nonombre wrote on Aug 17
th, 2005 at 3:50am:
However, there is a part of the population who at the end of the day, are intentionally attempting to distort their physiology during a polygraph examination and no matter what they are told, clearly intend to continue on their path of:
"Purposeful non-cooperation."
I fully agree that a percentage of the applicants are going to be consciously controlling their breathing in an effort to cover the lies they are telling. That percentage of the applicants surely falls into the category of “purposeful non-cooperation.”
The problem as I see it is that you don’t know which applicants are tying to cover their deception and which ones are simply attempting to remain calm in a stressful situation.
I think it is wrong and unreasonable to fail someone who is doing nothing wrong other than not allowing himself to become stressed. If he is lying then he should fail. If he remains under control and does not become stressed, but is telling the truth, he should pass. If only there was some method of determining whether he was telling the truth… Hmmm…
nonombre wrote on Aug 17
th, 2005 at 3:50am:
Now, if you would please accept for just a minute that there are in fact people out there actually following the advice of this and other sites and are therefore deliberately controlling their breathing (and continue to do so even when told to stop their behavior). Then I would ask you to put yourself in my place for a moment and tell me...
What would you do in response to obvious and clear non-cooperation?
Your statement is a bit presumptive. You have asked what I would do if I encountered someone who was deliberately controlling their breathing even after I told them to stop. However, your presumption is that the person is doing that in order to somehow “beat” the test. In fact, to you apparently anyone who does not follow your directions is displaying “obvious and clear non-cooperation.” I would make no such presumption.
The polygraph is supposed to be a scientific test. My guesses should not enter into the final results. I may think the person is being purposefully non-cooperative, but I wouldn’t know it for a fact.
In some traffic accidents I investigate there is insufficient evidence to make a determination of speed. In those cases, I do not guess what the speed probably was and take enforcement action based on my guess. I use other evidence to determine facts I can prove, such as that the vehicle crossed into the wrong lane, or drove off the roadway. If there is insufficient evidence I have no choice but to work with what there is.
If for some reason I was a polygraph examiner, and I encountered someone who didn’t appear to be breathing within “acceptable parameters” despite my instructions to do so, I would simply conclude that such an individual is not an appropriate polygraph subject. The emphasis would then be placed on the individual’s background investigation to provide any information as to whether this person should be hired. I would absolutely not “fail” the person unless I had some sort of scientific evidence that the person was lying (and I don’t believe the polygraph provides that sort of scientific evidence.)
If I invented a new category of test results, such as
“U.T.P.D.T.F.I.T.P.I.S.D.A.N.W.” (“Unable To Polygraph Due To Flaw In The Polygraph Itself, Subject Did Absolutely Nothing Wrong”) would it be possible for some deceptive people to put one over on me by purposefully refusing to cooperate? Sure. But I believe that is far more fair than failing someone who is not being deceptive.
Pages: 
nervous ABOUT being nervous.. (Read 46935 times)
