- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by nomegusto
- Nov 27, 2007, 10:55 AMI'm sorry that you were not questioned after the polygraph. I happen to be interviewed after one, but thankfully I was consistent, and didn't damage my prospective employer at the time. It was prescreening. My test showed possible DI for various things. After the chat, the things I was DI were for reasons that weren't illegal, and I was allowed to proceed with the hiring process.
But again, in my expierence with the test (limited), and with interviews, and law enforcement questioning (extensive), the polygraph is a tool. I haven't met an investigator who soley relies on the machine. It's there trade, but I've talked to professionals who could make a determination even before the test is done by the pre screening questions. That's where I made my oops. He took advantage of it, when we did the questioning afterwards, since I was like you had an issue with this answer, and that one he laughed and said yes. Asked me a question, and I told him what I did, and this was his reply
. To think about it, it was funny. I was hooked up again, and had no issues. I made the mistake. Thank God, I got to learn from it as well.
But again, in my expierence with the test (limited), and with interviews, and law enforcement questioning (extensive), the polygraph is a tool. I haven't met an investigator who soley relies on the machine. It's there trade, but I've talked to professionals who could make a determination even before the test is done by the pre screening questions. That's where I made my oops. He took advantage of it, when we did the questioning afterwards, since I was like you had an issue with this answer, and that one he laughed and said yes. Asked me a question, and I told him what I did, and this was his reply
. To think about it, it was funny. I was hooked up again, and had no issues. I made the mistake. Thank God, I got to learn from it as well.Posted by PainfulDay
- Nov 27, 2007, 10:00 AMQuoteLet me guess, you're the single data point and you got your broad brush out to paint? I suspect that is the exception rather than the rule. Most states with statutes on polygraph require such a post-test conversation. Moreover, it's good practice.
Is my experience any less valid because it happened to me? If it happened to me, is there not a strong possibility that it happened to others? Maybe I got an incompetent polygrapher or one with a hidden agenda. Maybe the department policies don't call for a follow-up.
In any case it happened and it goes to validate that this process is not very scientific and not very consistent.
It does help explain why less than 3% of those selected for jobs at this agency are ever hired. They don't make it through the polygraph and background check. I think that is a very low number but I can't say what the industry average might be. The <3% number is not manufactured, it came straight from my background investigator.
A shill? Hardly.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 27, 2007, 07:45 AMPainfulDay,
You are correct in pointing out that polygraphy is beset with numerous uncontrolled and potentially confounding variables (some more common than others). This topic is addressed in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Also, for a discussion of scientific control (and its absence with regard to polygraphic lie detection), see the transcript of Dr. Drew Richardson's public remarks to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph:
https://antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml#control
You are correct in pointing out that polygraphy is beset with numerous uncontrolled and potentially confounding variables (some more common than others). This topic is addressed in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Also, for a discussion of scientific control (and its absence with regard to polygraphic lie detection), see the transcript of Dr. Drew Richardson's public remarks to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph:
https://antipolygraph.org/nas/richardson-transcript.shtml#control
Posted by nopolycop
- Nov 26, 2007, 10:17 PMMr. Johnson:
Regarding your response to my post, and the subject of arbitrary scoring of polygraphs, I quote from the post regarding DOD changing how they score polygraphs.
Under the 2006 rules, the number of respiratory features considered "diagnostic" for scoring purposes has been reduced from 10 to 6 while the number of cardiovascular features considered diagnostic has been reduced from 7 principle and 3 secondary features to 1 primary and 1 secondary feature. No explanation is offered for these changes.
What this inescapably entails is that some polygraph charts that were scored as "deception indicated" under the old rules would be scored as "no deception indicated" or "inconclusive" under the new rules, because some reactions to relevant questions would no longer be scored. The converse is also true, and the charts of some who passed would no doubt have to be scored as "deception indicated" or "inconclusive" because some reactions to "control" questions could no longer be considered.
This raises the question, will applicants for federal employment who "failed" under the old scoring rules be given the opportunity to have their polygraph charts re-evaluated under the new scoring rules and to have their applications re-instated if they now pass? If not, why not?
Conversely, will the polygraph charts of those who have "passed" and been hired be re-evaluated to see if such persons would have "failed" under the new scoring rules? Again, if not, why not? After all, if you are a true believer in polygraphy, any such persons must now be considered unacceptable security risks!
