Quote:Indeed. To its credit, the American Polygraph Association has formally come out against the widespread law enforcement practice of rejecting applicants based solely on polygraph results. For more in this regard, see American Polygraph Association Model Policy.
This pretty much negates everything you have said regarding the APA's lack of mindfulness of hiring policy regarding polygraph. You can't have it both ways. Let's not forget that the last President of the APA was none other than the former head of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute Dr. Don Kraphol, a serious research specialist who makes Drew Richardson look like Gary Busey.
Quote:It is not an obfuscation to mention the Ridgway case in illustrating the fact that when polygraphers make mistakes, it is not they, but others who suffer the consequences. You had mentioned earlier that you don't know of any polygrapher who would bet his mortgage on the outcome of any one polygraph examination. The point I am making is that it is, figuratively speaking, other peoples' mortgages that polygraphers are betting.
Yes George, it is obfuscating to take a well-publicized polygraph error and draw global conclusions. This is called Inductive Reasoning---also known as "Weak Induction." Here are some examples;
It is cold outside of my house.
.....so that must mean....
It is cold outside everywhere.
or;
I hang pictures up with nails
...so....
All pictures are hung with nails.
Polygraph didn't work on several people I know of
....so......
Polygraph doesn't work.
Inductive reasoning is not only unscientific----a characteristic which you and others purport is lacking in polygraph testing---but Inductive Reasoning is typically associated with the stage 2 of development (ages 3 to 7) in children.
Quote:You had mentioned earlier that you don't know of any polygrapher who would bet his mortgage on the outcome of any one polygraph examination. The point I am making is that it is, figuratively speaking, other peoples' mortgages that polygraphers are betting.
I am no gambler. I wouldn't bet a large sum of money on the accuracy of any test. ANY TEST---biopsy, IQ, Psychometeric, Urinalysis, fingerprinting, Polygraph, and yes.....even DNA. Humans tend to screw up---especially when in the past I decided to bet money. In the society in which we live, tests abound. Last Friday I took a test in a class that I thought was patently distorted---in that it was filled with trick questions. Such trick questions are a true annoyance and I believe are merely to stave off boredom from the professors who write tests. Another story to be sure.
Quote:And people who fully understand that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud are not likely to make admissions against interest because a polygraph chartgazer claims to have read deception in the charts.
George, I hate to trouble you, but could you please site your source for such a broad statement? Afterall, you are not an examiner---and so to make such remarks requires some reinforcement. I suspect you are pulling a G.W. Bush----using your gut. This kind of inductive reasoning is above a man with a phd.
Quote:But my point remains, it is not honest to maintain that agencies with polygraph screening requirements are not placing reliance on polygraph results.
If indeed they are---then those agencies are in direct violation of the best practices recommendations by the American Polygraph Association. I suggest you write your congressman George----er....oh that's right, you don't live and work in the U.S.---so you have no representative government here.
Quote:It is not a taunt to point out that you coordinated a trolling campaign on these boards. As for Stephen Colbert's concept of truthiness ("things that a person claims to know intuitively or 'from the gut' without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts"), I think it pretty well characterizes the esoteric wisdom of the polygraph sages.
If I were ashamed of my posts here---even the more sardonic posts----I would not visit. I have clearly indicated and addressed your more recent acts of "truthiness"---aka Inductive Reasoning. Calling sarcasm as "taunts" is like calling an insult an assault.
Pages: 
Feelings concerning Polygraph for Criminal Investigations (Read 8394 times)
