Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory (Read 70238 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box G Scalabr
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 358
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #15 - Mar 9th, 2009 at 9:27pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Ed,
First, I need to let you know how much I value your participation in this discussion. A discussion forum truly flourishes only when all points of view are represented.

Quote:
Odd then that the words “abolition, abolish, abolishing, or abolishment don’t appear in a word search of the NAS Study. Hmmm

The conclusion of the study was that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies"
The exact conclusion was that reliance on polygraphy in federal agencies is unjustifiable.

It's not exactly a great stretch to say that a statement concluding that a practice cannot be justified is also saying that the practice should be terminated.  Not a stretch at all.

Quote:
Regarding what you claim to be the AMA’s Position on polygraph, if you have a credible superseding citation to this one, JUST POST IT

Ask, and you shall receive:

The AMA's Council on Scientific Affairs recommended that the polygraph not be used in pre-employment screening and security clearance (Council on Scientific Affairs. 1986. Polygraph. Journal of the American Medical Association. 256: 1172-1175.).

Quote:
Drew Richardson capable? Was he even capable of passing his polygraph internship? Drew may have had to lie to an examinee seven times on the handful of exams he conducted, but that doesn’t prove anyone else does. He supposedly wrote the “Epitaph for polygraph almost 19 years ago.  Can you cite one major piece of Federal Polygraph Legislation since EPPA in 1988? Your generalized statement accusing polygraph examiners of lying is an ad hominum attack on polygraph examiners

I have seen similar allegations that  Drew Richardson somehow lacked the intellectual capacity to become a polygraph operator out of the operators’ peanut gallery in the past.

Do you have any idea how foolish it makes you look when you assert that a man with a legit PhD in a hard science—who later went on to become the chief of chem/bio at FBI—lacked the intelligence to complete a polygraph operator’s trade school? An “academic program” with less than ½ the classroom hours of a typical barber college?

Speaking of Dr. Richardson, in 2004, he made the following post outlining examiner deception:  

Quote:
 You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions.  For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph “examiner” deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as “…examiner lies during the conduct of an interview…” and list certain of those deceptions.  Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement.  Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:

(1)      A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner’s background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects.  In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.  

(2)      The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the “stim” test, more recently referred to as an “acquaintance” test.  

(3)      Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.

(4)      Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.  

(5)      Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.

(6)      A host of misrepresentations that are made as “themes” and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.

(7)      The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other…

This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation.   You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers.  Agreed.  I would suggest for your consideration the following points:

(1)      The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.  

(2)      The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers.  On what basis would you extend this “license to lie” to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?

Please point out any part where you feel he is incorrect.

Quote:
If George has been telling us the truth about his behavior all of these years then a follow up test on this series would have probably cleared him


Ed, judging by this statement and your earlier reference to the APA “on paper” position statement that polygraph results are not intended to be a sole determining factor in hiring, it seems you have little grasp of how pre-employment polygraphs are actually conducted by federal agencies.

In the roughly eight years that I have been involved with this organization, I have yet to hear of the FBI doing a breakdown of a specific series during a re-test. The select few who are granted a re-test are put through the entire series of questions and “fail” again nearly without exception.

Quote:
You and the other members of George’ s anti polygraph posting coalition really over use that AD HOMINIM ATTACK JUNK.  Doesn’t your Latin Dictionary have more than one page? You fellows are always Ad Hominum this and Ad Hominum that, but you don’t hesitate to accuse polygraph examiners of lying and chicanery.

In the eight years that this Web site has been online, the primary response from the community of polygraph operators has been name calling and other personal attacks. It is only natural for us to point this out when it occurs.  

All of our allegations of deception on the part of individual polygraph operators like Ed Gelb have been thoroughly supported (Do you feel that he was not deceptive with regard to his educational credentials?).

With regard to our criticism of the deception present in the polygraph process as a whole, this, too, is well supported.  Do you disagree with anything posted in Drew’s list?

Quote:
Gino, and you too George if your reading:
I’m going to leave you with one question. I’m betting I don’t get an answer. I expect you will ignore it entirely or try to change the subject.  Here it is any way.

