dispatchgal,

You wrote:

Quote:


There is no reason to believe that polygraphers can detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better than chance levels of accuracy. Peer-reviewed research suggests that even experienced polygraphers can't.

Quote:


The risk of a false positive outcome can be quite significant. For example, in the FBI, about 20% of applicants who make it as far as receiving tentative job offers are disqualified as a result of their polygraph chart readings. In the Los Angeles Police Department, the polygraph disqualification rate is at or above 50%. But "Control" Question "Test" (CQT) polygraphy has not been proven to work better than chance by peer reviewed research. As readers of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector know, far from being a genuine test grounded in the scientific method, CQT polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud that is completely bereft of any diagnostic value whatsoever.

Faced with such risks, the truthful applicant might be well-advised to employ countermeasures to protect him- or herself against a false positive outcome. Again, there is no published evidence that actual countermeasure use has any correlation with increased risk of failure and/or an accusation of countermeasure use from the polygrapher.

Quote:


I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Although I have been monitoring this post over the past few weeks, I haven’t had the pleasure (due to other obligations) of adding my two cents to this topic until today.

First, with regard to whether or not honesty is better than deception I would say that honesty (in almost every case) is better.  However, with that being said, I don’t think it inconsistent to advocate the use of, or to actually use, countermeasures.  As Dr. Richardson pointed out: “The use of countermeasures by an innocent polygraph examinee has nothing to do per se with either honesty or deception.”  An innocent examinee employing countermeasures is simply making sure the correct outcome (non-deception indicated) is reached.

In 1997, the venerable FBI had this to say about the polygraph “technique” in an affidavit (USA v. ENS Patrick J. Jacobson, USN) signed by, James K. Murphy, Chief of the FBI Laboratory’s Polygraph Unit: 

“...the polygraph technique has not reached a level of acceptability within the relevant scientific community, [and] scientific research has not been able to establish the true validity of polygraph testing in criminal applications...”

This should give polygraph proponents and non-independent thinkers (sorry, Duc748) food for thought.  To those true believers: Don’t you find the FBI’s polygraph policies inconsistent?  On one hand, they are the gospel truth when it comes to screening prospective employees, on the other, well, you can read it again for yourself.

To Duc748, I would say:

You should be very happy that you passed your polygraph.  However, please keep in mind that many honest Law Enforcement applicants have been falsely branded as liars.  (I would suspect that this means little to you though.)  Your many posts have been both entertaining and mortifying in that your blind allegiance to “the process” has totally clouded both your judgment and objectivity.  This is truly scary given the position you will ultimately hold.  

There was a time when I was as naïve as you seem to be now.  Given that, I often wonder what my feelings on the polygraph would be had I passed my first “test.”  I may have very well taken the position you hold, but now know from first hand experience that honesty does not guarantee a favorable outcome.  Additionally, I know from my second test that countermeasures do in fact work.

The fact that “Good or bad [you] support the decisions made by those agencies for which [you] work” scares me as well.  Like you, I am a military officer (that is, I assume you are), but unlike you, I believe in loyal dissent.  As former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Krulak, noted in a speech regarding integrity and moral courage, you have be willing to tell the emperor he has no clothes.  You would do well to remember that.

V/r

AMM

I am currently in the FBI specail agent selection process.  I was wondering what happens on a polygraph if you don't know the answer to the question?

DUC - So nice to see there are still honest, upfront applicants for LEO positions out there.  I took my Federal exam quite some years ago, and was also totally honest, and passed a "probable lie" exam.  I also told my examiner about the mistakes I had made (cheated on a test, lied to a boss) and passed the exam.  Why?  Because I was telling the truth!!  Polygraph does work, and like everything else in life, it's not perfect.  What I say to those who profess that they have done "bad" things & now changed their lives, that's great, but it doesn't make you suitable for law enforcement.  Stop pining over something you simply don't deserve, & move on!  Also, couldn't agree with you more on the point that if these people will go to these attempts to get something they think they were born entitled to, what else will they do that's unethical??  Makes you wonder, huh?

Hubert Redfield wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2002 at 5:21am:


No, you passed because your recorded physiological responses to the Control Questions were greater than your recorded physiological responses to the Relevant Questions. Truth, honesty, deception made no difference.

Quote:


Could you elaborate? If polygraphs 'work', how are they imperfect?

Quote:


Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement you judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.-- Matthew 7:1-2

MSP,

It is you who miss the point.  Polygraph screening is not in the class of DNA testing.  Find a DNA research scientist who would assess the validity of that which he does in the same category of polygraphy.  Give me a break   If the reliability/validity of automotive brakes were no better than that of polygraphy, we'd still be relying on bicycles and horses for land transportation. Since when does a DNA analyst hide the details of the procedures he uses as does a polygraphist or the agencies which employ them (see Mr. Maschke's request to DSS for the Federal Polygraph Handbook).  Since when does DNA analysis or brake operation depend on deception and fraud.  I think you very badly need to take this analogy back to the drawing board.   And with regard to the list of items you leave us with as being nice to know about, don't confuse problems/needs with solutions.  Polygraphy is not a solution for confirming that which we know about, let alone shedding light on that which we don't know about.