Netin,
You wrote in your first post regarding this question;
Quote:
Quote:The Polygraph results started with a page of all the admissions I made. Then, after the last description of admissions, it states:
After the pre-test interview, two polygraph tests were performed on the subject.
It is in the examiners opinion that there were no emotional responses indicative of deception on any any of the relevant questions, and that the subject was truthfull on all the relevant questions.
Thats all the polygraph results state.
Go figure?
In your second;
Quote:J.B.
Yes I admitted to using Marijuana in 98/99, and that was a relevat question. I thought the department wanted a 2 year break from any drug use, which seems to be the norm around here, but it turns out the wanted a three year break, and so I "didn't make the cut." I was eliminated based on this admission to a relevant questions.
However, this was the only relevant question I messed up on
by making admissions.
During the interview, they also asked questions about dealing, being involved in a felony, and knowingly receiving stolen goods.
These questions are all WAY more serious, in my opinion, than the use of Marijuana (A "drug" grown by the goverment, distributed by the government, and prohibited by the government based on an inability to create a fullproof way of marketing it. Gee...what is the public supposed to think...they see the government giving packages of Joints to sick people to do a study to see if it helps them feel BETTER and aid in the recovery process. Some things just absolutely AMAZE me...but enough about Marijuana).
I lied in the interview about these issues by saying no involvement and never did any of them.
I also lied on these three issues during the test, using a physical countermeasure on the controls.
I passed the test, and have read the results stating, "There were no emotional reactions indicative of deception on any of the relevant questions, and it is in the opinion of the examiner that the subject was telling the truth."
There is nothing in either one of these posts that would give me the information that the
Quote:relevant issue
you admitted to was not a
Quote:relevant issue
on the exam.
I am not protecting anything or anyone. I am against pre-employment polygraphs in their current state and feel they are invalid. Again, I do not conduct pre-employment exams. I agree with Drew that there are no studies supporting this method and would add that polygraph was not designed for the currently used method. As I have said previously, if there is one issue of concern in a properly investigated background investigation, that issue could be tested using specific issue. Example; An applicant, who just graduated from college, says s/he has not used marijuana in the last five years. However, a person contacted in the background investigation says s/he smoked marijuana with him in college.
Is there a possibility you may beat an examiner? Yes. I have never said that every examiner can detect countermeasures. The examiner is only as good as their training, knowledge, and experiences. You have told me that the examiner is reputable in your area and was recommended by other police officers. Since you have not said so, I will gather you are speaking of police officers and not polygraph examiners who are police officers. Police departments and police officers usually view polygraph examiners work in specific issue exams, not pre-employment. Regardless of this, they do not know much about polygraph. If you have read just the sections dealing with the exam outline in
Quote:The Lie Behind The Lie Detector
, you most likely have more knowledge on the issue. I am not saying the examiner is not good. However, it is an unfortunate fact that many examiners go to a polygraph school and get little to no training or education after that. If you went to a dentist who had been practicing dentistry for 50 years, who only went to dental school, did no refresher courses, internship, continuing education, and simply updated themselves on current issues to keep abreast with the field, you would most likely have your teeth drilled with no Novocain and your filling material would most likely be carcinogenic.
As for your comments on my status of scientific thinking, I would gladly defend any comment or assertion I have made. I have not made a comment regarding the scientific aspects of polygraph that I cannot back up with supporting information. On an issue brought to one for comment or enlightenment, one can only do so based on the information that is available to one for comment on.
Drew,
I agree with you on the issue of pre-employment polygraph validity in its current state. My point on the multiple issue aspect of pre-employment is that it is most often a multiple issues exam. Cleve Backster has spoken at length about multiple issue testing and his feelings on its use and abuse in polygraph. More directly to its use in his Zone Comparison Test format. I am sure you have most undoubtedly heard this lecture and spoke with him on this issue.
My comments on countermeasures stand as is. Given that there are no studies to support a truthful subject can better their position with the use of countermeasures, I would not suggest one use them and chance a heightened risk of being deemed deceptive. Literature and studies both point to the success of countermeasures in repetitive training. If one employs countermeasures and is found in doing so they will most likely be found deceptive. If you consider the limited research, which I will only for the context of what if, Honts et al say examiners can detect countermeasures at no better then chance. This would say approximately 50 percent. If the examiner could only detect countermeasures even 20 percent of the time, it would still produce a higher rate of false readings due to their venture then the percentage of false positives. I am unsure of the from what you are deducting the
Quote: 1500 times more false positive results than true positive results in an effort to find one spy in a population of 10,000 FBI agents.
If this is to suggest that 1500 of 10000 would be false positive, that would mean a 15 percent false positive rate. If this is what you meant, I have seen nor read of such a study. Even so, adding the low estimation of 20 percent found countermeasures to the false positive rate would in turn produce 3500 false positives in a pool of 10000 and 35 in a pool of 100 applicants, as opposed to 1500 and 15 respectively with no countermeasures used.
The only method to the madness is to find a pre-employment polygraph exam that studies support works, and/or stick to specific issue exams on pre-employment as I suggest, or simply abandon pre-employment screening altogether. Regardless of the above numbers suggested for what if, I suggest either and both are to high for the likes of a truthful person who deserves better.