Marty,

"Farce" is a very apt word for describing the situation of an informed individual facing a polygraph interrogation. As Drew Richardson mentioned regarding polygraph screening in an internal FBI memo to the then director of the FBI crime lab, "a technique which has no diagnostic value would require such a universal bluff and disinformation campaign as to be impractical, if not comical, to continue over a period of time...." (emphasis added)

The polygraphers' bluff has been called. It's time to end the farcical charade that is polygraph screening.

Skeptic wrote on Oct 19^th, 2002 at 7:13pm:

Sadly it is not the result of incompetence.  The polygraph community simply does not consider a high rate of false positives as "intolerable" but just as the cost of doing business. Obviously they don't take joy in it but see no alternative. The NAS report didn't say anything they didn't already know even if lawmakers and the general public may not have known.

-Marty

George,

It will be interesting to see if the class action attys will take this on. Since employment screening is pretty much limited to govt or govt mandated private sector programs, it won't be as attractive financially as other opportunities. I'm sure you will keep us informed about events here.

Perhaps the political liabilities will be more productive, but in the wake of 9-11, cries of "national security" will provide cover given the widespread ignorance and belief in the workability of the polygraph extant.

Improving public polygraph "literacy" is the key factor facilitating the rest of this. This has the adverse consequence of likely reducing the tool's effectiveness as a criminal interrogation tool. Interrogations can be and are abused but the issue of corruption of investigative processes is quite broad and is not polygraph specific.

The polygraph community would be quite wise to eliminate job screening in order to salvage the other uses where arguably it has been of some benefit, at least in the case of naive subjects. I doubt they will choose to voluntarily do so though.

-Marty

Marty wrote on Oct 19^th, 2002 at 8:53pm:


Isn't Mark Zaid already doing this?  I hope the NAS report gives him some fresh ammunition.

Quote:


This can, of course, work both ways.  It's only because of the "polygraph mystique" that the public has condoned increased use of polygraph screening.  If that mystique is shattered and faith in the polygraph is fingered as a national security liability, the tides can change very quickly.

Quote:


This may be a difficult issue, given the statistics-based rationale behind the NAS's findings:  a lot depends upon the prevalence of the guilty among a tested population.

The real problem, as I see it, is not that the polygraph makes mistakes (which information you could disseminate widely without destroying the concealed information upon which the polygraph depends).  The real problem is that the public believes the polygraph detects lies, which means people tend not to take the error rates into account.  As I see it, the only way to dispel this myth and put the polygraph's accuracy into correct perspective is to let the public "in on the secret", which will simultaneously destroy whatever leverage the polygraph has towards generating reactions concominant with lying.

It should also be noted that, while the NAS did conclude that SI polygraphy has results "well above chance", it was still highly critical both of the quality and quantity of the research done on this and other issues, and of the generalizability of laboratory research to field work.

Skeptic

Skeptic,

Quote:


Yes, Mark Zaid is indeed representing a number of plaintiffs who are suing the federal government over its reliance on polygraph screening. These cases have survived the government's request for summary judgment, and are now in the discovery phase.

Quote:


The NAS report should go a long way toward shattering the mystique of the polygraph for anyone who would take the time to read it. Unfortunately, the number of individuals actually doing so is likely to be quite small.

One of the goals of AntiPolygraph.org is to inform the public about "the lie behind the lie detector" and shatter the mystique of the polygraph. We have made progress toward that end, especially among those who are subject to polygraph screening. I think it is only a matter of time before the spread of the news reaches critical mass and the polygraph house of cards collapses.

Quote:


Note that the NAS conclusion that polygraph "tests" can differentiate between truth and deception in specific incidents at levels "well above chance" was heavily caveated. It assumes a population of subjects who are uninformed about "the lie behind the lie detector" and untrained in countermeasures. Moreover, the NAS found no convincing evidence that polygraphy has any intrinsic ability to detect deception: its ability to differentiate between truth and deception at levels above chance in certain contexts may well depend on the subjects' belief in the polygraph and in their ignorance of effective countermeasures.

Skeptic wrote on Oct 19^th, 2002 at 9:11pm:


LOL

Please, never confuse the taste of blood for victory. Good luck, Skeptic.

-Marty

Fair Chance wrote on Oct 20^th, 2002 at 1:21am:


ROFLMAO.  Yup, I am as emotional as the next guy. The difference here is that my interest in the polygraph wars is not personal and I think most everyone here has a personal interest, either as a user, victim, or potential victim.  I am none of these nor do I expect to be, rather, I am just a curious, intrigued, bystander blessed (or cursed) with more curiosity than most.

Good luck to you as well, fair_chance! There are those I think have been unfairly screwed and it does in fact bother me, as analytic as I may seem to be.

-Marty