sackett wrote on Feb 11^th, 2008 at 5:55pm:


What is the rate at which false positive occur?

Sackett wrote:   

"False positives do occur.  They do not occur at the frequency some would have you believe as justification for cheating on the test."

Thanks for admitting that "false positives" occur.

How exactly do you know, or could you know, the frequency in which they occur?  How can you really know you failed a person who was telling the truth?  Are agencies in the habit of doing follow-up investigations to see if the person they failed was actually telling the truth?

We are talking here about cases in which a person fails, even though he/she is telling the truth.  How do you actually know they were telling the truth?  Are you God, or a mind reader?

This reminds me of the polygrapher at the NSA, a Mr. Lingenfelter, who tried to tell me that the test was 98% accurate.  How the hell does he know that?

Is there any pseudo-scientific evidence to back up claims regarding the frequency of false positives?

Incidently, there is LOTS of evidence to to validate the existence of "false NEGATIVES".   Which is to say, spies caught who had passed their polygraph tests.   

Aldrich Ames, Leavenworth KS

Sackett:

"Do you have any evidence to prove the claims by the few on this board that they were "victimized" by false positives?

How do you prove a negative?

In the case of a "false positive", how do I prove I did not not tell the truth.  And in my case, it was a preemployment test.  There was no aspecific event they were testing for (i.e. did you kill your wife, steal the missing $10 grand...etc).  They were testing for the hypothetical.  Something which may or may not have happened.

So, to restate:

Provide evidence that I did not not tell the truth about an event which we don't even know for sure happened.

Example:  My wife asks me if I've ever cheated on her.   

Note:  She has been given NO reason to be suspicious of me at all.  No woman has claimed to have slept with me, and no one has told her anythng along that line.  No lipstick on the collar...etc.  She just decides that I can no longer sleep in her bed unless I prove I've never cheated.

I tell her in no uncertain terms that I have NEVER CHEATED ON HER.

She then claims, your body language tells me you are lying!  Besides, the lights flickered exactly when you claimed you have never cheated on me., and the tarot cards I just dealt tell me you are lying.  So, Tell me the truth.  HAVE YOU CHEATED ON ME!!

I continue to claim my innocence to an event she doesn't even know or have reason to believe has transpired.

This goes on for hours, and for the following three days.

Finally, sick and tired of this, I admit, well, okay.  There was a couple times when I wondered what it would be like to sleep with other women.  I had lust in my heart for the lady accross the street.  Maybe that is a form of cheating.

My wife then latches onto that like a fly on a cow pie.  She gets me to elaborate in detail about my dirty thoughts about the lady acrossed the street.   What sexual position I might have thought of using on her, would I have had oral sex with her...etc.  Like a fool, I play along with her stupid game.

In the end, I fail her stupid test even though I haven't really done anything!

To my knowledge, the only spy credibly claimed to have been "caught" by the polygraph is former CIA secretary Sharon Scranage, who reportedly confessed to her polygrapher. While it has been suggested that Harold Nicholson was caught by the polygraph, the CIA director at the time did not endorse this notion, nor evidently did Edward Curran, a polygraph advocate who at the time headed CIA counterintelligence.

From what I have seen, this is an open board with the freedom to post pretty much whatever you want regarding polygraph issues.  I have my opinions, you have yours.  OK, that's what makes the world go 'round.

Good point.  Everyone has his/her opinion.  You make your living from the test, so one would expect you to be biased and pro-polygraph.  I took the test, told the truth yet failed.  So I have an anti-polygraph bias.

So let's look at what the scientific community, namely the NAS, has to say about the test, in particular, on the topic of "false positives":

[i]False Positives with “Suspicious” Thresholds Polygraph screening protocols that can identify a large fraction of serious security violators can be expected to incorrectly implicate at least hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of innocent employees for each spy or other serious security violator correctly identified. ......

And they conclude that reliance on the polygraph test can:

lead to unnecessary loss of competent or highly skilled individuals because of suspicions cast on them as a result of false positive polygraph exams

Like me, George, and many, many, many others who don't even know about this board.

The also conclude that funds currently being spend on pre-employment screening tests would be:

better expended on developing or implementing alternative security procedures.

How would that effect your career Mr. Sackett?

HEY...!!!

I eat at Burger King... (no stock options) are you calling me fat..??

triple x

triple x,

I see you have a sense of humor.  Outstanding!

"Q.E.",   

apparently my analogy was beyond you.  I apologize...


Sackett