Dear B rabs,
I am a U.S. citizen with different experiences. So I will use that perspective in commenting on your blurb.
Quote:My overall point being, that its easy to draw conclusions and most people do. So what I think is if the RCMP could conclude your entire history from a polygraph, than why would there be a background check.Just by looking at this evidence alone I would conclude that the polygraph is not perfect and nothing in this world is.I do think that it is a wonderful tool for the RCMP to use because people are intimidated by it, and are more likley to spill their guts because of this reason.
How on this good earth could a polygrapher "conclude your entire history" from a polygraph? It is an excellent tool for intimidation, we can agree on that. But does that yield truth? That depends. It is important to keep in mind that the device's only value is through it's potential power of intimidation. As an instrument, it has no validity. Therefore, it falls upon the polygrapher to "read" the polygraphee to obtain the "results". If interrogators held Ph.D's in psychology and understood not only how severe stress and other factors affected a the polygraphee's psychology, but also how their own biases came to play in making a "decision", I would be more inclined to accept the polygraph's usefulness as stage prop. But a Ph.D. requires a high level of training, and a high degree of intelligence, and a high degree of emotional intelligence. Finally, it would also require that the polygrapher worked in an environment where polygraphers were rewarded equally for false positives as for false negatives. In other words, where employment incentives were aligned with morality. In my own experience, I would wager such is generally not now the case.
No one is asking for perfection. Furthermore, there is no right to obtaining a security clearance. But governments do have a solemn obligation to protect their citizens and a duty not to waste taxpayers money. Can a system that capriciously denies large numbers of highly qualified applicants accomplish this?
Alternatively, if the polygraph was not used for screening, but merely to "encourage" folks to share more information, this would also seem understandable. Perhaps this is more like what happened in your experience?
I was extremely truthful in my application as well. Furthermore, I did not need to be intimidated to be totally forthcoming. The polygrapher was only able to get extra dribs and drabs as a result of what was essentially an interrogation. I told the truth to the best of my ability. Yet I was rejected.
Mr. Bellemont