Marty wrote on Jan 1^st, 2003 at 1:44am:


Dear Marty,

Studies by Polygraph Organizations are attacked by opponents using the "Fox watching the henhouse" analogy.

Studies by the scientific community within accepted statistical practices are almost non-existent and attacked by proponents of polygraphs as not reflecting the "reality of the test room" and their utility as a tool.

Currently, the government agencies using the polygraph have no internal reason to question the status quo and will not move unless a political cattle prod forces them to do so. The federal government does not want to spend any money on this subject in today's fiscal climate.

The NAS report was a huge watershed document to start serious discussion on polygraph accuracy and validity. I definitely agree that further studies are necessary to document actual percentage of predicted accuracy of the "polygraph tool."  

My personal experience in the pre-screening use is that it is easily manipulated by test administrator bias. In my case, it was not videotaped.  I believe my experience would not have occurred if my examiner knew his actions could be easily subjected to review for possible disciplinary action.

Regards

Dear Marty,

I agree that there are much more sophisticated means of measuring physiological reactions instead of the current polygraph sensors.  The problem has always been trying to interpret this information.

Looking for "signatures" of countermeasures is an interesting idea but I would argue that many autonomic nervous system traits would give consistant signatures which many polygraph experts associate with "truthful" reactions.  This argument being similar to which directions someone moves there eyes after a question indicating truthfulness or deception.

Autonomic nerve "imprinting" is not consistant within cultures.  A child who is farsighted cannot read their own writing.  They imprint their writing through muscular motion differently than one who gets feed back with their eyes and this will affect their writing until they "retrain" their muscle imprinting. There muscle reaction will be repeatable and consistant but incorrect.  The same can be created for emotional reactions which will be interpreted as "countermeasures" instead of truth. 

This is a discussion better for another thread.  Start one and I will answer more there.

Regards.

Quote:


Indeed, the human nervous system is a wonderfully complex and flexible thing.

One thing that does seem remarkably consistent, though, are certain reactions to recognition.  Combined with the fact that tests may be designed such that the likelihood of false positive "recognition" reactions are almost nil, "recognition testing" could be a truly valuable tool for law enforcement.  Not useful for screening, though.  Unfortunately, there appears no substitute for good old fashioned background investigations.

Give Dr. Richardson the chance, and he'll talk at length about recognition testing.

Skeptic

The_Breeze wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 5:48pm:

Dear Breeze,

Without getting into any polygraph validity discussion, your statement could be a good supposition.

I would add "no other cheaper alternative" and it would be a hard argument to fight considering my three experiences and the whole FBI procedure of hiring applicants.

Regards.

Breeze and George,

Quote:


A remarkable point of agreement. This apparently expedient mechansim has extremely adverse consequences. It is not a simple thing as where one isn't hired due to nebulous chemistry or instinct. If I interview 2 people and hire the one that I think best fits the needs of the dept., the emotional hurt to the one not hired is far less than if I polygraph the applicants and say the one not hired failed the polygraph.  There is little that causes more pain than having one's integrity questioned.  There is little that does more damage than promulgating that to other potential employment opportunities.

-Marty

The_Breeze wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2003 at 5:48pm:


Breeze,
Simple fix.  Raise the cut off scores at Phase II.  Let less people get to the polygraph.

Three Agents do the interview in Phase II.  They are well trained in fairness.  Their scores can be trusted.

An applicant who fails to achieve a passing score in Phase II has no further career ramifications.  An apllicant who fails a polygraph, however . . .

Using a polygraph to intentionally thin the applicant pool is morally wrong.  Labelling epople as spies and druggies and liars when there may or may not be SUFFIECIENT proof is wrong.  And posting these results as fact on the FBI public record, preventing other career opportunities is also wrong.

Chris

If in fact the number of failed polygraphs has increased to 50% from 20% then one would expect the polygrapher workload to have increased nearly 70%. Since a failed polygraph would normally also include an elongated post test interrogation, the workload increase would even be higher. And then if hiring itself increases..... 

Does this imply there are a lot of new, inexperienced polygraphers or just the same number of very tired people.



-Marty

OK people, Let me introduce myself. I am now a person who obey's the law.(yeah, I know we're all innocent right?) But let me finish. I have had a childhood that was not the Mother's dream. In other words, I was not the perfect child! I had my run in with stealing, Lying, and some minor drug use. My opinion on drugs is anything you put in your body that is not acceptable by Christ, police, and anything you have to buy on the corner in secret... IE: Marijuana, all the crystals, alchohol, and pharmacuticals if not prescribed to you!
Now, I am not going to preach, But let me say this. I too have quit my ways. I stopped all the bullshit that was destroying my life. I found a better way. I have 3 wonderful children, A VERY beautiful wife of 14 yrs. And sometimes I look back on myself and ask how can this be true? All these good things in my life. Finding my wife was what did it. when I found her she taught me to be a better person. I no longer needed the fullfilment of the buzz, Thats what she gave me!!! a killer buzz! Then I had kids. Even more BUZZ!!!  I receive respect from people when I Introduce myself and I have something to offer them, " WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET"! I don't have to lie For the respect. I am not faking a personality! I have learned from my mistakes and will learn more everyday. And to be honest with you, I have always known you can't trust everyone. And for the past couple of days I've learned that even though you tell the truth on polygraphs it can make you out to be a liar. Even when your not.
Now, I know that most of the people on this site are peace officers. And the honest ones who risk their lives everyday for our well being and to keep illegal acts to a minimum are under a blanket of GRATITUDE from me. THANK YOU!
If you have had some problems in the past. and worked your way through it and found some peace in your life and no longer need the bullshit. Congratulations! 
Now, there have been times when I said,"I'd love to be a cop".
But let me say this. In my opinion, It's commendable to want to make something of yourself, and that you quit the drugs or alchohol and made a better life for yourself. 
I just read a thread stating,"who better to find the stash than someone who used to hide it". I believe that... But I also believe that a cop that lied about it or deceived an examiner to get the position is just as bad. If you want to be a cop for respect, then you just lost it! the respect that is... My theory is. "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." And if you have a strong feeling against  polygraphs then you have the right to refuse to take it. I know the examiner is there to make you out to be a liar! but if you lie to pass it then your still a liar! And I don't believe that is what I want for a peace officer! And About that stash, be it money or drugs if you found it and turned it in, How much did you really find???