AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

I am currently going to a major city for a poly test for a fire job and am not sure if I should just tell the truth and see if they will take me or beat the machine....

I tried a couple of drugs in highschool weed ectasy 2 times and I stole a used tv from a job I had when I was 17....  I am now 27 and am a adult and a responsible one at that!  Will they still hire me if I tell the truth?  What should I do?

I do not know whether the behavior you've described would disqualify you from employment as a municipal firefighter, though I strongly doubt it. Either way, I think those seeking positions of public trust have a civic duty to answer relevant questions truthfully.

Be aware that whether or not you choose to be completely honest with your polygrapher, your polygrapher will not be completely honest with you. Polygraphy depends on the operator lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested." You'll find this trickery exposed in Chapter 3 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf).

Trying,

Your errors in judgment took place when you were still a juvenile.  George may leave it open as to whether you should lie about those things, but the world is not as gray as his view of it. For such minor errors, I suggest being honest and open.  If you want a law enforcement or public service career, at least begin it with honesty.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 21, 2006, 06:04 PMTrying,

Your errors in judgment took place when you were still a juvenile.  George may leave it open as to whether you should lie about those things, but the world is not as gray as his view of it. For such minor errors, I suggest being honest and open.  If you want a law enforcement or public service career, at least begin it with honesty.

When I read George's post, I saw that he, as always, advised the original poster that people seeking positions of public trust have a duty to answer questions truthfully.

What part did you read that led you to conclude that George suggested that the poster "leave it open as to whether you should lie about those things"?

Sergeant,

I have always read George's policy that way, i.e. to begin a career of public trust by being honest.

As I've explained before, George's (and other so-called experts on this website) belief is that countermeasures really work, and that examiner's can't detect them. I don't agree with this, but the point is that George believes it. The "gray" area in which George lives is an area of rationalization because he believes he is doing a service to the world by providing "innocent" examinees with the way to beat a polygraph. It's ok in his mind--or at least justifiable--that criminals and job applicants who should fail a polygraph might use his information to get away with their crimes/lack of integrity as long as a few potential "false positives" can try to ensure that they pass the exam. Again, it's George's belief that makes his world a "gray" world. You can argue, "Well, he does say that those seeking public service jobs should be honest to the relevant questions," but that's a big stretch considering his rationalization regarding the potential misuse of the information he believes can beat the polygraph.

LBCB,

You told TryingToGetAJob: "George may leave it open as to whether you should lie about those things..."

Precisely how did I "leave it open?" Your credibility is on the line here.

Actually, George, your credibility should be on the line here. If TryingToGetAJob attempts the countermeasures you advocate on this site, that would be a lie, since his/her mistakes probably apply to the relevant issues on the test. By saying whether or not he/she chooses to be honest to the polygraph, he/she should realize that the polygrapher won't be honest to him/her, shows how you rationalize the issue, George. You might as well just say, "Lie to the polygrapher because the polygrapher will lie to you," rather than dodge around the issue with a little sentence about how people in public service should be honest to the relevant issues.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 24, 2006, 06:28 PMActually, George, your credibility should be on the line here. If TryingToGetAJob attempts the countermeasures you advocate on this site, that would be a lie, since his/her mistakes probably apply to the relevant issues on the test. By saying whether or not he/she chooses to be honest to the polygraph, he/she should realize that the polygrapher won't be honest to him/her, shows how you rationalize the issue, George. You might as well just say, "Lie to the polygrapher because the polygrapher will lie to you," rather than dodge around the issue with a little sentence about how people in public service should be honest to the relevant issues.

As I mentioned directly to TryingToGetAJob, I think those seeking positions of public trust have a civic duty to answer relevant questions truthfully.

But there is every reason for those who are truthful on pre-employment polygraph examinations to employ countermeasures to protect themselves against the risk of a false positive outcome. Candor on the part of the examinee does not entail candor on the part of the examiner, and if you refuse to acknowledge that, I submit that you're not being intellectually honest.

If I were to spin your remarks in a way similar to that in which you have spun mine, I might say that because you told TryingToGetAJob "For such minor errors, I suggest being honest and open" you implicitly were saying that had he/she committed more serious errors, you would then suggest that he/she not be honest and open. But I don't think that's what you meant to say.

Can you see my point?

LBCB,

You are assailing George and those that support this site with aiding criminals and those not qualified to obtain a job through readily accessible information about polygraphy.  You have also labeled the majority of users of the site as liars, even by going so far as to discount the claims of those wrongly labeled liars (false positives).

May I ask you this: Why is it not standard procedure for examiners to admit up-front in screening exams whatever accuracy percentage is the accepted number by professional examiners?  Why hide the fact that, yes there is the possibility that I may incorrectly interpret your chart, labeling you a liar and effectively killing your chance of employment within this agency?

I fail to understand how you and your colleagues can speak out of both sides of your mouths, riduculing those you think are lying or withholding information while you are in fact lying and withholding information.  It is simply unethical behavior.

Quote from: day2day on Nov 24, 2006, 10:57 PM
May I ask you this: Why is it not standard procedure for examiners to admit up-front in screening exams whatever accuracy percentage is the accepted number by professional examiners?

2 comments:
Recall LBCB dogmatically stated the polygraph error rate is "1 in a million."  Accordingly, LBCB would just lie (again).
Professional examiners is an oxymoron.

Quote from: day2day on Nov 24, 2006, 10:57 PMLBCB,
May I ask you this: Why is it not standard procedure for examiners to admit up-front in screening exams whatever accuracy percentage is the accepted number by professional examiners?

The basic reason is that the responses the polygraph measures assume that the examinee believes or can be encouraged to believe that the polygraph is highly accurate. Otherwise the examinee is presumed at greater risk of fearing the polygraph will be wrong on the relevant questions and that that fear might be sufficient to override the control.  Polygrapher's don't do this because they enjoy lying. They do it because they believe it reduces false positives. Same with setting the control question state of mind.

This also makes it somewhat difficult to have reasonable and open discussions on a public forum.

I think most current polygraphers don't go the infallible or 1 in a million route since such an overstatement may reduce the credibility of the polygrapher and hence be counterproductive.

There's an interesting PhD thesis that is fairly recent that is fairly direct in outlining current practice. While the fellow doesn't support screening polygraphy, he does support specific incident testing as well as the Conceiled Information Test generally considered significantly better. He goes into a great deal of detail on CIT polys in forensic apps and is worth reading.

Here's a segment where he discusses the CQT preliminaries and I think one can see the rationale more clearly from this:

Bruno Verschuere, PhD Thesis, 2005
Ghent University

http://users.ugent.be/~bvschuer/Introduction.pdf

QuoteThe main aim of the first or pretest phase is to convince the suspect of the extreme high accuracy of the polygraph and to discuss the formulation of the questions. The relevant questions (e.g., "Do you know who kidnapped the prime minister?") are formulated in such a way that the suspect can unambiguously answer with "no" to all of them. The control questions are deliberately formulated more vague and general, for example "Have you ever taken anything that did not belong to you?" or "Have you ever done anything illegal?". The examinee is maneuvered into answering "no" on these questions by suggesting that a positive answer would be indicative of guilt.

More:
http://users.ugent.be/~bvschuer/research.htm

Meaningo and Marty these are not questions which have answers I do not know.  I am looking for the  method by which polygraphers talk themselves to sleep. ;)

Quote from: day2day on Nov 24, 2006, 10:57 PMLBCB,

May I ask you this: Why is it not standard procedure for examiners to admit up-front in screening exams whatever accuracy percentage is the accepted number by professional examiners?  Why hide the fact that, yes there is the possibility that I may incorrectly interpret your chart, labeling you a liar and effectively killing your chance of employment within this agency?

Actually, most examiners whom I know are quite candid about the polygraph during the pre-test interview with examinees. It is quite common for examiners to tell an examinee that, although the polygraph is not perfect, it is highly accurate, and it is the best instrument available. Typically the figures we use are that the polygraph is between 85-90% accurate. This takes into account that inconclusive results are not counted because obviously they are not right or wrong, but simply inconclusive.

Also, for most agencies, Federal, state or local, the polygraph is not the only criterion used to make a hiring decision, nor should it be. Polygraph examiners are not usually in a position to decide whom to hire or not to hire. People who judge all of the criteria make that decision. But let me ask you, if you are that person making the final decision, and there are 100 job applicants who passed the polygraph, background investigation, etc., and there are a few with equal qualifications who failed the polygraph or came up inconclusive--considering how competitive the hiring process can be--whom would you be more inclined to hire?

Quote
But let me ask you, if you are that person making the final decision, and there are 100 job applicants who passed the polygraph, background investigation, etc., and there are a few with equal qualifications who failed the polygraph or came up inconclusive--considering how competitive the hiring process can be--whom would you be more inclined to hire?

This is a trick question. You didn't mention how the applicant performed on their tarot card reading or what the psychics had to say about the person.

And I dont believe you when you say most examiners are candid about the test. They are deceptive about the nature of the test and the questions.

