If a person "Passes" or "Fails" a polygraph exam, what does that actually mean? Is the final conclusion that a person passed or failed rely upon anything verifiable, or is it simply the opinion of the examiner? If the former, what verifiable aspects of the process are there? If the latter, then what leads up to that opinion of the examiner, and can the examiner manipulate the raw data to give whatever result he or she wants to give?
Quote from: nopoly4me on Oct 30, 2007, 11:17 AM
"...... can the examiner manipulate the raw data to give whatever result he or she wants to give?
The examiner can manipulate the data at the input stage, to influence results the way he (examiner)
desires.
With an analog polygraph ( the ink pen polygraph ) that is Very Easy. Too many ways.
With the computerised polygraph, the examiner can influence the input data by asking his question several seconds before he depresses the question key or vice versa.
Once the data is recorded on the computerised polygraph, any tampering or creation of a backdated chart will be detectable in the security thread. (ie if the examiner puts back the pc clock in order to
reproduce a new-different exam, examination of the security thread will revea all.
Ask an examiner to produce his computer if ever you dispute a result - have an IT dude present to check the security thread. Problem is, the next examiner that allows an inspection of his computer will be the first examiner to do so.
And if you were tested on an analogue instrument by a dishonest examiner, you're really screwed.
So, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct? Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct? Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?
Quote from: nopoly4me on Oct 30, 2007, 11:57 AMSo, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct? Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct? Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?
Is this a real conversation here?!
"so, when the gas pump says sale $28.00, than is that the amount I pay the cashier, and who exactly is the cashier...and can I use 2 twenties to pay?"
"sure Billy, and yes, $28 means that that is what you owe the cashier...who will be the person standing behing the lexan shield near the dirty magazines...and yes, you can use 2 twenties, or even a twenty and a ten Billy."
"Gee, thanks"
My sarcasm aside, this exchange appears to be a flame baiting question with a punchline.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Oct 30, 2007, 11:57 AMSo, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct? Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct? Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?
Yes. Your understanding is correct.
The chart is stored on the HDD. It is digitally date and time stamped.
Quote from: EJohnson on Oct 30, 2007, 12:14 PM
Mr. Johnson:
All I am doing is to get some honest answers to some sincere questions. If you don't want to join in with some constructive comment, then feel free to ignore.
Quote from: 1904 on Oct 30, 2007, 12:34 PMQuote from: nopoly4me on Oct 30, 2007, 11:57 AMSo, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct? Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct? Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?
Yes. Your understanding is correct.
The chart is stored on the HDD. It is digitally date and time stamped.
Thanks. With that understood, is there an industry standard which determines how much variability one can see in the polygrams before an opinion of deception is necessary? I have read of examiners reading other examiners charts and coming to different conclusions/opinions.
Quote from: 1904 on Oct 30, 2007, 12:34 PMQuote from: nopoly4me on Oct 30, 2007, 11:57 AMSo, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct? Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct? Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?
Yes. Your understanding is correct.
The chart is stored on the HDD. It is digitally date and time stamped.
FYI, everything on a computer is saved on the hard drive/disk, date and time stamped, and
permenant.And yes, we "read" the charts and an opinion is rendered. Since when does a poster who just yesterday spouted off a rant about the error rates of polygraph regarding FP's and FN's regress to ask the same questions my 6 year old asked me when he was 5? If you are leading up to an antipolygraph rant, than come on with it, I am breathless with anticipation. We really need to work on pacing here.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Oct 30, 2007, 12:54 PMQuote from: 1904 on Oct 30, 2007, 12:34 PMQuote from: nopoly4me on Oct 30, 2007, 11:57 AMSo, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct? Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct? Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?
Yes. Your understanding is correct.
The chart is stored on the HDD. It is digitally date and time stamped.
Thanks. With that understood, is there an industry standard which determines how much variability one can see in the polygrams before an opinion of deception is necessary? I have read of examiners reading other examiners charts and coming to different conclusions/opinions.
This is ridiculous. nopoly4me just stated 'polygrams' only a term a polygraph examiner or someone with extensive research would use. I agree with Johnson, nopoly4me just get to the point man.
Quote from: Donna.Taylor on Oct 30, 2007, 04:59 PMQuote from: nopoly4me on Oct 30, 2007, 12:54 PMQuote from: 1904 on Oct 30, 2007, 12:34 PMQuote from: nopoly4me on Oct 30, 2007, 11:57 AMSo, the computer creates a chart like the old analog machines, and stores that chart on the hard drive correct? Then, the examiner "reads" the chart, correct? Afterwhich, the examiner renders an opinion of whether the person is being deceptive or not depending on what he reads on the charts, correct?
Yes. Your understanding is correct.
The chart is stored on the HDD. It is digitally date and time stamped.
