Quote:



I believe there IS a little insecurity lurking around in there. I don't think I have "postured" at all, perhaps it's your skewed perception. 

Best,
PK

Suethem, George, etc.

In an earlier post I presented the following statement:

Quote:


I was hoping for a response from an antipoly poster on this issue.

Let's look at those stats again.  Of 30 applicant exams, there were 11 SR/DI results, 9 of those gave admissions to the relevant issue.  So, AT WORST, of the 30 applicant exams there may have been 2 false positives.  The 9 applicants who gave relevant admissions were rightfully disqualified.  More than likely, these disqualifying issues would not have been discovered in a BI.  My argument would be that without polygraph, 9 undeserving applicants would have moved forward in the process.   

In my opinion, these results are fairly consistent throughout the law enforcement screening community. 

Looking forward to your response.

Ray, 

I said nothing about the scientific realiability of the Doug Williams test.  I only said that the polygraphers were 100% wrong in who they accused.

You offered up your real life situtation, I offered up the Doug Williams sting.

How could anyone prove a 'false positive'?  Isn't that like proving your innocence? Are polygraphers going to allow people to bring in witness and set the record straight- no.   

DI/SR - no job!!!  There is no investigative follow up to make sure the DI/SR was right.  The machine decides!

Suethem,
Quote:


What good is a witness going to do?  If you claim you've never done drugs then fail a polygraph how can a witness "set the record straight"?  Claims of false positives are just that - claims.  I'm not saying it never happens, just a lot less than this site leads people to believe.  If a guilty person takes and fails a polygraph then gives no admissions of course they're going to say the "machine is wrong".  What the hell else would they say?  Even the examples given in TLBTLD (Mallah, Tenebaum) and on this site were not confirmed as "false positives".  Just he said she said situations.  The reader is led to believe that these were all confirmed.      

No one has responded to my post regarding my 30 applicant exams.  11 DI/SR charts, 9 gave disqualifying admissions that would probably not have been caught in a background investigation (Drug use, kiddy porn, unreported crime).  Without poly these 9 probably get the job.  Is that what you want?  Should we let these 9 through just because there is a small possibilty of a false positive?  Give me a better solution than polygraph.  Present this to the public and I bet they would agree that the polygraph is effective.

Ray,

You write:

Quote:


I certainly don't want unqualified applicants to be hired by law enforcement agencies. On the other hand, I don't want qualified applicants to be wrongly branded as liars. I think that the risk of a false positive outcome is greater than you suppose, and is to be expected from a diagnostic truth test such as CQT polygraphy that has no theoretical foundation, no meaningful control, and no validity.

A key difference between the polygraph and other aspects of the law enforcement or intelligence hiring process that must be borne in mind is that failing other steps does not impugn one's character. For example, if an applicant doesn't pass a board interview, or the math portion of a written test, or a physical agility test, it does not derogate from the candidate's assumed honesty and integrity. But when a polygrapher accuses an applicant of deception, he (and through him, the government) impugn the applicant's honesty and integrity in a way that should never be done on the basis of such an invalid test.

The polygraph is not necessary. The industrialized democracies of the European Union get along just fine without it. The notion that we Americans need to rely on such pseudoscience as the polygraph is a dangerous delusion.

George,
Thanks for at least attempting to respond to my post.  There are several antipoly people who have chosen not to respond (Suethem, etc.).  Although your post was well written, you failed to respond to the meat of my post.  

If I'm reading you right, you're saying it's better to allow nine applicants with serious flaws in their background on the job than to risk a possible false positive ( If I'm wrong, correct me).  Without polygraph, that is what my agency quite possibly may have had...connoissuers of kiddy porn, people who lie about their drug past and criminals working side by side with me. I have no idea how this could be acceptable to you but, that is esentially what you are saying.  You say you don't want unqualified applicants to work in law enforcement...it's not a matter of qualifications it's a matter of public safety!  I have still yet to hear someone suggest a better method of discovering serious, undetected issues in applicant's pasts!  

Quote:
 

No one said getting a job in LE was easy.  Should we treat all applicants with kid gloves?  Shall we refrain from aggressively questioning applicants who apply for such sensitive positions?  It sounds to me that your beef is with the aggressive questioning that took place following your polygraph.  If the polygraph is abolished will your next effort be to ban all "tough" questioning of applicants?  It's unfortunate but not all applicants are as honest and forthcoming as you are. 

So the FBI examiner accused you of lying...big deal.  That test did not disqualify you from all other LE positions.  Move on....

I'm not intending to minimize your feelings.  I think you probably got a raw deal which is unfortunate.  If I was in your position I would feel the same way you do.  But look at the big picture George.  My results are the norm in applicant screening.  With it we eliminate the majority of the bad apples.  Without we eliminate NONE of the bad apples.  Give me a more effective solution.  I'm willing to bet you can't.    