So, given the fact that how to score a polygraph for deception or no deception can be changed at whim, I stand by my assertion that if an examiner doesn't want to pass a subject, he can simply score the polygraph any way he chooses. I was not impinging the profession of polygraphy as a whole, just pointing out that the polyfraph is scored arbitrarily. A "pass" or "fail" is an objective opinion of the polygrapher.
Regarding polygraph studies, show me ONE study that is scientifically repeatable.
Regarding your response to my post, and the subject of arbitrary scoring of polygraphs, I quote from the post regarding DOD changing how they score polygraphs.
Under the 2006 rules, the number of respiratory features considered "diagnostic" for scoring purposes has been reduced from 10 to 6 while the number of cardiovascular features considered diagnostic has been reduced from 7 principle and 3 secondary features to 1 primary and 1 secondary feature. No explanation is offered for these changes.
What this inescapably entails is that some polygraph charts that were scored as "deception indicated" under the old rules would be scored as "no deception indicated" or "inconclusive" under the new rules, because some reactions to relevant questions would no longer be scored. The converse is also true, and the charts of some who passed would no doubt have to be scored as "deception indicated" or "inconclusive" because some reactions to "control" questions could no longer be considered.
This raises the question, will applicants for federal employment who "failed" under the old scoring rules be given the opportunity to have their polygraph charts re-evaluated under the new scoring rules and to have their applications re-instated if they now pass? If not, why not?
Conversely, will the polygraph charts of those who have "passed" and been hired be re-evaluated to see if such persons would have "failed" under the new scoring rules? Again, if not, why not? After all, if you are a true believer in polygraphy, any such persons must now be considered unacceptable security risks!
So, given the fact that how to score a polygraph for deception or no deception can be changed at whim, I stand by my assertion that if an examiner doesn't want to pass a subject, he can simply score the polygraph any way he chooses. I was not impinging the profession of polygraphy as a whole, just pointing out that the polyfraph is scored arbitrarily. A "pass" or "fail" is an objective opinion of the polygrapher.
Regarding polygraph studies, show me ONE study that is scientifically repeatable.
Posted by Barry_C
- Nov 26, 2007, 09:05 PMQuote1) The test depends on the mindset of the examinee. That can be a problem since some will be very comfortable with a standard "yes" "no" response. Others will be more analytical and say "yes... but." Or "no... however."
If that's the case, then the questions aren't right. "Did you shoot Mr. X?" shouldn't require a "No, but..." if you didn't do it. Screening exams can be a problem if the questions aren't pre-tested well enough.
Quote2) The test depends on the ability of the examiner to set the examinee in an emotional state that is not defensive by nature. If one becomes defensive I believe the responses both verbal and physiological will be very unpredictable.
There are many who believe it's necessary as it may be the DR we are seeing. What you "believe" doesn't really matter though. It's what happens that counts.
Quote3) The test depends on the ability of the examiner to accurately interpret the body language and physiological responses.
No, that's wrong too. In a CQT, the issue is which question contains the larger response. It's not rocket science, and it doesn't have anything to do with body language.
Quote4) There is, in my experience, no follow-up interview. The examiner or some other competent individual should say, "My data shows this on this question. I need to more clearly understand what lies behind your response." In my case I said I "stole" time from my employer. In fact I don't believe I ever have, but one time a senior executive sat down several people in my group and accused all of us of "stealing from the company." So I said I did steal even though I really don't believe it and legally no theft occurred.
Let me guess, you're the single data point and you got your broad brush out to paint? I suspect that is the exception rather than the rule. Most states with statutes on polygraph require such a post-test conversation. Moreover, it's good practice.
QuoteSo I said I did steal even though I really don't believe it and legally no theft occurred.
'I said I did it when I don't believe I did' is a lie. What's up with that?
Might you be a shill?
Posted by EJohnson
- Nov 26, 2007, 03:39 PMQuoteAdd to what you have written, the fact that the examiner can set the pass-fail perimeters at whatever threshold he wants. In otherwords, anyone can pass, and anyone can fail, depending soley on the whim of the examiner. If I am wrong, someone please correct me.
That is complete rubbish. I suppose that a crooked psychologist could doctor your mmpi2 diagnosis/scores too, but to levy such accusation to an entire field is plain moronism.
