some of the discussions you would like.  

Now, let's get back to the topic.  The computer was able to score charts in which CMs were employed, and they CMs didn't help the guilty, and they hurt the innocent.  As we speak, there are people working on computer algorithms to evaluate how computers could better do that task.  Someday, maybe we'll be able to save the innocent who are mislead and encouraged to try to "help" themselves.

I'm off for a while, and I don't know that I'll have access to a computer.

Take care.