I'm going off the topic here but I have a quick question.  In TLBTLD, are there any personal statements that are verified false positives or are they all just examinee claims?  If they are just claims, in order to be fair to the reader you may want to note that in the next version.  Thanks in advance.  
 

Ray wrote on Jul 26^th, 2003 at 3:31am:


Ray, I'll be happy to address the points you've raised in greater detail. I must disagree with Suethem's suggestion that it would be futile to respond to you. Whether or not we ultimately convince each other of the merits of our respective arguments on polygraph policy, I think that this discussion, and its associated sharing of viewpoints, is well worthwhile.

Quote:


What I am saying is that it is not acceptable to obtain disqualifying admissions/confessions from applicants through the use of polygraph screening at the cost of falsely accusing and disqualifying truthful applicants. The risk of false positive outcomes is not just "possible": it is the entirely forseeable and expected result of relying on a purported diagnostic test (CQT polygraphy) that has no theoretical foundation and is without validity.

Quote:


You no doubt do have people working side by side with you who have done the kinds of things that your nine subjects admitted to. It would be naive to think that they have all been screened out by the polygraph. The fact remains that we have no reliable methodology for the detection of deception. As "Wombat," who started this message thread, has illustrated, less-than-honest persons can make it through.

One possible solution to balancing the benefit of admissions obtained against the cost of falsely accusing the truthful would be to eliminate from the hiring process only those subjects who make disqualifying admissions during their polygraph examinations, and to let everyone else proceed, regardless of their polygraph chart readings. What do you think of this solution?

Quote:


No, and I did not mean to suggest that we should.

Quote:


Certainly not, and a probing background interview is certainly in order. Many agencies could no doubt ask more far-reaching questions than they typically do. For example, if you look at the Alaska State Trooper Background Questionnaire, you'll see that it goes into much more detail than is typically done with those applying for top secret security clearances.

I do think, however, that questioning should be done in a civil manner. For example, there is absolutely no justification for the kind of abuse that Detective Bill Roche experienced from Secret Service polygrapher Ignacio Zamora, Jr.

Quote:


No. I was not subjected to aggressive questioning following my FBI pre-employment polygraph.

Quote:


No.

Quote:


That's easy for you to say, Ray. You and your colleagues in the polygraph community do not bear the costs of the false accusations you inevitably make. As William Shakespeare wrote, "He jests at scars that never felt a wound."

The costs of failing a polygraph examination are quite high for many, especially those who fail FBI pre-employment polygraph examinations. (It is for this reason that I've recently concluded that the FBI pre-employment polygraph examination is a risk not worth taking.)

Quote:


I looked at the big picture before I began commenting publicly on polygraph policy. The picture I saw, and continue to see, is that on an annual basis, thousands of honest, law-abiding Americans are being wrongly branded as liars based on a completely invalid test. I think this is a part of the picture that you tend to minimize.

Quote:


Why do you believe the results of the 30 examinations of which you speak are the norm in applicant screening? I am skeptical that you would have the statistical data on hand to make such a sweeping characterization.

With the polygraph, you eliminate those bad apples who admit to being bad apples. You also eliminate straight arrows whose polygraph squiggles zig when they should have zagged.

Your assertion that without the polygraph "NONE" of the bad apples would be eliminated is simply absurd. No doubt some applicants make admissions to disqualifying conduct during their polygraph examinations that would not otherwise have come to light. But bad apples can also be eliminated through thorough background investigations including credit checks, verification of education and employment history, interviews, etc.

Polygraph screening has no validity as a diagnostic test for truth versus deception. Its utility comes from its use as a psychological prop for getting admissions. As more and more persons facing polygraphic interrogation learn that the "test" is a pseudoscientific fraud (as thousands are doing on a monthly basis), that utility can only wane.

Quote:


The examples cited in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector of the kind of harm that reliance on polygraphy is causing to individuals and to national security are ones where thorough investigations failed to corroborate the polygraph results. There is no credible evidence that Mark Mallah, David Tenenbaum, and Adam Ciralsky were Israeli spies. There is no credible evidence that CTR1 Daniel King or the Marine Embassy guards in Moscow were Russian spies. There is no credible evidence that Wen Ho Lee was a Chinese spy.

What would it take for a person to verify that a polygrapher's conclusion that he/she was deceptive when denying having ever committed an act of espionage, sabotage, or terrorism against the United States was a false positive result? One cannot prove a negative. Yet this seems to be what you are demanding.

Dmitrios,
A good response, and one I was contemplating posting myself. 

What I see as the biggest flaw is that Ray does not tell us how many positions were being filled from this applicant pool. If there was only one opening, was the whole polygraph process worth it? There would be a slightly less than 30% chance that the 3% who got a job would have a questionable background. I see that as statistically insignificant. What about it, Ray? How many positions were being filled?

You also touched on the possibility that some people slipped by the polygraph. Ray's confirmed accuracy rate of 82% (9 /11) on the DI's when applied to the NDI's would indicate that there could be 3 - 4 applicants who got passed him in spite of having something to hide.