Seroiusly, though. I don't know what group you do polygrpahs for, but the FBI, for example, does consider the poly as a 100% pass/fial proposition, in direct conflict with the suggestions of the APA and most polygrpahers that I correspond with. I suspect for that reason, a great many posters on this site are victims the the federal hiring system false positives.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 27, 2006, 12:49 PM
Actually, most examiners whom I know are quite candid about the polygraph during the pre-test interview with examinees. It is quite common for examiners to tell an examinee that, although the polygraph is not perfect, it is highly accurate, and it is the best instrument available. Typically the figures we use are that the polygraph is between 85-90% accurate. This takes into account that inconclusive results are not counted because obviously they are not right or wrong, but simply inconclusive.

Great, we're back to the base rate problem. Ignoring inconclusives for the moment, let's suppose that your accuracy rate is 90%. Let's also suppose that 10% of the people you're polygraphing will be lying. Let's also say that you've done 1000 of these tests, that means 100 are lying, 900 are telling the truth.

So you will identify 90 of deceivers correctly and have 10 false negatives, allowing 10 liars to go forward in the job process.

You will also correctly identify 810 who are telling the truth but you will falsely accuse 90 of lying, thereby destroying their hopes of a law enforcement career.

The gives you 90 true positives and 90 false positives. So for every person you correctly identify as deceptive, you will incorrectly label another deceptive. In other words, if the test is positive, it's a 50-50 chance that person is truly deceptive.

And the funny thing is with 90% accuracy even if the base rate of lying was 50%, you'd still falsely accuse 50 people of lying in our hypothetical sample.

And these are with rosy numbers, the polygraph isn't as accurate nor is the base rate as hgh in real life. So tell me again how great a tool the polygraph is?

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 27, 2006, 12:49 PM

Actually, most examiners whom I know are quite candid about the polygraph during the pre-test interview with examinees. It is quite common for examiners to tell an examinee that, although the polygraph is not perfect, it is highly accurate, and it is the best instrument available. Typically the figures we use are that the polygraph is between 85-90% accurate. This takes into account that inconclusive results are not counted because obviously they are not right or wrong, but simply inconclusive.

Also, for most agencies, Federal, state or local, the polygraph is not the only criterion used to make a hiring decision, nor should it be. Polygraph examiners are not usually in a position to decide whom to hire or not to hire. People who judge all of the criteria make that decision. But let me ask you, if you are that person making the final decision, and there are 100 job applicants who passed the polygraph, background investigation, etc., and there are a few with equal qualifications who failed the polygraph or came up inconclusive--considering how competitive the hiring process can be--whom would you be more inclined to hire?

I have sat for more than 1 exam and was never given any information which could be seen as negative about polygraphy offered up by an examiner.  That would include accuracy percentages.  By those percentages you have shown the fact that there stands the very real possibility for an examinee to be mislabeled as deceptive.  Not a very good way to instill confidence in the process by the examinee.

As far as 100 passing candidates and a few failing candidates goes, my suspicions of a "weeding out" are confirmed.  It is just another method utilized to thin the applicant pool.

Quote from: day2day on Nov 27, 2006, 03:06 PM

As far as 100 passing candidates and a few failing candidates goes, my suspicions of a "weeding out" are confirmed.  It is just another method utilized to thin the applicant pool.

You've hit the proverbial nail on the head, day2day. That's what the screening process is all about--"weeding out." Again, if you were the one making the final decision, all other things being equal, would you choose the applicant who passed the polygraph, or the applicant who failed it or came up inconclusive? The undeniable fact is that the law enforcement job competition is fierce, and the whole "screening" process is designed to make it easy for the person making the final decision. So, regardless of whether the polygraph or the background investigation or any other part of the screening process is perfect, the screening process has a purpose. For the most part, I believe the best people get the job, and the polygraph contributes to the goal of getting the best people. But law enforcement agencies can not hire everyone, so they do the best they can with the tools they have.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 27, 2006, 03:45 PM

But law enforcement agencies can not hire everyone, so they do the best they can with the tools they have.

There are all kinds of "tools" any employer can use to weed out candidates.  LBCB, do you support the following "weeding out" tools:
-- race?
-- gender?
-- objective (i.e., not the polygraph) testing?
-- comprehensive background investigations?


BTW, I have never applied for a law enforcement job.

Quote from: Meangino on Nov 27, 2006, 04:15 PM
There are all kinds of "tools" any employer can use to weed out candidates.  LBCB, do you support the following "weeding out" tools:
-- race?
-- gender?
-- objective (i.e., not the polygraph) testing?
-- comprehensive background investigations?

I don't believe in any kind of weeding out or preferential treatment based on anything but qualifications and background. The background investigation and the polygraph are designed to address the important issues.

That said, and because I have the luxury of being an anonymous, unknown-gender poster who doesn't have to worry about being politically correct, I will say this: When it comes to law enforcement jobs that include hands-on, arrest contact with criminals, the average woman, despite any other wonderful attributes, education, or experience, should be weeded out. Time and time again we see female law enforcement officers overpowered by male criminals, often resulting in injury or death of themselves or others,  and/or escape of the criminal.  Too many people are too afraid to talk about this subject, but most people know I am correct.  But that's a whole other topic, isn't it?

I believe, through experience and the studies I choose to believe that support my experience, that the polygraph works almost all of the time. We can talk all day and night about percentages of false positives and false negatives and get nowhere on this website, and most people in the world don't read this website and wouldn't be impressed if they did. The fact is simply that agencies want to get the best people for the job, and they use the best tools they have to accomplish that goal. The polygraph isn't perfect, but it's an undeniably useful screening tool. Not everyone will be hired, and if any of you are actually false positives, it's just the cost of doing business that you fell through the cracks because most people pass the polygraph and go on to have successful law enforcement careers.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 27, 2006, 04:34 PM

I don't believe in any kind of weeding out or preferential treatment based on anything but qualifications and background. The background investigation and the polygraph are designed to address the important issues.

That said, and because I have the luxury of being an anonymous, unknown-gender poster who doesn't have to worry about being politically correct, I will say this: When it comes to law enforcement jobs that include hands-on, arrest contact with criminals, the average woman, despite any other wonderful attributes, education, or experience, should be weeded out. Time and time again we see female law enforcement officers overpowered by male criminals, often resulting in injury or death of themselves or others,  and/or escape of the criminal.  Too many people are too afraid to talk about this subject, but most people know I am correct.  But that's a whole other topic, isn't it?

I believe, through experience and the studies I choose to believe that support my experience, that the polygraph works almost all of the time. We can talk all day and night about percentages of false positives and false negatives and get nowhere on this website, and most people in the world don't read this website and wouldn't be impressed if they did. The fact is simply that agencies want to get the best people for the job, and they use the best tools they have to accomplish that goal. The polygraph isn't perfect, but it's an undeniably useful screening tool. Not everyone will be hired, and if any of you are actually false positives, it's just the cost of doing business that you fell through the cracks because most people pass the polygraph and go on to have successful law enforcement careers.

Had your career aspirations been dashed by polygraph, I'm sure you would not hold such an "ah well, it's the cost of business" attitude.

Quote from: day2day on Nov 27, 2006, 05:16 PMHad your career aspirations been dashed by polygraph, I'm sure you would not hold such an "ah well, it's the cost of business" attitude.

Indeed, it seems that our friends in the polygraph community are little concerned with this "cost of doing business" because it is one that they do not pay.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 27, 2006, 04:34 PM

I don't believe in any kind of weeding out or preferential treatment based on anything but qualifications and background. The background investigation and the polygraph are designed to address the important issues.

That said, and because I have the luxury of being an anonymous, unknown-gender poster who doesn't have to worry about being politically correct, I will say this: When it comes to law enforcement jobs that include hands-on, arrest contact with criminals, the average woman, despite any other wonderful attributes, education, or experience, should be weeded out. Time and time again we see female law enforcement officers overpowered by male criminals, often resulting in injury or death of themselves or others,  and/or escape of the criminal.  Too many people are too afraid to talk about this subject, but most people know I am correct.  But that's a whole other topic, isn't it?

So I guess no male officers are ever overpowered by criminals, correct? By your logic, only large, physical brutes should be police officers. But you're right, it's a digression from the topic...

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 27, 2006, 04:34 PM
I believe, through experience and the studies I choose to believe that support my experience, that the polygraph works almost all of the time. We can talk all day and night about percentages of false positives and false negatives and get nowhere on this website, and most people in the world don't read this website and wouldn't be impressed if they did. The fact is simply that agencies want to get the best people for the job, and they use the best tools they have to accomplish that goal. The polygraph isn't perfect, but it's an undeniably useful screening tool. Not everyone will be hired, and if any of you are actually false positives, it's just the cost of doing business that you fell through the cracks because most people pass the polygraph and go on to have successful law enforcement careers.

What if one of the best, if not the best, qualified candidates is one of the false positives? Face it, the polygraph screening process poses a security risk due to the base rate problem, regardless if you're looking for spies, potentially bad employees, or parolee reoffending. The math doesn't lie...

Quote from: George W. Maschke on Nov 27, 2006, 05:25 PM

Indeed, it seems that our friends in the polygraph community are little concerned with this "cost of doing business" because it is one that they do not pay.

