- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by The_Breeze
- Oct 31, 2002, 01:17 PMskeptic
OK, thanks-that gives me a starting point. I will hear what our psychologist has to say and perhaps speak of it later. Im sure the "blunt instrument" label may apply here as well.
OK, thanks-that gives me a starting point. I will hear what our psychologist has to say and perhaps speak of it later. Im sure the "blunt instrument" label may apply here as well.
Posted by heartspounding
- Oct 31, 2002, 02:46 AMNot to contradict... As without this site and the wonderful contributions and insight from so many I would've never passed my poly... And more to the point, I'm sure that we're all after the same thing for fundamentally decent and moral reasons.
BUT... I'm constantly dismayed at what I see as a fundamentally flawed approach to the dismantling of the Poly-Nation.
I see so many posts that blow a kiss to the unfortunate individual candidate who fails and his feeling of anger, dismay, etc. However, this critical point is then invariably buried with talk of "national security" and assorted big-picture concerns.... This, in my humble opinion, is a huge tactical error.
Concern about the polygraph's failure to adequately protect "national security" is certainly important and valid; it, however, misses the mark completely. Legislators, government officials, et al will never change their collective position on the use of polygraph examinations because of such an ethereal argument... Why? Because it's rhetoric... And rhetoric don't vote. People vote. This is a people issue...
An honest person that fails a polygraph examination has been denied opportunity to pursue a life-long dream – usually without recourse or adequate explanation. It's effect on the person can be unbearable. However, we as a "movement" seem to shy away from making this personal cost our main point. It's as though we ourselves truly believe that this outrageous treatment of citizens is in itself not enough of a reason to abolish this treacherous toy. I suggest that it is.
Instead, our most vociferous pleadings of national security concerns seem almost a collective yelping of a perverse testament of nationalism... By shying from the personal cost in favor of pointing out "meatier" concerns... National security, spies, and the like. We seem to screaming, "See, WE'RE patriots, too!" The Jews tried that one... Didn't work.
I mean... Christ, we're obviously good citizens... Why would I be attempting to become a police officer?
Instead, I suggest that we utilize a campaign of letters... Of petitions. Of substance... Contacting local media outlets with stories of polygraph abuse. Let "the man" know that a constituent has been treated unfairly, unethically, and cruelly by an arm of the state and something may happen... Let "the man" hear personal stories of despair. These are much more powerful.
No spy has ever been caught by a polygraph... Blah, blah, blather... Better points can be made... The Philadelphia PD's experience that many candidates who passed polys turned out to have lied about substantial issues during the hiring process (including major crimes)... Let's dig up some examples...
Bottom line: This toy dishonors and excludes honest men and women who have a calling to serve. It cheats the citizen.
BUT... I'm constantly dismayed at what I see as a fundamentally flawed approach to the dismantling of the Poly-Nation.
I see so many posts that blow a kiss to the unfortunate individual candidate who fails and his feeling of anger, dismay, etc. However, this critical point is then invariably buried with talk of "national security" and assorted big-picture concerns.... This, in my humble opinion, is a huge tactical error.
Concern about the polygraph's failure to adequately protect "national security" is certainly important and valid; it, however, misses the mark completely. Legislators, government officials, et al will never change their collective position on the use of polygraph examinations because of such an ethereal argument... Why? Because it's rhetoric... And rhetoric don't vote. People vote. This is a people issue...
An honest person that fails a polygraph examination has been denied opportunity to pursue a life-long dream – usually without recourse or adequate explanation. It's effect on the person can be unbearable. However, we as a "movement" seem to shy away from making this personal cost our main point. It's as though we ourselves truly believe that this outrageous treatment of citizens is in itself not enough of a reason to abolish this treacherous toy. I suggest that it is.
Instead, our most vociferous pleadings of national security concerns seem almost a collective yelping of a perverse testament of nationalism... By shying from the personal cost in favor of pointing out "meatier" concerns... National security, spies, and the like. We seem to screaming, "See, WE'RE patriots, too!" The Jews tried that one... Didn't work.
I mean... Christ, we're obviously good citizens... Why would I be attempting to become a police officer?
Instead, I suggest that we utilize a campaign of letters... Of petitions. Of substance... Contacting local media outlets with stories of polygraph abuse. Let "the man" know that a constituent has been treated unfairly, unethically, and cruelly by an arm of the state and something may happen... Let "the man" hear personal stories of despair. These are much more powerful.
No spy has ever been caught by a polygraph... Blah, blah, blather... Better points can be made... The Philadelphia PD's experience that many candidates who passed polys turned out to have lied about substantial issues during the hiring process (including major crimes)... Let's dig up some examples...
Bottom line: This toy dishonors and excludes honest men and women who have a calling to serve. It cheats the citizen.
Posted by Marty
- Oct 31, 2002, 02:40 AMQuote from: Skeptic on Oct 31, 2002, 12:03 AM
It is as though a die is rolled, and those who roll certain numbers are deemed good security risks. Not only is this a bad way to hire good people, but it's a good way to hire bad people, too -- people who can cost lives.