Thanks. With that understood, is there an industry standard which determines how much variability one can see in the polygrams before an opinion of deception is necessary? I have read of examiners reading other examiners charts and coming to different conclusions/opinions.
This is ridiculous. nopoly4me just stated 'polygrams' only a term a polygraph examiner or someone with extensive research would use. I agree with Johnson, nopoly4me just get to the point man.
No, not a polygraph examiner, nor someone who has done extensive research, although I am doing a bunch of reading on the whole topic. No, I learned the word in the following thread:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3725.msg26807#msg26807
Will you answer my question, Ms. Taylor? No one else seems to want to answer the question for me.
Quote from: Donna.Taylor on Oct 30, 2007, 04:59 PMThis is ridiculous. nopoly4me just stated 'polygrams' only a term a polygraph examiner or someone with extensive research would use. I agree with Johnson, nopoly4me just get to the point man.
With all due respect, I would have thought your experience in calling me a liar about being a police officer and then being proven wrong would have cautioned you about continuing to post personal attacks rather than simply joining in the debate.
By the way, I have to wonder if any of the polygraph examiners who were so sure I was lying about being a cop ever took the time to ponder if perhaps their ability to detect truth or deception wasn't quite as good as they thought it was...
Sarge:
Yesterday I was being accused of being a sex offender, today it's a polygrapher! :-?
QuoteIf a person "Passes" or "Fails" a polygraph exam, what does that actually mean? Is the final conclusion that a person passed or failed rely upon anything verifiable, or is it simply the opinion of the examiner? If the former, what verifiable aspects of the process are there? If the latter, then what leads up to that opinion of the examiner, and can the examiner manipulate the raw data to give whatever result he or she wants to give?
Those were your original questions. If you read TLBTLD, you'll find the answer you're looking for. (Note those last few words.)
Donna didn't accuse you of being a polygraph examiner. She accused you of researching more than you've stated. The problem is, it appears, is that you're not paying close attention to what you've read.
QuoteWith all due respect, I would have thought your experience in calling me a liar about being a police officer and then being proven wrong would have cautioned you about continuing to post personal attacks rather than simply joining in the debate.
For the record, few believe Drew, so they don't believe they've been proven wrong.
QuoteBy the way, I have to wonder if any of the polygraph examiners who were so sure I was lying about being a cop ever took the time to ponder if perhaps their ability to detect truth or deception wasn't quite as good as they thought it was...
I seem to recall they used statement analysis (et al), something touted here by some as superior to polygraph. Perhaps if they had used polygraph, then they would have the correct answer. Do you want to volunteer for that one?
Before you answer, I'm kidding with you.
Take care.
Mr. Barry C:
Sir, please understand that while TLBTLD has a ring of truth to it, I am not going to take that particular opinion piece as gospel, especially when I have an audience of actual polygraphers to bounce things off of.
I was kidding about being accused of being a polygrapher, thus the Smiley. ::)
Will you answer my question? (See below).
Thanks. With that understood, is there an industry standard which determines how much variability one can see in the polygrams before an opinion of deception is necessary? I have read of examiners reading other examiners charts and coming to different conclusions/opinions.
Quote from: nopoly4me on Oct 31, 2007, 10:21 AM
Is there an industry standard which determines how much variability one can see in the polygrams before an opinion of deception is necessary? I have read of examiners reading other examiners charts and coming to different conclusions/opinions.
It happens frequently, no matter which neck of the woods one is in. Manual scoring has cutoffs (minimum score required) to determine whether a subject is NDI or DI.
For example, In a 3 pair Zone Exam; Ex 1 may score a total of -3 over 3 charts; and Ex 2 may score the same charts at -6. Whereas -3 is Incon & -6 is DI. They would probably call the subject DI.
When you read 'research' that says for example that 8/10 examiners were consistent in correctly identifying the DI subject, what they dont usually tell you is that the individual examiner scores might
have varied by 50% or more.
Scientific ? Yeah. Very.
QuoteWhen you read 'research' that says for example that 8/10 examiners were consistent in correctly identifying the DI subject, what they dont usually tell you is that the individual examiner scores might
have varied by 50% or more.
Why don't you tell me how scientists deal with and describe such data?
QuoteScientific ? Yeah. Very.
Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about."
Why the disinformation? You clearly don't like me, and your emotions are getting ahead of the better part of your brain. You haven't answered the question in a meaningful way. Why is that?
QuoteWith that understood, is there an industry standard which determines how much variability one can see in the polygrams before an opinion of deception is necessary? I have read of examiners reading other examiners charts and coming to different conclusions/opinions.
There are three major scoring systems: Federal, Utah, and Backster. Examiners using different scoring systems could come out with different scores, as each has different rules for assigning of scores, which are based on the differences in reactions between questions being compared. Additionally, since numerical scoring is semi-objective, two examiners scores could differ to some degree. What we've found (through research) is that scores may differ, but decisions tend to be the same. (They are only perfect with a computer.)