Why haven’t you and George ever told your readers that the ONLY way you will ever be able to prove that your countermeasures actually work in field situations is with the assistance of liars and criminals.?

With regard to field situations, in addition to liars and criminals, plenty of truthful people are also employing countermeasures to protect themselves against false positive outcomes as a result of this unreliable “test.” Thus, we could also prove the effectiveness of countermeasures with their assistance as well.

Regrettably, I don’t think that we are going to have an easy time getting members of any of these three groups to confess.

A better way to test the effectiveness of polygraph countermeasures would be for an operator to step up to the countermeasure challenge prominently featured on the home page of this Web site.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ed Earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #16 - Mar 10th, 2009 at 2:47am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Odd then that the words “abolition, abolish, abolishing, or abolishment don’t appear in a word search of the NAS Study. Hmmm

Are you now agreeing that they in fact did not call for the abolition of polygraph screening, only that abolition is the inference you drew from your interpretation of their comments. One would think that such an august body as the National Academy of Sciences, would clearly state what they mean in such a manner as to leave as little as possible open to inference. In short if they wanted it abolished, why didn’t they say so?


Quote:
Regarding what you claim to be the AMA’s Position on polygraph, if you have a credible superseding citation to this one, JUST POST IT

Ask, and you shall receive:

Quote:
The AMA's Council on Scientific Affairs recommended that the polygraph not be used in pre-employment screening and security clearance (Council on Scientific Affairs. 1986. Polygraph. Journal of the American Medical Association. 256: 1172-1175.).

My link provides the abstract for the very article you are citing. Its odd that if the AMA is taking the position you described that something similar and unequivocal wasn’t mentioned in the abstract. Of course at this point JAMA articles from that time period are not currently available on line while the reconstruct their online archive. I am perfectly willing to accept the abstract which everyone can read as their position on the matter, which is closer to what I have said than your characterization of words we are not capable of reading ourselves.


Quote:
I have seen similar allegations that  Drew Richardson somehow lacked the intellectual capacity to become a polygraph operator out of the operators’ peanut gallery in the past.
Do you have any information that Drew Richardson ever ran a field polygraph on a criminal case or competed a polygraph internship. A PHD does not automatically bestow polygraph knowledge or skill sets.
Likewise his comments that you provided are so broad and general that they show little specific knowledge of the practical application of polygraph. I will discuss them below.


Quote:
Please point out any part where you feel he is incorrect.
Quote:
With regard to our criticism of the deception present in the polygraph process as a whole, this, too, is well supported.  Do you disagree with anything posted in Drew’s list?


Actually I feel he is incorrect on at least all seven. The reason I say that is the he is talking in broad generalizations and while they may have occurred in isolated polygraph examinations are not necessarily applicable to all examiners or all examinations so using any of those statements as evidence that “Polygraph Examiners” are liars is intentionally misleading but more specifically?

1.      Polygraph examiners probably do not explain the autonomic nervous system in exactly the same way a doctor of physiology would explain it. How exactly would you explain the autonomic nervous system to say, a suspected rapist with a ninth grade education who doesn't know the difference between an axon hillock and Axel Rose or Dendrites from Dentyne? Most polygraph examiners that I've heard give a fairly good lay explanation of what happens during a sympatheic activation as it relates to the data collected by the components.  I haven't heard them all. Neither has he.
Even examinees with advanced degrees who aren't students of medicine are likely to have a great deal difficulty of following a text book explanation of the process.

2.       Neither you or Drew know how all examiners explain the stim test to examinees. Drew may recall how he was initially taught, but all examiners don’t use a stim test an all don’t explain it exactly the same way.

3.      How exactly do you believe that examiner’s represent the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam

4.      Old news. Some recent studies show that the examinees knowledge of the function of comparison questions have little or no effect on the outcome of an examination. Since it doesn’t really matter why do you presume that “Examiners” lie about it.

5.      Drew has very little idea about what “examiners” as a group represent about the recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand. At best he has limited knowledge from whatever examinations he has personally conducted, those he has personally observed and questionable anecdotal comments from people he may have talked to. At best that is probably going to account for a less than hundredth of a percent of the examinations conducted without him.

