- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 05, 2003, 10:20 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Jan 04, 2003, 02:53 PMOnce again,
And once again, even if this latter problem did not exist (along with the basic theoretical considerations), those polygraph programs that do not audio/video tape examinations provide no conceivable opportunity for quality assurance programs to accomplish this(ese) needed task(s).
Thank you Mr. Richardson for your concise and articulate opinion.
Regards.
Posted by Twoblock
- Jan 04, 2003, 07:48 PMTouche
Re: your subject "judge, jury, and executioner"
Haven't you seen enough posts to respond or, are you (like) PolyLawMan "hit and run"? He says the government has "0 tol"
of being lied to. I wonder what he thinks about the government constantly lieing to us? The ones who pay their lieing salaries.
Re: your subject "judge, jury, and executioner"
Haven't you seen enough posts to respond or, are you (like) PolyLawMan "hit and run"? He says the government has "0 tol"
of being lied to. I wonder what he thinks about the government constantly lieing to us? The ones who pay their lieing salaries.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Jan 04, 2003, 02:53 PMMark,
Best Wishes and Happy New Year. You are quite correct in the assessment that you made in your last post. I was told a number of years ago by a member of a well known quality assurance (more about that notion shortly) program that his group never over turned a DI call by the original examiner to a NDI result (would occasionally change to INCL) but would occasionally completely overturn a NDI original examiner call.
Aside from this prejudicial practice, the term quality assurance in the polygraph world generally indicates less than applies with other practices. What is generally reviewed is question choice and polygraph scoring (along with basic instrument operation and chart notation). Unfortunately these two areas are not the weaknesses of control question test polygraphy which in turn, unfortunately, are not and can not be meaningfully addressed by existing quality assurance programs. With regard to what is done...polygraph scoring is relatively reliably (albeit not accurately) done--it is fairly easy and routine for a group of beginning polygraph students to be able to score polygrams arriving at similar qualitative and quantitative endpoints. Very little is gained in this area by review of senior polygraph personnel. With regard to question formulation, the process for relevant questions is rather simple minded. The elements of the crime are simply presented in interrogatory form, i.e., for a bank robbery a logical relevant question would be "Did you rob the bank?" As David Lykken would say, hardly rocket science
Control question selection is largely a matter of choosing from a list of approved questions for various subject/investigative areas, again hardly a difficult task requiring a great deal of oversight.
I believe the reason polygraph "quality assurance" programs are largely meaningless is that the real problem with probable-lie CQT is the lack of a theoretical basis for the test in the first place (i.e., fear of consequences vs. fear of (lie) detection mechanism discussed elsewhere) and a lack of scientific control. Even if the first problem did not exist, the inability to objectively and quantitatively describe when a control question has been "set" and when the proper balance for relative affect for control and relative questions has been achieved for a given examinee prior to polygraph examination, makes quality assurance as presently practiced an exercise in futility. And once again, even if this latter problem did not exist (along with the basic theoretical considerations), those polygraph programs that do not audio/video tape examinations provide no conceivable opportunity for quality assurance programs to accomplish this(ese) needed task(s). For all of the above considerations, I find little quality control in present polygraph quality assurance/quality control programs. Currently utilized methodology does not allow for it. Best Regards...
Best Wishes and Happy New Year. You are quite correct in the assessment that you made in your last post. I was told a number of years ago by a member of a well known quality assurance (more about that notion shortly) program that his group never over turned a DI call by the original examiner to a NDI result (would occasionally change to INCL) but would occasionally completely overturn a NDI original examiner call.
