- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Seeker
- Oct 28, 2002, 01:18 AMHeartspounding:
I would have been one of those who dropped out. Not because of the suggestion that I be investigated, but at the continued practice of allowing this type of voodoo in light of all of the research done on this comic book writer's invention. I cannot play the part of the hypocrite and submit to a polygraph after having knowledge about its fallacy.
Would subjecting oneself to a psychological third-degree tantamount to mental rape make me a whimp. Perhaps in the eyes of some, but in the end to irresponsibly perpetuate this treacherous fraud is injudicious and negligent. There simply is no further valid debate on the pre-screening issue.
How do you put on a badge, swear an oath of truth and justice, then sit back and condone such an art? I don't want Ms. Cleo charged with the responsiblity of judging the character of my LE. I don't want her in a position to allow spies to continue their espionage, or to prohibit a desperately needed linguist from joining the ranks of our intelligence sector based upon a S.W.A.G...."slightly better than chance, and less than perfect."
I would have been one of those who dropped out. Not because of the suggestion that I be investigated, but at the continued practice of allowing this type of voodoo in light of all of the research done on this comic book writer's invention. I cannot play the part of the hypocrite and submit to a polygraph after having knowledge about its fallacy.
Would subjecting oneself to a psychological third-degree tantamount to mental rape make me a whimp. Perhaps in the eyes of some, but in the end to irresponsibly perpetuate this treacherous fraud is injudicious and negligent. There simply is no further valid debate on the pre-screening issue.
How do you put on a badge, swear an oath of truth and justice, then sit back and condone such an art? I don't want Ms. Cleo charged with the responsiblity of judging the character of my LE. I don't want her in a position to allow spies to continue their espionage, or to prohibit a desperately needed linguist from joining the ranks of our intelligence sector based upon a S.W.A.G...."slightly better than chance, and less than perfect."
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 27, 2002, 11:14 PMDear Heartspounding,
Thank you for throwing out a bone of something to discuss after a weekend full of tripe.
Your example of what the polygraph might prove useful for is exactly what it is useful for: the uneducated, naive, poor soul, who, as George M. might say, "believes that the colender that is wired to the refridgerator" can tell the difference between a lie and the truth. I guess the sad part about it is, would you want this person to have to make split second decisions between life and death when he comes to your house on a break-in and your family is on the second floor?
Let's face it, polygraph screening is a waste of time and money. Let's let it go the way of the dinosaur.
Thank you for throwing out a bone of something to discuss after a weekend full of tripe.
Your example of what the polygraph might prove useful for is exactly what it is useful for: the uneducated, naive, poor soul, who, as George M. might say, "believes that the colender that is wired to the refridgerator" can tell the difference between a lie and the truth. I guess the sad part about it is, would you want this person to have to make split second decisions between life and death when he comes to your house on a break-in and your family is on the second floor?
Let's face it, polygraph screening is a waste of time and money. Let's let it go the way of the dinosaur.
Posted by heartspounding
- Oct 27, 2002, 11:03 PMIndulge my slightly disjointed post...
I suspect you guys won't agree... But even after my own personal hell-fire of rage after a few PD pre-emp polys, I think that it's a GREAT tool for pre-screening, IF -- and it's a big 'if'...
IF, the actual results of the poly weren't considered by the agency in question.
For instance, after taking the poly and having the department completing a diligent b/g invest, the agency took you into a room and said, "Your background's great. You were a real champ sticking w/ it during your XXX # of polys..."
Everybody's a winner. Gotta be in it to win it, et al...
In other words, I think it's a great tool to weed out flakes and nervous-types that would bury their head if confronted w/ a hairy scene on the streets...
I read somewhere that when LAPD made the poly a mandatory step in the hiring process, out of the 60 plus that were scheduled, something like 25 or 30 canidates simply didn't show up to the poly exam... Dropped out w/o a whimper.