Some examiners score charts better than others, which is a problem with validity studies (as well as if you're being tested by an "examiner" who doesn't know what he's doing). If nine examiners score the same data as NDI (and let's say that's ground truth) and one scores it as DI, is the polygraph technique 90% accurate? When you look at the studies, you've got to try to filter through some of that stuff.
You've asked a question that could lead to days of discussion. If you really want to know more, start reading.
Barry_C said:
Quote
There are three major scoring systems: Federal, Utah, and Backster. Examiners using different scoring systems could come out with different scores, as each has different rules for assigning of scores, which are based on the differences in reactions between questions being compared.
Examiners using the same scoring system often produce significantly different scores. We (I) would not be as misleading (as BC is ) to compare different scoring systems for the same set of charts.
Quote
Additionally, since numerical scoring is semi-objective, two examiners scores could differ to some degree. What we've found (through research) is that scores may differ, but decisions tend to be the same.
Quote: "..two different examiners COULD differ to SOME degree.."
At last. Some honesty and acknowledgement.
It is disingenuous to hide major scoring variances in the comfort of the 'cutoff' zone.
Quote
(They are only perfect with a computer.)
The computerised scoring systems are as far from perfect as the earth is from the moon.
Quote
Some examiners score charts better than others, which is a problem with validity studies (as well as if you're being tested by an "examiner" who doesn't know what he's doing).
So, when two examiners achieve different scores (not calls) remember to tell them that BC says neither
of them know what they're doing. Oh no. Sorry. They never tell you their scores. They are taught only to give a 'call' and to always agree with one another.
Quote
If nine examiners score the same data as NDI (and let's say that's ground truth) and one scores it as DI, is the polygraph technique 90% accurate? When you look at the studies, you've got to try to filter through some of that stuff.
Would you like to be that tenth falsely accused ???
QuoteWould you like to be that tenth falsely accused ???
I thought you said you were an examiner. They were all accused. That's why they were subjected to polygraph tests.
I think my third-grader could handle the rest of 1904's taunts, so I won't bother. I've got to finish a polygraph report.
Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 31, 2007, 04:44 PMQuoteWould you like to be that tenth falsely accused ???
I thought you said you were an examiner. They were all accused. That's why they were subjected to polygraph tests.
I think my third-grader could handle the rest of 1904's taunts, so I won't bother. I've got to finish a polygraph report.
Now you are the victim of your own garble.
Quote
If nine examiners score the same data as NDI (and let's say that's ground truth) and one scores it as DI, is the polygraph technique 90% accurate?
You said nine examiners and not nine nor ten subjects.
And btw- nine wrong out of ten calls is 90% inaccurate.
I think your 3rd grader could handle your career better than you do.
Alright, against my better judgement I'll respond only because I'm curious as to what you're up to as nobody is that dumb.
QuoteYou said nine examiners and not nine nor ten subjects.
I said nine examiners scored the same NDI data. From where do you think the data came? Must I state it came from one subject?
QuoteAnd btw- nine wrong out of ten calls is 90% inaccurate.
Thanks for that info. I'll note it for future reference, but what does it have to do with this post? Maybe you want to read it again more slowly?
I didn't state the whole argument because I thought people would be able to connect the dots on their own. So far, only you have questions, but they seem to be from the lack of understanding the basic premise.
In this you've added nothing to benefit the poser of the original question. What is your point here?
Whereas you seem to believe there is so much variability in scoring, how do you know if any of your calls were correct? How many people did you harm with bad calls? Have you ever tested your scoring ability? What have you done for the polygraph community? You blame the APA for not doing research as if the APA is an individual. The APA is made up of its members, and each has a responsibility to move the profession ahead. The inability of some to score charts is a problem, and many of us are addressing that issue. After all, we're not in this to see how many errors we can make.
What have you done to better yourself? What have you done to better other examiners? What have you published? You spew out falsehoods and you demean, but what good have you done? Please enlighten us all as to why we should believe your still unsupported statements?
Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 31, 2007, 03:34 PM[There are three major scoring systems: Federal, Utah, and Backster. Examiners using different scoring systems could come out with different scores, as each has different rules for assigning of scores, which are based on the differences in reactions between questions being compared. Additionally, since numerical scoring is semi-objective, two examiners scores could differ to some degree. What we've found (through research) is that scores may differ, but decisions tend to be the same. (They are only perfect with a computer.)
Some examiners score charts better than others, which is a problem with validity studies (as well as if you're being tested by an "examiner" who doesn't know what he's doing). If nine examiners score the same data as NDI (and let's say that's ground truth) and one scores it as DI, is the polygraph technique 90% accurate? When you look at the studies, you've got to try to filter through some of that stuff.