6.      Interrogational themes are a tool used my 99% of criminal investigators regardless of polygraph. If deception during interrogation has received broad acceptance by the courts. Even if it had not;  for him to conclude that all polygraph examiners lie during post test interrogations is an overgeneralization unsupportable by data. Which he then attempts to support with more opinion and supposition with his sub points 1 and 2.

7.      That’s an opinion and as such really doesn’t prove or establish anything



Quote:
Ed, judging by this statement and your earlier reference to the APA “on paper” position statement that polygraph results are not intended to be a sole determining factor in hiring, it seems you have little grasp of how pre-employment polygraphs are actually conducted by federal agencies.

In the roughly eight years that I have been involved with this organization, I have yet to hear of the FBI doing a breakdown of a specific series during a re-test. The select few who are granted a re-test are put through the entire series of questions and “fail” again nearly without exception.
We know that in the 7 years between 1994 and 2001 the FBI ran approximately 27,000 pre-employment polygraph tests. I think it is fair to presume that they have conducted close to that many in the last eight years. Considering that you probably haven’t talk to all of them, How many conversations are you relying upon in order to conclude that they have never run a breakdown test on pre-employment or that at some point in the last 8 years their policy has not changed?  Even if we presume, for the sake of argument that you are absolutely correct you are only  calling attention to an agency problem not a “Polygraph” problem

Quote:
All of our allegations of deception on the part of individual polygraph operators like Ed Gelb have been thoroughly supported (Do you feel that he was not deceptive with regard to his educational credentials?).

My point exactly if you find a deception on the part of a single polygrapher you attempt to tar all with the same brush.

Quote:
Gino, and you too George if your reading:
I’m going to leave you with one question. I’m betting I don’t get an answer. I expect you will ignore it entirely or try to change the subject.  Here it is any way.

Why haven’t you and George ever told your readers that the ONLY way you will ever be able to prove that your countermeasures actually work in field situations is with the assistance of liars and criminals.?

With regard to field situations, in addition to liars and criminals, plenty of truthful people are also employing countermeasures to protect themselves against false positive outcomes as a result of this unreliable “test.” Thus, we could also prove the effectiveness of countermeasures with their assistance as well.

Regrettably, I don’t think that we are going to have an easy time getting members of any of these three groups to confess.

A better way to test the effectiveness of polygraph countermeasures would be for an operator to step up to the countermeasure challenge prominently featured on the home page of this Web site.


I’m sorry, but you couldn’t be more wrong. A truthful person attempting countermeasures and passing their polygraph test DOES not prove that countermeasures work. It would be impossible to separate those who passed because they told the truth from those who passed because they attempted countermeasures. The only Identifiable subset would be those who attempted countermeasures and were caught. That also assumes that countermeasures even work research cited by NAS establishes that honest people who atempt countermeasures actually decrease their chances of passing a polygraph. If the study is correct, truthful people who attempt countermeasures fail and the NAS also said that it isn't very likely that someone could learn the effective application of countermeasures by reading your book.

The ONLY way to prove in a field situation that countermeasures are an effective way to pass a polygraph is for a liar or criminal to attempt countermeasures, lie on the relevant questions, pass the test, and then confirm that they were lying. So In order for you to prove that countermeasures work in the real world requires a level of cooperation you are unlikely to obtain from people you really shouldn’t believe. You will never be able to effectivly separate a successful countermeasure attempt from a false negative and yet you regularly criticize polygraph reserach. You can't even figure out how to research the stuff you teach in your book.

One of the long held criticisms of polygraph research is that laboratory studies are unable to approximate field conditions with any reliability. The challenge that has been proposed would have the same inherent faults that have been openly criticized on this site.

Instead of talking about polygraphers like they are all exactly the same and do their jobs exactly the same. You need to separate the actions of individuals from "polygraph" as a whole and you also need to separate policy decisions made by hiring authorities from "polygraph" as a whole. "Polygraph" cannot dictate policy or the behavior of individual examiners in a manner that would make "polygraph" responsible for the majority of the criticisms on this board any more than "Medicine" can be held responsible for he behavior of a doctor or the policies of a hospital.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #17 - Mar 10th, 2009 at 7:43am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
1.      Polygraph examiners probably do not explain the autonomic nervous system in exactly the same way a doctor of physiology would explain it. How exactly would you explain the autonomic nervous system to say, a suspected rapist with a ninth grade education who doesn't know the difference between an axon hillock and Axel Rose or Dendrites from Dentyne? Most polygraph examiners that I've heard give a fairly good lay explanation of what happens during a sympatheic activation as it relates to the data collected by the components.  I haven't heard them all. Neither has he.
Even examinees with advanced degrees who aren't students of medicine are likely to have a great deal difficulty of following a text book explanation of the process.


