Quote: What you believe is based on your own experiences and the reading and research you have done.
One, you don't know that, and two, the two don't always jibe, which is why I must be data driven.
Quote: I’ve cited evidence too, but you don’t believe the NAS research study was valid. You are free to believe whatever you wish. Kindly allow me the same courtesy.
I never said the NAS report wasn't valid. It's really not a new "study." It was more a of meta-analysis of what was out there already. They pointed out that research in screening situations was lacking, and I agree. They also stated some opinions that have since turned out to be wrong, so to blindly accept it in totality is an error.
Quote: I disagree with your assertion that you have demonstrated how any test that is better than chance is “more fair” in the end. You have not demonstrated any such thing.
You're letting emotions get in the way of reason. What I posted is a very basic statistical analysis, and the premise is well-accepted in the scientific community. To argue otherwise is to deny reality. You are free, however, to reject the accuracy rates, which I stated, but the rest is well-settled.
Quote: How is it fair to all the people who tell the truth and are still disqualified? How is it fair to the agency that hires a deceptive person who passed the polygraph?
It isn't fair, which is why we use polygraph as it, in the end, makes the playing field more level.
Quote: As I have mentioned before, in the vast majority of pre-employment polygraphs (whenever there is no disqualifying admission made by the applicant, and/or whenever there is no physical evidence to corroborate the DI or NDI) the examiner cannot possibly know for certain if their conclusion of truth or deception was correct.
That's true of most everything in life.
Quote: Polygraph examiners can cite specific studies that support their beliefs, and can claim that any study that does not is invalid.
Yes they can, but most don't. With enough studies there are always going to be those (just by chance) that don't support polygraph (or anything subjected to scientific experimentation) as expected. That's why we look at multiple tests, and that is why the NAS had a problem with screening exams. We need more data. What we have shows it works, but there are unanswered questions. Why don't you consider taking part in a study?
Quote: If neither side is going to accept any scientific evidence unless it supports that side’s opinion, then we are left with nothing more than our personal experiences and anecdotal evidence. In such a circumstance, the only “expert” with regards to the results of a polygraph is the subject, because only the subject knows for certain if they were being truthful or deceptive. The examiner can render their opinion on the accuracy of any single polygraph exam, but only the subject can definitively state if the DI or NDI result was accurate.
And your point is?
Quote: In my experience, I told the truth on four polygraph exams and in three of those exams neither the instrument nor its operator was able to determine that. Not only was the examiner unable to determine I was telling the truth, but they incorrectly concluded I was lying. I don’t see how I could have been a victim of the “error rate” when I was judged to be deceptive on three separate areas. If I had some sort of issue about drugs, perhaps it would make sense if I kept failing because of drug-related questions. But I failed for three different reasons, and never for the same reason twice. I don’t see how any reasonable person could go through that experience and not come to the conclusion that the polygraph is incapable of detecting deception. I think it would be completely unreasonable for someone to go through an experience like mine and conclude that the polygraph didn't detect anything for them, but that it probably detects truth or deception with a high degree of accuracy for everyone else in every other situation.
Your post seems to suggest that it would not be unheard of for a police applicant to be a victim of the “error rate”. What makes you think that a large percentage of police applicants are not victims of the same error rate? Other than the testimony of the applicants themselves, how would you ever be able to determine the actual percentages that are victims of the error rate?
From your post, the “error rate” certainly does not seem to be a source of concern for you. But, inexplicably, at the same time you feel comfortable endorsing the pre-employment polygraph screening exam as being “more fair” in the end than not conducting a pre-employment polygraph screening exam. I don’t see how you can do that. You are willing to acknowledge the “error rate” but you have no way of definitively knowing what that rate is. I realize you believe the error rate is low, but you don’t really know that, so how can you believe that conducting pre-employment polygraph screening is "more fair" than not conducting pre-employment polygraph screening?
I am very concerned about the error rate, but again, like you, that's a philosophical position I hold. I don't think you understood what I meant by "error" here, so be careful about drawing conclusions. You need to read my post again, and try to following the numbers. It's just math. Your other issues are just that: other issues. It's incorrect to merge the two.