You've asked a question that could lead to days of discussion. If you really want to know more, start reading.
So, based on your answer it would be safe to say that there is no one industry standard as to how polygraphs are scored and that examinations can be scored a number of different ways, and that scoring of any given polygraph is susceptable to any number of errors?
Quote from: Barry_C on Oct 31, 2007, 06:29 PMAlright, against my better judgement I'll respond only because I'm curious as to what you're up to as nobody is that dumb.
QuoteYou said nine examiners and not nine nor ten subjects.
I said nine examiners scored the same NDI data. From where do you think the data came? Must I state it came from one subject?
QuoteAnd btw- nine wrong out of ten calls is 90% inaccurate.
Thanks for that info. I'll note it for future reference, but what does it have to do with this post? Maybe you want to read it again more slowly?
I didn't state the whole argument because I thought people would be able to connect the dots on their own. So far, only you have questions, but they seem to be from the lack of understanding the basic premise.
In this you've added nothing to benefit the poser of the original question. What is your point here?
Whereas you seem to believe there is so much variability in scoring, how do you know if any of your calls were correct? How many people did you harm with bad calls? Have you ever tested your scoring ability? What have you done for the polygraph community? You blame the APA for not doing research as if the APA is an individual. The APA is made up of its members, and each has a responsibility to move the profession ahead. The inability of some to score charts is a problem, and many of us are addressing that issue. After all, we're not in this to see how many errors we can make.
What have you done to better yourself? What have you done to better other examiners? What have you published? You spew out falsehoods and you demean, but what good have you done? Please enlighten us all as to why we should believe your still unsupported statements?
Blather, bluster, drivel and nonsensical, off the topic bleating of a chart-rolling hack.
Amen
QuoteSo, based on your answer it would be safe to say that there is no one industry standard as to how polygraphs are scored and that examinations can be scored a number of different ways, and that scoring of any given polygraph is susceptable to any number of errors?
No.
If an examiner is using a validated scoring system according to its rules, agreement is very high as is accuracy. You can see from reading this site though, that some who call themselves examiners don't know what is valid, understand the scientific literature, etc, while others do. For those who don't know what they are doing, then yes, you're going to have problems. We need to do a better job in the polygraph community of helping the consumer to learn which is which.
Quote from: Barry_C on Nov 01, 2007, 03:58 PMQuoteSo, based on your answer it would be safe to say that there is no one industry standard as to how polygraphs are scored and that examinations can be scored a number of different ways, and that scoring of any given polygraph is susceptable to any number of errors?
No.
If an examiner is using a validated scoring system according to its rules, agreement is very high as is accuracy. You can see from reading this site though, that some who call themselves examiners don't know what is valid, understand the scientific literature, etc, while others do. For those who don't know what they are doing, then yes, you're going to have problems. We need to do a better job in the polygraph community of helping the consumer to learn which is which.
Dear Readers,
The statistical symbols, the psychobabble, the constant haranguing
is intended to deflect the reality of polygraph.
It's reality is simple. It is an antiquated contraption that has as much
to do with lie-detection as a man jumping off a building has to do with flying.
Examiners have a desperate need to come to this board, to try
and convince you that researching the p/g and reading TLBTLD
will actually be harmful to you if you believe that physical and mental
CM's can assist you to pass a p/g test.
The fact is, the more you know about the p/g system and the more you
know about the examiners verbal & other behaviours, so the p/g will
lose it's power over you. Destroy the myths and believe that it is a pseudo
science - and you are well on your way to passing.
P/g examiners like to quote the 'student-movie ticket study', which is about
the most pathetic project ever undertaken by anyone.
The statiscal and 'empirical evidence BS is just that, BS.
The human psyche is far too complex to predict with a set of statistics.
No two people react or respond the same in terms of psychophysiological
behaviours. There are no verified psychological theories, only hypotheses.
P/g examiners are dismissive of any research - and there is plenty of it -
carried out by suitably qualified academics - their knee jerk reaction is to
immediately rubbish, disregard and disrespect any such research - but they
will babble on incessantly about a silly project such as the movie-tickets for students study.
The polygraph is a prop utilised to elicit admissions and confessions.
Most p/g examiners have developed investigative skills and together
with their intuition, should be able to discard their p/g and elicit confessions
in the course of an investigative interview.
Fact is, most admissions and confessions should be obtained during the pre-test
interview phase. Once a subject has denied a suspected activity a dozen times
during the course of an exam, he is quite unlikely to make confessions thereafter, as he first has to admit to lying in the test in addition to lying about the suspected activity.
Perhaps the modern day polygraphers have no investigative interviewing
skills and therefore have to rely on basic data collected by the most basic,
antiquated contraption - the polygraph.
It is a shame that in this modern day and age, that good people are denied jobs; that innocent people suffer humiliation; simply because investigators
have become lazy and inept.
