|
Author
|
Topic: Stupid Does Hurt
|
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 10-18-2010 04:26 PM
 
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - A Washington State Patrol manager arriving at the Olympia headquarters for a meeting noticed a book on the seat of a parked car about "how to beat the lie detector." The Patrol said Criminal Records Manager Heather Anderson called the Human Resources division last Wednesday and was told a job candidate was in the process of taking a polygraph exam.When the patrol matched the candidate to the car he was told he would not be considered for the job, a civilian manager in the property management division. Spokesman Dan Coon said Tuesday that past misdemeanors, such as marijuana possession, don't automatically disqualify someone for a job with the patrol, but lying does. [This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 10-18-2010).] IP: Logged |
cpolys
Member
|
posted 10-18-2010 05:56 PM
This makes me consider several interesting questions. Here are a couple of them:1. Do we expect that an intelligent individual will not attempt to obtain information and knowledge regarding a testing process in which they are required to submit?
2. Do we want to employ individuals in law enforcement who submit to a process without first attempting to obtain information and knowledge regarding the process? 3. Do we want to hire individuals who only obtain information from a single source or reference point (e.g. background investigator/polygraph examiner who potentially informs an examinee that a polygraph screening examination is 98% accurate when research suggests otherwise)? 4. Is there empirical support to suggest that obtaining knowledge regarding polygraph is a poor predictor of employee success, etc.? 5. What argument will this or any other department make when the decision to eliminate the individual from further consideration of employment for potentially reading a book is challenged by an attorney, the ACLU, etc.? How will they respond to questions like these? [This message has been edited by cpolys (edited 10-18-2010).] IP: Logged |
ckieso
Member
|
posted 10-18-2010 09:06 PM
Marty, I think the point is that the book is titled "How to beat the lie detector." This, to me, implies an attempt to 'cheat' on the examination. I think it is fine for an examinee to ask questions about the polygraph and to inquire from others about the polygraph procedure. But, when a person actually purchases or downloads information on how to 'cheat' the polygraph I think that is a sign of that person's character and intent. Would we allow applicants to try and cheat on any other type of assessment i.e. urinalysis assessment, drug test, psychological evaluation, etc., etc.?? IP: Logged |
cpolys
Member
|
posted 10-19-2010 12:49 AM
I understand the point completely. The intent is to think beyond the superficial point and ask questions about our assumptions and assertions. Was this a wise decision for the individual to the book with them on the day of the examination? Of course it wasn’t. Do I expect that many individuals will chose to read such material and not use the information provided? Of course I do. However, in the absence of any actual cheating behavior during the examination, is there a sound argument that reading the information and bringing it with them is sufficient for elimination from the selection process. What if an individual admits during the interview that they researched information regarding the polygraph? Does that indicate intent to cheat? Should they be eliminated from the selection process? I’m not attempting to badger here or argue that they shouldn't, that isn't my point, my intent is to pose the arguments for discussion. The information contained in these materials claim to represent the limitations of polygraph. I can assert that that if I was to undergo a testing procedure, such as a psychological evaluation, I would attempt to obtain as much information as possible regarding the strengths, limitations, error rates, etc. of all tests involved in the process. Does this mean I intend to cheat? Of course it doesn’t. My primary interest is in the decision making process and how polygraph professionals intend to make constructive arguments if and when they need to be made. These cases have a tendency to attract a substantial amount of attention and there are individuals that seek to exploit these situations.
[This message has been edited by cpolys (edited 10-19-2010).] IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 10-19-2010 08:39 AM
Being armed with the information about the book in the possession of the applicant, I think it would have been prudent for the examiner, as part of the pre-test interview, to ask the applicant about his knowledge, training and/or recent study concerning the polygraph technique and countermeasures designed to defeat the testing procedure. If the applicant then denies that he/she has recently studied the polygraph technique or denies having made inquiries into polygraph countermeasures or purchases of materials, then the applicant has clearly lied unless he could rationally explain the possession of the book in question being in his possession.I do agree that an applicant who merely researchs polygraph, or any other test, even research on countermeasures should not automatically remove the candidate from consideration for employment. Lying about it is a different issue. In this age of information and the availabilty of that information on the internet, I would be concerned if a candidate answered no to the question have you looked up or studies polygraph in preparation for your test today? I'm not sure we want a police officer who has so little curiosity that he wouldn't at least read something on the subject prior to the examination. IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 10-19-2010 02:52 PM
If you went to the doctor today and he told you to come back next Monday so he could administer "The Blue Pen Test", chances are, you would go to the internet to find out the following:1. What is a Blue Pen?
2. Where does it go?
3. Who is going to put it there?
4. Does it hurt? That folks, is simple human nature. If you went to the internet to lean how to trick, cheat or defeat the "Blue Pen Test" that is a whole different story. Ted
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 10-19-2010 03:57 PM
I read George's book as part of my research to figure out if I wanted to get into this field - before I took my test to get into polygraph school (and before I knew I was going to have to take a test). I also reviewed some of Matte's book and some other things. I'd probably look up the blue test - or whatever you said, Ted - even if I had no idea somebody claimed a method to cheat. Would I read it when I found out? That's like telling a kid not to hunt for Christmas presents: it's an invitation. And, that's why this site is important. We should probably offer the "antidote" in book form too. IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 10-20-2010 09:18 AM
We should put the Honts/Alloway study on this site with a big "WARNING" notice, explained in layman's terms that use of countermeasures, as described by the internet "experts" actually hurts the innocent and does little to help the guilty.The Maschkes of the internet will claim otherwise and many will give "big fish story" accounts of their alleged success at beating the polygraph, but a well presented scientific study would carry a lot of weight with smart people. IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 10-20-2010 10:54 AM
I agree. Recall that Lou Rovner found the same thing in his earlier study for his dissertation research. We've got a short version of that study in Polygraph too.IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 10-29-2010 08:19 PM
Skip,Can you post that study or a link to it? THX Ted IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 10-30-2010 11:44 AM
http://truth.boisestate.edu:16080/EYESONLY/HontsPublications/Honts&Alloway(2007).pdf IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 10-30-2010 05:54 PM
Thanks Barry!Ted IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 11-01-2010 07:05 PM
I have all of George's and Doug Williams' stuff on display in my waiting area. Clifton's book is there too. It tells the countermeasure users that I have seen and studied their "playbook".Ted IP: Logged |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