Well, that depends on how you look at it, George. I don't believe that all of the "false" positives are actually false, and I don't believe false positives are as common in the real world as you want the average reader to believe.  The key word is IF.  IF some of you are actually false positives, then you are indeed victims of an imperfect instrument or an imperfect polygraph examiner. IF that is the case, as sad as that may be, you have to move on. At least most of you aren't the victim of a botched medical procedure, mechanical failure in an automobile or airplane, an industrial accident, an accidental firearm discharge, a lightning strike, or a meteor shower. The world isn't perfect, nor or the machines made by men. I know from experience that the polygraph works almost all of the time in field conditions, and that it takes much more to be a false positive than you would like the average reader to believe. When the "cost of doing business" is viewed through my lenses rather than yours, it is much easier to swallow.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 27, 2006, 04:34 PM

I don't believe in any kind of weeding out or preferential treatment based on anything but qualifications and background. The background investigation and the polygraph are designed to address the important issues.

That said, and because I have the luxury of being an anonymous, unknown-gender poster who doesn't have to worry about being politically correct, I will say this: When it comes to law enforcement jobs that include hands-on, arrest contact with criminals, the average woman, despite any other wonderful attributes, education, or experience, should be weeded out. Time and time again we see female law enforcement officers overpowered by male criminals, often resulting in injury or death of themselves or others,  and/or escape of the criminal.  Too many people are too afraid to talk about this subject, but most people know I am correct.  But that's a whole other topic, isn't it?

I believe, through experience and the studies I choose to believe that support my experience, that the polygraph works almost all of the time. We can talk all day and night about percentages of false positives and false negatives and get nowhere on this website, and most people in the world don't read this website and wouldn't be impressed if they did. The fact is simply that agencies want to get the best people for the job, and they use the best tools they have to accomplish that goal. The polygraph isn't perfect, but it's an undeniably useful screening tool. Not everyone will be hired, and if any of you are actually false positives, it's just the cost of doing business that you fell through the cracks because most people pass the polygraph and go on to have successful law enforcement careers.

LBCB,

Then by weeding out, you condone collateral damage of an individuals reputation, veracity, and honor. Thats mighty cavalier considering you have this power to destroy an individuals life. Being the victim of a false positive, I to this day believe that because I wasn't a graduate of an Ivy League University, as the only reason I was deemed undesireable. I 100% went into the polygraph (initial polygraphs) with the intent and mindset to tell the truth and I would be fine. Did that and didn't get hired. I was told I was deceptive on portions of the test . I was trashed canned, even though 100% honest, and was told by the examiner,  this agency didn't hire deceptive types.  The following week at another agency, same mindset and answers to the questions and passed just fine. Since these inital polygraphs and my own self education into your polygraphy world, there is no way bias can be eliminated. And I refuse to ever be a victim again of this infernal machine or ever take the abuse from a polygrapher again. The same thing happened to folks that worked for me, they too had their professional lifes ruined because of an opinion. How fair is this ? For me the collateral damage is just too expensive.
Your statements alone on females proves you can't be impartial or unbiased. So we are, where we are. Until you have a machine that is 100% accurate, without human weaknesses, is just wrong and again your process is still just a human opinion with the problems associated with human judgement and opinion. And from experience those that have the knowlege about the polygraph, at worst case without CM's. All you get is inconclusive, everytime. And from a previous message, at what point do you realize that it won't work ? Then you have to do what should have been done in the first place and evaluate fairly without the bias of a polygraph.

Regards ....

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 27, 2006, 06:34 PMWhen the "cost of doing business" is viewed through my lenses rather than yours, it is much easier to swallow.

It's easier to swallow because again, it's a "cost of doing business" that you do not pay.

EosJ:

For most of your last post, my previous post is sufficient reply. However, just to be clear on two things:

First, it is an undeniable fact that bad guys will be less intimidated by the average female than the average male, as well as less inclined to behave in a potentially violent confrontation with a male than with a female, unless lethal force is threatened by the female. I know this by experience as well as observation of numerous video clips of real-life occurrences. It does not make me biased or prejudiced to admit that. Politically incorrect in today's crazy world, yes, but not biased or prejudiced.

Second, when dealing with inconclusive polygraph results, many people should be thankful for the gray area of the inconclusive result. Otherwise they may have flat-out failed the exam. I believe the inconclusive is responsible for many people being on the job who may not have been if there was no gray area. To fall below that gray area, a person has to have some real issues. If not some real criminal history, then perhaps they are just messing with their own heads by getting all mixed up about the polygraph by reading about false positives and countermeasures on this website. Some of those people, perhaps many, would have passed the polygraph if they hadn't done themselves the disservice of following some of the advice on this website. If you were one of the relatively tiny percentage of true false positives, then look at it through the eyes of an engineer-type, which you often tout yourself to be--machines are not perfect, and people are not perfect. Maybe God is sorry for creating an imperfect world. Perhaps you should ask Him/Her.

George:

There are many things we have to "pay" for in this life. If the worst thing you have had to pay for is a failed polygraph and not being a Government employee, then you have a lot to be thankful for. Be thankful that the biggest thing you have to complain about is that failed polygraph, and be thankful for all the time you have had in your life to spend worrying about a machine and a process that you would have done well to forget about long ago. When your life is done, you can look back on it and say, "I spent about 20 years of my life talking to people about the polygraph. What a great life."

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 27, 2006, 07:02 PMEosJ:
Maybe God is sorry for creating an imperfect world. Perhaps you should ask Him/Her.

If God created an imperfect world. does that excuse man for his mistakes, such as employing a "truth telling" device that has an accuracy rate similar to entrails reading?

 LBCB, since you believe women have no place in law enforcement, what other trades and professions do you believe women should not practice?  
a. Surgery?
b. airline pilots?
c.  military fighter pilots?
d.  beautician?
e.  military police?
f.  The Congress?

No doubt, LBCB has been exposed for his sexist views.

LBCB,

Let's play hypothetical for a moment.  Let's say you had aspirations of becoming a peace officer.  Everything went well in the first phases, you have kept your background in good shape, scored well on the written and aced the fitness evaluation.  Things are looking good.  Then you come to a polygraph examination, you have relatively little to no idea why or how it works but no reason to believe it does not work as claimed.  A week or so goes by and then you get a letter telling you your application has been discontinued and later you find out you failed your polygraph exam.  You know in your heart of hearts that you told the truth.  How can this be?  Can you honestly say you would not find that to be incredible?  Can you honestly say you wouldn't be pissed off?  Can you honestly say that your first impression would not be lasting?  Can you honestly say that you would not feel that you were done a disservice?  Can you honestly say you would tell yourself, "Hmm, that sucks, guess I'll just move on to something else and figure that I am an acceptable loss and they'll find someone else to fill that position I really wanted.  Oh, well?"

If you answer 'yes' to any of those questions, you'll be lying. ;)

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 27, 2006, 06:34 PM

Well, that depends on how you look at it, George. I don't believe that all of the "false" positives are actually false, and I don't believe false positives are as common in the real world as you want the average reader to believe.  The key word is IF.  IF some of you are actually false positives, then you are indeed victims of an imperfect instrument or an imperfect polygraph examiner. IF that is the case, as sad as that may be, you have to move on. At least most of you aren't the victim of a botched medical procedure, mechanical failure in an automobile or airplane, an industrial accident, an accidental firearm discharge, a lightning strike, or a meteor shower. The world isn't perfect, nor or the machines made by men. I know from experience that the polygraph works almost all of the time in field conditions, and that it takes much more to be a false positive than you would like the average reader to believe. When the "cost of doing business" is viewed through my lenses rather than yours, it is much easier to swallow.

LCBC,

False positives and negatives are a function of both the accuracy and the base rate of what you're trying to detect...

If your beloved polygraph has only 90% accuracy, it doesn't matter what you believe, reality wills out...

If the base rate of deception is low, you will have a significant amount of false positives (e.g., employment screening)...
 
If the base rate of deception is high, you will have a significant amount of false negatives (e.g., sex offenders)...

The only time these balance out is if the base rate of deception is 50%. Surely you can't believe that 50% of all applicants for law enforcement are lying or that only 50% of sex offenders are lying. You're only deceiving yourself if you believe otherwise...

In addition, the rest of your comparisons of the polygraph failure to illdone medical procedures, acts of god, or mechanical failure are simply misdirection. A better comparison would be to medical screening which has significantly better methods (e.g., independent sequential testing, more accurate tests) to reduce the occurence of false positives and negative to your wishful thinking of below 1/1,000,000...

You can tap dance all you want and claim that only experience matters, but the laws of probability are pretty much immutable. Not only does the CQT polygraph have no scientific basis, its self proclaimed accuracy reduces its usefulness to nil...

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Nov 27, 2006, 07:02 PMGeorge:

There are many things we have to "pay" for in this life. If the worst thing you have had to pay for is a failed polygraph and not being a Government employee, then you have a lot to be thankful for. Be thankful that the biggest thing you have to complain about is that failed polygraph, and be thankful for all the time you have had in your life to spend worrying about a machine and a process that you would have done well to forget about long ago. When your life is done, you can look back on it and say, "I spent about 20 years of my life talking to people about the polygraph. What a great life."