Poor judicial systems, poor policing, protectionist laws do not and will never justify the use of polygraph. Primarily because it is not accurate.
1904,
IMHO, you could not be more wrong.
I rest my case.
Quote from: 1904 on Nov 03, 2007, 10:02 AMDear Readers,
The statistical symbols, the psychobabble, the constant haranguing
is intended to deflect the reality of polygraph.
It's reality is simple. It is an antiquated contraption that has as much
to do with lie-detection as a man jumping off a building has to do with flying.
Examiners have a desperate need to come to this board, to try
and convince you that researching the p/g and reading TLBTLD
will actually be harmful to you if you believe that physical and mental
CM's can assist you to pass a p/g test.
The fact is, the more you know about the p/g system and the more you
know about the examiners verbal & other behaviours, so the p/g will
lose it's power over you. Destroy the myths and believe that it is a pseudo
science - and you are well on your way to passing.
P/g examiners like to quote the 'student-movie ticket study', which is about
the most pathetic project ever undertaken by anyone.
The statiscal and 'empirical evidence BS is just that, BS.
The human psyche is far too complex to predict with a set of statistics.
No two people react or respond the same in terms of psychophysiological
behaviours. There are no verified psychological theories, only hypotheses.
P/g examiners are dismissive of any research - and there is plenty of it -
carried out by suitably qualified academics - their knee jerk reaction is to
immediately rubbish, disregard and disrespect any such research - but they
will babble on incessantly about a silly project such as the movie-tickets for students study.
The polygraph is a prop utilised to elicit admissions and confessions.
Most p/g examiners have developed investigative skills and together
with their intuition, should be able to discard their p/g and elicit confessions
in the course of an investigative interview.
I have reached many of the same conclusions since becoming interested in the subject and reading the available material over the past couple of years.
Additionally I failed three pre-employment polygraphs with three different examiners, for three different reasons, all while telling the truth and not withholding any information. Then I passed my fourth polygraph while giving all the same answers to all the same questions.
I believe that the polygraph is effective as an interrogation intimidator, provided the person being interrogated believes that the polygraph will detect lies. However, I don't believe it is capable of conclusively detecting deception.
I believe that some polygraph examiners, like some police officers, are capable of interviewing a subject and drawing a conclusion as to that subject's truthfulness. However, I do not believe that conclusion, absent a confession or some compelling physical evidence, should be sufficient to remove a person from the hiring process, or to take any other definitive action. The polygraph examiner's opinion of deception after the interview is no more scientifically valid than any other person's opinion would be, and should not be given any more weight simply because the subject's physiological reactions were charted during the interview.
I am of the opinion that at least some percentage of polygraph examiners know full well that using the polygraph for pre-employment screening produces very inaccurate results and results in far too many false positives as well as far too many false negatives. However, aside from providing a vague caveat that no agency should disqualify an applicant based solely on polygraph results, it seems that very few (if any) examiners are willing to do anything about it. I believe that most (if not all) examiners feel the polygraph is still worthwhile as a screening tool, because it sometimes elicits a confession about past behavior that was not discovered during the background check. And the only reason it has that degree of utility is because the people who confess to such things truly believe that the polygraph is capable of detecting deception.
And that leaves the examiners with a dilemma. If the polygraph examiners in this country come right out and admit that the polygraph, when used in pre-employment screening, is so inaccurate that it should not be used they will be undermining the one aspect of the polygraph that does provide utility in the screening process – that of eliciting confessions. If all applicants were given credible information from their examiner prior to their test that the polygraph cannot detect truth or deception, the likelihood of any of those applicants confessing to something will decrease dramatically.
I think it is long past the time for such information to come from the polygraph examiners in this country. I think it is far more reasonable, ethical, and provides far greater long-term benefits to admit the polygraph is incapable of detecting truth or deception any sort of rate approaching perfection, and is only useful in eliciting confessions from uninformed subjects. The resulting loss of confessions would be more than offset, in my opinion, but the number of otherwise outstanding applicants who would no longer be summarily disqualified for no reason whatsoever. And the hiring process would have far more due process and fairness in it, which certainly cannot be a bad thing when dealing with people who seek a position of public trust.
The number of qualified police applicants is not infinite, and the number of outstanding applicants is smaller still. We cannot afford to let any more of the outstanding candidates be disqualified for no reason.
What I don't understand, is what is so friggen special about being a cop? I mean, there are many other professions that if infiltrated by dishonest individuals, perverts or whatever that can wreck as much or more havoc than being a cop. Priests, teachers, doctors, (including the pseudo docs such as naturalpaths and chiropractors), all have a position of trust and power far exceeding the norm. Why have cops been singled out?
