Please note that polygraphers, including pailryder himself, admit that there is no evidence at all that polygraph pre-employment screening exams do anything to improve the quality of the workforces of the agencies which use them.  Not one shred of evidence, as they admit.

Note that this has nothing to do with the accuracy rate or the polygraph or how easy it is to defeat via countermeasures.  It is a plain, simple empirical fact: there is no reason to believe that police departments are better off for polygraphing all of their employees or potential employees. 

This is not an argument, simply a statement of fact that one might want to consider in constructing an argument.

pailryder wrote on Feb 18^th, 2009 at 1:14pm:

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that an applicant who answers all questions truthfully and does not withhold any information is merely "pretending to comply" unless he thinks about what the examiner wants him to think about during specific portions of the test?

I disagree.  An applicant is not pretending to comly with a test that purportedly detects deception if he answers all the questions truthfully and does not withhold any information.  He is doing his part.

How exactly can you justify your expectation that an examinee must think about what the examiner wants him to think about or he is essentially "pretending to comply" with the test?

When the applicant fills out the background packet is he "pretending to comply" if he answers all questions truthfully and does not withhold any information, but he also hums to himself or thinks about a TV show he saw the night before?

Quote:


An applicant doesn't even have to do that.  Just DON'T believe the polygraph operator when they say that the machine is indicating "You are holding back", or "you are being deceptive", or "something is bothering you about that question"!  

The applicant is under NO OBLIGATION to tell the examiner he thinks the test is bullshit!  It is to his advantage NOT too, as we've all seen what thin skin polygrapher have when it comes to questioning their "magic box".

It's a con game.  Nothing wrong with scratching your head, shaking your head..etc.  and saying "Gee, that's strange.  I don't know how the machine could be indicating that.  I answered truthfully.  Nah, just can't think of nothin Mr. Polymaster."  And the above statement is actually true (unlike statements routinely made by polygraphers to applicants).  If you are informed about the polygraph then you truly WOULDN"T know how the machine could be indicating what the examiner claims.  

First and foremost, people need to know in no uncertain terms that consistent reactions DO NOT necessarily equate to DECEPTION.  If you are answering truthfully, believe YOURSELF, not the MACHINE/POLYGRAPHER!

Forget all the old "Dragnet" TV episodes you watched as a kid.  Don't sit there thinking of the examiner is some kind of SGT Friday.  They are there to trip you up in anyway they can.  YES!  Tell the truth, but don't be a naive dunce either!  If they make a claim (this machine is 98% accurate in detecting deception) know that they are lying, but don't be a belligerent jerk either.  Just nod, and say "hmmm, wow, that's pretty accurate" (even though your actually thinking "Yeah, pretty accurate if it were ACTUALLY TRUE!").

It amazing to me how polygraphers can wax indignant and talk of ethics when most lie everyday as part of their job description.  And what kills me is that if an applicant came totally clean and told them in no uncertain terms what they thought about the "validity" of the test, brought up the NAS report...etc. they'd try to screw them for that!

TC