- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by polytechnic
- Jun 03, 2008, 02:53 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on May 28, 2008, 09:08 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on May 28, 2008, 11:36 AMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 12:46 PMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 12:22 PMQuote from: bimmergirl on May 25, 2008, 01:15 AM
FYI, I do not "sit in judgement", I evaluate all available information, including the results of a polygraph test to identitfy those less than 100% forthcoming. George makes a good point. A polygraph examiner should never enter the test assuming anything, I certainly try not to.
Sackett
Sackett,
Why is it that many examiners prefer to peruse the examinees file or personal dossier prior to testing? Doesn't that behaviour sort of place in doubt your claim to be the only (or one of the few) unbiased, impartial examiners.
Do you always trust the polygraph 'result' without a shadow of doubt ?
Have you ever suspected that you may have called a FP ?
If the examinee is hypertensive and unknowingly displays apnoea type breathing, would you automatically suspect CM behaviour ? How would you address that situation ?
Regards,
I think it is appropriate to review the case facts so we can know what we are talking about. Nothing sillier than an examiner trying to talk intelligently about something they know nothing of. And, no. I do not think it unduly prejudices an examiner. I have tested many people where the facts were against them and they passed, and visa-versa.
I have certainly had tests where I questioned the results. Any examiner should be able to admit it. Remember, we're dealing with human beings, therefore, as I have stated previously, things can be "screwy" for a lot of reasons (Please don't ask me to list them, I'm tired). If I find a mistake in my testing procedure or (or sometimes) the examinee's actions, I almost always offer a re-examination. I stay focused on trying to obtain the truth, not a specific result.
As for false positives. I have probably had some (statistics would be so polite to me). However, I can not recall an examination where I called the examinee deceptive and later, evidence exonerated them.
As for hypertension, etc, I do not automatically see apnea as CM's. If it is the normal state of the individual, then it should be taken into consideration. What is there to "address" if it is normal?
Sackett
Thanks,
That was a fairly balanced reply.
Regards,
Posted by Hunter
- Jun 03, 2008, 04:27 AM"With regards to pre-employment screening for police applicants, it is not only used as a tool. It is used as the "end all, solve all" for every applicant. If you fail a polygraph you are removed from the application process. There is no due process; there is nothing even remotely fair about it all. A person you meet and talk with for an hour or two decides based on a guess if you proceed in the application process."
From your post Sergeant. I read what you said and responded accordingly.
I do apologize for attacking your integrity, or knowledge, it sounded like a blanket statement to me, and I see by your post it was confined to your state, not all examiners.
Thank you for clearing up the matter for me.
From your post Sergeant. I read what you said and responded accordingly.
I do apologize for attacking your integrity, or knowledge, it sounded like a blanket statement to me, and I see by your post it was confined to your state, not all examiners.
Thank you for clearing up the matter for me.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jun 02, 2008, 08:11 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Jun 01, 2008, 10:28 PMYou might consider expanding your level of knowledge Sergeant, many departments do a "break out" on the issue showing what you call DI, (we call it SR) My department also requires a follow up investigation and does not rely totally on the polygraph findings. We realize that there are false positives and false negatives. I am aware of other departments that have the same policy. We do attempt to be fair and afford the applicant every opportunity to obtain employment. Again, it is a tool. When properly used it is a very useful tool.
Perhaps many departments do a "break out" on the issue showing "SR". I never claimed otherwise.
There are no municipal departments in Connecticut that do such a thing. It is hardly unreasonable for me to speak of the departments in my state (with which I am familiar) while refraining from making any claims at all about the federal and out-of-state agencies with which I am not familiar.
It is also unreasonable to expect me to refrain from offering my opinion (or for you to denigrate my "level of knowledge") because I am not familiar with the polygraph practices of every police agency in the country, or even with a majority of the police agencies in the country.
You wish to believe that the polygraph is a useful tool in pre-employment screening. I understand. If you were to say otherwise the one useful aspect of the polygraph, that of eliciting damaging admissions based on the examinee's belief that the polygraph will detect lies, would be diminished or even eradicated.
Posted by notguilty1
- Jun 02, 2008, 11:33 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on Jun 02, 2008, 09:24 AMFurther discussion seems senseless, you are convinced and facts will not change your thought processes. I will pass on further discussion at this time. It was educational for me, and entertaining, must return to work and divine some more truth.
And as usual when the difficult questions are aked ......... The examiners take stage left exit!!
BTW I do agree that further discussion seems sensless because TC has done a good job at discounting your claims.
Thanks TC!
Posted by Hunter
- Jun 02, 2008, 09:24 AMFurther discussion seems senseless, you are convinced and facts will not change your thought processes. I will pass on further discussion at this time. It was educational for me, and entertaining, must return to work and divine some more truth.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jun 02, 2008, 04:21 AMQuoteIt is humerous that you post U.S. v. Scheffer.