Aside from this prejudicial practice, the term quality assurance in the polygraph world generally indicates less than applies with other practices. What is generally reviewed is question choice and polygraph scoring (along with basic instrument operation and chart notation). Unfortunately these two areas are not the weaknesses of control question test polygraphy which in turn, unfortunately, are not and can not be meaningfully addressed by existing quality assurance programs. With regard to what is done...polygraph scoring is relatively reliably (albeit not accurately) done--it is fairly easy and routine for a group of beginning polygraph students to be able to score polygrams arriving at similar qualitative and quantitative endpoints. Very little is gained in this area by review of senior polygraph personnel. With regard to question formulation, the process for relevant questions is rather simple minded. The elements of the crime are simply presented in interrogatory form, i.e., for a bank robbery a logical relevant question would be "Did you rob the bank?" As David Lykken would say, hardly rocket science
Control question selection is largely a matter of choosing from a list of approved questions for various subject/investigative areas, again hardly a difficult task requiring a great deal of oversight. I believe the reason polygraph "quality assurance" programs are largely meaningless is that the real problem with probable-lie CQT is the lack of a theoretical basis for the test in the first place (i.e., fear of consequences vs. fear of (lie) detection mechanism discussed elsewhere) and a lack of scientific control. Even if the first problem did not exist, the inability to objectively and quantitatively describe when a control question has been "set" and when the proper balance for relative affect for control and relative questions has been achieved for a given examinee prior to polygraph examination, makes quality assurance as presently practiced an exercise in futility. And once again, even if this latter problem did not exist (along with the basic theoretical considerations), those polygraph programs that do not audio/video tape examinations provide no conceivable opportunity for quality assurance programs to accomplish this(ese) needed task(s). For all of the above considerations, I find little quality control in present polygraph quality assurance/quality control programs. Currently utilized methodology does not allow for it. Best Regards...
Posted by Mark Mallah
- Jan 03, 2003, 06:09 PMThe polygraph examiner is, for all practical purposes, the judge, jury, and executioner because his or her decisions will never be overturned. Unless it is to adjudicate a matter to greater disadvantage to the subject than the polygraph examiner recommended (e.g. the examiner said the subject was truthful, "quality control review" says deceptive).
But "quality control review" will NEVER deem a subject truthful who the polygraph examiner said was deceptive. And no amount of investigation, no matter the dearth of evidence to corroborate the polygraph, will ever result in a renunciation of a polygraph examiner's finding of "deception indicated".
Can anyone prove me wrong?
But "quality control review" will NEVER deem a subject truthful who the polygraph examiner said was deceptive. And no amount of investigation, no matter the dearth of evidence to corroborate the polygraph, will ever result in a renunciation of a polygraph examiner's finding of "deception indicated".
Can anyone prove me wrong?
Posted by steincj
- Jan 03, 2003, 05:38 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Jan 03, 2003, 05:27 PM
the polygraph is given weight completely out of proportion to its ability to actually judge a candidate's trustworthiness and suitability to a position.
Thank you, Skeptic, that is truly my point. I went through 10 months of testing, applications, screening, and interviews. In 2 days, it was all over -- all in the polygrapher's chair.
I told the truth; however, my polygrapher was biased against me. He was told by the Agent conducting my PSI that I had omitted all of my foreign contacts on my application. Consequently, my polygraper labeled me a spy and failed me for reasons of National Security.
Of course I didn't omit my foreign contacts -- they were not supposed to be listed. The Agent doing my PSI made a huge mistake and it cost me my polygraph -- and a whole lot more.
So, touche, is it fair that I should fail for these reasons? Is it fair that the FBI polygrapher can fail me, erase almost a year of hard work, and most important, post his findings on my PUBLIC RECORD with the FBI so that no other gov't agency hires me? Don't say that won't happen, because it already has.
Judge, jury, and executioner is well justified in my case.
Chris
Posted by Skeptic
- Jan 03, 2003, 05:27 PMQuote from: Fair Chance on Jan 03, 2003, 09:38 AM
Dear touche,
As of today in the current system, the FBI does not do any investigation before a polygraph. The FBI will not corroborate any negative findings found during the polygraph interview. There are no formal appeal procedures and it is not videotaped for examination for possible procedural flaws or examiner bias. Any negative "interpretations" never get to an adjudicator. It is not inappropriate to state that the polygraph examiner is the "judge, jury, and executioner" of integrity and career of an applicant for any additional federal opportunities beyond the original FBI application.