Gee, that doesn't stop polygraph operators from lying to applicants by telling them that reactions on the machine mean deception.  In fact, the phrase "deception indicated" is the standard term used to describe reactions.  Which isn't true.  Examiners purposely LIE to applicants, and as such, are deceptive as Dr. Drew Richardson says.  

And if an applicant brings up the fact that a reaction DOES NOT necessarily mean what the examiner says it does, the examiner often gets all pissed off, or scoffs arrogantly at the applicant.  Or pontificates like an ole "poop"!
  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #18 - Mar 10th, 2009 at 11:45am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
The ONLY way to prove in a field situation that countermeasures are an effective way to pass a polygraph is for a liar or criminal to attempt countermeasures, lie on the relevant questions, pass the test, and then confirm that they were lying.

If you truly believe what you have written, then why are the statements of people who have told the truth and failed their polygraph dismissed as unimportant anectdotal evidence?

What is the difference in reliability between a person who says they lied but used countermeasures and passed, and a person who did nothing wrong, told the truth on their polygraph, and failed?  The liar admitted he was lying, so he is more trustworthy than the police applicant who has told the truth on his entire application? 

That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ed Earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #19 - Mar 10th, 2009 at 4:40pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
If you truly believe what you have written, then why are the statements of people who have told the truth and failed their polygraph dismissed as unimportant anecdotal evidence?


Sergeant I have never said that false positives don't occur. The problem with anecdotal evidence is three-fold:

1st an unsubstantiated claim isn't really proof

2nd anecdotal evidence of a false positive does not discriminate between problems with policy, problems with an individual examiner or problems with polygraph as a whole. The person relating the anecdote is generally ill qualified to determine the distinction between causative factors important to arriving at a definitive conclusion related to the cause of the false positive.

2nd and what I think is the more significant problem with anecdotal evidence presented on this board lies in the fact that there are an insufficient number of these claims to establish with a reasonable level of certainty that they represent any significant number greater that the known error rate from existing research. Anyone who failed a polygraph while telling the truth would logically and understandably feel that their experience was significant because of their personal involvement, but until the numbers of these claims exceed the known error rates from research they are statistically inconsequential.


moving along..
Where exactly in my post did I say that a mere admission by the examinee would be sufficient to "CONFIRM" they were lying for the purpose of proving the hypothesis that countermeasures are effective?  They would have to admit that they were both lying and attempting countermeasures, but confirmation might involve more corroboration. If you wish to conduct your research in that manner then we can critique your protocols after you obtain some quantifiable results. BUT EVEN IF IT WAS SUFFICIENT FOR CONFIRMATION, the process STILL requires a level of cooperation you are unlikely to obtain from people you really shouldn’t believe.

But the question was and is: Since it is unlikely countermeasure research will ever be able to effectively separate a successful countermeasure attempt from a false negative tends to render this opposing hypothesis,( that countermeasures work in field applications,)  proffered by TLBTHD virtually immeasurable; what qualifies the authors to criticize polygraph research considering there are a multitude of peer reviewed published research studies that show polygraph works in its stated purpose of detecting liars as rates significantly better than chance?  NAS questioned the likelihood that anyone would be able to learn and effectively implement countermeasures from reading books like TLBTLD.

Cullen you are putting forward a fallacious argument by generalization in that you are attempting to draw a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. That is the same problem with Drew Richardson's conclusion that "Polygraphers" lie at least seven times in every polygraph.

