Quote:


Not when it is shortly there after confirmed.  Just face it George, not all of your rants and raves perfectly fit into the square hole.

Lets say…. “I” say “YOU” did this and that...”you” say no I didn't.. and then you take a polygraph TEST that shows “your” not lying about not doing this and that.  Then subsequently, “I” am called back in and told I'm not being truthful about George and it is time to come clean...accept some...accountability (I love that word).  Shortly there after, “I” say your right, George didn't do this and that, I made that $hit up...sorry.  If George didn't trust in the exam and didn't come in and take the fricken test, and been cleared, there would have been NO reason to ever not believe “me” because George was fingered in this crime for a reason, he's a little shady, and everyone knows it, and it would have been/was assumed I am credible and if George didn't want to exonerate himself, well...that's on George.  Maybe he wouldn’t have never been "convicted" of said allegation, but who cares, he still would have had to check "yes" to have you ever been charged for this and that, and NOW HE DOESN'T.  That scenario happened twice for me today...now I ask, what good have you done for mankind today?

spark wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 8:35am:


Spark,

If you succeeded in convincing someone who had borne false witness to recant his accusation, that is wonderful, and I congratulate you. For a criminal interrogator, I think there could hardly be a more rewarding experience than to vindicate a person who has been wrongly accused. But it is wrong to suppose that such an experience imparts validity to polygraphy (which, again, has no scientific basis).

Because of polygraphy's unreliability, a person falsely accused who submits to a polygraph interrogation might very well become a false positive, wrongly reinforcing suspicions against him. Conversely, a liar might pass the polygraph, either through the random error associated with polygraphy (as did "Angel of Death" Charles Cullen and "Green River Killer" Gary Leon Ridgway) or through the use of countermeasures.

To the extent that investigators rely on the polygraph, they should understand that it is little more than an interrogational prop. While it may be useful for getting admissions/confessions from the naive and gullible, the chart readings themselves are evidence of nothing.

And, back to the original topic of this message thread, by no means should polygraph results be relied on to assess the honesty and integrity of applicants for employment.

I think that even George would say that the polygraph has more validity when it comes to criminal investigations--i.e., in situations where the scope is inherently limited--e.g., were you in Dayton, Ohio on the night of...Did you murder .... Etc.  

When it comes to pre-employment screening though it is simply a scientific fact that the polygraph is flawed.  Polygraphers would prefer to think that there are no false positives and that George is lying...that there really is something in his past that caused him to fail his FBI polys.  What a crock.  Look at this resume and the efforts he took after "failing" to remedy the situation.  

Bottom line is many people are deemed deceptive by polygraphers in pre employment screenings when they are telling the polygrapher the bald truth.  That's what it boils down to.  Pure and simple.  The rest is horseshit.

Wallerstein wrote on Mar 15^th, 2006 at 5:26pm:


Actually, no, I wouldn't. CQT polygraphy is completely invalid as a diagnostic test for deception in both situations, as explained in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

>>Wouldn't the butt clench countermeasure be the most >>effective?

 
>>Why do you believe this would be the case?

Because if you walk in and see that there isn't a sensor on the chair, the butt clench is an undetectable physical countermeasure that seems guaranteed to produce a response. While mental countermeasures seem less guaranteed to me. I don't know about you but  thinking about getting beaten up or stabbed looses it menace after one or two run throughs, I just dont think I can make the image real enough in 5 seconds. Further, it just doesn't seem to be time enough to get fristrated by mental math.  I like the  the tounge bite but I don't see how you can do it without detectable jaw movement.