I suspect you guys won't agree... But even after my own personal hell-fire of rage after a few PD pre-emp polys, I think that it's a GREAT tool for pre-screening, IF -- and it's a big 'if'...
IF, the actual results of the poly weren't considered by the agency in question.
For instance, after taking the poly and having the department completing a diligent b/g invest, the agency took you into a room and said, "Your background's great. You were a real champ sticking w/ it during your XXX # of polys..."
Everybody's a winner. Gotta be in it to win it, et al...
In other words, I think it's a great tool to weed out flakes and nervous-types that would bury their head if confronted w/ a hairy scene on the streets...
I read somewhere that when LAPD made the poly a mandatory step in the hiring process, out of the 60 plus that were scheduled, something like 25 or 30 canidates simply didn't show up to the poly exam... Dropped out w/o a whimper.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 27, 2002, 02:13 PMSeeker,
You're absolutely right! That caller raised an excellent point. The widespread practice of shoving a liability waiver under the noses of polygraph subjects is strong evidence that the polygraph community, which professes to be "dedicated to truth" (American Polygraph Association motto), has little confidence in its abilities.
I think it's questionable whether such liability waivers should carry any legal weight. Those who sign cannot be said to have given informed consent to a polygraph examination, since polygraph practice requires that the subject be deliberately misled about the nature of the procedure. This element of fraud on the part of the polygrapher should equitably vitiate any waiver of rights signed by a polygraph examinee.
You're absolutely right! That caller raised an excellent point. The widespread practice of shoving a liability waiver under the noses of polygraph subjects is strong evidence that the polygraph community, which professes to be "dedicated to truth" (American Polygraph Association motto), has little confidence in its abilities.
I think it's questionable whether such liability waivers should carry any legal weight. Those who sign cannot be said to have given informed consent to a polygraph examination, since polygraph practice requires that the subject be deliberately misled about the nature of the procedure. This element of fraud on the part of the polygrapher should equitably vitiate any waiver of rights signed by a polygraph examinee.
Posted by Seeker
- Oct 25, 2002, 07:27 AMGeorge:
I especially found merit in the caller's statement about he disclaimer that a polygrapher askes the examanee to sign.
Why SHOULD a polygrapher be absolved from any recourse should he or she inaccurately administer the test, or not be held accountable for false positives AND false negatives?
I totally understand and accept the legalities and liabilities of insurance that could potentially be the basis for these disclaimers, but when our federal agencies tout their polygraphs as being this magical truth serium that is infallible, shouldn't someone bear the brunt of this liability other than the honest, now tarnished, civillian? Or, are those just acceptable causalties of war now?Puhlease!
I especially found merit in the caller's statement about he disclaimer that a polygrapher askes the examanee to sign.
Why SHOULD a polygrapher be absolved from any recourse should he or she inaccurately administer the test, or not be held accountable for false positives AND false negatives?
I totally understand and accept the legalities and liabilities of insurance that could potentially be the basis for these disclaimers, but when our federal agencies tout their polygraphs as being this magical truth serium that is infallible, shouldn't someone bear the brunt of this liability other than the honest, now tarnished, civillian? Or, are those just acceptable causalties of war now?Puhlease!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 24, 2002, 05:59 PMThe "Washington Journal" program with Dr. Paul Stern may now be watched on-line on demand at:
http://www.c-span.org/journal/
Scroll down to find the link to the polygraph segment.
http://www.c-span.org/journal/
Scroll down to find the link to the polygraph segment.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 24, 2002, 08:41 AMC-SPAN's "Washington Journal" program featured a live call-in program on polygraph screening this morning (Thursday, 24 Oct.). From the C-SPAN.org website:
QuoteStern, Paul, Director, National Research Council, Polygraph Testing Study
Mr. Stern will discuss the National Research Council's study on polygraph testing. Their final report, released earlier this month, concluded that polygraph examinations are too inaccurate for the federal government to rely on for screening prospective or current employees to identify spies or national-security risks. He will respond to audience telephone calls, faxes and electronic mail.