antrella wrote on Mar 10
th, 2006 at 8:32pm:
I'm beginning to think the polygraph serves two three somewhat legitimate (albeit deceptive & borderline unethical) purposes in pre-employment screening.
1) Filter out undesirable candidates for whatever reason. A supervisor wants to put the kibosh on an applicant but can't come right out and tell his peers/underlings "yeah, I just have a bad feeling about this guy." The polygraph serves as a proxy for such decisions.
The polygraph can indeed provide an ideal cover for racial, sexual, religious, or other bias in hiring.
Quote:2) Stress test. If your physiological responses are flying all over the place at the mere mention of the word "DRUGS" or "TERRORIST ORGANIZATION," it may be an indicator that you'll shatter like an egg should an enemy get a hold of you. Lies or no, who would you rather entrust with state secrets - someone physiologically unfazed by intrusive questions, or Johnny McSweats whose body gives something away the second it's put under pressure?
It is often suggested that the polygraph is some kind of "stress test": that if a person can't handle the stress of a polygraph session, they're not cut out for a job in law enforcement. But such a notion doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Everyone shows reactions during polygraph examinations. Those who pass merely show stronger reactions to the "control" questions than to the relevant questions.
Note also that the
Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Test used by federal law enforcement agencies is actually designed to pass the kind of person who would cheat in college and drive while drunk and then lie about such behavior to a federal law enforcement officer (the polygrapher). The applicant who admits to such misconduct (or has never engaged in it), and as a consequence feels less anxiety when truthfully answering the "control" questions, is perversely more likely to fail. By relying on an invalid test, federal agencies are systematically excluding some of their most honest applicants.
Quote:added 3) Accountability. By not hiring those that failed polys, LEOs can act without fear that the press/pundits will come out after a leak/embarassment and saying "HE WASN'T EVEN POLYGRAPHED!" etc. This ties into the public perception that polygraphs are very accurate.
AntiPolygraph.org is working hard to correct public misperceptions about polygraphy. See our
Get Involved page for ways you can help.
Quote:This isn't to say I endorse it - those I've spoken with here and elsewhere know how I feel about the poly. It's an absurd tool for an absurd world.
Agreed. But in the real world, reliance on polygraphy is
undermining national security and public safety. See Chapter 2 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for examples of the harm that official reliance on this pseudoscience has caused.