posted 10-28-2005 11:49 AM            

George,

True enough! Although, if my wife gets a bad hair cut you would think it was a life altering event.

I guess the lesson in this is many people go to school for many different things. Having a certificate on your wall doesn't mean you are competent, just that you passed the exam to get the certificate.

I guess a better example would be a Medical Doctor. Doctors spend many years earning their degree, becoming licensed to practice medicine, yet you and I both know there are doctors out there that we wouldn't want cutting off a hang-nail much less any other type of medical proceedure.

Now, I know the comparison from a polygraph examiner to a medical doctor is weak at best, so let's look at something a little closer in nature. Let's say a sonigram technician. A person using a machine to interpret signals from that machine in order to help make a diagnosis. Sounds almost like a polygraph. Technically a sonigram would be a monograph (single output).

The instrument or device isn't the issue. Both are machines, which if the machine itself is calibrated properly is unbiased and infallible. It's the technician behind the machine. One technician can look at the output and come up with a different diagnosis than another. The same issues arise with sonigrams as with polygraph. All humans have similar anatomy, but they do differ from person to person. Sonigrams aren't 100% either and the decisions made using a sonigram can be the difference between life and death, yet we continue to use them too.

But, here's the difference... The medical community has many different tests they can run to diagnose a problem. None of those tests on their own are 100% accurate. They combine the use of several tests to make a diagnosis. One test may be an indicator of a medical problem, but one or two more tests will be done to confirm and or clarify the issue.

That's why I believe the conclusion of any polygraph test should be validated by other means. Background check, drug testing, interrogation. The polygraph alone should not be the sole determining factor in any decision, be it legal or employment related.

I beleive the polygraph exam has a place and that it will never be eliminated. I do believe that the use of polygraph exams should be strictly regulated to the same standars of other diagnostic testing such as sonograms, cardiograms. Those tests are highly standardized and therefore less likely to produce errors in the results. I think the underlying issues with polygraph exams is there is not true standardization.

If the standardization ever happens, the I think you will see a drastic improvement in both the quality and effectiveness. But, for now, you have some states, like Arizona where you don't even have to be licensed. You buy a machine, take a couple of courses and put your add in the yellow pages. Tada! Your an examiner.

But, I do believe there are examiners out there who are competent, and can effectively use the device to identify deception. Unfortunately they are few and far between, in my opinion. Most of them prefer not to engage in the discussions on this site, and I think that is a pitty.

So, where does that leave all of us???? Well, that's the real question. I'm not saying if you can't beat them, join them. But I don't see anyone gaining any ground at this point. Since we know that polygraph is going to be around for a long time, shouldn't we at least be attempting to get the standardization in place first? At the same time, loby for laws which will prevent polygraph from being used as a sole determination for employment? The law should include language which would prevent a DI or Inconclusive exam from being used against a person where there is no other evidence of deception found by other methods.

Ok, I ran out of ideas and need to eat lunch anyway. I look forward to the replies I'm sure this post will generate. Hopefully this post will add to meaningful discussion rather than my last post made strictly for comic relief.