- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Steve_H
- Feb 24, 2006, 02:47 AMDimas,
Well written and explained...point came across loud and clear!!
Well written and explained...point came across loud and clear!!
Posted by dimas
- Jan 25, 2006, 03:45 PMContraTyrannos,
It unfortunately seems that while you read my response you didn't manage to "READ" it and understand it.
Dippityshurff read and understood my post and responded with a well thought out explanation.
It seems to me that you are somewhat blinded by your personal dislike for these tests that have kept you out of law enforcement and fail to see it from the law enforcement perspective.
I did not say that these are perfect, but merely that they are tools that are used in the hiring process. You asked if I was going to defend a comment and I DID., simply because you didn't like my defense does not make it invalid. But to better help you here you go:
Are they stupid?
Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job
No, I do not think that psych tests or even polygraphy are any of the above.
Are they junk science?
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
No they are not "junk science" as they fit within the definitions of science and they have in fact kept undesirables out of LE. They are a "science", not a perfect one but far from junk as well.
I really wish I could give you names of the serial killers excluded from LE, but unfortunately it was something I was made aware of by watching one of those A&E type specials on serial killers a few years ago and for the life of me I can't remember their names and if I had the ability to remember tid bits and facts like those at will, I would be quite rich and definitely not working in LE.
While I completely agree that qualified potential employees are kept out of law enforcement by both the polygraph and the psych test, I think that often times in an imperfect world you must put up with imperfect methods, but they are the best we have right now.
I have said this before and will repeat it again, we tell our children to run to the police and trust the police and if these tools keep out just a few of the twisted f**ks that prey on children and women through their position of authority, then I think it is well worth the risk that on occasion a qualified applicant is also excluded. That is just my opinion, but it is one I stand by.
It unfortunately seems that while you read my response you didn't manage to "READ" it and understand it.
Dippityshurff read and understood my post and responded with a well thought out explanation.
It seems to me that you are somewhat blinded by your personal dislike for these tests that have kept you out of law enforcement and fail to see it from the law enforcement perspective.
I did not say that these are perfect, but merely that they are tools that are used in the hiring process. You asked if I was going to defend a comment and I DID., simply because you didn't like my defense does not make it invalid. But to better help you here you go:
Are they stupid?
Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job
No, I do not think that psych tests or even polygraphy are any of the above.
Are they junk science?
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
No they are not "junk science" as they fit within the definitions of science and they have in fact kept undesirables out of LE. They are a "science", not a perfect one but far from junk as well.
I really wish I could give you names of the serial killers excluded from LE, but unfortunately it was something I was made aware of by watching one of those A&E type specials on serial killers a few years ago and for the life of me I can't remember their names and if I had the ability to remember tid bits and facts like those at will, I would be quite rich and definitely not working in LE.
While I completely agree that qualified potential employees are kept out of law enforcement by both the polygraph and the psych test, I think that often times in an imperfect world you must put up with imperfect methods, but they are the best we have right now.
I have said this before and will repeat it again, we tell our children to run to the police and trust the police and if these tools keep out just a few of the twisted f**ks that prey on children and women through their position of authority, then I think it is well worth the risk that on occasion a qualified applicant is also excluded. That is just my opinion, but it is one I stand by.
Posted by ContraTyrannos
- Jan 24, 2006, 01:45 PM---- I'm sure much better men than Tom Cruise would agree with me. Leo Strauss comes to mind. But that aside, let's look at your comments.
"Unfortunately, in LE you take a great risk in hiring people. You give them a gun and authority, which most people are not ready to handle, nor have the attitude, maturity, integrity or responsibility to handle."
---- Isn't this the argument used to justify polygraphy? Does it make polygraphy scientific?
"Are they stupid or junk science, not really."
---- Are you going to defend this comment at all?
They have all, also been followed up by an interview with a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist.
---- And this fact makes the test scientific? Even if I were to grant that a psychologist is a scientist (which I do not) that would not make personality testing scientific.
"There have been at least two cases in which I recall serial killers attempted to make it on to police agencies in the past and what kept them out was the psych test. In my opinion I would think it in fact worked."