I posted an excerpt from a magazine article which cited a quote made by Justice Thomas which happened to be made in his majority opinion on that case. The quote was:
— "there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable."
Did Justice Stevens make any comment on polygraph reliability?
I also posted:
— That 1980 polygraph report you so proudly cited as evidence that the polygraph is reliable must not have been very convincing to congress, as they passed the 1988 law making employment polygraphs ILLEGAL.
So if preemployment testing is so accurate, why did congress pass a law making such test illegal in the private sector?
TC
Posted by Hunter
- Jun 02, 2008, 03:18 AMIt is humerous that you post U.S. v. Scheffer. This case involved introduction of a polygraph that would have been exculpatory. You post Justice Thomas's majority opinion, however you omit Justice Stevens opinion totally. Justice Stevens suggested that it should have been admitted and had very good basis for his argument. Read it all not part of it. You may well be arguing that an innocent person should be punished for a crime he did not commit, when polygraph would have cleared him or aided in his defense.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jun 01, 2008, 10:57 PMQuoteYou might consider expanding your level of knowledge Sergeant, many departments do a "break out" on the issue showing what you call DI, (we call it SR) My department also requires a follow up investigation and does not rely totally on the polygraph findings. We realize that there are false positives and false negatives. I am aware of other departments that have the same policy. We do attempt to be fair and afford the applicant every opportunity to obtain employment.
That 1980 polygraph report you so proudly cited as evidence that the polygraph is reliable must not have been very convincing to congress, as they passed the 1988 law making employment polygraphs ILLEGAL.
TC
I'm sure that will make applicants like the guy in this story feel a whole lot better.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/11/ma_148_01.html
Experiences like this are quite common.
As for accuracy of polygraph tests, the article notes:
Studies have long shown that polygraphs are remarkably unreliable, particularly for screening job applicants. As early as 1965, a congressional committee concluded that there was no evidence to support the polygraph's validity; a 1997 survey in the Journal of Applied Psychology put the test's accuracy rate at only 61 percent. Polygraph evidence is generally inadmissible in court because, as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his majority opinion in the 1998 case U.S. v. Scheffer, "there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable."
I guess Justice Thomas needs to better educate himself. What would he know about justice?
Also:
Indeed, the lie detector is so untrustworthy that Congress passed the Employee Polygraph Protection Act in 1988, making it illegal for private-sector employers to compel workers to take polygraph exams. Prior to the law's passage, according to Senate testimony, an estimated 400,000 workers suffered adverse consequences each year after they were wrongly flunked on polygraphs.
That 1980 polygraph report you so proudly cited as evidence that the polygraph is reliable must not have been very convincing to congress, as they passed the 1988 law making employment polygraphs ILLEGAL anyway.
TC
Posted by Hunter
- Jun 01, 2008, 10:28 PMYou might consider expanding your level of knowledge Sergeant, many departments do a "break out" on the issue showing what you call DI, (we call it SR) My department also requires a follow up investigation and does not rely totally on the polygraph findings. We realize that there are false positives and false negatives. I am aware of other departments that have the same policy. We do attempt to be fair and afford the applicant every opportunity to obtain employment. Again, it is a tool. When properly used it is a very useful tool.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jun 01, 2008, 09:30 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Jun 01, 2008, 07:20 PM86% is from a study of mixed issue testing, the 95-98% are from some studies of single issue examinations. You may wish to read the research prior to commenting on it, it would strengthen your argument. There are other studies from Raskin, Honts, Barland, Dutton, and many others that affirm the %'s given. Polygraph is not a 100% accurate tool, no examiner I am associated with gives a different response. There are false positives and false negatives, we are not perfect. I don't advocate use of polygraph as the end all, solve all for any situation, it is an excellent TOOL, and only a tool.
With regards to pre-employment screening for police applicants, it is not only used as a tool. It is used as the "end all, solve all" for every applicant. If you fail a polygraph you are removed from the application process. There is no due process; there is nothing even remotely fair about it all. A person you meet and talk with for an hour or two decides based on a guess if you proceed in the application process.
Perhaps in theory any "DI" score should be followed with specific issue testing to resolve the matter, but in practice that simply isn't done in any municipal police agency with which I am familiar.
