LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Nov 27^th, 2006 at 5:49pm:


I have sat for more than 1 exam and was never given any information which could be seen as negative about polygraphy offered up by an examiner.  That would include accuracy percentages.  By those percentages you have shown the fact that there stands the very real possibility for an examinee to be mislabeled as deceptive.  Not a very good way to instill confidence in the process by the examinee.

As far as 100 passing candidates and a few failing candidates goes, my suspicions of a "weeding out" are confirmed.  It is just another method utilized to thin the applicant pool.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Nov 27^th, 2006 at 8:45pm:

There are all kinds of "tools" any employer can use to weed out candidates.  LBCB, do you support the following "weeding out" tools:
-- race?
-- gender?
-- objective (i.e., not the polygraph) testing?
-- comprehensive background investigations?


BTW, I have never applied for a law enforcement job.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Nov 27^th, 2006 at 9:34pm:


Had your career aspirations been dashed by polygraph, I'm sure you would not hold such an "ah well, it's the cost of business" attitude.

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Nov 27^th, 2006 at 9:34pm:


So I guess no male officers are ever overpowered by criminals, correct? By your logic, only large, physical brutes should be police officers. But you're right, it's a digression from the topic...

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Nov 27^th, 2006 at 9:34pm:


What if one of the best, if not the best, qualified candidates is one of the false positives? Face it, the polygraph screening process poses a security risk due to the base rate problem, regardless if you're looking for spies, potentially bad employees, or parolee reoffending. The math doesn't lie...

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Nov 27^th, 2006 at 9:34pm:


LBCB,

Then by weeding out, you condone collateral damage of an individuals reputation, veracity, and honor. Thats mighty cavalier considering you have this power to destroy an individuals life. Being the victim of a false positive, I to this day believe that because I wasn't a graduate of an Ivy League University, as the only reason I was deemed undesireable. I 100% went into the polygraph (initial polygraphs) with the intent and mindset to tell the truth and I would be fine. Did that and didn't get hired. I was told I was deceptive on portions of the test . I was trashed canned, even though 100% honest, and was told by the examiner,  this agency didn't hire deceptive types.  The following week at another agency, same mindset and answers to the questions and passed just fine. Since these inital polygraphs and my own self education into your polygraphy world, there is no way bias can be eliminated. And I refuse to ever be a victim again of this infernal machine or ever take the abuse from a polygrapher again. The same thing happened to folks that worked for me, they too had their professional lifes ruined because of an opinion. How fair is this ? For me the collateral damage is just too expensive.
Your statements alone on females proves you can't be impartial or unbiased. So we are, where we are. Until you have a machine that is 100% accurate, without human weaknesses, is just wrong and again your process is still just a human opinion with the problems associated with human judgement and opinion. And from experience those that have the knowlege about the polygraph, at worst case without CM's. All you get is inconclusive, everytime. And from a previous message, at what point do you realize that it won't work ? Then you have to do what should have been done in the first place and evaluate fairly without the bias of a polygraph.

Regards ....

EosJ:

For most of your last post, my previous post is sufficient reply. However, just to be clear on two things:

First, it is an undeniable fact that bad guys will be less intimidated by the average female than the average male, as well as less inclined to behave in a potentially violent confrontation with a male than with a female, unless lethal force is threatened by the female. I know this by experience as well as observation of numerous video clips of real-life occurrences. It does not make me biased or prejudiced to admit that. Politically incorrect in today's crazy world, yes, but not biased or prejudiced.

Second, when dealing with inconclusive polygraph results, many people should be thankful for the gray area of the inconclusive result. Otherwise they may have flat-out failed the exam. I believe the inconclusive is responsible for many people being on the job who may not have been if there was no gray area. To fall below that gray area, a person has to have some real issues. If not some real criminal history, then perhaps they are just messing with their own heads by getting all mixed up about the polygraph by reading about false positives and countermeasures on this website. Some of those people, perhaps many, would have passed the polygraph if they hadn't done themselves the disservice of following some of the advice on this website. If you were one of the relatively tiny percentage of true false positives, then look at it through the eyes of an engineer-type, which you often tout yourself to be--machines are not perfect, and people are not perfect. Maybe God is sorry for creating an imperfect world. Perhaps you should ask Him/Her.

George: 

There are many things we have to "pay" for in this life. If the worst thing you have had to pay for is a failed polygraph and not being a Government employee, then you have a lot to be thankful for. Be thankful that the biggest thing you have to complain about is that failed polygraph, and be thankful for all the time you have had in your life to spend worrying about a machine and a process that you would have done well to forget about long ago. When your life is done, you can look back on it and say, "I spent about 20 years of my life talking to people about the polygraph. What a great life."

LBCB,

Let's play hypothetical for a moment.  Let's say you had aspirations of becoming a peace officer.  Everything went well in the first phases, you have kept your background in good shape, scored well on the written and aced the fitness evaluation.  Things are looking good.  Then you come to a polygraph examination, you have relatively little to no idea why or how it works but no reason to believe it does not work as claimed.  A week or so goes by and then you get a letter telling you your application has been discontinued and later you find out you failed your polygraph exam.  You know in your heart of hearts that you told the truth.  How can this be?  Can you honestly say you would not find that to be incredible?  Can you honestly say you wouldn't be pissed off?  Can you honestly say that your first impression would not be lasting?  Can you honestly say that you would not feel that you were done a disservice?  Can you honestly say you would tell yourself, "Hmm, that sucks, guess I'll just move on to something else and figure that I am an acceptable loss and they'll find someone else to fill that position I really wanted.  Oh, well?"

If you answer 'yes' to any of those questions, you'll be lying.