QuoteOne would think that the poly community would fund a scientifically valid, independant study regarding the polygraph. With 3000+ examiners, if each threw in a hundred bucks, that would fund a pretty good, scientifically repeatable study.
Instead, what we get are college psychology profs who run polygraph businesses on the side, offering movie passes to college students to "lie" about "stealing" items they were given permision to "steal."
One would think that you could read more than one study----since there are hundreds in print. And what you "get" is mostly Federally funded studies ---many of which are by Department of Defense scientists and University studies. Your being cute in the above post lacks creativity or even truth---as you are no doubt referring to one study amongst hundreds over the years. A peculiar field requires peculiar studies as there are peculiar dependent and independant variables. What part of this doesn't make sense to you? What do YOU do for a living? Perhaps you could allow some readers/posters the opportunity to lampoon your profession as I am sure it is filled with occasional lackluster performers, sometimes biased methodology, errors-----and worst of all...your (I'm assuming) 5 minute expertise.
Posted by nopolycop
- Nov 26, 2007, 12:41 PMAdd to what you have written, the fact that the examiner can set the pass-fail perimeters at whatever threshold he wants. In otherwords, anyone can pass, and anyone can fail, depending soley on the whim of the examiner. If I am wrong, someone please correct me.
One would think that the poly community would fund a scientifically valid, independant study regarding the polygraph. With 3000+ examiners, if each threw in a hundred bucks, that would fund a pretty good, scientifically repeatable study.
Instead, what we get are college psychology profs who run polygraph businesses on the side, offering movie passes to college students to "lie" about "stealing" items they were given permision to "steal."
One would think that the poly community would fund a scientifically valid, independant study regarding the polygraph. With 3000+ examiners, if each threw in a hundred bucks, that would fund a pretty good, scientifically repeatable study.
Instead, what we get are college psychology profs who run polygraph businesses on the side, offering movie passes to college students to "lie" about "stealing" items they were given permision to "steal."
Posted by PainfulDay
- Nov 26, 2007, 10:01 AMThank you George. I'm something of a sometime scientist with a Ph.D. in Adult Education. I have 4 real problems with the polygraph that I think polygraphers probably overlook or ignore. Even if the instrument reliably measures measurable data:
1) The test depends on the mindset of the examinee. That can be a problem since some will be very comfortable with a standard "yes" "no" response. Others will be more analytical and say "yes... but." Or "no... however."
2) The test depends on the ability of the examiner to set the examinee in an emotional state that is not defensive by nature. If one becomes defensive I believe the responses both verbal and physiological will be very unpredictable.
3) The test depends on the ability of the examiner to accurately interpret the body language and physiological responses.
4) There is, in my experience, no follow-up interview. The examiner or some other competent individual should say, "My data shows this on this question. I need to more clearly understand what lies behind your response." In my case I said I "stole" time from my employer. In fact I don't believe I ever have, but one time a senior executive sat down several people in my group and accused all of us of "stealing from the company" because we spent too long at a Christmas celebration. So I said I did steal (because I heard the exec's words ringing in my ears) even though I really don't believe it and legally no theft occurred.
There are too many uncontrolled variables here for this instrument to be used for anything substantive.
These are some of the issues as I see them.
1) The test depends on the mindset of the examinee. That can be a problem since some will be very comfortable with a standard "yes" "no" response. Others will be more analytical and say "yes... but." Or "no... however."
2) The test depends on the ability of the examiner to set the examinee in an emotional state that is not defensive by nature. If one becomes defensive I believe the responses both verbal and physiological will be very unpredictable.
3) The test depends on the ability of the examiner to accurately interpret the body language and physiological responses.
4) There is, in my experience, no follow-up interview. The examiner or some other competent individual should say, "My data shows this on this question. I need to more clearly understand what lies behind your response." In my case I said I "stole" time from my employer. In fact I don't believe I ever have, but one time a senior executive sat down several people in my group and accused all of us of "stealing from the company" because we spent too long at a Christmas celebration. So I said I did steal (because I heard the exec's words ringing in my ears) even though I really don't believe it and legally no theft occurred.
There are too many uncontrolled variables here for this instrument to be used for anything substantive.
These are some of the issues as I see them.