- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by orolan
- May 22, 2003, 10:43 PMno_sugar,
You forgot a couple. I added them in for you.
That's right. Here are the facts:
1. Some people engage in serious felony activity.
2. Some of them never get caught.
3. Some of them later decide they want to be the police.
4. So they lie about their past criminal history.
5. And they manage to become cops anyway.
6. They then continue their serious felony activity.
You forgot a couple. I added them in for you.
That's right. Here are the facts:
1. Some people engage in serious felony activity.
2. Some of them never get caught.
3. Some of them later decide they want to be the police.
4. So they lie about their past criminal history.
5. And they manage to become cops anyway.
6. They then continue their serious felony activity.
Posted by Poly-Killer
- May 20, 2003, 05:37 AMQuote from: no_sugar_coating on May 19, 2003, 10:58 PMThat's right. Here are the facts:
1. Some people engage in serious felony activity.
2. Some of them never get caught.
3. Some of them later decide they want to be the police.
4. So they lie about their past criminal history.
I do not want them working with me, or backing me up, or saving my life if it is more important to them to break the law and then lie about it.
End of story.
No_Sugar,
Do you REALLY think it is as "black and white" as that?
Let me ask you this, after reading about my experiences with the poly and knowing where I stand now in terms of my LE service, would you want me to back you up, save your life etc?
I do understand, and agree with, your views on those who have engaged in a pattern of felonious activity. They DONT belong in LE and never will. However, putting such a large amount of blind faith into a machine that is in itself based on deception, doesn't seem to make sense.
Let's say a thorough background investigation turned up nothing suspicious on an applicant. Let's say that applicant did well in all phases of testing, including psych, physical agility, etc. Does it make sense that after an agency spent a vast amount of resources on a background check, an applicant fails and is rejected because he/she produced a physiological reaction to a particular question? Which could have been brought on by embarrassment, rage, humiliation, etc.? Keep in mind, ALL these reactions look identical to responses deemed as "deceptive" by polygraph examiners.
I am curious to hear your response.
Best,
PK
Posted by suethem
- May 20, 2003, 02:44 AMno_sugar_coating
You remind me of "Farva" from the movie,"Super Troopers."
Oh, and by the way, the ice cream scooper girl at the mall is not impressed by your oversized fannypack, high speed!!!
Atleast the other pro-poly guys admit that its just a confession machine. I get the feeling that you think it really works and that scares me.
You remind me of "Farva" from the movie,"Super Troopers."
Oh, and by the way, the ice cream scooper girl at the mall is not impressed by your oversized fannypack, high speed!!!
Atleast the other pro-poly guys admit that its just a confession machine. I get the feeling that you think it really works and that scares me.
Posted by Anonymous
- May 19, 2003, 11:45 PMno_sugar_coating,
Becuase polygraph screening has no diagnostic validity, it has no bearing on the four points you raise in your last post and is most certainly not a solution for the problem you indicate that is of concern to you.
End of story.
Becuase polygraph screening has no diagnostic validity, it has no bearing on the four points you raise in your last post and is most certainly not a solution for the problem you indicate that is of concern to you.
End of story.
Posted by no_sugar_coating
- May 19, 2003, 10:58 PMThat's right. Here are the facts:
1. Some people engage in serious felony activity.
2. Some of them never get caught.
3. Some of them later decide they want to be the police.
4. So they lie about their past criminal history.
I do not want them working with me, or backing me up, or saving my life if it is more important to them to break the law and then lie about it.
End of story.
1. Some people engage in serious felony activity.
2. Some of them never get caught.
3. Some of them later decide they want to be the police.
4. So they lie about their past criminal history.
I do not want them working with me, or backing me up, or saving my life if it is more important to them to break the law and then lie about it.
End of story.
Posted by Batman
- May 19, 2003, 06:41 PMGeorge,
You asked,
"...why is such an arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading needed to "eliminate" those who have engaged in "serious felony type activity?"
Because people lie George. Because people do stupid things then decide to compound that supidity by lieing. I guess that's the long and short of it.
As for "arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading", well, a very clever choice of words.
You'll have to excuse me, I believe I have a customer ringing the bell, asking for another palm reading. Maybe this time I'll break out the tea leaves, what do you think? I'd use my 8-Ball, but it hasn't been too reliable lately.
Batman
You asked,
"...why is such an arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading needed to "eliminate" those who have engaged in "serious felony type activity?"
Because people lie George. Because people do stupid things then decide to compound that supidity by lieing. I guess that's the long and short of it.
As for "arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading", well, a very clever choice of words.
You'll have to excuse me, I believe I have a customer ringing the bell, asking for another palm reading. Maybe this time I'll break out the tea leaves, what do you think? I'd use my 8-Ball, but it hasn't been too reliable lately.