During the first four years after the FBI falsely branded me a liar (https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml), I did indeed simply move on with my life. It was only after finding out that what happened to me is also happening to many others that I felt compelled to speak publicly on polygraph matters. I have no regrets about the time I've spent telling others the truth about lie detectors. It has already given me much greater satisfaction than a lifetime spent administering these pseudoscientific tests ever could.

;-)

I am currently a patrol sergeant with a municipal department in Connecticut.  My experiences with the polygraph include failing my first three pre-employment exams, all for different reasons.  In each one the examiner would look me in the eye and solemnly tell me that they were the real lie detector, and the machine was just a tool.

Shortly thereafter they would look me in the eye and say they could easily tell I was not being truthful about selling cocaine, assaulting people, and stealing (from first test to third, respectively.)

Since I knew then and I know now that I was telling the complete truth and not withholding any information, I was completely baffled as to how such a mistake could be made.  That it happened three times for three different subjects was even more baffling.

In my fourth test I gave all the same answers and this time was told I had passed.  

Given my experiences I have no reason to believe that every other law enforcement applicant is not treated with the same sort of guessing game on their pre-employment polygraph.  Examiners can write how they believe that they are X% accurate in their tests, but they honestly cannot know precisely who was being deceptive and who wasn't.  They can guess, and they can make what I'm sure they call educated guesses based on their training and experience, but they cannot know.

I know I was truthful and was labeled deceptive.  I know I was truthful on all four of my polygraph exams and was labeled deceptive on the first three.  I don't have to make an educated guess about whether I was telling the truth or not – I know I was.

None of the examiners on this site can swear to the accuracy of the polygraph with the same conviction with which I can swear to its inaccuracy.

Holy sheeeet, Batman! Why don't we all just talk at once? I occasionally read this forum, and less frequently contributed to it than I have for the past couple of weeks, but now I see that I am capable of stirring the anti-polygraph pot very well indeed with my posts. But I can't possibly respond to everything all of you have written. So much of what you have written would require me to simply rehash previous posts, which in turn would lead to other responses that would require me to rehash previous posts, ad nauseum. If I choose a particular question or point, I will be accused of avoiding another or not having an answer, since on this forum polygraph examiners are apparently expected to field every question posed and every idea raised. In this way, we rare polygraph examiners on this website can hardly get a word in edgewise without being bombarded by all of the anti- folks in an apparent effort simply to overwelm us into silence and fill cyberspace with so much anti- cyberbabble that the casual, openminded reader can't help but be swayed by the sheer weight of anti- responses. Rather than take the time to reply to everything and thereby let this website be my life as it is George's, I will simply take the responses in order (assuming they don't require me to simply rehash my earlier posts), and I'll start with this one, since it is the most interesting one:

Quote from: Meangino on Nov 27, 2006, 07:24 PM

If God created an imperfect world. does that excuse man for his mistakes, such as employing a "truth telling" device that has an accuracy rate similar to entrails reading?

LBCB, since you believe women have no place in law enforcement, what other trades and professions do you believe women should not practice?  
a. Surgery?
b. airline pilots?
c.  military fighter pilots?
d.  beautician?
e.  military police?
f.  The Congress?

No doubt, LBCB has been exposed for his sexist views.

Hmmm. If God created the imperfect world, does that excuse man for his mistakes . . .

Yes, it does. God created imperfection, including the imperfect man, so even God should not expect perfection from His/Her imperfect creations. That's an easy one.

As for women being the following:

Surgeons=yes.

Airline Pilots=yes.

Military fighter pilots=yes, unless it's YOUR mom, sister, daughter or wife.

Beautician=yes, although women are inferior in this department to gay men.   ;)

Military Police=No, if it includes any situation where she is not backed up by stronger men.

Congress=yes.

See, LBCB is not that sexist after all.   :-*

LCBC, care to respond to this one?

And again, congratulations on your promotion to senior user on the forum...

Quote from: digithead on Nov 28, 2006, 12:32 AM

LCBC,

False positives and negatives are a function of both the accuracy and the base rate of what you're trying to detect...

If your beloved polygraph has only 90% accuracy, it doesn't matter what you believe, reality wills out...

If the base rate of deception is low, you will have a significant amount of false positives (e.g., employment screening)...

If the base rate of deception is high, you will have a significant amount of false negatives (e.g., sex offenders)...

The only time these balance out is if the base rate of deception is 50%. Surely you can't believe that 50% of all applicants for law enforcement are lying or that only 50% of sex offenders are lying. You're only deceiving yourself if you believe otherwise...

In addition, the rest of your comparisons of the polygraph failure to illdone medical procedures, acts of god, or mechanical failure are simply misdirection. A better comparison would be to medical screening which has significantly better methods (e.g., independent sequential testing, more accurate tests) to reduce the occurence of false positives and negative to your wishful thinking of below 1/1,000,000...

You can tap dance all you want and claim that only experience matters, but the laws of probability are pretty much immutable. Not only does the CQT polygraph have no scientific basis, its self proclaimed accuracy reduces its usefulness to nil...

Digithead,

If you are going to address me, at least get the acronym right.

It isn't your turn yet. Tell you what, though . . . If Dr. Richardson, the only experienced "expert" on this website of whom I am aware, will answer the question I posed for him at least two weeks ago, I will answer yours, even if it means rehashing things I and other polygraph examiners have posted regarding false positives, false negatives, etc. You see, with all the anti- people on this website, you each have the luxury of batting me fly balls all at the same time, while I can only catch one at a time. Here's the question again for Dr. R:

As a polygrapher, with all of your experience, did you ever catch an examinee using countermeasures, and if so, how did you know prior to any admission by the examinee?

Oh, and as a new "Senior User," thanks for the kudos. I never aspired to them, but I'll take my bow and hear my applause while I can.   :D

I see I'm next in line.  I patiently await your response.

Quote from: day2day on Nov 27, 2006, 09:01 PMLBCB,

Let's play hypothetical for a moment.  Let's say you had aspirations of becoming a peace officer.  Everything went well in the first phases, you have kept your background in good shape, scored well on the written and aced the fitness evaluation.  Things are looking good.  Then you come to a polygraph examination, you have relatively little to no idea why or how it works but no reason to believe it does not work as claimed.  A week or so goes by and then you get a letter telling you your application has been discontinued and later you find out you failed your polygraph exam.  You know in your heart of hearts that you told the truth.  How can this be?  Can you honestly say you would not find that to be incredible?  Can you honestly say you wouldn't be pissed off?  Can you honestly say that your first impression would not be lasting?  Can you honestly say that you would not feel that you were done a disservice?  Can you honestly say you would tell yourself, "Hmm, that sucks, guess I'll just move on to something else and figure that I am an acceptable loss and they'll find someone else to fill that position I really wanted.  Oh, well?"

If you answer 'yes' to any of those questions, you'll be lying. ;)

day2day,

If that happened to me, I would indeed be upset. But just because it happened to you, or even happened to a few people on this website doesn't mean it happens a lot. People bring up the FBI's polygraph failure rate. Well, one thing FBI does is consider anything other than actually passing the exam a failure. That means that to pass, you gotta pass, not just come close. I don't agree with this way of doing exams, and I certainly don't agree with making the polygraph the deciding factor in hiring a person. It's supposed to be a useful screening tool, and any agency that uses it as the most important part of the screening process is lying to itself. If it isn't 100% accurate--and I maintain that it is around 90%--then it isn't a perfect process that you should always hang your hat on.

Now, if what you describe actually happened to you, you have a right to be pissed off. But you can either go on with your life and say, "Those are the unfair breaks," or you can devote years and years of your life as George does to talking about a machine and a process and an event in your life that are better off left behind.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 02, 2006, 11:43 PM

day2day,

If that happened to me, I would indeed be upset. But just because it happened to you, or even happened to a few people on this website doesn't mean it happens a lot. People bring up the FBI's polygraph failure rate. Well, one thing FBI does is consider anything other than actually passing the exam a failure. That means that to pass, you gotta pass, not just come close. I don't agree with this way of doing exams, and I certainly don't agree with making the polygraph the deciding factor in hiring a person. It's supposed to be a useful screening tool, and any agency that uses it as the most important part of the screening process is lying to itself. If it isn't 100% accurate--and I maintain that it is around 90%--then it isn't a perfect process that you should always hang your hat on.

Now, if what you describe actually happened to you, you have a right to be pissed off. But you can either go on with your life and say, "Those are the unfair breaks," or you can devote years and years of your life as George does to talking about a machine and a process and an event in your life that are better off left behind.

So by your own estimation of 90% accuracy, you will have 10% false positives and 10% false negatives. That means if the base rate of deception is small, you will have a high number of false positives and if the base rate of deception is high, you will have a high number of false negatives...

Let's do the math again and assume 1% of the people are lying. If you screen 1000 people, 10 people will be lying and you'll detect 9 of them and have 1 false negative. But that means 990 people are not lying, you'll pass 891 of them and 99 will be false positives...

So for every person you correctly identify as deceptive, 10 will be falsely accused. In other words, there's a more than 90% chance that if a person is identified as deceptive, they're actually telling the truth. So tell me again how useful the polygraph is in screening...

