What kind of security measure would CIA or FBI take in order to "replace" the polygraph procedure if they believed that it wasn't really scientifically right?
I believe that there really isnt  anything else that they could do therefore they have to stick with it.

Thats pretty much my point. There is probably nothing else that could "insure"(depends on where you stand but for most its not) that a person may be telling the truth. Polygraph is as far as our "science"(wheter you belive it or not, again for most you dont) and technology will take us to the deceptive patterns of human beings.

cavhan7 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2005 at 9:47am:

I think you missed my point.  You seem to be assuming that using the polygraph ensures that a person may be telling the truth.  In fact the polygraph is as useful as a coin toss in determining truth or deception.

If you agree that polygraphy is as random as a coin toss then it makes little sense to continue using it, regardless of whether there is any valid method of detecting deception which can replace it.  Even if you are a believer in polygraphy and go by the numbers they provide (I’ve seen their accuracy figures at 85%, with suggestions that a skilled examiner can be even more accurate) you still have to contend with the percentage of exams in which truthful people “fail”, and deceptive people “pass.”

An 85% accuracy rate is laughably low for a supposedly scientific “test” used for such things as pre-employment screening of law enforcement officers and routine screening of intelligence analysts to detect espionage.  Testing of DNA is approximately 99.99999999% accurate (one in a billion), which is why it is widely accepted for such important matters as criminal cases.  If DNA testing was 85% accurate no one would be using it for anything of any importance – it would simply be too vague to be of any utility.  And that’s using the polygraph community’s figure of 85%!  In fact the accuracy of the polygraph is probably closer to 50%, since it really doesn’t detect deception at all, and is more of a random, hit-or-miss diagnostician of liars.

Lets not forget the various psychological tests, such as the MMPI and MMPI-2.  The MMPI consists of 567 true/false questions and originally had 10 clinical diagnostic scales and 3 validity scales.  It has evolved to 100 scales for a variety of psychopathological and personality characteristics.  Depending on what you are using it for, it has an accuracy rate of somewhere between 70 - 85%.   It is regularly used to screen police applicants and probably disqualifies as many  people as the polygraph.  It is considered a scientifically valid test and widely used.  The psychiatric profession does not consider these rates "laughable". 

Then there is the Wonderlic Personnel Test that is gaining wide spread usage.  It is a 12 minute IQ test consisting of verbal numerical, analytical and spatial relations questions.  Police officers average a score of 21 on the test, so departments often disqualify an applicant if they score below 17.  The cutoff score is arbitrary and they can use whatever they want.  The accuracy of this test has not really been established, but it is considered a valid screening test. 

Just thought I would pop in and put in my two cents worth.  Wouldn't want nonombre to be left here all alone!

Cheers!

#1- Which studies are you referring to that assign 85%+ accuracy to the polygraph? Some of the studies have serious flaws for extrapolating accuracy about real investigations or employee screening from a test given to college kids committting mock crimes.

#2-accepting your stats are accurate about the reliability of other forms of evidence such as handwriting analysis, isn't this why our criminal justice systems relies on a standard of proof beyond 1 single test of dubious accuracy? Yet our federal hiring in marlge part for 1811 positions will take the result of 1 test as gospel.

nonombre wrote on Jul 31^st, 2005 at 9:46pm:


Nonombre:

I think you meant that our legal justice system demands corroborative evidence. Having served on a jury, I agree is it important to consider all the evidence. However, surely you must concede that all evidence is not equal and should not be equally weighted. Take DNA or ballistics testing, both highly reliable as opposed to a witness account, which can be inaccurate or flawed. I hope you are not implying that the polygraph should be admitted as evidence in a court of law. 

l agree that your points system idea has a certain degree of merit. Under your system, I would have scored a job because I would have aced all other portions of my application process, except for the  polygraph. However, how would your proposal handle failed polygraphs in regards to the results being made a part of the applicant's permanent file, subject to disclosure to other agencies?

Nonombre,

Although I may disagree with you on certain levels, I must say that you do make a bit of sense.  One portion in particular has to do with Mr. Maschke.  Although, I do not know him personally and have not been afforded the opportunity to meet him face to face, from private converstations I believe him to be genuine.  Our country would, in my opinion be better off, with his services given his Arabiac language skills.  However, we shall never know given the polygraph judgement.

A point system would be an advance with regard to false positive results.  I agree that polygraph, unfortunately in my view, is proliferating rather than declining in law enforcement screening.  I believe it to be a true detriment to our nationwide law enforcement community.

I keep seeing the term "Coin Toss" mentioned on the postings time and time again.  I think this is an exaggeration you might want to consider not using in the future as it is not supported by the known facts.  Saying polygraph isn't scientifically valid is strong enough and not an exaggeration of the known facts.

The National Academy of Sciences Committee to Review Scientific Evidence of Polygraph report titled, "The Polygraph and Lie Detection" states the following:

Quote:
  ^{This specific quote is taken right from "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector" page 27.}

The "well above chance" statement tells me that it is better than a "coin toss."

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe this validates polygraph for use in determining the hiring/termination of employees in the private sector or government.  But, if you wish to be as accurate as possible when discussing these issues with the public, then you cannot be found inconsistent on your statements in this forum.  Even a small over exaggeration can give your enemies a footing with which to rightly criticize you.   

Personally, I think the work of George Maschke and others are a valiant and noble effort to make the hiring practices of our government agencies fair and to prevent people from facing the same situation he did when applying at the FBI.  I would hate to see that work and effort undermined by a few who are a bit too eager to criticize the use of polygraph with exaggeration, no matter how well-intentioned you are.

(jmho)