Batman,

As Drew has suggested, Gino and I would very much welcome any specific criticism you may have for The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. In fact, we've set up a forum on this board specifically for such commentary.

You also wrote, "In the big scheme of things, this issue about polygraph is small potatoes to the great, great majority of people.  It's not even a blip on their radar screens." Of course, you're right. But this is really irrelevant to the merits of the case against polygraph screening. For those who have become its victims, polygraph policy is not just "small potatoes," and this website exists as a direct result of the harm being done to innocent persons through reliance on this pseudoscience. In addition, appreciable harm is being done to the national security as a result of a misplaced faith in polygraphy. We're working to put polygraph policy on the "public radar screen" by exposing polygraph waste, fraud and abuse. And we've been increasingly successful in reaching those who are directly affected by polygraph screening.

Gino,

You Da Man, a sense of humor runs under all that antipolygraph brovado.

Drew, 

I like your suggestion regarding the Ames charts.  If nothing else it would have been interesting to see the results.  I assume the additional 200 sets of charts would be ones that were evaluated as NDI.  This would have been a very interesting experiment indeed.  It would never be too late to push forth such an idea.  I have communicated with a few of the Polygraph Program Managers in the not to distant past, and have acquaintances at DoDPI.  If you don't mind, I think I will resubmit your suggestion.  I for one would be very interested to see just how it plays out.

And, as you know, some folks just can't go as public as others.  You too have a good weekend.

GEORGE????,

Is that you I hear touting that Lie Behind the Lie Detector again?  Granted, a somewhat interesting, and well researched document, but as I have expressed before, studies are almost always open to a broad range of interpretation.  People can very easily take most any study and make it fit their particular point of view.  It's kind of like that old saying, "Statistics lie and liers use statistics."  I just have never felt comfortable with any of the polygraph studies, those that indicate it has a high accuracy rate, as well as those that indicate it's a 50/50 proposition.  So the Lie behind the Lie Detector just didn't do a whole lot for me.  However, not to worry, there's always guys like Beech Trees who treat it like the Bible, and sleep with it under their pillow.

Batman

M6,

When it comes to polygraph screening, ignorance is no bliss. The FBI special agent applicant polygraph failure rate is reportedly now near 50%. Do you suppose that many liars are really passing Phase I?

It would behoove any FBI applicant to learn all he or she can about polygraph screening beforehand. You'll find a detailed explanation of what actually goes on in a pre-employment polygraph interrogation in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and in Chapter 4, you'll find tips on how to protect yourself against the all too real danger of becoming a false positive. (You may also be interested in reading the statements of some FBI polygraph victims on the AntiPolygraph.org Personal Statements page.)

M6,

It was reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer in May. Follow the link in my post above for details.

George,

Sorry that last one was so short and confusing.  What I meant was, any thought of the FBI being less strict on past drug use?  To clarify, I don't mean a lessening of the standard, but rather a less stringent approach to false positives on the poly.

Cordially, M6

Let me ask this, there is one area where my memory does not serve me well.  What is the number one way in dealing with this?

Batman,

You wrote:

Quote:


I appreciate your vote of confidence and willingness to try to further this notion of days gone by.  I should point out the obvious though...in order for this analysis to have any credibility whatsoever it would have to be administrated by those with no obvious biases regarding the outcome.  Because DoDPI exists only so long as polygraphy (and to a large extent the large polygraph screening programs that have and continue to exist within DoD and other government agencies) exists, it should have absolutely nothing to do with validating anything to do with polygraph screening (to include this notional research effort) or those specific programs upon which its foundation exists.  

For similar and even more obvious reasons the polygraph examiners/operational program heads of the agency polygraph programs that utilize counterintelligence polygraph screening can have nothing to do with the ADMINISTRATION of this research.  Although they should have absolutely no control over experimental design and implementation (to include verification that chart selection of surrounding exam material was accurate and complete) they would be appropriate and likely represent a necessary candidate pool from which individuals would be chosen to score these charts.  The participation by selected examiners (because of the potential serious ramifications to national security stemming from the results of said study) should be preceded by signed sworn statements (presented to Federal Law Enforcement officers) in which they (the examiners) clearly state that they have no prior knowledge of the Ames polygraph charts or (to their knowledge) any other polygraph charts which might be included in this study.  It should be made abundantly clear that any misrepresentations in said statement not only could be but also would be prosecuted under Title 18 USC 1001.

I would suggest the National Academy of Science (perhaps even the currently assembled panel) as a  starting point in a search for an administrator(s) of this study.

If I fail the poly and I am working for a private company, do I loose all my clearances or just will not qualify for poly. Does this mean I could be out of a job right now that does not require poly.