Regards.
Fair chance,
It should be noted that several federal agencies, including I presume the FBI, make use of so-called "quality control" systems that supposedly call for taking the final judgement of pass/fail out of the polygrapher's hands (I know you've become aware of this first hand). Thus, it may be more accurate to say that the polygraph testing system as a whole is judge, jury and executioner.
However, it should also be noted that polygraphers, as has been conclusively demonstrated, can cause almost anyone to "fail" a polygraph at will.
Thus, the issue is a little nebulous, but I think we agree on the basics: the polygraph is given weight completely out of proportion to its ability to actually judge a candidate's trustworthiness and suitability to a position.
Skeptic
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jan 03, 2003, 09:38 AMQuote from: touche on Jan 02, 2003, 08:02 PMDear touche,
I guess those polygraph guys should be relieved that you are not the comptroller. It was noted however that you chose to avoid my comment about judge, jury and executioner. And you say that polygraph folks are less than honest? Fingers point in both directions.
As of today in the current system, the FBI does not do any investigation before a polygraph. The FBI will not corroborate any negative findings found during the polygraph interview. There are no formal appeal procedures and it is not videotaped for examination for possible procedural flaws or examiner bias. Any negative "interpretations" never get to an adjudicator. It is not inappropriate to state that the polygraph examiner is the "judge, jury, and executioner" of integrity and career of an applicant for any additional federal opportunities beyond the original FBI application.
Regards.
Posted by Twoblock
- Jan 02, 2003, 08:44 PMTouche
How about two out of three. The polygrapher is certainly the judge and jury. The executioner is the #+%@! who wields the axe to cut the applicant off based on the judge and jury's "assumption, NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE" that the applicant is a liar. This is why I advocate a lawsuit, if the applicant told the whole truth, to make them prove their charges. I say again, if he didn't tell the truth, he should walk out the door with his tail between his legs and do something else. It still boils down to ONE person holding the livelyhood, and future, of the applicant in his/her hands. This is wrong. There should, at least, be a background investigation to prove the polygrapher's charges.
How about two out of three. The polygrapher is certainly the judge and jury. The executioner is the #+%@! who wields the axe to cut the applicant off based on the judge and jury's "assumption, NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE" that the applicant is a liar. This is why I advocate a lawsuit, if the applicant told the whole truth, to make them prove their charges. I say again, if he didn't tell the truth, he should walk out the door with his tail between his legs and do something else. It still boils down to ONE person holding the livelyhood, and future, of the applicant in his/her hands. This is wrong. There should, at least, be a background investigation to prove the polygrapher's charges.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jan 02, 2003, 08:19 PMQuote from: touche on Jan 02, 2003, 08:02 PM
I guess those polygraph guys should be relieved that you are not the comptroller.
Indeed they should. If I were, I would be constantly recommending to my superiors that the polygraph should be scrapped and polygraphers reassigned elsewhere in counterintelligence.
QuoteIt was noted however that you chose to avoid my comment about judge, jury and executioner. And you say that polygraph folks are less than honest? Fingers point in both directions.
It wasn't my intent to say either way. I was responding to a one-liner with one of my own
Skeptic
Posted by touche
- Jan 02, 2003, 08:02 PMI guess those polygraph guys should be relieved that you are not the comptroller. It was noted however that you chose to avoid my comment about judge, jury and executioner. And you say that polygraph folks are less than honest? Fingers point in both directions.
Posted by Skeptic
- Jan 02, 2003, 07:10 PMQuote from: touche on Jan 02, 2003, 06:17 PM
C'mon Mr. Stein, have you never heard of the job that ajudicatorts are expected to perform? I do not mean to tossing the "blame" over to them, but to say that the polygraph examiner is the judge, jury and executioner is a bit overstated. But hey, wait, perhaps with all of this responsibility, maybe the polygraph examiner should be asking for a raise. I do not mean to be "snippy", biut you DID ask for it.