"I feel...." "I believe...." "I am of the opinion...." "I divined...." Who cares what you or I believe when there's scientific evidence to consider? I've given you the math. Did I err in my calculations? If not, I've demonstrated how a valid test (as long as it's better than chance), is more fair in the end. The only debate is now polygraph accuracy.
Sarge,
You took a screening exam. They are not as reliable as a single-issue test, which, I think, we all agree. If you took one and were a victim of the error rate, then taking the same test again and again is only likely to repeat the same "error." Did the fourth examiner do something different, or don't you recall?
I have tested people using a multi-issue screening exam, and yes, they have significant reactions to some questions. Follow-up testing has cleared them, but if I had just run the same screening exam, I'd likely have ended up with the same results. (I've never crunched the numbers, but most of those with SRs on a screening exam have later admitted to failing to disclose something. I'd venture a guess that it's closer to 100% than it is 90% who fall into that category, which is another reason agencies are willing to play the odds.)
Nopoly,
Are you suggesting polygraph tests for everybody? You're going to make a lot of examiners happy. Seriously though, it's not likely those people are going to be put into positions in which they could be blackmailed, for example. It's hard to hang an offense over a guy's head when his employer already knows about the issue. That's just one reason though.
Quote from: Barry_C on Nov 04, 2007, 04:44 PM" Seriously though, it's not likely those people are going to be put into positions in which they could be blackmailed, for example. It's hard to hang an offense over a guy's head when his employer already knows about the issue. That's just one reason though.
I think you are confusing national security concerns (blackmail) with police work. I would not think an chief would be worring about his newly hired cops being blackmailed. Again, why is police work so special? Can a crooked cop screw up worse than a crooked judge, prosecutor or even defense attorney? Where I live, it seems like every third teacher is having sex with his or her students. Perhaps polygraphing all teachers would be a very good idea.
Quote from: Barry_C on Nov 04, 2007, 04:44 PM"I feel...." "I believe...." "I am of the opinion...." "I divined...." Who cares what you or I believe when there's scientific evidence to consider? I've given you the math. Did I err in my calculations? If not, I've demonstrated how a valid test (as long as it's better than chance), is more fair in the end. The only debate is now polygraph accuracy.
Sarge,
You took a screening exam. They are not as reliable as a single-issue test, which, I think, we all agree. If you took one and were a victim of the error rate, then taking the same test again and again is only likely to repeat the same "error." Did the fourth examiner do something different, or don't you recall?
I have tested people using a multi-issue screening exam, and yes, they have significant reactions to some questions. Follow-up testing has cleared them, but if I had just run the same screening exam, I'd likely have ended up with the same results. (I've never crunched the numbers, but most of those with SRs on a screening exam have later admitted to failing to disclose something. I'd venture a guess that it's closer to 100% than it is 90% who fall into that category, which is another reason agencies are willing to play the odds.)
What I believe is based on my own experiences and the reading and research I have done. What you believe is based on your own experiences and the reading and research you have done.
I've cited evidence too, but you don't believe the NAS research study was valid. You are free to believe whatever you wish. Kindly allow me the same courtesy.
I disagree with your assertion that you have demonstrated how any test that is better than chance is "more fair" in the end. You have not demonstrated any such thing. How is it fair to all the people who tell the truth and are still disqualified? How is it fair to the agency that hires a deceptive person who passed the polygraph? How do you know for certain how many truthful people will fail, and how many deceptive people will pass? The plain truth is that you don't
know, but that you
believe both numbers to be small.
As I have mentioned before, in the vast majority of pre-employment polygraphs (whenever there is no disqualifying admission made by the applicant, and/or whenever there is no physical evidence to corroborate the DI or NDI) the examiner cannot possibly know for certain if their conclusion of truth or deception was correct. They can render an opinion based on their training and experience, and in some cases they will be correct. In some cases they will be incorrect. The only person who knows for certain is the subject.
Polygraph examiners can cite specific studies that support their beliefs, and can claim that any study that does not is invalid. People who do not believe in the validity of the polygraph can do the same. If I can cite a research study by the National Academy of Sciences, whose members have been awarded more than 170 Nobel Prizes, and you can simply dismiss it because you do not agree with its conclusions, then clearly you are not going to accept any study that does not support the polygraph. That, of course, is your prerogative.
If neither side is going to accept any scientific evidence unless it supports that side's opinion, then we are left with nothing more than our personal experiences and anecdotal evidence. In such a circumstance, the only "expert" with regards to the results of a polygraph is the subject, because only the subject knows for certain if they were being truthful or deceptive. The examiner can render their opinion on the accuracy of any single polygraph exam, but only the subject can definitively state if the DI or NDI result was accurate.