Batman
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 18, 2003, 11:20 PMBatman,
In the message thread Audio/Video Taping of Polygraph Examinations you wrote:
Thank you for this clarification. But the question remains, why is such an arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading needed to "eliminate" those who have engaged in "serious felony type activity?"
In the message thread Audio/Video Taping of Polygraph Examinations you wrote:
QuoteOh, I almost forgot, on another thread, an obvious non-hire within the realm of law enforcement would be someone who has engaged in serious felony type activity, known or unknown to the agency to which he/she is applying. Nice try on playing the race/sex card, kind of low, but expected.
Thank you for this clarification. But the question remains, why is such an arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading needed to "eliminate" those who have engaged in "serious felony type activity?"
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 18, 2003, 01:22 PMQuoteRegardless of your personal beliefs about polygraph, it's validity, or how it is in fact applied, there are obviously many more individuals, and organizations that differ with your opinion.
As more and more people discover that polygraph "testing" is a fraud, support for it will inevitably wane.
QuoteYou asked what an obvious "non-hire" would be? Do I really need to answer that? Use your imagination and I'm certain you can come up with a definition of an obvious non-hire within the realm of law enforcement.
I'm curious as to what you mean by an obvious non-hire. I don't think the definition is self-evident. I would suppose the obvious non-hires would be those who don't pass the written, verbal, or physical tests that applicants must pass.
Or are obvious non-hires those whose skin is the wrong color, or who are of the wrong sex, or who in some other way "don't fit the mold?"
Who are these "obvious non-hires," and why is such an arbitrary and capricious methodology as a polygraph chart reading needed to "eliminate" them?
QuoteAs for raising the hiring standards, how realistic is that in this day and age of equal opportunity.
The standards for hiring will necessarily depend on the available applicant pool and the staffing requirements of the agency involved. As an example, LAPD is currently eliminating about half of otherwise qualified applicants based on the polygraph. Rather than arbitrarily reducing the applicant pool through the use of an invalid procedure like polygraph chart readings, LAPD could instead require higher scores in its written, verbal, and physical tests. The end result would be the hiring of more qualified applicants.
QuoteGeorge, I'm afraid you are wishing for a very Utopian society. Very commendable, but not realistic?
To seek the elimination of an unfair labor practice such as polygraph screening is hardly an "Utopian" goal. The 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act did much toward that end. There is no good reason why the same law should not also apply to government, and the Comprehensive Employee Polygraph Protection Act we've proposed would effectively accomplish that goal. Law enforcement agencies in other industrialized nations seem to get along just fine without resorting to the quackery of polygraph screening; there is no a priori reason why we in the U.S. must be subjected to such nonsense.
Posted by Batman
- May 18, 2003, 12:45 PMGeorge,
Regardless of your personal beliefs about polygraph, it's validity, or how it is in fact applied, there are obviously many more individuals, and organizations that differ with your opinion.
The city of Philadelphia may have eliminated the use of polygraph as a screening tool for it's law enforcement applicants, however there are many other departments that continue to utilize it, and it is probably a rather safe bet that Philly will use it again in the future.
You asked what an obvious "non-hire" would be? Do I really need to answer that? Use your imagination and I'm certain you can come up with a definition of an obvious non-hire within the realm of law enforcement.
How do you suggest law enforcement agencies weed through the hundreds and thousands of applicants? You mention things such as,
"…a battery of written, verbal, and physical tests. Factors such as a candidate's education, skills, and life experience are also considered. To the extent that there are more applicants than positions available, the standards for hiring may simply be raised, and then only the most qualified candidates may be selected for background investigations."
I would venture to say that a battery of written, verbal, and physical tests is in fact administered, however later in the hiring process. As with any job, there must be some way of eliminating the applicants who do not obviously qualify.
As for raising the hiring standards, how realistic is that in this day and age of equal opportunity. Just how difficult would it be for any agency to now say they are “raising the bar”? What would be their justification for doing so? What parts of the standards get raised? Are you talking about the ethical standards, the mental standards, the educational standards, or the physical standards?
George, I’m afraid you are wishing for a very Utopian society. Very commendable, but not realistic? As I have said many times on this site, polygraph is a far from perfect tool, but when it is utilized properly, and given only the weight or consideration that is appropriate, it can be a very useful tool. You want to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because the water is a bit dirty. No one, in a decision making position, will go along with this. Which brings us back to Philly, a great city, as long as one does not have to live there. I predict that within five years they will re-institute the policy of using polygraph when screening law enforcement applicants. This will come about once they realize how many “bad apples” have gotten through the process. No doubt the utilization of polygraph would not have, and will not, eliminate the fact that some of those same bad apples would get through the system, but it certainly would have identified many of them.
