Batman,
I have a tendency to agree that debate on this topic may get us nowhere; and I certainly don't expect drastic changes in polygraph testing to occur  because of what's posted and debated on this site! I just find it unbelievable that so much faith is placed in machines and examiners, in our country, in this day and age. The mere fact that "experts" (pro-polygraph experts, no less) have a problem with this site, and with the existence of countermeasures, proves that the test is not perfect. True, nothing really IS perfect, but to use this one instrument which will deny someone gainful employment, or have him/her labeled as a liar, is completely foolish. We're going to depend on this one instrument to tell us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the subject is or is not suitable for a position...regardless of his qualifications, sparkling background check, personal/character/business references, et cetera??? And yes, that is EXACTLY what happens. It's happened to me, and it's happened to friends and family as well. The fact that this much faith is put into this one test, in my eyes, throws the "innocent until proven guilty" stance we are supposed to have as Americans right out the window. 

While I understand the point of your analogy, it's comparing two completely different things. So the man experiences a lot of pain with one medical procedure, then decides to complain about ALL of them. There are thousands of different procedures in medicine, from ingrown toenail surgery to tonsillectomies to brain tumor removals. Polygraphy uses one procedure (unless you want to count CVSA's, which would bring it up to two). They're very specialized. They also DO NOT detect lies! 

I also don't see where someone employing countermeasures to pass a lie detector would be in a position to do any of those things you mentioned in your last paragraph. How would passing a polygraph make that individual more likely to commit those crimes? The only instance I can think of would be someone who gets paroled because he passed a polygraph. If that's the case, then it would mean the "system" is depending wholly on the results of that polygraph to release someone from prison. And that thought, Batman, I find most disturbing of all.

Batman wrote on May 17^th, 2002 at 7:41pm:


Just where in the hell do you get that from?  I never said I used the stuff, but if someone did at one time, and they have stopped, and the time frame was a LONG time ago, i don't see any reason to immediatly DQ a person based on that knowledge.

As far as your ludicris assumption that I sold or used drugs, YOU ARE QUITE MISTAKEN.  I've NEVER sold or used any drug substance in my life. You can argue all day that I'm a liar, but all I can say is it is the truth.  Kind of hard to be in the military since High School and go straight from that to the police force, both of which use drug tests (random) and still get out of the service with two Honorable discharges and leave the PD with re-enstatement privilages.....

Geez some of you testers/poly believers need to receive a dose of your own medicine.....

Your smugness is indicative of your willingness to screw good people over IMHO.

Former Officer:

I take almost as much offense at your assumption that I am a "tester" as you do to my assumption you have had "non-official" invovlement with illegal drugs.   

I'm simply an individual who believes that web sites such as this do more harm than good because they promote an unhealthy approach toward life.  Do you think I am a tester or pro-polygraph simply because I am willing to keep the door open to the potential usefulness of the polygraph as an aid to investigations.  Maybe I have had some exposure to the technique wherein it was of tremendous assistance.  Maybe I'm just willing to entertain both sides of the issue.  Maybe I just like to get folks like you all fired up, kind of like kicking an ant hill.  Or, God forbid, maybe I am a POLYGRAPH EXAMINER, run away, run away!!!!

Come on, lighten up, have some fun with it.  Enjoy the good give and take of a message board such as this.  Polygraph is the least of our worries.  I'm just a caped crusader for honesty.

By the way, why are you a "former officer"?  Didn't get BUSTED did ya?

Batman

Batman wrote on May 17^th, 2002 at 5:41pm:


Batman,

If you believe that I have written anything about polygraphy that is untrue or otherwise misleading, why not share that with readers here, rather than arguing ad hominem?

Batman,

As George suggested, perhaps you could provide some specific criticisms directing us toward any false or misleading information on the site. So far, all you've done is level personal attacks at various posters.

Quote:
 

Agreed with you 100%. The site has definitely brought out the worst in the angry polygraph examiners who see the trickery behind their abusive and deceitful trade being exposed in front of more people each day.

Quote:


As readers of this site know, the potential employers that you refer to are foisting deceit onto applicants through the use of polygraph "tests." Yes, it is true that some independent thinkers may choose to "fight fire with fire" rather than take a substantial risk at having lifelong career aspirations go down the drain.

Quote:
 

This site provides emotional support for the large number of individuals who are being falsely accused by polygraphers as drug users, drug dealers, spies, and other criminals. I believe that this is anything but unhealthy.

Quote:


We do not deny that the polygraph is an effective interrogation prop when used on those ignorant of the trickery on which it depends. Nonetheless, any reliance on polygraph "test" results is truly foolhardy.

Okay, I'm up for something like this, and I will do my best to keep my personal experiences out and my mind open. Understand, however, that I have told the truth on a polygraph and failed, and have also lied on a polygraph and passed. I would certainly hope it is understandable that THESE particular experiences do nothing to increase my confidence in polygraphy as a whole.

Yes; I agree that the human body can show recordable signs of stress when lying. And, of course, I have no doubt that the polygraph is able to detect and record changes in the physiology of the human body.

Just because stress registers, though, is in no way indicative that the person is lying. Would you agree that a person comfortable with lying may *not* show any signs of stress or changes in their physiology while being questioned? Frankly, it is my humble opinion that a person comfortable with lying is the kind of person the polygrapher (and society as a whole) would like to catch in a lie. My assumption would be that the polygraph came into existence BECAUSE of people like this. It seems ironic that it will pass people comfortable with lying (and again, it's these people that the polygraph is SUPPOSED to catch), but register stress by law-abiding citizens and may end up with them accused of lying. 

Polygraphs have no place in pre-employment screening, period. That's what drug tests, background checks, and personal references are for. In most areas throughout the country, from what I'm told and from research on my own, there is fierce competition for jobs with a fire department (I can only assume the same is true for law enforcement jobs). In my area, an average sized fire department can expect to have over 500 applicants for only five positions. For the (very conservative estimate) 350 who make it through the written tests, physical agility, medical scenarios, interviews, and background investigations, the polygraph and medical examination by a physician are the only two things standing between them and a job. The polygraph becomes little more than a lottery machine. When you've had two years of paramedic schooling and six months of basic firefighting while holding down a full-time job, and most fire departments MAY hire once a year, it's a pretty f*&(ed up situation when you tell the entire truth and get failed for lying. Then, most departments take you off their eligibility list for up to two years. Not a pleasant experience, I can assure you.

I've said over and over that I believe the polygraph can be effective as an interrogation tool for the guilty, but it simply doesn't belong as a pre-employment requirement because it is flawed. There is just too much reliance on it as a screening tool.

Batman wrote:

Quote:


An individual may or may not undergo physiological changes measurable by a polygraph instrument when telling a falsehood. In any event, no reaction specific to deception has been identified. As Professor William G. Iacono notes in his article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis": 

Quote:


In the above-referenced article, Prof. Iacono goes on to explain the scientific shortcomings of the Relevant/Irrelevant "Test" and the "Control" Question "Test," techniques which attempt to circumvent this fundamental shortcoming.

In addition, as Professor David T. Lykken observed in A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, any reaction that a person exhibits when telling a falsehood, he may also exhibit another time, when telling the truth.