Guys, don't sell field practitioners short, Sergeant might tell you that the average street cop with a few years under his belt knows more about the field applied psychology than many doctors practicing psychotherapy even though the cop may have never even opened a copy of DSMV-IV. As an example: Those big cash and drug seizures you see about in the news that occur on highways. The vast majority of those seizures occur as a direct result of the psychological manipulation of a driver (approved by our courts) into surrendering his rights against self incrimination and his right to refuse a search of his vehicle. In an 8 hour school, rookie policemen are  taught the technique and turned loose on the public to seek drug dealers. But when the officer is wrong, you'll never hear about it on the news. Sergeant knows exactly the technique I am talking about and I would not be the least bit surprised to find out he has proven proficiency. When highway drug interdiction first started gaining popularity in the 80's cops and troopers who wouldn't get out of their car for anything short of a fatality started making traffic stops for failing to signal a lane change in order to put themselves in a lawful contact to implement the technique?

The vast majority of the kinesics clues that are taught to police officers by Reid, Inbau, Walters, Foster, et al are based on observation of visual clues pointing to an autonomic sympathetic reaction to question stimulus. There is far more psychological manipulation and manipulation of this reaction occurring in interview rooms or on the side of the highway clear across our country than occurs in most polygraph rooms.  

In closing Drew Richardson’s statment that all polygraphers lie at least seven times in any polygraph is no more accurate or supportable than claiming Columbus discovered the world was round.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #20 - Mar 10th, 2009 at 6:20pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Since you repeatedly refer to it, what is the known error rate of the polygraph during pre-employment testing?
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #21 - Mar 10th, 2009 at 6:30pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Cullen you are putting forward a fallacious argument by generalization in that you are attempting to draw a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. That is the same problem with Drew Richardson's conclusion that "Polygraphers" lie at least seven times in every polygraph.


The phrase "DECEPTION indicated" is not just used by "a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases".  It's routinely used by polygraphic interrogators to describe chart reactions.  Use of the term appears to be fairly standard.  And it is NOT true.  A reaction does not indicated 'deception", any more than blood in the stool indicates "cancer".

TC
  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ed Earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #22 - Mar 10th, 2009 at 7:43pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
You have obviously never read the definition of indicated.
Here's one http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indicated?qsrc=2888

Quote:
It's routinely used by polygraphic interrogators to describe chart reactions


Cullen you are AGAIN putting forward a fallacious argument by generalization in that you are attempting to draw a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. You are in no position to know what "examiners" routinely do which adds a second fallacious argument to your comment by your uninformed opinion. While the term Deception Indicated is used by polygraphers  to describe the results of an entire specific issue polygraph test it does not refer to any single reaction on a polygraph chart. The term Deception Indicated is not currently approved by APA as a finding for any screening protocol absent a specific issue breakdown test to clarify any reactions observed during screening. Your conclusions, like Drew Richardson’s statment that all polygraphers lie at least seven times in any polygraph is no more accurate or supportable than claiming Columbus discovered the world was round.


Sergeant the information for you to find that data is contained  in the NAS study and in the JAMA abstract that has been posted Ad Nauseum. Look it up if you need to. However, if a high error rate is established by legitimate research it just weakens your argument regarding the value and consequence of anecdotal claims, I see no need to "run the numbers for you in order to make my point, which was that unless the anecdotal claims establish a clear question of the existence hgher pecentages that known error rates established by research, then they are inconsequential.

I will acknowledge that depending on the protocols of the individual studies, error rates appear different. The NAS statistical example for security screening of 10,000 employees uses a 90% accuracy rate and reports potential false positives in the 15% range. The FBI reports unresolved failed pre-employment tests in the 7% range. Using their numbers, False positives will necessarily fall somewhere in the 1% to 7% range. Absent some method of verification, separating false positives from true positives isn't possible. This is why APA does not recomend that agencies base their hiring decisions solely on the results of a pre-employment polygraph test.

So Sergeant, have you ever engaged in any roadside psychological manuipulation in order to obtain a consent to search? Ever manipulated a drug trafficker into a lie by getting him to deny that he was carrying drugs or money and then once obtaining the denial asking him a double edged question to manipulate him in to consenting to a search. Does your agency condone that practice? Have you attended Reid or Walters' schools. What is the ratio of officers trained in kinesics interrogation techniques or drug interdiction to the number of polygraphers in your agency?  Just curious.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #23 - Mar 10th, 2009 at 8:17pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
It seems rather disingenuous to refer to "the error rate" and yet be unable to cite what that error rate is.  If you don't know what it is how can you be sure the error rate is not 80%?  Or 50%?  Or any other significantly high number?