---- I'm sure that some bad people were weeded with the polygraph, too. Does that make the polygraph scientific? Or does it mean that the polygraph worked? What department was this? Can you supply a reference? How many potentially outstanding employees were weeded out with the psych test unfairly and unscientifically? For the record, pre-employment screening with personality assessments might catch obvious pathology, but that's not why they are used. They are used to see if the applicant meets a certain "profile" that matches other police officers. That's nothing more than an appeal to consensus (which is a classical fallacy). Who says the most common profile is the optimal profile? Wouldn't you expect an exceptional LEO to have an exceptional profile? Where is the science? You can codify star charts, too. That doesn't make astrology scientific.
"Unfortunately, in LE you take a great risk in hiring people. You give them a gun and authority, which most people are not ready to handle, nor have the attitude, maturity, integrity or responsibility to handle."
---- Isn't this the argument used to justify polygraphy? Does it make polygraphy scientific?
"Are they stupid or junk science, not really."
---- Are you going to defend this comment at all?
They have all, also been followed up by an interview with a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist.
---- And this fact makes the test scientific? Even if I were to grant that a psychologist is a scientist (which I do not) that would not make personality testing scientific.
"There have been at least two cases in which I recall serial killers attempted to make it on to police agencies in the past and what kept them out was the psych test. In my opinion I would think it in fact worked."
---- I'm sure that some bad people were weeded with the polygraph, too. Does that make the polygraph scientific? Or does it mean that the polygraph worked? What department was this? Can you supply a reference? How many potentially outstanding employees were weeded out with the psych test unfairly and unscientifically? For the record, pre-employment screening with personality assessments might catch obvious pathology, but that's not why they are used. They are used to see if the applicant meets a certain "profile" that matches other police officers. That's nothing more than an appeal to consensus (which is a classical fallacy). Who says the most common profile is the optimal profile? Wouldn't you expect an exceptional LEO to have an exceptional profile? Where is the science? You can codify star charts, too. That doesn't make astrology scientific.
Posted by newcomer
- Jan 23, 2006, 11:59 PMHey,
I just got back from my psych evaluation. :-/
I arrived early and waited patiently in the waiting room, all the while imagining everything horrible that could happen in there... I don't recommend this.
The psychologist came out to get me and we proceeded back to his office. He introduced himself and after some pleasantries we got down to business.
He started out by asking me why I wanted to be in LE. I replied with the whole helping people thing and job stability. He asked things like who do you live with and tell me why you are proud of yourself. He asked about past drug use and mentioned everything I had done that was not so legal and had me explain them. He did not share my scores on any of the tests with me, however he did share the results of the IQ test I took.
which one was that there were so many... anyways. He asked about my status single or boyfriend. We discussed my driving record which is good, only one speeding ticket. All in all everything else that sent up a red flag I assume they will have you explain.
I must say I was very nervous... but it went well. The psychologist said that he wasn't allowed to tell me how I did and that I will get a letter in the mail in about ten days. I hope this helps everyone!
I just got back from my psych evaluation. :-/
I arrived early and waited patiently in the waiting room, all the while imagining everything horrible that could happen in there... I don't recommend this.
The psychologist came out to get me and we proceeded back to his office. He introduced himself and after some pleasantries we got down to business.
He started out by asking me why I wanted to be in LE. I replied with the whole helping people thing and job stability. He asked things like who do you live with and tell me why you are proud of yourself. He asked about past drug use and mentioned everything I had done that was not so legal and had me explain them. He did not share my scores on any of the tests with me, however he did share the results of the IQ test I took.
which one was that there were so many... anyways. He asked about my status single or boyfriend. We discussed my driving record which is good, only one speeding ticket. All in all everything else that sent up a red flag I assume they will have you explain.I must say I was very nervous... but it went well. The psychologist said that he wasn't allowed to tell me how I did and that I will get a letter in the mail in about ten days. I hope this helps everyone!
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jan 19, 2006, 02:20 AMQuote from: dimas on Jan 18, 2006, 07:25 PMEosJupiter,
I am curious how you can say a department that neither does a psychological screening nor a polygraph screening is progressive. If I am not mistaken, Dippityshurff, works for a small county department, therefore, both the polygraph and psychological are more than likely associated with the cost of such tests in addition to the cost of the background investigation.