Skeptic
That is perhaps one of the greatest risks. The magic like aura of the polygraph may well dilute other efforts which could make a real difference, significantly increasing the frequency of espionage. It's not so much the coin flip aspect since the expected outcome remains unchanged, but if it does engender complacency elsewhere that produces net negative outcomes.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 31, 2002, 12:03 AMQuote from: Marty on Oct 30, 2002, 10:51 PM
Hiring processes are notoriously inconsistent and arbitrary. The main problem with the polygraph is not that it is as arbitrary, which all of us expect to some extent when applying for a job. The big problem is the sense of failure and rejection that occurs due to the widespread belief in the reliability of the polygraph.
If one isn't hired it is assumed that the chemistry wasn't right. If one fails a polygraph many assume they were lying about something important. This is the big problem. This effect may be mitigated by increasing public awareness of the inadequacies of the polygraph, which then decreases the placebo value. Catch 22 of sorts.
-Marty
Marty,
I agree with you completely regarding the impact on candidates. However, I also find the particular arbitrariness of the polygraph troubling, not just from the standpoint of the candidate (who should at least be able to expect that the hiring process involves consideration for actual candidate characteristics), but from the larger national security point-of-view, as well. It is as though a die is rolled, and those who roll certain numbers are deemed good security risks. Not only is this a bad way to hire good people, but it's a good way to hire bad people, too -- people who can cost lives.
Skeptic
Posted by Marty
- Oct 30, 2002, 10:51 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Oct 30, 2002, 07:33 PM
I'm not saying it has no utility in security prescreening, only that the test has not been validated for that purpose. That's simply a warning; use the results this way at your own risk. You will likely exclude some people who would make fine officers, or miss things that shouldn't be missed. Kind of like the polygraph, I suppose.
Hiring processes are notoriously inconsistent and arbitrary. The main problem with the polygraph is not that it is as arbitrary, which all of us expect to some extent when applying for a job. The big problem is the sense of failure and rejection that occurs due to the widespread belief in the reliability of the polygraph.
If one isn't hired it is assumed that the chemistry wasn't right. If one fails a polygraph many assume they were lying about something important. This is the big problem. This effect may be mitigated by increasing public awareness of the inadequacies of the polygraph, which then decreases the placebo value. Catch 22 of sorts.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 30, 2002, 07:33 PMQuote from: The_Breeze on Oct 30, 2002, 06:06 PM
Skeptic
What tools should be used in a pre-employment situation (ref. psychological screening)
I will look into our process when and if you respond. When you say your background is in psychology, do you mean to say that you are working in the field, or just have the degree and do something else?
You never said how your job applications went....
So many questions...
Yes, I have a degree in psychology, and I have worked in the field. However, I am not a psychologist and am hardly qualified to recommend personality screening tests.
What I can tell you is that the MMPI-2 is intended and validated as a general diagnostic tool in the context of a full-blown psychological evaluation. Generally speaking, it is intended to be used with people already presenting mental health difficulties. No psychologist worth his or her salt would use the results as definitive or out-of-context (e.g. one cannot deduce that a subject is psychotic simply by looking at the MMPI's scores).
I'm not saying it has no utility in security prescreening, only that the test has not been validated for that purpose. That's simply a warning; use the results this way at your own risk. You will likely exclude some people who would make fine officers, or miss things that shouldn't be missed. Kind of like the polygraph, I suppose.
I'm still waiting on the application process; thanks for asking
Skeptic
Posted by The_Breeze
- Oct 30, 2002, 06:06 PMSkeptic
What tools should be used in a pre-employment situation (ref. psychological screening)
I will look into our process when and if you respond. When you say your background is in psychology, do you mean to say that you are working in the field, or just have the degree and do something else?
You never said how your job applications went....
What tools should be used in a pre-employment situation (ref. psychological screening)
I will look into our process when and if you respond. When you say your background is in psychology, do you mean to say that you are working in the field, or just have the degree and do something else?
You never said how your job applications went....
Posted by heartspounding
- Oct 28, 2002, 11:03 PMI stand corrected!
Posted by Skeptic
- Oct 28, 2002, 10:11 PMQuote from: heartspounding on Oct 28, 2002, 09:30 PM
The written psych is, as far as I know, a MPPI. Minnesota Personality Profile Inventory...
I think you mean MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory). Actually, the one in use today is the MMPI-2.
It's a tool designed to be used as part of a general diagnostic psychological workup, not for employment screening.
Skeptic
Posted by heartspounding
- Oct 28, 2002, 09:30 PMThe written psych is, as far as I know, a MPPI. Minnesota Personality Profile Inventory...
Posted by JJ
- Oct 25, 2002, 01:02 AM I was wondering how many people really pass the poly test out of 18,000 applicants each year in the LAPD pool? It seems that the other tests are easy and the real tough part is passing the polygraph test because they only hire around 300-400 per year. Also, can you help me with the written psych test? What kind of questions are they going to ask for example and how are they going to grade. Thanks