The ancient Roman generals did not rely solely on entrails reading to determine whether or not to engage in battle, but to the extent that they relied on the entrails to make their decision, they were engaged in superstitious behavior that was out of touch with reality.  Unlike the Greeks, who realized that oracles were useless for predicting the future, the more superstitious (though also more technically advanced) Romans relied on them, though not with 100% certainty or “solely”.

     The same applies to current guardians of American security.  So I don’t share George’s and Gino’s enthusiasm for the recent APA’s decision not to rely solely on the CQT polygraph, because, in practice, the distinction between the FBI and APA policies for employing this piece of modern mumbo jumbo is a distinction without a difference.

     All the best, John

EVEN PARTIAL USE OF THE POLYGRAPH IS TO RELY ON MUMBO JUMBO

      Roman generals did not solely rely on entrails reading to determine their strategies, but to the extent that their strategies were influenced by entrails reading (instead of what they knew about the enemy, the ground, weapons, their onw soldiers' morale, i.e, empirical evidence interpreted in the light of their expertise), they were relying on mumbo jumbo.

     The same applies, in my view, to the polygraph, so the question of whether it is the sole or only a partial determinant of choice is very secondary.  And, by the way, even your letter may be ambiguous on that point, because perhaps some of the "information developed as a result" of the polygraph was of the non-magical, orginary sort used by experts to make decisions.

     Of course the polygraph is more "useful" for its practitioners where other evidence is unavailable, but its influence as a social disease is present whether it is a sole or only a partial basis for decisions.
   
     All the best, John

George,

      I agree that at least at first sight, this change in the APA's stated policy appears to be of practical benefit.

      However, I recall that originally polygraphers claimed to be 100% accurate (and still this lie is part of the standard CQT that is administered to examinees), but in the past couple of decades they have admitted that they are only 98% or 90% accurate.

      I am concerned that, in the long run, the FBI and CIA will learn to be a little more careful in communicating their rejection decisions, but will, nevertheless, base their decisions on the polygraph in an assessment situation which is a very complex and subjective one.  And, of course, the stain of having failed a polygraph will remain on those who have been the victims of this mumbo jumbo practice, wherever they apply for security-related positions.

    All the best, John