retcopper wrote on Aug 9^th, 2006 at 3:11pm:


Well, fine.  Debate consists of four levels of argument: propositions of definition (most basic), of fact, of values (your preferred mode of discussion), and policy (overarching them all).- source: I debated in high school.  Loved it.  The regular posters here do not shy from a debate, and some of us will even use rather blunt language and situational similes to make our points.  I know I will.

Quote:


I find that very interesting for someone who is so involved with the topic.  I personally love arguments in the pure style of Aristotle, but give me sound evidence any day of the week to back my assertions up.  I love quoting facts.  This also, with the utmost respect, seems to be a recurring way for the pro-poly side to beg off a true, intellectual debate.  If you have the facts to support your argument (for a proposition of fact argument), lay them out, I urge you!  Who knows what you, we together, might uncover?  If you have it, by golly, flaunt it!  Values only go so far in influencing a discussion on policy, as it's very hard to debate a nebulous concept like a "value".

Quote:


Why not?  You took the time to come here and make a case.  Do you not believe in it enough, or care about it enough, to see it through?  Man, I sure would want to.  I love winning.  Do you have a URL for it?  If it's in your possession, it's a few clicks of the keyboard to post it.  C'mon, big guy, humour us   I swear I will read every word of what you post (I already do).

Quote:


Objection, irrelevant.  I don't think that polymen are evil per se, and certainly not all of them.  I think a certain number of you truly believe that you're doing a service to the country and that your results are reliable.  We here dispute that, but constructively. 

The ones I have problems with are the ones who continue to promote the box to be what it is not, and egregiously: able to tell lie from truth.  Accurate 90-98% of the time.  Objective rather than subjective.  Usable by itself, without having to rely on the polyman to divine the results.  Omitting that the main purpose of the poly is the facilitation of interrogation.  Also, those in the poly community who spread (and intentionally) disinformation about what the human body does in response to being polyed, in response to lying or truth, and about what they expect from an examination (what CQ's and IQ's do, e.g.) I find to be rather distasteful.

The remark about handicapped people is directed at me.  I stand by my remarks.  I have the utmost sympathy for both disabled people and their families, and it grieves me to my core when I see a person, esp a child, who is handicapped (like those twins in Utah).  However, the farce of FC has parallels to polygraphy that cannot be ignored, and I stated my case thereon using mental imagery and descriptiveness that some might balk at.  Well, I call 'em as I see 'em, and part of making a case is using every tool at your disposal.  I don't hold back, and am proud to say so.

I continue to debate the anti side.  Without regret...

EosJupiter wrote on Aug 9^th, 2006 at 8:03pm:


Job security is just fine.  Virtually all federal agencies are paying 15-25% special polygraph pay, above regular federal civil service salaries.  We have several dozen applicants vying for a few positions, which affords us the luxury to select the most qualified.  Reason is not that polygraphers are leaving (non have left us), but because the mission is increasing 20% per year.  The APA website is not updated regularly, so some of the announcements are probably out of date.  Agree with you on one thing, we're not well-liked outside our own;  that's okay, I'll just hug my LES!!

Regards

Please bear in mind that my opinion is based on DOD knowledge/experience, which doesn't include the hiring practices of non-DOD entities such as FBI, USSS, etc.

I don't think there is a lack of qualified personnel within DOD military, civilian or contractor ranks;  there is a severe shortage within the linguist pool;  one problem is that many are non-US born naturalized US citizens, which makes conducting the normal background checks impossible;  background investigators cannot travel to Iran, Afghanistan, etc, to conduct records checks, interview previous employers, etc;  thus the reliance of other vetting tools such as polygraph testing.  The shortage of linguists will get worse in the next three years before it gets better as long as the US is involved in military operations in those areas.  Yes, I've seen some that have not met the basic security concerns since 9/11;  clearance adjudicators do everything they can to ensure that issues of concern are addressed prior to the granting of clearance/access.

Regarding possible lax hiring standards..., those being hired are not immediately given the "keys to the kingdom";  access is confined to the lowest level required to perform the duties of the job.  Based on the applicants I've seen in the past 5 years, the majority of applicants are of high caliber, but their BIs cannot be performed to the same extent as a US-born applicant.

Is there a solution in sight?  In the short term, I don't think so;  it is going to take some major changes in attitudes and policies of agency heads to improve the procedures of granting clearances and access, particularly at the TS/SCI level.

Throw away polygraph tomorrow, and I think the adjudication process time will probably significantly increase, as background checks take longer to take up the slack.

One comment needed here is that most positions require a urinalysis as a condition of employment;  why then do some agencies polygraph on past drug usage if the urinalysis comes back negative.  An applicant's marijuana use 5, 10, 15 years ago is irrelevant to today's society.  Other agencies do not polygraph on past drug use, one less obstacle to overcome in the polygraph process.

Regards 

Dear Quickfix.

You answered my questions directly.  Right or wrong, the answers are appreciated and your opinion is listened to.  I think it is going to be a very interesting time in government security in the next five years.  While I will not throw stones at you and we will not likely share a meal together, we can at least converse which is much better than most of the world at this time.

Regards.

Lie Baby, George is an expert.  He's self-taught and self-experienced through the tests he took.

Benjamin Franklin taught himself French and the arts of diplomacy, as well as other fields of expertise.  He didn't have the schooling that Jefferson or Adams did.  Would that have made Franklin less authoritative on French or diplomatic protocol?

Again, a sure sign of an argument lost: ad hominem insults.  An unsupported assertion, without sources or figures, and then a "polygraph failures who think they are experts" comment.  Shoot the messenger when the message is not to the King's liking.

I say again: George knows his stuff.  I will go as far as to call myself a lay source on this topic- not an expert, but someone you could come to with a general question.  I've not failed any tests.  Am I suspect, too?  As always, inquiring minds want to know...

Quick fix,

You write in part:
Quote:


I am reasonably familiar with the history of polygraph research and practice over the last 75 years.  I am not aware of anything that would lead me to share in any optimism that might stem from your assertion(s).  The basic paradigm(s) of lie detection are incredibly theoretically weak (and not getting any more robust).  Some bad ideas even continue to cycle in and out of favor with passing generations, e.g., the relevant irrelevant (RI) test format.  Please share with us what us what is the source of your optimism.  Regards...

Retcopper,

You write:
Quote:


Neither a dangerous nor a safe world is per se a call for foolishness on the part of those who see themselves wearing white hats.  Hopefully, Quickfix (to whom the question was addressed) will have a more substantive and meaningful reply.  With regard to eggheads and dangerous times, perhaps you are familiar with the Manhattan Project, yes? lol

retcopper wrote on Aug 11^th, 2006 at 3:15pm:


RetCopper,

I couldn't help myself on this one, but here goes. I will gladly take the title egghead, being both a scientist and an engineer. To the betterment of mankind I submit that it applies to all mankind, good or bad. The polygraph by its inherent nature to cull and villify just one person, again diminishes your intended statement. Just one false positive or negitive and your basis for being a good guy is gone. Any process or system where human interpretation is the final answer is endemic of failure. For we as humans are inherently flawed. I submit that such a flawed system can and never will be of any use in a society based on laws, democratic ideals, and the betterment of mankind. Its the intelligencia that must be the guardian and voice of these principles not the functionaries that try to dispense the rule of law. So Egghead as I may be, I would rather be known for my intellect and compassion, than for my ability to use a flawed tool that has dangerous ramifications. This is long winded I know, but the point is neccessary when discussing GOOD vs BAD.

Regards