Regardless of what you believe or I believe regarding the lack of science behind the polygraph, screening for employment, security, or post-conviction supervision with an instrument that has 90% accuracy is stupid because it has too many false positives or negatives that pose security threats or demolish career opportunities...

Digithead,

I'm not ignoring you, but just trying to figure out your math. You've got 110% in your first paragraph. Where you get the 1% are lying, I don't know. And you fail to take into account the inconclusives that would be in that 1000 people you are screening. I'm too tired first thing on Monday morning to decipher exactly what you mean, but I'll give it a shot in the near future.   ???

No, it's not 110%. Accuracy is actually four items, two of which most people think define accuracy: sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity is the probability that a test will be positive if the condition is present. Specificity is the probability that a test will be negative if the condition is absent. You're claiming accuracy of 90% so I just made sensitivity and specificity equal or both 90%. So that means you will get 10% false negatives and 10% false positives. In other words, 10% of your results are false. Do you follow me now?

The 1% base rate assumes that out of the mythical 1000 people that will be tests, 1% will be lying. We can make it any value, I used 1% because the numbers work cleanly to demonstrate the problem.

However, true accuracy takes into account two different measure, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). These measures are the true yardsticks of accuracy. Because in reality, we never really know if someone has a condition or not, so we want to know the probability that someone has (or doesn't have) the condition given that the test is positive (or negative). Do you follow this?

Sensitivity and specificity are independent of the base rate; PPV and NPV are not. With a 90% sensitivity and specificity, the best PPV and NPV you can hope for is 90%. This occurs only when the base rate is 50% or half of the people you test have the condition. When the base rate is low, you will have a poor PPV and high false positive rate. When the base rate is high, you will have a poor NPV and high false negative rate.

And you don't have to trust my numbers, check out any biostatistics textbooks because they use PPV and NPV to demonstrate Bayes Theorem.

So again, do you really believe that 50% of people applying for LEO jobs are deceptive? Or that only 50% of sex offenders are deceptive? Because that's the only way you'll be 90% correct given your stated accuracy.

And if the base rate is quite low, 1% in my example, with 90% sensitivity, for every correct deception you identify, you will falsely accuse 11 of lying. Beyond the lack of science behind CQT, this is the crux of the NAS report.

Digithead,

I am beginning to see why you chose the name "digithead." Biostatistics and Bayes Theorem are interesting, and it sounds quite impressive the way you explain it. I certainly wouldn't want to study either one in college unless I had insomnia. Simply dealing with a cost/benefit analysis might better explain the way agencies look at polygraph testing, don't you think? Screening processes are just that--they screen. They take a large number of potential employees and narrow it down to a smaller number. The polygraph is widely accepted by law enforcement agencies as a good screening tool, and we could speculate on many reasons for this. But the bottom line is that when agencies view a screening process--any screening process--as 90% accurate, that's good enough for them. As for the other 10% of potential employees, any true false positives or false negatives are the cost, while the 90% are the benefit. It doesn't matter how many among that 10% are false positives or how many are false negatives in screening exams. If they feel they are right 90% of the time, that's considered damn good.  They might miss something in the background investigation too, but that would be another cost vs. the greater benefit of being 90% sure.

If you were one of the 10% cost, and you didn't deserve to be, that's still an acceptable loss to the agencies when, say, 100 applicants don't get the job for every one who does. Biostatistics aside, it's simply a matter of effective screening.  If you're the agency doing the hiring, it simply ensures that 90% of the people they do hire are the kind of employees they want.

Any process that is only correct 1 out of every 12 times is not an accurate process, no matter how you spin it.

But since you want to talk about opportunity costs, fine. Let's say 99% of sex offenders lie. With your 90% accuracy, you will correctly identify 1 out of every 12 as truthful. But 11 will go undetected and continue offending. Do you want to be the one to explain to a mother after their child is molested that they're an opportunity cost? Since you've already indicated that falselyaccused should buck up and get on with their lives, perhaps that's your advice for the mother and victim...

Notwithstanding its lack of scientific status, CQT polygraph is not accurate enough to be used for a screening tool in any capacity.

In addition, within your 10% opportunity costs of potential employees, there could be several of them that were the most outstanding candidates. Take George for instance, he had ably served his country and his Arabic language skills would have made him the ideal candidate in the war on terror. But he was one of your opportunity costs. How many Arabic language specialists do you think there are? The polygraph kept him from helping our country. But I guess that's just the cost of doing business...

Digithead,

I simply don't follow your numbers. Sorry. If a process is accurate 90% of the time, that doesn't equate to being correct only 1 out of 12 times. Perhaps you have a theorem that accounts for this. If not, I'm sure you will at least make it sound impressive.

Here's an interesting article about forensic "science."

http://men.msn.com/articlepm.aspx?cp-documentid=808224&GT1=8883

Most people don't realize it, but many of the forensic tools used in police work aren't as accurate as shows like "CSI" would have us believe.  There aren't very many of them that you could stake a case on and be 100% sure of making the right call. As a district attorney is quoted in the article, "Hair analysis, fiber analysis, bite marks--you don't want to base too much of a case on those. Some prosecutors succumb to the temptation to rest their case on a fiber or a hair. But a good case is made up of a bunch of little things."  Even fingerprints are said to be inaccurate a significant percentage of the time.

But would we throw out these methods that are not 100% accurate, and use eyewitness testimony alone?--Which, by the way is also nowhere near 100% accurate.

I will agree with any "anti-" person on this forum that polygraph charts alone should not determine guilt or whether a person should be hired for a job. But knowing from experience that the polygraph is usually right, I would also argue, as many agencies do, that we should keep it as a useful tool, despite the fact that it is not 100% accurate. Remember, those of you who claim to be "false positives": In law enforcement you use the best tools you have until something better comes along. If you pass the screening process and get the law enforcement job you want, you will in fact be using many of those same tools that are not 100% accurate, thereby creating your own "false positive" victims while you're right most of the time, not all of the time. Ironic, then, that many of you who want those law enforcement jobs are sitting here arguing against an imperfect law enforcement tool that is widely accepted, by many, many people and agencies, as one of those good tools.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 06, 2006, 02:53 PMDigithead,

I simply don't follow your numbers. Sorry. If a process is accurate 90% of the time, that doesn't equate to being correct only 1 out of 12 times. Perhaps you have a theorem that accounts for this. If not, I'm sure you will at least make it sound impressive.

Nope, it's not impressive, it just requires the ability to do arithmetic. Understanding fractions and percentages would help too...

So to reiterate, they are called positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).

PPV is the probability that a person has the condition given that the test is positive.

With your example of 90% accuracy and assuming 1% of the population is deceptive and 99% are truthful. If we have 1000 examinees, this means 10 are deceptive and 990 are truthful.

That means you will have .9x10=9 true positives and 1 false negative. Notice the sneaky conversion from percents to decimals.

It also also means you will have .9x990=891 true negatives and 990-891=99 false positives. Ah, substraction, addition's tricky friend.

So the total of true and false positives in this example is 9+99=108 total positives. Are you still with me?

That means your PPV=9/108=8.3% probability that the person is deceptive given that the test is positive. Great accuracy if the test is positive.

Warning, division coming up.

In other words, 99/9=11 people will be falsely accused for every person correctly identified. To put it another way, 1 out of every 12 positives (11 false + 1 true positive) will be correct.

That's some fancy arithmetic, wouldn't you say?

If the base rate is 99% instead, the numbers come out the same for false negatives.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 06, 2006, 02:53 PM
Here's an interesting article about forensic "science."

http://men.msn.com/articlepm.aspx?cp-documentid=808224>1=8883

Most people don't realize it, but many of the forensic tools used in police work aren't as accurate as shows like "CSI" would have us believe.  There aren't very many of them that you could stake a case on and be 100% sure of making the right call. As a district attorney is quoted in the article, "Hair analysis, fiber analysis, bite marks--you don't want to base too much of a case on those. Some prosecutors succumb to the temptation to rest their case on a fiber or a hair. But a good case is made up of a bunch of little things."  Even fingerprints are said to be inaccurate a significant percentage of the time.

But would we throw out these methods that are not 100% accurate, and use eyewitness testimony alone?--Which, by the way is also nowhere near 100% accurate.

I absolutely agree. But we can pursue more accurate methods, discard ones that don't work, seek supporting evidence that in totality reduces error and continously improve the system through science. The CQT polygraph is not based on science and will never get more accurate, therefore it should be discarded...

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 06, 2006, 02:53 PM
I will agree with any "anti-" person on this forum that polygraph charts alone should not determine guilt or whether a person should be hired for a job. But knowing from experience that the polygraph is usually right, I would also argue, as many agencies do, that we should keep it as a useful tool, despite the fact that it is not 100% accurate. Remember, those of you who claim to be "false positives": In law enforcement you use the best tools you have until something better comes along. If you pass the screening process and get the law enforcement job you want, you will in fact be using many of those same tools that are not 100% accurate, thereby creating your own "false positive" victims while you're right most of the time, not all of the time. Ironic, then, that many of you who want those law enforcement jobs are sitting here arguing against an imperfect law enforcement tool that is widely accepted, by many, many people and agencies, as one of those good tools.

