Bill,

I have to admit, that is hilarious, even if I am the target of the joke.  

EosJ,

10% collateral damage is not acceptable, you're right. At least not when you are in that 10%. Sometimes I find it unacceptable too, I must confess. Whether passing polygraphs or administrating them, I've never had to face it from the side of the person falsely accused. Regardless of my ego, which I gladly admit, and despite Digithead's contrary opinion, I do feel sympathy for those treated with injustice.

That said, though, the agencies most polygraphers work for all want to get rid of the bad fish in the net, even if it means killing some of the good fish at the same time. When there are thousands of qualified applicants, and you have a process that you believe--rightly or wrongly--is correct most of the time, you use what you have. Is that unfair? Not to those hired, but it is unfair to those falsely accused, as well as to the rest of us when a truly bad fish escapes the net and swims in our waters. I just don't believe that either the false positive or the false negative happens as often as some of you would like to believe.  Just because something may have happened to you doesn't make it a very common occurrence.

You are right about something else, I think: Maybe I haven't come across a truly prepared, determined person in an exam--a truly prepared person determined to beat the test despite past criminal behavior. And if I have, I didn't know it. What I have come across are people who are determined but not prepared, even though they've come here and read all of George's advice. Those people fail, after looking really stupid and being very embarrassed.

Finally, Digithead,

Your math makes sense in a purely mathematical world.  Your skill with numbers is undeniable and impressive. My esteem for you has risen lately. But there are variables involved in the polygraph that you just can't figure out, no matter how you manipulate the statistics. Why does the polygraph work so well in the real world? I don't have all the answers, but from my experience I have seen time and time again that it does.

EosJupiter wrote on Dec 9^th, 2006 at 1:52am:


EosJ,

I'm not sure I follow you. When did I ever say that everyone has something criminal to hide? I think that everyone has made some mistakes in their life, but criminal? Please explain your misunderstanding of my reasoning.

EosJ, 

I like you. Really. You have usually treated me with respect despite treating the polygraph I use with disdain. That's ok, though, because I hate the polygraph too.

But that sentence you highlighted in red can in no way be construed as saying that every examinee or every person is a criminal. I would never say that. All it says is that I have not come across anyone--or at least I didn't know it--who was determined and prepared and who had committed criminal behavior. Most examinees who follow George's countermeasures advice, in my experience, are determined, but they aren't prepared. They just end up looking stupid and feeling embarrassed, as I said.

Because I know you are an intelligent person, I think perhaps you simply tried to save face with that last post about the highlighted part. Don't worry, I sometimes try to save face too. But I don't want anyone who comes to this website to assume something that you want others to assume that I meant when, clearly, that's not what I said.

Regards.

EosJ:

It wasn't a slip of any kind, and I don't share that attitude that all are guilty until polygraphed innocent. That saying, "In God we trust and all others we polygraph" is kind of cocky, I know. I think it's a stupid saying that someone thought was smart.

Thanks for the compliments. Likewise.

Regards.