In my experience, I told the truth on four polygraph exams and in three of those exams neither the instrument nor its operator was able to determine that. Not only was the examiner unable to determine I was telling the truth, but they incorrectly concluded I was lying. I don't see how I could have been a victim of the "error rate" when I was judged to be deceptive on three separate areas. If I had some sort of issue about drugs, perhaps it would make sense if I kept failing because of drug-related questions. But I failed for three different reasons, and never for the same reason twice. I don't see how any reasonable person could go through that experience and not come to the conclusion that the polygraph is incapable of detecting deception. I think it would be completely unreasonable for someone to go through an experience like mine and conclude that the polygraph didn't detect anything for them, but that it probably detects truth or deception with a high degree of accuracy for everyone else in every other situation.
Your post seems to suggest that it would not be unheard of for a police applicant to be a victim of the "error rate". What makes you think that a large percentage of police applicants are not victims of the same error rate? Other than the testimony of the applicants themselves, how would you ever be able to determine the actual percentages that are victims of the error rate?
From your post, the "error rate" certainly does not seem to be a source of concern for you. But, inexplicably, at the same time you feel comfortable endorsing the pre-employment polygraph screening exam as being "more fair" in the end than not conducting a pre-employment polygraph screening exam. I don't see how you can do that. You are willing to acknowledge the "error rate" but you have no way of definitively knowing what that rate is. I realize you believe the error rate is low, but you don't really know that, so how can you believe that conducting pre-employment polygraph screening is "more fair" than not conducting pre-employment polygraph screening?
Okay, back to the original question. It is the polygrapher's opinion as to whether or not an individual is lying or telling the truth, correct? If the polygrapher feels the individual is lying, he fails. If he believes the individual is using counter measures, he fails. If the polygrapher does not detect any counter measures, and believes the individual is being truthful, he passes correct?
So, where does that leave the inconclusives? If a person has to "Pass" a poly to get a job, but the polygrapher says he cannot give an opinion, does that mean a "Pass?"
QuoteWhat you believe is based on your own experiences and the reading and research you have done.
One, you don't know that, and two, the two don't always jibe, which is why I must be data driven.
QuoteI've cited evidence too, but you don't believe the NAS research study was valid. You are free to believe whatever you wish. Kindly allow me the same courtesy.
I never said the NAS report wasn't valid. It's really not a new "study." It was more a of meta-analysis of what was out there already. They pointed out that research in screening situations was lacking, and I agree. They also stated some opinions that have since turned out to be wrong, so to blindly accept it in totality is an error.
QuoteI disagree with your assertion that you have demonstrated how any test that is better than chance is "more fair" in the end. You have not demonstrated any such thing.
You're letting emotions get in the way of reason. What I posted is a very basic statistical analysis, and the premise is well-accepted in the scientific community. To argue otherwise is to deny reality. You are free, however, to reject the accuracy rates, which I stated, but the rest is well-settled.
QuoteHow is it fair to all the people who tell the truth and are still disqualified? How is it fair to the agency that hires a deceptive person who passed the polygraph?
It isn't fair, which is why we use polygraph as it, in the end, makes the playing field more level.
QuoteAs I have mentioned before, in the vast majority of pre-employment polygraphs (whenever there is no disqualifying admission made by the applicant, and/or whenever there is no physical evidence to corroborate the DI or NDI) the examiner cannot possibly know for certain if their conclusion of truth or deception was correct.
That's true of most everything in life.
QuotePolygraph examiners can cite specific studies that support their beliefs, and can claim that any study that does not is invalid.
Yes they can, but most don't. With enough studies there are always going to be those (just by chance) that don't support polygraph (or anything subjected to scientific experimentation) as expected. That's why we look at multiple tests, and that is why the NAS had a problem with screening exams. We need more data. What we have shows it works, but there are unanswered questions. Why don't you consider taking part in a study?
QuoteIf neither side is going to accept any scientific evidence unless it supports that side's opinion, then we are left with nothing more than our personal experiences and anecdotal evidence. In such a circumstance, the only "expert" with regards to the results of a polygraph is the subject, because only the subject knows for certain if they were being truthful or deceptive. The examiner can render their opinion on the accuracy of any single polygraph exam, but only the subject can definitively state if the DI or NDI result was accurate.
And your point is?
QuoteIn my experience, I told the truth on four polygraph exams and in three of those exams neither the instrument nor its operator was able to determine that. Not only was the examiner unable to determine I was telling the truth, but they incorrectly concluded I was lying. I don't see how I could have been a victim of the "error rate" when I was judged to be deceptive on three separate areas. If I had some sort of issue about drugs, perhaps it would make sense if I kept failing because of drug-related questions. But I failed for three different reasons, and never for the same reason twice. I don't see how any reasonable person could go through that experience and not come to the conclusion that the polygraph is incapable of detecting deception. I think it would be completely unreasonable for someone to go through an experience like mine and conclude that the polygraph didn't detect anything for them, but that it probably detects truth or deception with a high degree of accuracy for everyone else in every other situation.
