Quote:[quote author=Hunter link=1193405326/0#10 date=1193521670]
Polygraph -18 correct identifications, 1 error and 1 inconclusive result for an over all accuracy of 95%
Quote:If in field testing the 5% Incon are called NDI, the error rate is 10%
That is too high in terms of human collateral.
In reality, the errors in field testing are likely to be considerably in excess of 10%.
The NAS study said as much, I'm just too lazy to find the link right now.
Whether error rates are attributable to the polygraph itself, or to inept examiners is disputable.
My humble opinion is that far too many examiners are gung ho, aggressive and inept.
Aspects that have been highlighted many times by reversed incarcerations and by some who post on this board.
Error rates are too high for what C? Despite the disinformation, decisions regarding incarceration and/or applicant rejection as a sole result of polygraph are simply not tolerated, period. Perhaps your concern for "human collateral" stems from a modality from a seperate country---not in the US at this time. So many people are rejected by fed intel and cop shops because the officials seek individuals who are cleaner (can you say boringingly squeeky) than the vast majority of US citizens---in the scope of drugs, sexual history, and theft especially. Let a dog lick your balls as a teen?...well, the chief might not like that ----regardless if it was a typical teenage fancy. Steal cash from grandma while she was in the hospitol?--the cheif might have a soft spot for grandmothers-----but typically many things are overlooked unless they present as unashamed or perpetuating. Individuals, say, in an applicant screening situation, are rejected over many factors---many of which are not told to the applicant, as this is certainly the case with any job whether poly is used or not. Most times the applicant just doesn't have all the right qualities, and the polygraph is scapegoated. Take Erik Prince, the controversial owner and (former Navy Seal) of Blackwater USA, he failed his CIA poly, but it is pretty much accepted that he snagged other concerns--having garnered the reputation of being critical of the Naval Institue as a young attendee (he quit bitterly), and being a right-wing extremist (long story) among other slightly "off" personal attributes such as alleged recklessness (the CIA's greatest phobia)-------but was only told at that time that he simply "failed" his polygraph (according to the latest Newsweek magazine article on Blackwater's Prince.) I find it quite telling that now that he has such high accesses and clearences, that he continues to use polygraph pervasively within the Blackwater organization. Bare in mind that Prince calls the shots and he has a love affair with applicant screening modalities, and if he felt that polygraph was a pseudoscience he would certainly ignore the usage potentials.
ps. 1904, your opinion has never been "humble" and neither has mine.