I wish you luck with your crusade, however until you can develop something a bit more concrete to offer as an alternative, I’m afraid you will not succeed.
Batman
Regardless of your personal beliefs about polygraph, it's validity, or how it is in fact applied, there are obviously many more individuals, and organizations that differ with your opinion.
The city of Philadelphia may have eliminated the use of polygraph as a screening tool for it's law enforcement applicants, however there are many other departments that continue to utilize it, and it is probably a rather safe bet that Philly will use it again in the future.
You asked what an obvious "non-hire" would be? Do I really need to answer that? Use your imagination and I'm certain you can come up with a definition of an obvious non-hire within the realm of law enforcement.
How do you suggest law enforcement agencies weed through the hundreds and thousands of applicants? You mention things such as,
"…a battery of written, verbal, and physical tests. Factors such as a candidate's education, skills, and life experience are also considered. To the extent that there are more applicants than positions available, the standards for hiring may simply be raised, and then only the most qualified candidates may be selected for background investigations."
I would venture to say that a battery of written, verbal, and physical tests is in fact administered, however later in the hiring process. As with any job, there must be some way of eliminating the applicants who do not obviously qualify.
As for raising the hiring standards, how realistic is that in this day and age of equal opportunity. Just how difficult would it be for any agency to now say they are “raising the bar”? What would be their justification for doing so? What parts of the standards get raised? Are you talking about the ethical standards, the mental standards, the educational standards, or the physical standards?
George, I’m afraid you are wishing for a very Utopian society. Very commendable, but not realistic? As I have said many times on this site, polygraph is a far from perfect tool, but when it is utilized properly, and given only the weight or consideration that is appropriate, it can be a very useful tool. You want to throw the baby out with the bath water simply because the water is a bit dirty. No one, in a decision making position, will go along with this. Which brings us back to Philly, a great city, as long as one does not have to live there. I predict that within five years they will re-institute the policy of using polygraph when screening law enforcement applicants. This will come about once they realize how many “bad apples” have gotten through the process. No doubt the utilization of polygraph would not have, and will not, eliminate the fact that some of those same bad apples would get through the system, but it certainly would have identified many of them.
I wish you luck with your crusade, however until you can develop something a bit more concrete to offer as an alternative, I’m afraid you will not succeed.
Batman
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 18, 2003, 09:58 AMQuote from: Batman on May 17, 2003, 07:25 PMGiven all the feelings and beliefs that polygraph should be removed from the law Enforcement hiring picture, what suggestions do you folks have as to how best to hire people into this career?
As an invalid diagnostic technique, polygraph screening should simply be removed from the hiring process. It doesn't need to be replaced with anything.
QuoteKeep in mind your arguements about cost to the tax payer. Do you have any realistic idea as to how much it would cost the taxpayer to do a complete background investigation on each and every applicant?
You present a false dilemma. The choice to law enforcement agencies is not one of either doing a complete background investigation on each and every applicant or relying on pseudoscientific polygraph chart readings.
The law enforcement hiring process involves a battery of written, verbal, and physical tests. Factors such as a candidate's education, skills, and life experience are also considered. To the extent that there are more applicants than positions available, the standards for hiring may simply be raised, and then only the most qualified candidates may be selected for background investigations.
QuoteThere has to be some sort of "screening" tool to eliminate the obvious non-hires.
What makes someone an "obvious non-hire?"
QuoteGranted, some good folks may not make it past this screening stage, however and unfortunately, that's the cost of doing business. Just as it is that some bad apples will make it through the process.
The injustice to individuals associated with reliance on the invalid diagnostic technique that is polygraph screening is completely unnecessary and entirely avoidable. The Philadelphia Police Department came to this realization last year when it abolished polygraph screening.
QuoteMany may not like the reality of all this, but it is in fact the reality, and until something better comes along...
Unfair labor practices such as polygraph screening may be ended either through legislation (e.g., the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act, from which the government regrettably exempted itself) or by administrative action, such as that taken by the Philadelphia Police Department last year. An invalid technique such as polygraph screening doesn't need to be replaced with "something better." Its elimination is "something better."
QuoteHowever, using the "expense to the taxpayer" rational carries little, if any, water. The costs to the taxpayer would sky-rocket in more ways than just dollars if the polygraph was not used to filter through initial applicants.
I agree with you that the dollar expense to taxpayers is not a strong argument against polygraph screening.
QuoteBut, I'm sure folks like George, Drew, et al, have some cost effective, fool-proof, grand plan to propose, other than just saying polygraph sucks, so do away with it. Maybe they'll let us in on it some day.
