Where have you been? the movement started 10+ years ago, and in that time, at least three more federal agencies have added polygraph programs.  Get real!  We're not going away;  but idiots who attempt countermeasures ARE!

quickfix wrote on Nov 5^th, 2011 at 2:54pm:

My dear Quickfix. I hope you can find the courage to stop digging in your heels and really try to perceive the damage that is being done to people through the abuse of the instrument you hold so dear. Perhaps some dirt bags may have been filtered out of the hiring process, but the majority of the posters here are decent candidates trying to serve in a law enforcement capacity. 

Regarding the polygraph technique, I know as much as any, and more than most. I don't see it being properly employed: There are no successive hurdles as promoted by the APA and the "examiners" are given free and unfettered reign to impose their will with no oversight. 

While some haphazard attempts to affect the polygraph charts may be detectable, properly executed mental countermeasures are impossible to detect. And the reason for that is the human body will produce psycho-physiological reactions to a stimulus regardless of the origin. There is no difference between an externally applied stimulus and one that originates in the brain--the resulting psycho-physiological reactions are identical.

Your assertion that you are not "going away" may be undermined as the collateral damage piles up and law makers begin to take notice, just as they did prior to the enactment of the the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988.

Quickfix, you really should read the details of what people post before launching one your vituperative Attila the Hun tirades. I never indicated that the EPPA related to the feds. I simply said that lawmakers may begin to see the damage being done and act in a similar manner.

"that's why we have quality control oversight in the federal community.  Inept, incompetant [sic], and/or unethical examiners are not tolerated, and weeded out" 

Really? I have never seen anything to support this. If you can substantiate this claim, it would steal much fire from the posters on this website.

quickfix wrote on Nov 8^th, 2011 at 8:06pm:

And what about the people like myself who did not attempt countermeasures and were wrongly accused of lying?  Do I and others like me deserve that fate as well?

The answer, of course, is no.  Anyone who answers all questions truthfully and does not withhold any information during a polygraph examination should NEVER fail.  It really is that simple.

Regarding Bill Brown's post, I don't believe it is possible to verify whether a test subject is untrained in countermeasures, which appears to be part of the "given" set of data in the cited study.  Also, a median accuracy of 89 percent in seven studies is irrelevant unless the scores of each are given, since "median" simply means it was the middle number in a list of accuracy scores.

Possible Accuracy Scores:
Test #1= 1% accurate
Test#2= 2% accurate
Test#3 = 3% accurate
Test#4= 89% accurate
Test#5= 90% accurate
Test#6= 91% accurate
Test#7= 92% accurate

That would give you a "median" accuracy of 89%, but an average accuracy (assuming each test contained the same number of data points) of 52.5%, which would be a far more accurate description of the data.

Bill_Brown wrote on Nov 9^th, 2011 at 6:40am:

Bill Brown,

My post was not intended to be an attack on you.  You wrote that an analysis of seven studies involving specific incidents showed a median accuracy of 89 percent.  My response was entirely correct and on point.  Providing the median accuracy of a set of tests is meaningless, since the median is nothing more than the middle number of a set.  A median of 89 percent could mean three tests were 88% accurate, three were 90% accurate, and one was 89% accurate, or it could mean three were 1% accurate, three were 100% accurate, and one was 89% percent accurate.  The median of both sets is 89%, but you can see how meaningless that number is.

Providing the average accuracy of the seven studies would be informative, as would providing the actual accuracy of each study.  Providing the median really does nothing except imply that the median was higher than the average (otherwise the average would have been used, since it is much more informative.)

Quote:


No More Poly,

Thank you for sharing this information. The policy that Sheldon Cohen describes in his article is of tremendous significance. In view of this information, I think it would be prudent for anyone seeking a career in public service, or with a government contractor, to avoid applying for any position that requires polygraph screening.

PS: Owing to an ongoing wave of attempted spam postings to this forum, guest posting has been indefinitely suspended.

You will need to include the standard url prefix for that web address to work.  I couldn't post a link since I'm a guest