Believe it or not departments can and do run a thorough and complete background investigation as well as a psychological test and a polygraph test (I would call these departments progressive). Do these weed out all of the bad apples? Of course not, but they weed out quite a few of them. They are all flawed and some sneak through the cracks, but you are more likely to catch the bad apples through these methods than not. I just don't see how you can call it unnecessary crap. Unless of course you have been one of the ones that was dismissed from the hiring process because of one of these methods.
Dimas,
Any organization with the forthright effort to do detailed BIs, and not rely on Psych/Poly testing, shows to me anyways a proven and realiable ability to judge the candidate from a proven position based on a true and accurate sets of facts. It expensive but well worth the effort. I appreciate the fact that the tougher right is always better than the short cut wrong, which the poly and Psych tests are. Facts win everytime.
I have never applied to be a LEO, not my cup of tea. So no I was never dismissed. And I have passed every poly ever given of me. Countermeasures and all :-)
Regards ....
Posted by newcomer
- Jan 19, 2006, 02:08 AMHi,
I just took a Psych test on Saturday (boy what a load of crap). Anyway, I meet with the psychologist on Monday the 23rd. I will keep everybody posted.
My medical exam is on Tuesday the 24th. These are the last hoops I have to jump through before they make their decision. Wish me luck!
I just took a Psych test on Saturday (boy what a load of crap
). Anyway, I meet with the psychologist on Monday the 23rd. I will keep everybody posted.My medical exam is on Tuesday the 24th. These are the last hoops I have to jump through before they make their decision. Wish me luck!
Posted by DippityShurff
- Jan 18, 2006, 10:30 PMQuote from: EosJupiter on Jan 18, 2006, 02:10 AM
Dippity,
I like the rational and thought provoking comment, Something that a thinking person might do. Your department sounds like a very progressive and well managed group. Your not over done by unnessary crap.
And a thorough BI, is always the right answer. But they are not cheap. Hence the reliance on Polys and other various testing.
Good to have your opinion on the board
Regards
I must say that we are faced with diminished resources, plus the need for the GBI to keep their polygraph examiners at work constantly. While we have gone, over my objection to polygraph fishing expeditions in the pre employment process, we are satisifed that psychologicals have not served the law enforcement community well. Therefore, we have not to date used them. I once said that polygraphs would not be used. I lost that one. Hopefully, we can keep enough in the budget to avoid what I believe are flawed psychological tests. Yes, I suppose they can be defended, but there is never, ever a substitute for a thorough, AND EXPENSIVE BI.
At the same time, we don't eliminate those who may otherwise fall through the cracks. Except for the polygraph we we now use. oooops.
Have a prosperous '06.
Posted by DippityShurff
- Jan 18, 2006, 10:20 PMQuote from: dimas on Jan 18, 2006, 07:25 PMEosJupiter,
I am curious how you can say a department that neither does a psychological screening nor a polygraph screening is progressive. If I am not mistaken, Dippityshurff, works for a small county department, therefore, both the polygraph and psychological are more than likely associated with the cost of such tests in addition to the cost of the background investigation.
Believe it or not departments can and do run a thorough and complete background investigation as well as a psychological test and a polygraph test (I would call these departments progressive). Do these weed out all of the bad apples? Of course not, but they weed out quite a few of them. They are all flawed and some sneak through the cracks, but you are more likely to catch the bad apples through these methods than not. I just don't see how you can call it unnecessary crap. Unless of course you have been one of the ones that was dismissed from the hiring process because of one of these methods.
hopefully I can help. I don't call my Agency progressive. That is to be judged by others who can define what progressive may mean. We don't do psychological screenings because we haven't needed them. As you may remember in my message to George, recently, in the face of budget cuts, we went to polygraph screenings over my vote. Simply put, I was outvoted. This is a metro Atlanta Agency and by no stretch is it small. In the days of larger budgets, we were able to assign substantial resources to BI and have had great luck with them resulting in far fewer dismissals versus those Agencies with psych/polygraph screening alone. I hope this helps
Posted by dimas
- Jan 18, 2006, 07:25 PMEosJupiter,
I am curious how you can say a department that neither does a psychological screening nor a polygraph screening is progressive. If I am not mistaken, Dippityshurff, works for a small county department, therefore, both the polygraph and psychological are more than likely associated with the cost of such tests in addition to the cost of the background investigation.