Again, junk science like polygraphy doesn't need to be replaced with "something better." Just as law enforcement applicants are not assessed on the basis such nonsense as palm readings, tea leaf readings, or cranial inspection by a "trained and experienced" phrenologist, they should not be subjected to the quackery of polygraph chart readings.
Posted by no_sugar_coating
- May 18, 2003, 09:15 AMI will give you that. They should allow you to see what your charts and scores look like.
See... I am not above admitting that.
See... I am not above admitting that.
Posted by triple x
- May 18, 2003, 03:00 AMno_sugar_coating,
You wrote:
Many readers of this board believe that polygraph testing is simply flawed and unreliable.
Instead of directing unwarranted and unprovoked personal insults to anyone and everyone that dares to question or challenge polygraph testing in general, why don't you instead try to explain or debate your position as a polygraph supporter.
I have a simple and easy question for you: if polygraph testing is fair, reliable, trustworthy, and has nothing to hide, then why not provide all pre-employment polygraph test subjects with a copy of audio/video tapes, to include all questions, notes and charts following their polygraph exam?
Why the big shroud of secrecy if there is nothing to fear or hide... ??
triple x
You wrote:
QuoteBatman - The only reason they say polygraph sucks is because they failed one.
And no, they will never come up with something to replace it, because that too would eliminate them.
So until something comes along that will allow them to slip through the cracks then they will never be satisfied.
Many readers of this board believe that polygraph testing is simply flawed and unreliable.
Instead of directing unwarranted and unprovoked personal insults to anyone and everyone that dares to question or challenge polygraph testing in general, why don't you instead try to explain or debate your position as a polygraph supporter.
I have a simple and easy question for you: if polygraph testing is fair, reliable, trustworthy, and has nothing to hide, then why not provide all pre-employment polygraph test subjects with a copy of audio/video tapes, to include all questions, notes and charts following their polygraph exam?
Why the big shroud of secrecy if there is nothing to fear or hide... ??
triple x
Posted by no_sugar_coating
- May 18, 2003, 01:52 AMBatman - The only reason they say polygraph sucks is because they failed one.
And no, they will never come up with something to replace it, because that too would eliminate them.
So until something comes along that will allow them to slip through the cracks then they will never be satisfied.
And no, they will never come up with something to replace it, because that too would eliminate them.
So until something comes along that will allow them to slip through the cracks then they will never be satisfied.
Posted by triple x
- May 17, 2003, 09:10 PMSuethem,
You ask:
LOL or, lol is internet chat "slang" {abbreviated} for laughing out loud.
triple x
You ask:
QuoteWhat does LOL!!! mean?
LOL or, lol is internet chat "slang" {abbreviated} for laughing out loud.
triple x
Posted by Batman
- May 17, 2003, 07:25 PMWow! Did this thread ever sink to some name calling lows.
Given all the feelings and beliefs that polygraph should be removed from the law Enforcement hiring picture, what suggestions do you folks have as to how best to hire people into this career? Keep in mind your arguements about cost to the tax payer. Do you have any realistic idea as to how much it would cost the taxpayer to do a complete background investigation on each and every applicant? There has to be some sort of "screening" tool to eliminate the obvious non-hires. Granted, some good folks may not make it past this screening stage, however and unfortunately, that's the cost of doing business. Just as it is that some bad apples will make it through the process.
Many may not like the reality of all this, but it is in fact the reality, and until something better comes along...
However, using the "expense to the taxpayer" rational carries little, if any, water. The costs to the taxpayer would sky-rocket in more ways than just dollars if the polygraph was not used to filter through initial applicants.
But, I'm sure folks like George, Drew, et al, have some cost effective, fool-proof, grand plan to propose, other than just saying polygraph sucks, so do away with it. Maybe they'll let us in on it some day.
Batman
Given all the feelings and beliefs that polygraph should be removed from the law Enforcement hiring picture, what suggestions do you folks have as to how best to hire people into this career? Keep in mind your arguements about cost to the tax payer. Do you have any realistic idea as to how much it would cost the taxpayer to do a complete background investigation on each and every applicant? There has to be some sort of "screening" tool to eliminate the obvious non-hires. Granted, some good folks may not make it past this screening stage, however and unfortunately, that's the cost of doing business. Just as it is that some bad apples will make it through the process.
Many may not like the reality of all this, but it is in fact the reality, and until something better comes along...
However, using the "expense to the taxpayer" rational carries little, if any, water. The costs to the taxpayer would sky-rocket in more ways than just dollars if the polygraph was not used to filter through initial applicants.
But, I'm sure folks like George, Drew, et al, have some cost effective, fool-proof, grand plan to propose, other than just saying polygraph sucks, so do away with it. Maybe they'll let us in on it some day.
Batman