I only bring this up because it seems to reinforce the belief that polygraph examiners simply believe their instrument is very accurate, which logically lends them no more credibility than people who believe the polygraph is not accurate.

Actually, since of the two people involved in any polygraph exam, only the examinee knows for certain if the results are accurate (barring any physical evidence that verifies the result), the examinee is a more credible judge of the polygraph's accuracy.

At the end of my first three polygraphs, the examiner believed I had been deceptive, whereas I knew I had been truthful.  The examiners believed their process was accurate, whereas I knew it was not.  Whose opinion should be given greater weight?  Especially since you have already written about the difficulty of obtaining accurate results in test subjects in laboratory conditions for whom there is not really anything tangible at stake, isn't anectdotal evidence all we have left?
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #24 - Mar 10th, 2009 at 9:08pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
While the term Deception Indicated is used by polygraphers  to describe the results of an entire specific issue polygraph test it does not refer to any single reaction on a polygraph chart.


Anonymous too/Ed Earl (sancho panza/phil queeg?),

And just what the hell is supposedly used to determine the "results of the entire specific polygraph test"?  Do polygraphers analyze the patterns on the chart, or the shape of the suspects toe nails?

You can't get around the fact that polygraphers claim the machine to be accurate in detecting deception.  Claims of 98% accuracy in determining deception abound.  

You can analyze chart patterns to your heart's content, submit it all to fancy computer algorithms, whatever, the underlying theory is that chart reactions indicate  "deception".   And, of course, that is a pseudo scientific falsehood!  GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT!

TC

P.S.  What's with the cyber multi-personality disorder.  Are you trying to make it appear that you are "many in number"?   Is that really necessary to make your case?

« Last Edit: Mar 10th, 2009 at 9:32pm by T.M. Cullen »  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box ed earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #25 - Mar 10th, 2009 at 11:52pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Cullen  Your arguments are overgeneralized and uninformed and your attacks are ad hominum.   Kindly address the arguments or don't address me at all
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ed Earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #26 - Mar 11th, 2009 at 12:02am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant I didn't say I didn't know what they were, I told you where to find them. I simply declined to post them for you because it has been my experience that if I were to quote the numbers, instead of responding to the numbers the members of this board would simply attack my representation of the reasearch. So go read them yourself, they are not hard to find. Post them if you feel they support your position but I encourage you to ise the research and not someone elses characterization of the research.

I think that the real reason that you want to get into a numbers argument on error rate is that you have found yourself unable to refute my comments.  I can certainly see why you would want to change the subject.

You are at the very least unwilling to respond to my questions about the way some cops and troopers seem to use deceipt and psychological manipulation to con drivers into waiving their rights.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ed Earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #27 - Mar 11th, 2009 at 12:07am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
One more thing Cullen responding to an accusation of overgeneralization with more generalization isn't really very effective.

Why do you suppose Columbus carried an astrolabe?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #28 - Mar 11th, 2009 at 12:37am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Cullen  Your arguments are overgeneralized and uninformed and your attacks are ad hominum.   Kindly address the arguments or don't address me at all


Mr. Anonymous too, Ed, or whoever you are today,

You're argument that I am overgeneralizing, when I am actually just giving the general facts, is itself an overgeneralization. 

TC

P.S.  How can I be perpetrating "ad hominem" attacks when you use multiple anonymous, fictional or literary monikers?   We don't actually know who you are.  At any rate, even if you used your REAL name, I was just presenting you with the facts you eschew.  OTOH, you falsely accused me of posting excerpts from the NAS report that you claimed didn't exist, which they did.  IOW, you lied.  Shame on you for such hypocrisies!

« Last Edit: Mar 11th, 2009 at 1:03am by T.M. Cullen »  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Twoblock
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 732
Location: AR.
Joined: Oct 15th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #29 - Mar 11th, 2009 at 8:31am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Columbus carried an astrolabe to gauge the height of STDs on his travels. Everyone knows that.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X