Eos,
     I'm not sure why you started modifying my statement to make it seem I was stating things that I neither wrote or believe.  Your previous postings led me to believe you don't usually stoop to that type of debate tactic.  I do not believe that taking a polygraph makes anyone a better police officer.  I believe it's an additional screening tool and nothing more.   
     What I do know about pre employment polygraphs is that I have seen many applicants show attempted deception and then admit to some very serious crimes in thier backgrounds in the very areas they indicated deception.  I have also seen a number of them have criminal charges brought against them for thier admissions.  I'm not talking about drug related crimes.  These are people who thier background investigators swore would have no problem getting past the polygraph and would be ideal candidates for the police academy.   
     If other agencies or states don't use the polygraph as a screening tool for new hires, I wouldn't even condemn their beliefs or practices, and I certainly would not criticize any of thier officers.   
     I also want to respond to the person who posted that countermeasures were physical and not mental.  When I posted regarding the evolutionary process and trying to mentally override it, I was actually responding to a different posting.  I am well aware of physical countermeasure actions, and I won't argue that they can occasionally work; however, well trained, experienced polygraphers can spot most of them without too much difficulty.  Every trick in the book is just as available to the polygraph community as it is to the visitors of this website.
     I stand by everyting I have posted here.  The reason I post here is two fold.  First, I enjoy the debate.  The more we debate this topic, the better I understand all aspects of it.  I can get knowledge from from books and pro polygraph sites, but from here I can get wisdom.
     Second, I know that many of the people who visit this site are innocent people preparing to take their first exam.  I know it's very stressful, but I hope they don't feel like they need to employ countermeasures to pass the polygraph test.  It's as simple as telling the truth.  If you disagree with me, let's debate it.   

We shall talk again! 

Quote:


The amateur polygraphers come to this site and spew out complete falsehoods (the polygraph is 98% accurate, countermeasures never work, etc).  The truly devious polygraphers come here and mix in carefully chosen lies with truth.

187Dick wrote on Apr 1^st, 2006 at 10:49am:

I believe we are all aware that you CAN pass the polygraph exam by telling the truth.

What would make the polygraph a useful instrument is if you WILL pass the polygraph by telling the truth.

In my experience that simply isn't true.  I told the truth on four exams and failed three times, each time for a different reason.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2006 at 4:40pm:


Your wit never fails to make me laugh.

Unfortunately, I have to agree that false positives do occur; however, painting a general brush across the entire polygrapher community by quoting generalized statistics of false positives (Which are not verified and may be quite exaggerated) lacks the foundation of a good arguement.

My assertion is that the better trained polygraph examiners have far fewer false positives due to well laid foundations during the pretest interviews.  Additionally, false positive problems are addressed during the administering of the tests and also by conducting thorough post test interviews.

The worst thing that can happen during a polygraph examination is a false positive.  Ethical examiners do everything within thier control to ensure that does not happen.  Remember, all polygraph examiners do not have the same training.  While I do not like to criticize other polygraph examiners, I will state this:  If I were seeking employment and was compelled to take another polygraph exam, I would hope that the examiner was not trained at DoDPI.   

I can also say this, I believe employing countermeasures to pass the polygraph test is extremely less reliable than telling the truth during the test.  It's not a perfect system, but it is the most reliable one available.

Mr Mystery,
     If you are ready to mortgage your house to put up as collateral because you are so certain you can beat a polygraph by using countermeasures, I think you should do that.  I can tell you that I won't take that bet, but I am certain that if you put up $500,000.00 (The estimated value of my house) as a bet to any polygraph examiner who can catch you using countermeasures, I am sure you will either be very rich, or very poor in a very short period of time.
     Of course, you would then have to determine the type of test to be conducted (Which I would immagine would be a singe issue test which is the most accurate of all polygraph tests).  I don't think the intensity of the target issue would be too much of a problem since you would have $500,000.00 at stake, but you would know the relevant questions about that single issue ahead of time, so it would almost not matter what the relevant questions addressed.
     Then there would be the matter of making you countermeasure attempts recorded prior to test.  You would have to write down exactly what counter measures you were going to use and when you were going to employ them.  If the examiner concluded deception regarding the single target issue on his charts, he may zero out control question responses that he suspected counter measures were being used.
     This creates another problem, I'm certain you and he would dispute the location and type of countermeasures being used.  He would accuse you of employing countermeasures you did not list and you would deny it, saying that he had made a mistake or the instrument had recorded something not related to the questions or the test.  Experts would have to be brought in to determine who was telling the truth.

Sounds like the job for another polygraph examiner!   

187Dick wrote on Apr 1^st, 2006 at 7:50pm:

In my opinion, the first statement quoted above turns the second one into nonsense.

Once you acknowledge that false positives exist I believe it renders the entire polygraph process worthless.  This is a completely different issue than the accuracy of a polygraph.

If there were no such things as false positives then the polygraph would at least have some value, even if it were not 100% accurate in detecting deception.  Then if you had a subject who “failed” you and everyone else would know it was because the subject was being deceptive.  If the subject passed there would still be some doubt as to whether they were being deceptive, since the accuracy of the polygraph has never been claimed to be 100%.

However, once the possibility of a false positive comes up, all results become meaningless.  A “DI” result could mean that the subject was deceptive, or it could mean that the subject was truthful but is registering as a false positive.  An “NDI” result could mean that the subject was not being deceptive, or it could mean that the machine and its operator were simply not accurate enough to detect the subject’s deception.  At the end of the test you don’t know any more than you did at the start.

I agree that the polygraph is not a perfect system.  In fact, I believe it doesn’t function as it is intended to at all, except by accident.  Calling it the most reliable system available is a nonsensical statement.  A system that does not work but has been around a long time and has gained some degree of acceptance is no more valid than a brand-new system which few people accept and which also does not work.

At one point in history I am fairly certain that some scientists thought phrenology was an unreliable method of determining a person’s potential criminal proclivities.  I am also fairly certain that other scientists responded to such criticism by saying that phrenology was the best method available and until something better comes along they were going to keep using it.