It occurs to me that we demonize the LE depts that utilize the polygraph as a requirement for entry based on the concept that: polygraphy has no grounding in scientific fact, and to rely on it for finding the difference between truth and deception is foolhardy.

But something else has come to my mind, and this concept might be difficult to comprehend for some because it validates the use of the polygraph in a context of law enforcement recruiting.

Members on this site argue that the polygraph produces many "false positives" in that, when a subject was polygraphed, they assert that they told the truth, but somehow still "failed" the polygraph, whether on account of nervousness or something else. But nervousness is exactly what I'm striking at here.

Is it not possible that police polygraphers, when examining a subject, would see general nervousness and anxiety as a negative trait, no matter whether the polygrapher believes they are telling the truth or not? Think about it this way: if I'm a police recruiter administering a polygraph, and the subject I'm examining (whether I think he's truthful or not) is a "screamer" and seems generally high-strung or nervous during the test, is that a candidate I would want to hire to my department? This is a man, who, if hired, would be carrying a gun and be put in much higher-stress situations that a polygraph. In other words, would my department be best suited to arm a man with a lethal weapon who gets high-strung in pressure situations?

My theory is this: the police depts who polygraph aren't just looking to differentiate between liars and the truthful, and they aren't just looking to get people to spill their guts. They are looking for candidates who are calm under pressure. Being a LEO is a high stress situation, and if a candidate is anxious during a polygraph, what will he do when he comes across a tense situation in the field (especially when he or she is armed?)

In this context I would defend, perhaps even advocate, the use of the polygraph to see how a candidate can handle pressure. As a truth-finding tool, it is flawed, most certainly, except on the naive. But as a tool to measure a candidate's ability to be confident and cool in all encounters, I can defend it's use. Perhaps we must consider that idea, that we don't give the polygraph enough credit. The name of the polygraph means "many writings," perhaps it gives recruiters more data that we give it credit for.

I welcome all ideas, comments and/or criticisms on this line of thought. Just keep it intelligent and rational please.

Random_Man

Why this is a bad idea:

1) There are many reasons why someone could fail a polygraph test other than just being nervous.  For example, if the applicant tells the truth on control questions, it will be harder to pass the test even if they are calm.  Being truthfull should not prevent one from becoming a police officer.

2) The amount of stress a polygrapher places on an examinee varies wildly from examiner to examiner and test to test, so no level playing field would exist.

3) There is no scientific evidence (that I am aware of) that suggests people who fail polygraph tests, but are otherwise qualified applicants, are less capable of handling firearms.  The real-life situations cops face are vastly different than the polygraph experience.

You could argue that qualified applicants that fail a polygraph test are better candidates than those who pass the test.

1) Those that passed probably willfully lied on control questions in order to obtain a job and might be less trustworthy than those who failed.

2) Those that passed were probably duped into believing the accuracy of an un-scientific test and may be less intelligent than those who failed.   

3) Those that passed may have cheated on the test in order to pass.

etc.

One of the members here, Nonombre, is a police polygrapher.  He and I had an exchange about something similar not too long ago.

If an applicant came to Nonombre during a polygraph test and was perfectly calm, controlling his breathing and emotion despite the inherent stress in the test, it would be a problem.  Nonombre would stop the test and counsel the applicant about controlling his breathing and controlling his stress, which is unacceptable during a polygraph.  If the applicant continued to exhibit the very desirable trait of being able to control his stress responses Nonombre would fail him for "purposeful non-cooperation."

I don't think your idea holds water.  The polygraph examiner doesn't want someone who maintains their calm and controls their breathing throughout the test; doing so makes the test a waste of time.

nonombre wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2006 at 7:01pm:

How can you know for sure if one's breathing is "controlled"/

Put an examineee in a highly sterssful situation (where their future OR existing job may be on the line -- family, mortgage etc etc).  Put that examinee in a small room with a table, chair and two way mirror.  Put in on overweight intimidating polygrapher.  Strap that person in to the chest tube, crank up the blood pressure cuff so their arm goes to sleep, then changes color.

Then stop the test half way through to tell the examinee "this has got to stop.  You are being uncooperative.  You are controlling your breathing."

The examinee respondes (totally perplexed) "ok; I want to get through this.  Tell me what you want me to do."

Polygraher "stop thinking about your breathing."

Get real.

Looking at a blank wall, answering stupid questions "have you ever sold drugs?  have you ever leaked to a reporter?"  (of course not)...  What is one supposed to think about in this situation???

"Stop controlling your breathing!  Stop thinking about your breathing!!"

"How can I stop thinking about my breathing when you keep yelling it!!"

How the hell can you conclude that an examinee is PURPOSEFULLY uncooperative in this situation?  How the hell can you conclude based on that the candidate is underserving of a position of trust?

Nothing personal, nonombre, but in general, I hope all polygraphers (who don't repent and see the errors of their ways) go to hell for the damage they inflict on innocent people.

Have a nice day.

nonombre wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2006 at 11:58pm:


In the 6 minute range.  Without even controlling my breathing.

Now, would you care to address the substantive portion of my previous post?

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2006 at 12:25am:


Sergeant,

Since you and Jeffrey are posing similar points (although you do present a more rational and objective argument) allow me to address you both.

In my recent post, I make the point that after properly addressing the problem of controlled breathing during a polygraph examination, the majority of the examinees cease this behavior.

When I say "the majority," I mean the VAST majority (perhaps 95%.)

So what I have left is 5%.  Now if I was to stipulate that only perhaps half of the number were engaging in that behavior in a deliberate effort to "beat" the polygraph examination, then that would leave 2 1/2% of the examinees so "shook up" by the process that they could not "control" their controlled breathing, no matter what assistance is provided by the polygraph examiner...

Well, I am sure you are going to hate what I am about to say, but I see that as no different from the small percentage of police applicants who...

Bomb the written test because they are "no good at tests.:

Do one less sit-up than the minimum, because they are under stress.

Screw up the psych eval because they could not figure out the "correct" responses.

Come across as an idiot during the interview, because they are "nervous."

All these might have been good police officers had they had the chance...Maybe not...

We will never know, because MANY OTHERS made it through the process without these problems and were therefore selected, while these poor souls were not...

Too bad, so sad...

Remember, a police career is a privilege and a responsibility, not a "right."  When will you guys figure that out? 

Regards,

Nonombre

Nonombre:

Good to see you back.

Underminingtruth

If you have taken as many polygraphs as you say you have then I care not to respond to people like you. So keep on posting your nonsense but  do not include me in your rhetorical drivel.