If one million people do a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing...

Digithead,

You can be condescending and spout all the complicated math that you want, but it makes no difference. It's all very basic, not complicated. If we test 100 people, and we are correct 90% of the time, we can be wrong 10% of the time and it doesn't matter. From the viewpoint of the powers that be in most agencies, a screening process that gets it right 90% of the time, or even 80% of the time, does what it is supposed to do--it screens.

So, let's assume that out of that 100 people we get 90 right and 10 wrong. Of course any agency is going to hope that all of those 10 wrong are false positives, not false negatives. Why? Because that is simply 10 people who don't get the job. But if 10 false negatives get the job, then an agency has 10 out of 100 people on the job who got through the process despite having various relevant issues to hide--the issues the agency cares about most. Screening out 10 false positives is simply the cost of doing business, you see. What they don't want are criminals working for them. Where those 10 false positives came from, there are plenty of other qualified candidates to choose from. If you want to raise those 10 false positives to 20, then it's not as attractive, but still an agency will have 80% of its employees who are the type of employees the agency wants.

Now, of course we want to look for the most accurate screening methods we can find. But looking and finding are two different things. While we are looking, we use what we have. Before DNA, we used what we had, despite whatever inaccuracies, simply because we needed to use something, right? And I still don't think law enforcement agencies are ready to give up on fingerprinting or ballistics or eyewitness accounts, for example, simply because they aren't 100% accurate.  Neither are they willing to give up on the polygraph when it is one of those useful tools and the best thing currently available.

Finally, one million people doing the wrong thing doesn't make it right. But when those one million people are doing a very tough job, they use the best tools they have, and they'll keep using them until someone invents something better. Got any inventions in mind, Digithead?

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 06, 2006, 11:02 PMDigithead,

You can be condescending and spout all the complicated math that you want, but it makes no difference.

Wow, I must've hit a nerve.

I guess you suffer from math phobia but I was unaware that addition, subtraction, multiplication and division were considered "complicated math."

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 06, 2006, 11:02 PMIt's all very basic, not complicated. If we test 100 people, and we are correct 90% of the time, we can be wrong 10% of the time and it doesn't matter. From the viewpoint of the powers that be in most agencies, a screening process that gets it right 90% of the time, or even 80% of the time, does what it is supposed to do--it screens.

Except you are making the base rate rate fallacy. In the real world, we never know the truth beforehand, so the real measure of polygraph employment screening accuracy is whether the prospective employee is deceptive given that the test is positive. With your mythical world of 90% accuracy, I have clearly shown you that when the base rate is low the majority of positives will be false. This will result in too many people wrongly accused of lying with no recourse to clear their names. How can you defend this as a cost of doing business? How can you continue to claim that something is accurate when it's right only 1 out of 12 times for the very thing it was designed to detect? And given that we're dealing in hypotheticals, I contend that the base rate of deception is even lower and that polygraph accuracy is nowhere near 90%, causing the false positive rate to be even more dramatic than this example.

And when this is spun into the context of sex offender screening, you have no defense against the 10% false negative rate. They're simply a danger to the community rather than "a cost of doing business" or "an acceptable loss."

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 06, 2006, 11:02 PM
So, let's assume that out of that 100 people we get 90 right and 10 wrong. Of course any agency is going to hope that all of those 10 wrong are false positives, not false negatives. Why? Because that is simply 10 people who don't get the job. But if 10 false negatives get the job, then an agency has 10 out of 100 people on the job who got through the process despite having various relevant issues to hide--the issues the agency cares about most. Screening out 10 false positives is simply the cost of doing business, you see. What they don't want are criminals working for them. Where those 10 false positives came from, there are plenty of other qualified candidates to choose from. If you want to raise those 10 false positives to 20, then it's not as attractive, but still an agency will have 80% of its employees who are the type of employees the agency wants.

Sorry, you're still making the base rate fallacy. But continue your handwaving it eases your cognitive dissonance...

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 06, 2006, 11:02 PM
Now, of course we want to look for the most accurate screening methods we can find. But looking and finding are two different things. While we are looking, we use what we have. Before DNA, we used what we had, despite whatever inaccuracies, simply because we needed to use something, right? And I still don't think law enforcement agencies are ready to give up on fingerprinting or ballistics or eyewitness accounts, for example, simply because they aren't 100% accurate.  Neither are they willing to give up on the polygraph when it is one of those useful tools and the best thing currently available.

You're using misdirection again. Fingerprinting, ballistics and eyewitness accounts are examples of pattern recognition. Similarities in patterns, false memories, or fuzzy data account for their mistakes. These can also be verified with other evidence. CQT Polygraph is testing for the presence of deception based on a comparison to a probable lie. Not similarities in swirls, ridges, or descriptions. It requires a different standard in which to evaluate its accuracy.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 06, 2006, 11:02 PMFinally, one million people doing the wrong thing doesn't make it right. But when those one million people are doing a very tough job, they use the best tools they have, and they'll keep using them until someone invents something better. Got any inventions in mind, Digithead?

I concur that law enforcement is a very tough job. Which is why I moved from the field into academia because I saw all of the junk being used and felt that I could do a better job at getting rid of it via good research and evaluation.

And somebody (Lykken, RIP) did invent something better than CQT polygraph. It's called the guilty knowledge test and it rests on the scientific bedrock of cognitive response rather than CQT's emotional response.

Trust me, LBCB, I'm doing all I can to improve law enforcement and crime control policies. It may take me my whole career, but I hope to be able to dump CQT polygraph onto the trash heap of phrenology and other pseudosciences once used in law enforcement and criminology.

ETA: Change "wrong" to "right only". My mistake...

Digithead and LieBabyCryBaby

I have enjoyed your debates although it's hard to understand your high -powered mathmatical calculations. Us dummies are stuck with calculating things like the diffusivity of carbon atoms per minute through each unit cell of a steel bar  at 1000 degrees C.

And the answer is (drum roll):

  3 x 10 to the -11th power meters squared per second!

See. I can't even figure out how to use the tool bar for scientific notations.

Right. Good one, Twoblock.

Digithead, I don't have "math phobia." But I do dislike math when the whole point of it seems to be to make a simple concept more difficult for the average person to understand. First you say the process is accurate just 1 out of 12 times, and now you say it is wrong one out of 12 times, thereby inferring that being wrong that often is necessarily a bad thing.

I know it's difficult for you to accept when I talk about the "cost of doing business." If I were one of those true false positives, the cost would definitely be harder to swallow. But I've seen it from both sides--as an examinee and as an examiner. Now that I can see it from both sides, it doesn't make me happy to see people fail the polygraph. Fortunately for me, when they've failed it's almost always been easy to figure out due to admissions, and due to the fact that when you are right, people don't put up much of an argument when they fail. It's not that hard for an experienced polygrapher or investigator to figure out.

The point I will again try to make here is that the agencies consider the polygraph a good screening tool. Some might ignorantly go to far, as I have witnessed myself, considering the polygraph to be completely infallible. But most intelligent people involved with the hiring process, including polygraphers, know that the polygraph is not perfect, but simply right most of the time.

I agree that the GKT is more accurate, generally, than the CQT. Neither is 100%, though. But they are excellent tools.

Fingerprinting, ballistics, eyewitness accounts, etc. are all dependent on data collection and a judgment call by an expert. Polygraphers are experts in their field, whether polygraphy is a 100% process or not. You may be an expert in mathematics, or so it seems. I am an expert in polygraphy. If I were the casual reader, I would be very interested in your theories, but I would be more interested in knowing polygraphy from the mind of a polygrapher.

Unless you can come up with something better than the imperfect investigative tools that we have now, including the polygraph, you're not doing anybody much good in your proclaimed life's pursuit.

I advise the casual reader of this forum to take any advice given here, even by polygraphers, with a healthy skepticism. But I also caution casual readers to avoid playing mindgames with themselves simply because a few people who failed the polygraph get on this website and pose as experts.

wow. I am kind of shocked that you dont understand statistics.

what he is saying is that the higher % of people you bring in to polygraph that are actually lying, the less impressive a 90% accuracy rate is.  Do you realize that if you bring me 10 people and 9 of them are in fact, lying about the relevant issue, I could put a beanie on their head, tell them its a mind reader, send 1 guy home at random and accuse the other 9 of lying because of my magic beanie, and i'd be right 90% of the time. Its easy to look good with a biased sample in other words.

If you are calculating accuracy from anecdotal evidence of 90 out of 100 people you accuse of lying confess, then really the compliments go to the investigators who almost always bring you the correct person to interview, not to your machine. Now, I will not argue that the poly is a fabulous interrogation prop to help get confessions. It clearly is that.

If you are talking about specific incidents, its probable  that by the time a person is asked to come in for a polygraph, they are suspected based on other evidence and you know this fact. I'll bet if people were chosen randomly off the street and you didn't know who the suspected person was, your accuracy would be much lower.

I'd also bet that if I were an experienced LEO and interrogator, that I could pick up on "lying cues" without a polygraph much of the time and simply skew the test results or outright lie about them to get a guy to confess based onthe polygrpah busting him when in fact, it was my skill as an interrogator.

