Sergeant1107,

You write in part to nonombre:

Quote:


As I have said before, the malpractice added to the process by any non-compliant (to industry standards) and willfully unethical polygraph examiner does not stand alone or even foremost in the analysis of the foolishness that we know as "lie detection."  It is merely that which is added to the QUACKERY that is practiced by each and every practitioner of "lie detection."  There is no theoretical basis for said practice and there exists no validity in the day-to-day use of said practice as a diagnostic instrument.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 14^th, 2005 at 2:55pm:


Sergeant1107 ,
 
Concerning statement #1.  I must disagree with you.  While I feel there is a possibility that a truthful person could indeed fail a polygraph examination.  I disagree that it is "likely."
 
Concerning statement #2.  If you are implying that any of a number of subjective pre-employment  tests, or evaluations that happen to be less than 100% accurate are "flawed," then indeed polygraph is "flawed."
 
But to say, " (if) the test is flawed then it shouldn’t be used at all,"  well, you have just doomed to the trash bin, the pre-employment interview, the psychological test, the MMPI, the oral board, various forms of psychological stress tests, and a good part of the background investigation (You know they ask people's subjective opinion as to whether or not you are suitable for a career in law enforcement).
 
Yes, like most of the other parts of the process, polygraph testing is not "perfect."  That is why I suggest putting most of these stages on an equal footing, and deciding on an overall "score."
 
I still believe it to be a good compromise.
 
Nonombre

Jeffery wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 2:25am:


I was completely honest on my own pre-employment polygraph examination.

There were no "controls" asked during my test.

I was administered (and passed) an R/I examination

Nonombre
 

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 15^th, 2005 at 3:44pm:


Sergeant1107 ,

I understand your point.  I truly do.  However, what if I had studied and planned my whole life to go to work for the local police department, and was denied employment, because two of the members of the panel decided they did not like my accent, perhaps the way I part my hair?

By the way, I part it down the middle.  According to some that means I must be a "doper."   

Nonombre

Matty wrote on Jul 16^th, 2005 at 4:32am:


Matty,

I for one have never "failed" an applicant before the test...never.  Please don't say, "As you well know."  That is an incorrect assumption.

Regards,

Nonombre
   

nonombre wrote on Jul 16^th, 2005 at 4:21am:

Nonombre,

I understand your point as well, I think.  You are implying that none of the subjective aspects of the hiring process are perfect.  I agree.

The oral boards I’ve gone to consisted of between five and nine people.  The more people are in the room, the lower the chance is of some sort of arbitrary prejudice affecting the outcome.  If I have five people on my oral board, and one or two of them don’t like my hair, their prejudice should be balanced out by the other people.  At the very least they might recognize their prejudice as stupid and be reluctant to voice it.  (I cannot imagine telling the other officers I’ve sat with on oral boards that the last candidate shouldn’t be hired because I thought his tie was ugly, or his hair was too long. Saying those things would make me look stupid, not the candidate.)  

Such is not the case in a polygraph exam.  You are dealing with a single person’s prejudices and opinions.  If you happen to have a hairstyle the examiner doesn’t like you may fail before you start.  If you happen to remind the examiner of his favorite nephew, you may pass before you start.

I don’t know of any police agencies that conduct oral boards with only a single person on the board.  I also don’t know of any polygraph examiners who have multiple examiners in the room conducting the exam.

Getting back to the question you so adroitly sidestepped…  Let’s change it around a bit, and suppose that your agency has decided to send every sworn officer to a private polygrapher as a routine check to make sure no one is on the take.  You go through your exam, tell the complete truth about never having taken a single favor or a single dime, and you fail.  Your chief calls you in and tells you that you will be terminated.  Was that to happen, do you think you’d still be writing on these boards in support of the polygraph?

This brings up an interesting point about the "selling yourself " aspect during the pre-test. I'm convinced that this plays a bigger role than most think when it comes to passing/failing.
You have to start selling your self when you go in the door and watch out for the bad body signals. It's easier to do when your informed about the poly and it's operation because it has a direct impact on the confidence level you have when you go in. At least it has for me. Eversince I read the book and became informed, I'm not nervous and can concentrate on the JOB at hand  (producing a truthful chart). I feel that I can shoot-the-bull with the examiner and still be on my guard against the "rookie" interrogation techniques.
I remember one session recently when the examiner went into this story about how everyone bends the rules once in a while. I just sat there  quietly and listened because I knew what was coming next! He said that  he himself had once taken advantage of a mislabeled price tag at a store.
He said he bought several of the items and, wringing his hands, left the store only to have the items stolen out of his vehicle that night. lol..... to which I replied... It served you right!!lol  All he could say was... " yea I guess it did"