Drew Richardson


Although I have never demonstrated any ability to do so, if I call this same test NO for suspected employment of CM, is that also a correct call?

Drew Richardson

Indeed, in many specific issue exams there are clear and demonstrable negative consequences for the examinee that is saddled with any opinion other than a NDI as well.   

Given my limited understanding as a non scientist and my preference for a common sense connotation, I wonder if use of CM by a truthful subject to avoid a False Positive result, could result in a NO, with negative consequences.  But of course I am aware that neither I nor any other examiner has ever demonstrated any ability to identify CM.

pailryder wrote on Jun 8^th, 2008 at 1:12pm:


It is impossible to answer this question of yours without you defining what a "correct call" is.  If you have a valid definition, my answer would probably become obvious.  But come up with one and I'll let you know whether your call was correct or not.

But I don't think you're asking the right question.  You need to dig deeper; don't just think about what call is going to bring you the most prestige among your fellow pollies or which will most enhance your reputation and money-making ability, or even your self respect.  Dig down to the bedrock: which call is in the best interests of society?

I would say, and am prepared to defend, the proposition that no possible outcome in that situation is good for society: like nuclear war, you only win if you don't play.  Of course, not playing with the polygraph would be bad for your prestige and wallet, so I don't expect you to agree with that proposition.  But lets look at all possible outcomes.

Well, first, the situation is as follows: a truthful examinee is being pollied for a position of trust for which he or she is qualified.  The examinee, knowing how the polygraph works and that the polygraph is unlikely to be accurate in his case because of said knowledge, attempts CM.  Possible outcomes are:

(1) Subject ruled truthful
(2) Subject ruled deceptive
(3) Subject ruled to be using CM
(4) No conclusion possible

Now, the consequences for (2), (3), and (4) are virtually identical: the subject does not get the position and significant government resources have been wasted.  Additionally, the subject may become bitter at the farce that he has been put through and the job may go to a less-qualified person (if the next guy was more qualified, he would have been hired in the first place ahead of the initial subject).

Outcome (1) at first appears to be good, or, at least, neutral.  I admit that it is the least bad outcome, but it still results in considerable waste of taxpayer resources (just think about how much money you suck out of society for every test).   

Additionally, the main value of the polygraph to the government vis-a-vis people they need to control employees is not in detecting deception, but in deterring bad behavior in the future.  If the person uses CM and passes (even if he was truthful on the relevant questions, as he should be), it would be natural for him to credit his passing not to his truthfulness (on the relevant questions) but to his use of CM.  He may thus think that he can beat the polygraph in the future if needed and thus it's deterrent value is close to 0.