Quote from: Bill Crider on Dec 07, 2006, 05:59 PMDo you realize that if you bring me 10 people and 9 of them are in fact, lying about the relevant issue, I could put a beanie on their head, tell them its a mind reader, send 1 guy home at random and accuse the other 9 of lying because of my magic beanie, and i'd be right 90% of the time.

Actually, that would result in 82% accuracy.  .9 * .9 + .1 *.1 = .82
You'd have to accuse them all of lying to get 90% accuracy.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 03:35 PMRight. Good one, Twoblock.

Digithead, I don't have "math phobia." But I do dislike math when the whole point of it seems to be to make a simple concept more difficult for the average person to understand. First you say the process is accurate just 1 out of 12 times, and now you say it is wrong one out of 12 times, thereby inferring that being wrong that often is necessarily a bad thing.

Good catch, my mistake and I fixed the error, it now reads "right only 1 out of 12 times." We all have our shortcomings. Perhaps you should consider a career in technical editing...

And positive predictive value is a simple concept. You just don't like the results...

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 03:35 PM
I know it's difficult for you to accept when I talk about the "cost of doing business." If I were one of those true false positives, the cost would definitely be harder to swallow. But I've seen it from both sides--as an examinee and as an examiner. Now that I can see it from both sides, it doesn't make me happy to see people fail the polygraph. Fortunately for me, when they've failed it's almost always been easy to figure out due to admissions, and due to the fact that when you are right, people don't put up much of an argument when they fail. It's not that hard for an experienced polygrapher or investigator to figure out.

Except that people don't have a recourse from which to recover from a failed employment polygraph except to find work outside of LE. It would be fairer to run a lottery, at least then prospective employees would know it was really based on chance rather than some illusion of accuracy...

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 03:35 PM
The point I will again try to make here is that the agencies consider the polygraph a good screening tool. Some might ignorantly go to far, as I have witnessed myself, considering the polygraph to be completely infallible. But most intelligent people involved with the hiring process, including polygraphers, know that the polygraph is not perfect, but simply right most of the time.

That's because agencies are staffed by humans who can be fooled and can also fool themselves into magical thinking. The lure of Pinnochio's Nose is great except nature didn't equip us with some specific physical lie response. No one has ever proven otherwise...

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 03:35 PMI agree that the GKT is more accurate, generally, than the CQT. Neither is 100%, though. But they are excellent tools.

Except GKT is grounded in science and CQT is grounded in wishful thinking...

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 03:35 PM
Fingerprinting, ballistics, eyewitness accounts, etc. are all dependent on data collection and a judgment call by an expert. Polygraphers are experts in their field, whether polygraphy is a 100% process or not. You may be an expert in mathematics, or so it seems. I am an expert in polygraphy. If I were the casual reader, I would be very interested in your theories, but I would be more interested in knowing polygraphy from the mind of a polygrapher.

And astrologers, dowsers, and mediums are all experts in their respective fields. It doesn't mean that I'd go to any of them for advice...

Plus ballistics and fingerprints have science behind them. And eyewitness testimony has been proven unreliable unless its corroborated with other evidence...

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 03:35 PM
Unless you can come up with something better than the imperfect investigative tools that we have now, including the polygraph, you're not doing anybody much good in your proclaimed life's pursuit.

Duly noted, I'm working on identifying it. GKT and Event-related potential seem promising...

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 03:35 PM
I advise the casual reader of this forum to take any advice given here, even by polygraphers, with a healthy skepticism. But I also caution casual readers to avoid playing mindgames with themselves simply because a few people who failed the polygraph get on this website and pose as experts.

I never failed the polygraph. Indeed, I've never taken a polygraph. However, I do have solid background (B.A. in Statistics, M.A. in Biometrics, and finishing a Ph.D. in Criminal Justice) in criminology, statistics, program evaluation, and research so that does make me an expert at evaluating statistical accuracy of criminological instruments...

I see that since you can't seem to rebut the statistics other than framing it as "opportunity costs", you'll resort to your ad hominem attacks...

This well-known saying is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the U.S. by Mark Twain:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
The semi-ironic statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and succinctly describes how even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments.

Digithead,

I took this from Wikipedia because I think it is applies here.

Your statistics aren't that difficult to understand, so don't flatter yourself. But you are indeed making a simple concept difficult.

If I have a process that is correct 90% of the time, I am not looking at PPVs or NPVs or MVPs or VIPs.  I'm not assuming anything about the sample of examinees we're talking about--not how many are truly deceptive or how many are not. What I do assume, based on studies used by "pro-polygraph" people and that support my own experience, is that the polygraph is correct almost all of the time. Set that "almost" at 90% or 80% or even 70%, and we can manipulate the statistics, playing with the theoretical base rates ad infinitum. But if I'm talking about 100 examinees and throwing out the inconclusives that we can't count as anything, what we have left is a 90% accuracy rate for all of those examinees, regardless of how many are actually false positives or false negatives.  Why make it more complicated? Whether the examinees are all truthful or they're all a bunch of liars, I'm right 9 out of 10 times.  Ooooh, I just converted that 90% to 9 out of 10, follow me? I can't assume that 99% of all child molesters are liars any more than I can assume that only 1% of job applicants are liars. If I start to make those assumptions, I can manipulate the statistics in . . . well, you figure how many ways.   ;)

Simply stated, if I test 100 examinees, throwing out any inconclusives, what I'm left with is 9 out of 10 correct.

Throw up all the smoke and mirrors you want, but underneath and behind it all, things are what they are, and I maintain that the polygraph, while imperfect, is almost always right.

I do sympathize with those people who are truly false positives. I know they must be out there even if I haven't come across many, if any, in actual exams. And I also agree that a failed polygraph with one agency should not follow a person around. If agencies are so confident in the process that is claimed to be 90% accurate when conducted by a competent examiner, I say let them run their own exam without prejudice.

 

I have a very simple question:

Where do polygraph examiners get their percentages from when they claim, "The polygraph is 90% accurate"?

If an examinee fails the polygraph and there is no overwhelming evidence to prove they were actually being truthful does that result become part of the 90% figure?  Is the assumption in such a case that the polygraph was accurate since no one can prove otherwise?

Or is that the assumption all the time?  That the polygraph is always accurate unless there is overwhelming proof that it wasn't accurate?

I suppose there are rare cases where, after an individual is scored as "DI" on a polygraph, some persuasive evidence comes to light to prove that he was actually telling the truth during the test that resulted in the "DI" score.  

I would imagine that there are far more cases similar to my first three polygraph exams, where the examiner says it is crystal clear to them that I am lying about a particular subject, and it is virtually impossible for me to prove otherwise.  How can a person prove that they never used cocaine or sold cocaine?  How can you prove that something didn't happen?  And why should you have to if the only "proof" it did happen is the guesstimate of a polygraph examiner?

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PMI can't assume that 99% of all child molesters are liars...

If you believe this you have never had to interview any child molesters.  All of them lie.  Without exception.

Some of them mix in a very few truthful statements with their lies, and others mix in a great many truthful statements with their lies.  But all of them lie.

Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Dec 07, 2006, 10:51 PM
If you believe this you have never had to interview any child molesters.  All of them lie.  Without exception.

Some of them mix in a very few truthful statements with their lies, and others mix in a great many truthful statements with their lies.  But all of them lie.

Sergeant,

Good point.  I mis-stated.  I meant accused child molesters, not proven child molesters. Sorry, my mistake.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PMThis well-known saying is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the U.S. by Mark Twain:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
The semi-ironic statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and succinctly describes how even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments.

And my retort to people who don't understand the difference between the field of Statistics (the science of describing uncertainty) and a statistic (a scalar resulting from a function) is this: Tell me why is lying with numbers is worse than lying with words?

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PM
Your statistics aren't that difficult to understand, so don't flatter yourself. But you are indeed making a simple concept difficult.

If I have a process that is correct 90% of the time, I am not looking at PPVs or NPVs or MVPs or VIPs.  I'm not assuming anything about the sample of examinees we're talking about--not how many are truly deceptive or how many are not. What I do assume, based on studies used by "pro-polygraph" people and that support my own experience, is that the polygraph is correct almost all of the time. Set that "almost" at 90% or 80% or even 70%, and we can manipulate the statistics, playing with the theoretical base rates ad infinitum. But if I'm talking about 100 examinees and throwing out the inconclusives that we can't count as anything, what we have left is a 90% accuracy rate for all of those examinees, regardless of how many are actually false positives or false negatives.  Why make it more complicated? Whether the examinees are all truthful or they're all a bunch of liars, I'm right 9 out of 10 times.  Ooooh, I just converted that 90% to 9 out of 10, follow me? I can't assume that 99% of all child molesters are liars any more than I can assume that only 1% of job applicants are liars. If I start to make those assumptions, I can manipulate the statistics in . . . well, you figure how many ways.   ;)

Simply stated, if I test 100 examinees, throwing out any inconclusives, what I'm left with is 9 out of 10 correct.

Simple question - if you don't know how many people are deceptive in your population, how can you estimate any accuracy?

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PM
Throw up all the smoke and mirrors you want, but underneath and behind it all, things are what they are, and I maintain that the polygraph, while imperfect, is almost always right.

