Thank you George. I’m something of a sometime scientist with a Ph.D. in Adult Education. I have 4 real problems with the polygraph that I think polygraphers probably overlook or ignore. Even if the instrument reliably measures measurable data:

1)      The test depends on the mindset of the examinee. That can be a problem since some will be very comfortable with a standard “yes” “no” response. Others will be more analytical and say “yes… but.” Or “no… however.”
2)      The test depends on the ability of the examiner to set the examinee in an emotional state that is not defensive by nature. If one becomes defensive I believe the responses both verbal and physiological will be very unpredictable.
3)      The test depends on the ability of the examiner to accurately interpret the body language and physiological responses.
4)      There is, in my experience, no follow-up interview. The examiner or some other competent individual should say, “My data shows this on this question. I need to more clearly understand what lies behind your response.” In my case I said I “stole” time from my employer. In fact I don’t believe I ever have, but one time a senior executive sat down several people in my group and accused all of us of “stealing from the company" because we spent too long at a Christmas celebration. So I said I did steal (because I heard the exec's words ringing in my ears) even though I really don’t believe it and legally no theft occurred.

There are too many uncontrolled variables here for this instrument to be used for anything substantive.

These are some of the issues as I see them.

Quote:


That is complete rubbish. I suppose that a crooked psychologist could doctor your mmpi2 diagnosis/scores too, but to levy such accusation to an entire field is plain moronism.


Quote:


One would think that you could read more than one study----since there are hundreds in print. And what you "get" is mostly Federally funded studies ---many of which are by Department of Defense scientists and University studies. Your being cute in the above post lacks creativity or even truth---as you are no doubt referring to one study amongst hundreds over the years. A peculiar field requires peculiar studies as there are peculiar dependent and independant variables. What part of this doesn't make sense to you?  What do YOU do for a living? Perhaps you could allow some readers/posters the opportunity to lampoon your profession as I am sure it is filled with occasional lackluster performers, sometimes biased methodology, errors-----and worst of all...your (I'm assuming) 5 minute expertise.

Mr. Johnson:

Regarding your response to my post, and the subject of arbitrary scoring of polygraphs, I quote from the post regarding DOD changing how they score polygraphs.

Under the 2006 rules, the number of respiratory features considered "diagnostic" for scoring purposes has been reduced from 10 to 6 while the number of cardiovascular features considered diagnostic has been reduced from 7 principle and 3 secondary features to 1 primary and 1 secondary feature. No explanation is offered for these changes.

What this inescapably entails is that some polygraph charts that were scored as "deception indicated" under the old rules would be scored as "no deception indicated" or "inconclusive" under the new rules, because some reactions to relevant questions would no longer be scored. The converse is also true, and the charts of some who passed would no doubt have to be scored as "deception indicated" or "inconclusive" because some reactions to "control" questions could no longer be considered.

This raises the question, will applicants for federal employment who "failed" under the old scoring rules be given the opportunity to have their polygraph charts re-evaluated under the new scoring rules and to have their applications re-instated if they now pass? If not, why not?

Conversely, will the polygraph charts of those who have "passed" and been hired be re-evaluated to see if such persons would have "failed" under the new scoring rules? Again, if not, why not? After all, if you are a true believer in polygraphy, any such persons must now be considered unacceptable security risks!

So, given the fact that how to score a polygraph for deception or no deception can be changed at whim, I stand by my assertion that if an examiner doesn't want to pass a subject, he can simply score the polygraph any way he chooses.  I was not impinging the profession of polygraphy as a whole, just pointing out that the polyfraph is scored arbitrarily.  A "pass" or "fail" is an objective opinion of the polygrapher.

Regarding polygraph studies, show me ONE study that is scientifically repeatable.

Quote:


Is my experience any less valid because it happened to me? If it happened to me, is there not a strong possibility that it happened to others? Maybe I got an incompetent polygrapher or one with a hidden agenda. Maybe the department policies don't call for a follow-up. 

In any case it happened and it goes to validate that this process is not very scientific and not very consistent. 

It does help explain why less than 3% of those selected for jobs at this agency are ever hired. They don't make it through the polygraph and background check. I think that is a very low number but I can't say what the industry average might be. The <3% number is not manufactured, it came straight from my background investigator.

A shill? Hardly.