I would think you'd want to pay them not only based on how much responsibility they bear, but also how well they meet those responsibilities.
That being the case, I wouldn't be eager to deal out the raises
Skeptic
Posted by touche
- Jan 02, 2003, 06:17 PMC'mon Mr. Stein, have you never heard of the job that ajudicatorts are expected to perform? I do not mean to tossing the "blame" over to them, but to say that the polygraph examiner is the judge, jury and executioner is a bit overstated. But hey, wait, perhaps with all of this responsibility, maybe the polygraph examiner should be asking for a raise. I do not mean to be "snippy", biut you DID ask for it.
Posted by steincj
- Jan 02, 2003, 03:47 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Dec 11, 2002, 06:40 PMBreeze,
But lets talk about your question. "Why have an application process?" . Are you suggesting that everyone applying for sensitive positions of great trust and access should be taken at face value? what utopian perspective is this. Im sure I just do not understand you (happens often) and you are not advocating making hiring decisions based on a resume' alone (or even background check).
What I meant was, "why have an application process when the polygraph determines eveything in one small step?"
Polygraphers are the judge, jury, and executioner for applicants. Does it matter if the applciant has gone through almost a year of screening prior, or if they just walked in off the street? They will still be subject to a very fuzzy "test." It is assumed that they are lying, whether they were a prior LE officer, distinguished military veteran, or begging for change on the street corner. This type of screening is assinine.
Since the polygraph really doesn't take in to account the applicant's background (although that isn't what the applicant is told), why not do it first? The FBI could save tons of money on paperwork and trips to interviews if they just eliminate the "scum" out of the applicant pool right off the bat.
And, polygraphers need more work to do -- you said it yourself:
QuoteI am indulging myself with staying logged on to this site as I look up from more meaningfull work!Maybe if you had more to do, you could find a way to make the machine truly work.
I know, I know, it works fine. You and all your polygraph buddies tell yourselves that at your polygraph meetings you go to. More like perpetuating a lie for self-preservation, I think.
But that's my opinion. Oh, and the NAS, too. But we don't count.
Chris
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 31, 2002, 07:47 AM"Shitty Rogers,"
The FBI uses a probable-lie "control" question "test" for pre-employment polygraph screening. Bureau polygraphers assume that all applicants -- even those the Bureau would hire -- will be less than completely truthful in answering the "control" questions.
In fact, the polygraph process will tend to screen out those most willing to make admissions against interest, because the more candidly an applicant answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely the applicant is to fail. By contrast, the applicant who perhaps makes a few minor admissions with regard to the "control" questions, but then blatantly lies in response to them (and as a result experiences heightened anxiety) is most likely to pass.
The FBI uses a probable-lie "control" question "test" for pre-employment polygraph screening. Bureau polygraphers assume that all applicants -- even those the Bureau would hire -- will be less than completely truthful in answering the "control" questions.
In fact, the polygraph process will tend to screen out those most willing to make admissions against interest, because the more candidly an applicant answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely the applicant is to fail. By contrast, the applicant who perhaps makes a few minor admissions with regard to the "control" questions, but then blatantly lies in response to them (and as a result experiences heightened anxiety) is most likely to pass.
Posted by shitty rogers
- Dec 31, 2002, 01:23 AMTHE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT YOU LIED...NO MATTER HOW MINOR IT WAS.....IF YOU WILL LIE NOW....WHAT ABOUT LATER IN YOUR CAREER WHEN YOUR LOOKING AT A WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSED BY YOU OR A FELLOW OFFICER...WILL YOU LIE THEN TO PROTECT YOUR JOB JUST LIKE YOU DID TO GET IT....OMITTING A FACT IS AKIN TO LYING