Believe it or not departments can and do run a thorough and complete background investigation as well as a psychological test and a polygraph test (I would call these departments progressive). Do these weed out all of the bad apples? Of course not, but they weed out quite a few of them. They are all flawed and some sneak through the cracks, but you are more likely to catch the bad apples through these methods than not. I just don't see how you can call it unnecessary crap. Unless of course you have been one of the ones that was dismissed from the hiring process because of one of these methods.
I am curious how you can say a department that neither does a psychological screening nor a polygraph screening is progressive. If I am not mistaken, Dippityshurff, works for a small county department, therefore, both the polygraph and psychological are more than likely associated with the cost of such tests in addition to the cost of the background investigation.
Believe it or not departments can and do run a thorough and complete background investigation as well as a psychological test and a polygraph test (I would call these departments progressive). Do these weed out all of the bad apples? Of course not, but they weed out quite a few of them. They are all flawed and some sneak through the cracks, but you are more likely to catch the bad apples through these methods than not. I just don't see how you can call it unnecessary crap. Unless of course you have been one of the ones that was dismissed from the hiring process because of one of these methods.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Jan 18, 2006, 02:10 AMQuote from: Dippityshurff on Jan 17, 2006, 10:01 PM
We don't do pysch testing. We don't do it because it's too easy to replace a great and thorough BI with some easy fix. In addition, an Agency right down the road does do it. They also polygraph. Hasn't seemed to catch their miscreants even once.
Dippity,
I like the rational and thought provoking comment, Something that a thinking person might do. Your department sounds like a very progressive and well managed group. Your not over done by unnessary crap.
And a thorough BI, is always the right answer. But they are not cheap. Hence the reliance on Polys and other various testing.
Good to have your opinion on the board
Regards
Posted by DippityShurff
- Jan 17, 2006, 10:01 PMQuote from: ContraTyrannos on Jan 13, 2006, 10:25 PMJust wondering if anyone has had trouble passing this "test." I personally think that psychological testing also falls into the category of "junk science."
We don't do pysch testing. We don't do it because it's too easy to replace a great and thorough BI with some easy fix. In addition, an Agency right down the road does do it. They also polygraph. Hasn't seemed to catch their miscreants even once.
Posted by dimas
- Jan 16, 2006, 09:31 PMContratyrannos,
I am quite sure that Tom Cruise would agree with you on this matter. Unfortunately, in LE you take a great risk in hiring people. You give them a gun and authority, which most people are not ready to handle, nor have the attitude, maturity, integrity or responsibility to handle.
While I have taken my share of psychological tests and find it hard to believe that anyone would fail one of these, it is merely another tool used by agencies to attempt to screen out those who would more than likely not make it in LE.
Are they stupid or junk science, not really. They have all, also been followed up by an interview with a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist. There have been at least two cases in which I recall serial killers attempted to make it on to police agencies in the past and what kept them out was the psych test. In my opinion I would think it in fact worked.
I am quite sure that Tom Cruise would agree with you on this matter. Unfortunately, in LE you take a great risk in hiring people. You give them a gun and authority, which most people are not ready to handle, nor have the attitude, maturity, integrity or responsibility to handle.
While I have taken my share of psychological tests and find it hard to believe that anyone would fail one of these, it is merely another tool used by agencies to attempt to screen out those who would more than likely not make it in LE.
Are they stupid or junk science, not really. They have all, also been followed up by an interview with a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist. There have been at least two cases in which I recall serial killers attempted to make it on to police agencies in the past and what kept them out was the psych test. In my opinion I would think it in fact worked.
Posted by ContraTyrannos
- Jan 13, 2006, 10:25 PMJust wondering if anyone has had trouble passing this "test." I personally think that psychological testing also falls into the category of "junk science."