SanchoPanza

Please re-read my two posts on this string and explain to me how you consider these a personal attack. You asked me a pointed question and I gave you a pointed answer plus statements about others. I, also, asked you pointed questions to which you have yet to answer. Are they forthcoming?

I consider my involvement here as debating. Not added-hominy-tacks.

Sancho Panza

Correction of my first sentance. It should have read something like "since I posed the questions to you"

Quote:



Just because the polygraph has something in common (error/accuracy rate) with a scientific test like DNA, doesn't make it a scientific test.  That is a false syllogism:

ALL scientific tests have error rates.
Polygraph tests have error rates.
Polygraph tests are therefore SCIENTIFIC.

Also, just  because polygraphy makes use of scientifically measurable data, doesn't make it scientific either.   

You must also establish that there is a DIRECT, UNEQUIVOCAL, and CAUSAL relationship between the F3 responses measured by your magic box and deception.  And the relationship between variables must be shown to be statistically significant.  Read the quote at the bottom of my posts.

When I failed my test at the NSA, no follow investigation was even done to establish whether I was deceptive on the test.  It was totally subjective, unsubstantiated, unscientific and unverified claim that I was deceptive on the test.  So how could an error/accuracy rate be established with data that is not even shown to be in error or accurate?

The SCIENTISTS at the NAS/NRC didn't seem to think the polygraph was scientific.  So who should we believe?

Quote:


Croddy V FBI  pretty much established that NSA doesn't have to conduct followup investigations on applicants to verify polygraph results if they don't want to.

When a hiring authority uses polygraph screening tests for employment purposes they accept the possibility of false positives and false negatives and adjust their scoring criteria to purposely reduce the likelihood of a false negative with the full knowledge that by reducing false negatives they will have an increased rate of false positives. They can do this because the potential cost to National Security is much greater from a false negative than the consequences of failing to hire an applicant because of a false positive. They are the ones with the jobs to fill and they get to decide who they will hire and what criteria they will use. Polygraph employment tests for government jobs are legal. When you entered the application process you were not entitled to a job and they were not obligated to hire you whether you passed or failed your polygraph exam. You really don't know why you were rejected by NSA it may have been something in your background they didn't like. One of your neighbors may have told them some negative information about you. Maybe it was a combination of polygraph and negative background. YOU DON"T KNOW.  You just assume it was only because of polygraph because they told you failed your test. Neither one if us know if you really failed your test or maybe the spooks at NSA just told you failed to get you into a "Stress Interview" situation to monitor how or IF you react under pressure. 

If NSA has 25 jobs and 50 applicants 40 of which pass their polygraph test. Why should they bother at all with the 10 who failed? It would waste time and resources because they have enough people who passed to fill their needs?  

You can Boo Hoo all you want, but NSA didn't owe you anything, They used a screening tool that it was legal for them to use and you don't have to like it, but you need to learn to live with it. 

As to your constant commentary about the NAS study, maybe you should read the whole thing. If you did, you would find that it is not the scathing indictment of polygraph you seem to think it is. You would also find that the National Academy of Sciences did not conduct any new or original laboratory or field research on polygraph testing. 

Their effort was confined to a review of the research on polygraph testing and in particular to that which pertains to personnel screening. In doing so, the academy relied on only 57 of the more than 1,000 research studies available.

They also lost any semblance of a balanced inquiry  by inviting persons against polygraph to offer testimony and prohibiting polygraph experts from giving testimony at any point during their review.

All that being said, in the  five years since the release of their report, completed studies and studies now under way have taken NAS recommendations and included them in their research.

Quote:

I read it and I tried to find some study conducted by or paper or book published by Dr. Zimbardo that contained the statement. I even went to his website for information. THE ONLY PLACE I CAN FIND ANY REFERENCE TO THIS ALLEGED STATEMENT IS IN POSTINGS ON THIS SITE. Did you read this in a study somewhere or are you simply quoting from someone elses posting. Please provide some sort of reliable reference for the quote. if one exists. 

Sancho Panza

9news.com of Colorado reports that Shawn Adolf, who has been charged along with Tharin Gartrell and Nathan Johnson on drug and weapons charges, has passed a polygraph examination in which he denied the existence of a plot to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama:

Quote:


A video report is available on the above-linked story page, in which the polygraph results are presented as being "another reason to believe that a threat to Senator Barack Obama was not as serious as it first appeared." However, polygraph results -- having no scientific basis and hence no evidentiary value -- are no reason to discount the alleged threats.

Quote:


You miss my point entirely.  Intentionally, probably, to avoid answering the question.

You insinuated that the polygraph is a scientific test because it, as in ACTUAL scientific tests have rates if accuracy/error.

I then point out that the above is actually a silly  "false syllogism", and also point out that the accuracy of NSA pre-employment polygraphs  are not even measured (no follow up).  You did bring up the topic of error rates, didn't you?

Rather than respond to my point, you deflect by pointing out that NSA is not requred to follow up and that they don't owe anyone a job.  That  is certainly true.  How could they follow up to determine error rates?  The test is so subjective and varies greatly from examiner to examiner.

Truth is, the polyraph is not really a test but an interrogation disguised as a test by using a device which happens to track a scientifically measurable data set, that doesn't necessarily establish a direct,  unequivocal casual relationship between it and deception.

In the name of Webb the father
Sackett the Son
and Coffey the Holy poster
amen!

SanchoPanza

Appology accepted.

Trimarco's quote "showed deception on the listed relavant questions" tells me that "the listed" (being key words) would entail all of the relavant questions. If I wrote that kind of statement I would expect it to be interpreted as "all".

I guess we will have to yield to George and Trimarco and I don't expect Trimarco to ever venture a post on this website. At least under his name. He has had ample reason to do so in the past. However, I will stand by my assessment of Dr. Maschke.

They reviewed 57 out of over 1000 Cullen

Hardly what I would call thorough.

Sancho Panza

PS you made a comment about Aldrich Ames the other day.   
Did you know he didn't pass his polygraph?

sp