tasercop wrote on Jul 7
th, 2005 at 11:14pm:
Some of the people on this forum were unjustly denied a job because of a failed polygraph and were not given the benefit of subsequent follow-up examinations. For them, I agree it was wrong, but hardly justifies stopping its use. Most of the people who post here, however, do not seem as if they have the honesty, integrity and fortitude of someone who should wear a badge or work with national secrets. I believe they are living proof that the system works.
Tasercop,
If I am reading your post correctly, you agree that some people on this site were unjustly denied a job because of a failed polygraph. Even though you agree that is wrong you don’t see how that would justify an end to polygraph use in pre-employment screening.
However, when you refer to the people who failed the polygraph because they don’t have the honesty, integrity, or fortitude to wear a badge or work with national secrets, you believe their example is proof that the polygraph works.
With all due respect, how can you look at the statistics in such a selective manner? You look at some anecdotal evidence and dismiss it out of hand as insignificant, certainly not enough to cause one to doubt the validity of the polygraph. Then you take another set of anecdotal evidence and claim it to be proof the polygraph works.
Why did some percentage of applicants unjustly fail and subsequently not be offered employment? Shouldn’t there be some scientifically repeatable variable which caused them to fail a test you seem to agree they should not have failed? Why did the applicants reportedly lacking in honesty, integrity, or fortitude fail their tests? Were all the variables and controls set up properly in their tests?
Please don’t use the tired old excuse of “there are bad examiners out there.” That sounds no more convincing than the pointy-haired boss in “Dilbert” claiming that profits were up last quarter because of good management, but down this quarter because of bad employees.