darkcobra2005 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2005 at 9:22am:


On the basis of what evidence do you make this allegation? Please be specific.

It is true that DOE scientists and engineers had serious concerns about the validity of polygraphy, and that this influenced Senator Bingaman to press the Department of Energy to fund this research review. But the Secretary of Energy at the time, Bill Richardson, was himself a polygraph supporter who had himself ordered the expansion of DOE's polygraph program.

Quote:


George,

I believe that this site has been a wealth of information concerning polygraph pre-screening procedures as related to the FBI.  Information is now readily available.  We hear from many people who have not successfully "passed" an exam but how many have used the knowledge gained here to "pass" an exam and never post.  The FBI does not know either.


I am not concerned about "false positive" test because the applicant will still be required to pass a background adjudication the old fashioned way the FBI did things before the polygraph was introduced in the applicant process.  Moles could beat the old system and the addition of the polygraph will not stop them in the new system.

The FBI does not document facts other than polygraph results to blacklist an applicant and ruin their reputation and future federal careers.  Appeals are for face saving value only.  This is such a waste of tax payers and loss of good applicants.

Regards.

DarkCobra your missing the point here. Lets extrapolate this beyond countermeasures and studies. The role of the examiner is to get the subject to believe that the machine works, instill doubt, fear and anxiety. And if successful the polygraph responds to the persons physiological reactions. But without the doubt, fear and anxiety its just another printer that draws wavey lines. I know it doesn't work, the examiner tried his damnest to try and get me to respond, and all it did was draw lines. It really pissed him off... because he couldn't get me to respond to the stimuli. hmmmm  best he could do was say NO  ( no opinion ), He did try a post exam chat but shut him down there too.  Once the fear is gone ... you and your examiner types have no power what so ever.  Best part is ... Still got the job ..... and doing well. 
So bottom line ... study is valid ... and the proof was proven in a real life scenario.    Don't you just love it.

Darkcobra,

The quality of the poor research that the NAS panel had to deal with was largely not caused by the absence of ASTM testing guidelines (more later) nor in any way biases (against lie detection and the community that promotes its practice and is largely responsible for its allegedly supporting research) on the part of the NAS panel but by the poor performance on the part of the polygraph community that has largely produced this product.  Having talked to several members of the panel, I know that their difficulty and challenge was not to say something negative about polygraphy and the community that conducted polygraph research (this was almost unavoidable), but to find something/anything to say which might appear to be encouraging and positive.  As critical as the report was, it was only due to the graciousness of the panel members and deference to the agency that technically requested the study that it was not more uniformly scathing.  

One of the major shortcomings of the research was that (aside from the polygraph community doing screening exams without even the pretense of scientific support, i.e., a non-existent research literature) was that virtually none of the simulated-crime research had any external validity whatsoever.  Some of it, beyond the scope of this specific post, was/is quite comical in terms of the manner in which and the extent to which it sought to recreate "real life" conditions.  Such was the case with the research that was the grist of the NAS's study pool, and such is the case now.  Nothing about ASTM guidelines addresses this serious shortcoming.  This shortcoming is not a mere academic oversight but one, which if left unaddressed, will likely mask any examinee fear of consequences (real-life consequences to an examinee following having been branded a liar in a polygraph exam) and which in turn would contribute to underestimating (perhaps considerably so) the true rate of false positive outcomes in real life conditions--something that I have spoken of before and which so many on this board have claimed as being a part of their own personal experience.   I would suggest to you in terms of assuring operational/external validity that the ASTM guidelines and regulations have as much impact on polygraph research as the proverbial rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic did on iceberg avoidance and damage remediation. 

In addition to avoiding the obviously and previously discussed general bias and conflict of interest that the polygraph industry would have if involved in current polygraph validity research, I think its handling of the ASTM guidelines calls further into question its ability to be involved in such research.  It should be readily apparent to this community (and perhaps you as well as a doctoral grad student, yes?) that ballyhooing ASTM guidelines (that do not adequately address concerns about external validity) as a remedy for past poor performance in polygraph research is shall we say less than satisfactory and represents even further (although not needed based on previously mentioned general considerations) disqualifying credentials for participating in this type of research.

darkcobra,

You state ... Quote:


Based on other postings of yours that I have read, you seem sincere in this quest.  However, I'm curious what it is you do to improve yourself as an examiner in order to avoid false positives.  Have you found ways in which you can do this?  Also, when you identify these, are you reporting that information to others in your field of work so they can also avoid false positives?

Mercible

Oh boy, what did I cause here? I could not log on for a couple weeks and this threat gets out of control  ...

Besides the baaad feeling in my stomach: I passed!!! I was in and out within an hour and the questions were kept very general. My examiner was very nice and we chatted for a little bit (he was, like I, stationed in Kosovo). He did not really say "you passed" but if there would have been an issue, he would probably discussed the "sour question" with me. Plus he said "You did fine".

So, let's see if I get hired!

Shrek