You can maintain it all you want, but to paraphrase Richard Feynman - nature cannot be fooled...

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PM
I do sympathize with those people who are truly false positives.

Given your prior postings regarding others' honesty on this board, you're being disengenuous...

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PM
I know they must be out there even if I haven't come across many, if any, in actual exams. And I also agree that a failed polygraph with one agency should not follow a person around.

Even if another agency does not know about a prior failed polygraph, the person does and is hopelessly compromised for future polygraphs. You cannot deny this...

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PM
If agencies are so confident in the process that is claimed to be 90% accurate when conducted by a competent examiner, I say let them run their own exam without prejudice.

And I've explained to you the concept of wishful thinking yet you ignore it. You also fail to recognize many of your cognitive biases including:

• Confirmation bias - you only include information that supports your preconceived notions.

• Selective perception - you let your expectations dictate what you perceive.

• Self-serving bias - you claim more responsibility for your successes than your failures.

LBCB, no amount of evidence can persuade you of the folly of CQT because you are so entrenched in the field of polygraphy that you cannot admit that you're wrong. Similar stubborness exists in believers in other pseudosciences such as dowsers, psychic detectives, and homeopaths. Yet these people still find followers despite the evidence against it. Unfortunately, some of our species have a desperate willingness to embrace wishful and magical thinking. So I'll politely end our discussion because you're hopeless. I only hope that your willing credulity regarding the polygraph does not extend into other parts of your life...

Regards...

Quote from: digithead on Dec 08, 2006, 05:49 AM
Similar stubborness exists in believers in other pseudosciences such as dowsers,...

So you're going to try and tell us dowsing isn't real, either?  Now you've gone too far!

One final thing before I completely discharge this topic.

Lost in this discussion of hypothetical accuracy and arguments about the true base rate of deception are these indisputable facts:

If the base rate of true positives is less than 50%, your false positive rate goes up. In other words, the rarer true positives are, the greater the number of false positives.

Conversely, if the base rate of true positives is greater than 50%, your false negative rate goes up. In other words, the more common true positives are, the greater the number of false negatives.

Simply put in our context, the rarer the rate of the deception, the greater the number of falsely accused. The more common the rate of the deception, the greater the number of falsely exonerated.

And unless someone here has the skill to rewrite the laws of probability, these are indisputable facts.

LBCB's predicted response of 90% is 90% reminds me of a scene from an old movie called "This is Spinal Tap"

The guitar player for a band is trying to explain how their amps are louder because their volume knob is marked 1-11 instead of the usual 1-10 so they can crank it up an extra notch. When he is told that having 11 increments instead of 10 doesnt mean your amps are any louder, the guitar player goes blank with a dumb look on his face, pauses for a moment and says....

"these go to 11."

http://members.aol.com/chiprowe/gotoeleven.wav
http://members.aol.com/chiprowe/gotoeleven2.wav

Bill & Digithead,

LBCB actions and responses are typical of those that have no other options but to support their group or organizations. This dedication to supporting fallacy is very similar to those that support cults. The similarities to this mindset are discussed in a book called,

"Combatting Cult Mind Control",
by Steve Hassan.

Link: http://www.freedomofmind.com/

A great read by the way ... alot of insight into countering mind control and counter interrogation techniques.

Even though he has freedom of thought and viable alternate options, LBCB still sticks steadfast to his polygraph cult.

LBCB,

A 10% Collateral Damage rate is not acceptable under any circumstances, if we use your (highly doubtful) 90% accuracy rate. Especially when peoples lifes are being destroyed. But again its not the tool but the technician that must accept the consequences of their action. I still believe you have never run up against a dedicated and prepared person, and if you have you were beaten. And you never even knew it.

Regards ...

Bill,

I have to admit, that is hilarious, even if I am the target of the joke.  :D

EosJ,

10% collateral damage is not acceptable, you're right. At least not when you are in that 10%. Sometimes I find it unacceptable too, I must confess. Whether passing polygraphs or administrating them, I've never had to face it from the side of the person falsely accused. Regardless of my ego, which I gladly admit, and despite Digithead's contrary opinion, I do feel sympathy for those treated with injustice.

That said, though, the agencies most polygraphers work for all want to get rid of the bad fish in the net, even if it means killing some of the good fish at the same time. When there are thousands of qualified applicants, and you have a process that you believe--rightly or wrongly--is correct most of the time, you use what you have. Is that unfair? Not to those hired, but it is unfair to those falsely accused, as well as to the rest of us when a truly bad fish escapes the net and swims in our waters. I just don't believe that either the false positive or the false negative happens as often as some of you would like to believe.  Just because something may have happened to you doesn't make it a very common occurrence.

You are right about something else, I think: Maybe I haven't come across a truly prepared, determined person in an exam--a truly prepared person determined to beat the test despite past criminal behavior. And if I have, I didn't know it. What I have come across are people who are determined but not prepared, even though they've come here and read all of George's advice. Those people fail, after looking really stupid and being very embarrassed.

Finally, Digithead,

Your math makes sense in a purely mathematical world.  Your skill with numbers is undeniable and impressive. My esteem for you has risen lately. But there are variables involved in the polygraph that you just can't figure out, no matter how you manipulate the statistics. Why does the polygraph work so well in the real world? I don't have all the answers, but from my experience I have seen time and time again that it does.

LBCB,

The flaw with your reasoning that everyone has something criminal to hide, is just wrong. I understand paranoia and caution where positions of authority are concerned, and yes I do not want bad fish swimming in the pool. But the screening net does more damage than its worth. I still seethe from the experience, and won't long forget. From my perspective it doesn't pay to be a boyscout anymore, if your going to be falsely accused and then barbecued by an interrogator.  Then only later proven you were telling the truth to begin with. Vindicated I was, Still pissed off I remain.

Regards ....

Quote from: EosJupiter on Dec 08, 2006, 08:52 PMLBCB,

The flaw with your reasoning that everyone has something criminal to hide, is just wrong.

EosJ,

I'm not sure I follow you. When did I ever say that everyone has something criminal to hide? I think that everyone has made some mistakes in their life, but criminal? Please explain your misunderstanding of my reasoning.

Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 08, 2006, 04:44 PM
EosJ,

10% collateral damage is not acceptable, you're right. At least not when you are in that 10%. Sometimes I find it unacceptable too, I must confess. Whether passing polygraphs or administrating them, I've never had to face it from the side of the person falsely accused. Regardless of my ego, which I gladly admit, and despite Digithead's contrary opinion, I do feel sympathy for those treated with injustice.

That said, though, the agencies most polygraphers work for all want to get rid of the bad fish in the net, even if it means killing some of the good fish at the same time. When there are thousands of qualified applicants, and you have a process that you believe--rightly or wrongly--is correct most of the time, you use what you have. Is that unfair? Not to those hired, but it is unfair to those falsely accused, as well as to the rest of us when a truly bad fish escapes the net and swims in our waters. I just don't believe that either the false positive or the false negative happens as often as some of you would like to believe.  Just because something may have happened to you doesn't make it a very common occurrence.

You are right about something else, I think: Maybe I haven't come across a truly prepared, determined person in an exam--a truly prepared person determined to beat the test despite past criminal behavior. And if I have, I didn't know it. What I have come across are people who are determined but not prepared, even though they've come here and read all of George's advice. Those people fail, after looking really stupid and being very embarrassed.

LBCB,

Highlighted in red above ... A slip it may be, but still an underlying thought process and assumption.

Regards ...

EosJ,

I like you. Really. You have usually treated me with respect despite treating the polygraph I use with disdain. That's ok, though, because I hate the polygraph too.

But that sentence you highlighted in red can in no way be construed as saying that every examinee or every person is a criminal. I would never say that. All it says is that I have not come across anyone--or at least I didn't know it--who was determined and prepared and who had committed criminal behavior. Most examinees who follow George's countermeasures advice, in my experience, are determined, but they aren't prepared. They just end up looking stupid and feeling embarrassed, as I said.

Because I know you are an intelligent person, I think perhaps you simply tried to save face with that last post about the highlighted part. Don't worry, I sometimes try to save face too. But I don't want anyone who comes to this website to assume something that you want others to assume that I meant when, clearly, that's not what I said.

Regards.

LBCB,

No face saving needed here. But, the common attitudes from polygraphers, quoting the Air Force OSI, In God we trust all others we polygraph !", is an underlying and reacurring theme. Or in other words, Guilty until polygraphed innocent !!. And what I say is never a personal thing, and yes I do treat your chosen vocation with disdain.  Its not personal with me, never has been, with the exception of one polygrapher. And I do like your posts, for the most part, as you seem to be a polygrapher with some balls and are willing to debate in open forum.  Unlike over at pro site. You are more than welcome to express your views, just as I am in speaking mine.  As you have never done we wrong, then let the slip from your previous post be just that, a slip.

Regards ...

EosJ:

It wasn't a slip of any kind, and I don't share that attitude that all are guilty until polygraphed innocent. That saying, "In God we trust and all others we polygraph" is kind of cocky, I know. I think it's a stupid saying that someone thought was smart.

Thanks for the compliments. Likewise.

Regards.