THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT YOU LIED...NO MATTER HOW MINOR IT WAS.....IF YOU WILL LIE NOW....WHAT ABOUT LATER IN YOUR CAREER WHEN YOUR LOOKING AT A WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSED BY YOU OR A FELLOW OFFICER...WILL YOU LIE THEN TO PROTECT YOUR JOB JUST LIKE YOU DID TO GET IT....OMITTING A FACT IS AKIN TO LYING

The_Breeze wrote on Dec 11^th, 2002 at 11:40pm:

Breeze,

What I meant was, "why have an application process when the polygraph determines eveything in one small step?"

Polygraphers are the judge, jury, and executioner for applicants.  Does it matter if the applciant has gone through almost a year of screening prior, or if they just walked in off the street?  They will still be subject to a very fuzzy "test."  It is assumed that they are lying, whether they were a prior LE officer, distinguished military veteran, or begging for change on the street corner.  This type of screening is assinine.

Since the polygraph really doesn't take in to account the applicant's background (although that isn't what the applicant is told),  why not do it first?  The FBI could save tons of money on paperwork and trips to interviews if they just eliminate the "scum" out of the applicant pool right off the bat.

And, polygraphers need more work to do -- you said it yourself:
Quote:
 
Maybe if you had more to do, you could find a way to make the machine truly work.

I know, I know, it works fine.  You and all your polygraph buddies tell yourselves that at your polygraph meetings you go to.   More like perpetuating a lie for self-preservation, I think.

But that's my opinion.  Oh, and the NAS, too.  But we don't count.

Chris

touche wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2003 at 11:17pm:


I would think you'd want to pay them not only based on how much responsibility they bear, but also how well they meet those responsibilities.

That being the case, I wouldn't be eager to deal out the raises

Skeptic

touche wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 1:02am:


Indeed they should. If I were, I would be constantly recommending to my superiors that the polygraph should be scrapped and polygraphers reassigned elsewhere in counterintelligence.

Quote:


It wasn't my intent to say either way.  I was responding to a one-liner with one of my own

Skeptic

touche wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 1:02am:

Dear touche,

As of today in the current system, the FBI does not do any investigation before a polygraph.  The FBI will not corroborate any negative findings found during the polygraph interview.  There are no formal appeal procedures and it is not videotaped for examination for possible procedural flaws or examiner bias.  Any negative "interpretations" never get to an adjudicator.  It is not inappropriate to state that the polygraph examiner is the "judge, jury, and executioner" of integrity and career of an applicant for any additional federal opportunities beyond the original FBI application.

Regards.

Skeptic wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 10:27pm:


Thank you, Skeptic, that is truly my point.  I went through 10 months of testing, applications, screening, and interviews.  In 2 days, it was all over -- all in the polygrapher's chair.

I told the truth; however, my polygrapher was biased against me.  He was told by the Agent conducting my PSI that I had omitted all of my foreign contacts on my application.  Consequently, my polygraper labeled me a spy and failed me for reasons of National Security.

Of course I didn't omit my foreign contacts -- they were not supposed to be listed.  The Agent doing my PSI made a huge mistake and it cost me my polygraph -- and a whole lot more.

So, touche, is it fair that I should fail for these reasons?  Is it fair that the FBI polygrapher can fail me, erase almost a year of hard work, and most important, post his findings on my PUBLIC RECORD with the FBI so that no other gov't agency hires me?  Don't say that won't happen, because it already has.

Judge, jury, and executioner is well justified in my case.

Chris

Mark,

Best Wishes and Happy New Year.  You are quite correct in the assessment that you made in your last post.  I was told a number of years ago by a member of a well known quality assurance (more about that notion shortly) program that his group never over turned a DI call by the original examiner to a NDI result (would occasionally change to INCL) but would occasionally completely overturn a NDI original examiner call.  

Aside from this prejudicial practice, the term quality assurance in the polygraph world generally indicates less than applies with other practices.  What is generally reviewed is question choice and polygraph scoring (along with basic instrument operation and chart notation).  Unfortunately these two areas are not the weaknesses of control question test polygraphy which in turn, unfortunately, are not and can not be meaningfully addressed by existing quality assurance programs.  With regard to what is done...polygraph scoring is relatively reliably (albeit not accurately) done--it is fairly easy and routine for a group of beginning polygraph students to be able to score polygrams arriving at similar qualitative and quantitative endpoints.  Very little is gained in this area by review of senior polygraph personnel.  With regard to question formulation, the process for relevant questions is rather simple minded.  The elements of the crime are simply presented in interrogatory form, i.e., for a bank robbery a logical relevant question would be "Did you rob the bank?"  As David Lykken would say, hardly rocket science  Control question selection is largely a matter of choosing from a list of approved questions for various subject/investigative areas, again hardly a difficult task requiring a great deal of oversight.  

I believe the reason polygraph "quality assurance" programs are largely meaningless is that the real problem with probable-lie CQT is the lack of a theoretical basis for the test in the first place (i.e., fear of consequences vs. fear of (lie) detection mechanism discussed elsewhere) and a lack of scientific control.  Even if the first problem did not exist, the inability to objectively and quantitatively describe when a control question has been "set" and when the proper balance for relative affect for control and relative questions has been achieved for a given examinee prior to polygraph examination, makes quality assurance as presently practiced an exercise in futility.  And once again, even if this latter problem did not exist (along with the basic theoretical considerations), those polygraph programs that do not audio/video tape examinations provide no conceivable opportunity for quality assurance programs to accomplish this(ese) needed task(s).  For all of the above considerations, I find little quality control in present polygraph quality assurance/quality control programs.  Currently utilized methodology does not allow for it.  Best Regards...