Posted by Hunter
- Jun 01, 2008, 07:20 PM86% is from a study of mixed issue testing, the 95-98% are from some studies of single issue examinations. You may wish to read the research prior to commenting on it, it would strengthen your argument. There are other studies from Raskin, Honts, Barland, Dutton, and many others that affirm the %'s given. Polygraph is not a 100% accurate tool, no examiner I am associated with gives a different response. There are false positives and false negatives, we are not perfect. I don't advocate use of polygraph as the end all, solve all for any situation, it is an excellent TOOL, and only a tool.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 31, 2008, 03:19 PMMr. Notguilty,
I found the following at a government website:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=172188
The 80 research projects listed in this paper, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2,174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98 percent. Researchers conducted 11 studies that involved the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92 percent. Researchers conducted 41 studies that involved the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80 percent. Researchers conducted 16 studies that involved the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations that produced an average accuracy of 81 percent. Tables list the authors and years of the research projects, which are identified fully in the references cited. Surveys and novel methods of testing are mentioned. 11 tables and 67 annotated references
Maybe this is what polygraphers have based their claims. Note it is all based on the "analysis of charts", but the charts depict physiological reactions which are not directly and unequivocally related to deception. A fact they repeatedly ignore.
I wonder why the NAS chose to ignore the above. Or maybe they didn't ignore it, but didn't find it to be valid reseach.
TC
I found the following at a government website:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=172188
The 80 research projects listed in this paper, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2,174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98 percent. Researchers conducted 11 studies that involved the reliability of independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of 92 percent. Researchers conducted 41 studies that involved the accuracy of 1,787 laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average accuracy of 80 percent. Researchers conducted 16 studies that involved the reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from laboratory simulations that produced an average accuracy of 81 percent. Tables list the authors and years of the research projects, which are identified fully in the references cited. Surveys and novel methods of testing are mentioned. 11 tables and 67 annotated references
Maybe this is what polygraphers have based their claims. Note it is all based on the "analysis of charts", but the charts depict physiological reactions which are not directly and unequivocally related to deception. A fact they repeatedly ignore.
I wonder why the NAS chose to ignore the above. Or maybe they didn't ignore it, but didn't find it to be valid reseach.
TC
Posted by notguilty1
- May 31, 2008, 03:03 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on May 31, 2008, 02:39 PMQuoteThe study I posted stands on its own, without regard to your personal experience or opinion. Please post a scientific, peer reviewed study which shows polygraph is not a good "tool" in screening exams. The accuracy rate is currently published as 86% in screening applications. That is the latest study by the DOD, DACA, and it does meet the scientific requisites for a scientific study.
Thanks Hunter. I am totally convinced now.
DACA, a polygraphic organization, says the polygraph is 86% accurate. What else are they going to report? That the polygraph is not accurate? Are you serious?
So we are suppose to accept those findings over the findings of the National Academy of Sciences? And our own personal experiences of having taken the test, told the truth, but failed anyway?
Welcome to the "twilight zone"
do do do do do do do do.....
TC
Hey TC,
Hunter and his cronies will never accept anything that is not as he puts it "peer" research meaning if it doesn't come from them it is not valid.
He metinons mine and yours and many others direct expeiences as "opinions" that I guess have no validity as does the findings of the NSA.
It's useless to reason with these people they have a vested interest in Polygraph and they will not budge on it.
Thankfully though with this site and the internet in general they are being held accountable for their so called "test".
As you see the accuracy rate is now, accoriding to Hunter 86% as opposed to the 95-98% we were all told. I wonder what it will be next month? Stay tuned!
Posted by notguilty1
- May 31, 2008, 03:01 PMQuote from: notguilty1 on May 31, 2008, 02:39 PMQuoteThe study I posted stands on its own, without regard to your personal experience or opinion. Please post a scientific, peer reviewed study which shows polygraph is not a good "tool" in screening exams. The accuracy rate is currently published as 86% in screening applications. That is the latest study by the DOD, DACA, and it does meet the scientific requisites for a scientific study.
Thanks Hunter. I am totally convinced now.
DACA, a polygraphic organization, says the polygraph is 86% accurate. What else are they going to report? That the polygraph is not accurate? Are you serious?
So we are suppose to accept those findings over the findings of the National Academy of Sciences? And our own personal experiences of having taken the test, told the truth, but failed anyway?
Welcome to the "twilight zone"
do do do do do do do do.....
TC
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- May 31, 2008, 02:39 PMQuoteThe study I posted stands on its own, without regard to your personal experience or opinion. Please post a scientific, peer reviewed study which shows polygraph is not a good "tool" in screening exams. The accuracy rate is currently published as 86% in screening applications. That is the latest study by the DOD, DACA, and it does meet the scientific requisites for a scientific study.
Thanks Hunter. I am totally convinced now.
DACA, a polygraphic organization, says the polygraph is 86% accurate. What else are they going to report? That the polygraph is not accurate? Are you serious?
So we are suppose to accept those findings over the findings of the National Academy of Sciences? And our own personal experiences of having taken the test, told the truth, but failed anyway?
Welcome to the "twilight zone"
do do do do do do do do.....
TC