Your post seems to suggest that it would not be unheard of for a police applicant to be a victim of the "error rate". What makes you think that a large percentage of police applicants are not victims of the same error rate? Other than the testimony of the applicants themselves, how would you ever be able to determine the actual percentages that are victims of the error rate?
From your post, the "error rate" certainly does not seem to be a source of concern for you. But, inexplicably, at the same time you feel comfortable endorsing the pre-employment polygraph screening exam as being "more fair" in the end than not conducting a pre-employment polygraph screening exam. I don't see how you can do that. You are willing to acknowledge the "error rate" but you have no way of definitively knowing what that rate is. I realize you believe the error rate is low, but you don't really know that, so how can you believe that conducting pre-employment polygraph screening is "more fair" than not conducting pre-employment polygraph screening?
I am very concerned about the error rate, but again, like you, that's a philosophical position I hold. I don't think you understood what I meant by "error" here, so be careful about drawing conclusions. You need to read my post again, and try to following the numbers. It's just math. Your other issues are just that: other issues. It's incorrect to merge the two.
the polygraph examination is a valuable investigative aid as used in conjunction with, but not as a substitute for, a thorough investigation.
Would this type policy help you be more accepting of the use of polygraph?
Hunter
I can only speak for myself, but I believe more people would accept the polygraph if it was used as an investigative aid and not the sole deciding factor for LEO applicants. However, I have continually read here that it is the sole deciding factor (because of not enough background investigators, costs etc.,) and if one fails a Federal Employment poly then said applicant is blackballed in all other LEO applicatons. This is wrong. I have read horrow stories here about applicants being verbally (cursed) and physically (BP cuff being so tight that the fingers turned blue which is unnecessary to register continuous BP changes) abused by polygraphers. I think we will all be against a one person one machine jury.
Even in a criminal situation I think the polygraph would be more acceptable if the it was used only as anunbiased investigative aid and the polygrapher was not able to testify as to guilt or innocence or relate this to the investigator. Tell the investigator only the subject showed physiological changes in certain areas e.g. time and place. This would save the investigator time and steps. The poly should never be used solely to convict.
the polygraph examination is a valuable investigative aid as used in conjunction with, but not as a substitute for, a thorough investigation.
"I can only speak for myself, but I believe more people would accept the polygraph if it was used as an investigative aid and not the sole deciding factor for LEO applicants. "
What was quoted is the model policy advocated by the American Polygraph Association for all agencies, including private examiners. It is in fact part of my departments policy and I am sure other departments have adopted it also. I do expect it to become the standard in polygraph. Polygraph examiners don't hold themselves out to be perfect in most cases. We have a few, but very few that would say polygraph is 100%. That is why I don't understand all the posts on this board that label Polygraph Examiners as bad or corrupt persons that cannot admit to making a mistake. We are humans and our profession advocates the quoted policy. Only a few are opposed. So lets take a break and look a little closer at polygraph and what the Professional Associations advocate, rather than pick all examiners apart for a minority of examiners mistaken ideas. Polygraph is the best we have now, and it will get better, I'm sure as we continue to research and change methodology in our chosen profession. Advancements are made almost daily in all fields of psychology, physiology, medical and other fields, we are no different.
Quote from: Hunter on Nov 05, 2007, 11:35 PMthe polygraph examination is a valuable investigative aid as used in conjunction with, but not as a substitute for, a thorough investigation.
"I can only speak for myself, but I believe more people would accept the polygraph if it was used as an investigative aid and not the sole deciding factor for LEO applicants. "
What was quoted is the model policy advocated by the American Polygraph Association for all agencies, including private examiners. It is in fact part of my departments policy and I am sure other departments have adopted it also. I do expect it to become the standard in polygraph. Polygraph examiners don't hold themselves out to be perfect in most cases. We have a few, but very few that would say polygraph is 100%. That is why I don't understand all the posts on this board that label Polygraph Examiners as bad or corrupt persons that cannot admit to making a mistake. We are humans and our profession advocates the quoted policy. Only a few are opposed. So lets take a break and look a little closer at polygraph and what the Professional Associations advocate, rather than pick all examiners apart for a minority of examiners mistaken ideas.
Hunter,
With regard to law enforcement pre-employment polygraph screening, the American Polygraph Association's model policy goes even further than what you have quoted, stating at para. 3.12.1.3,
"The decision to hire, or not to hire an applicant, should never be based solely on the results of the polygraph examination." (For earlier discussion, see American Polygraph Association Model Policy (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3297.msg23085#msg23085).)
Unfortunately many, if not most, law enforcement agencies with pre-employment polygraph screening programs (including all federal ones) will disqualify an applicant based on a failed polygraph alone. It would be nice to see the APA take a more proactive stance against such practices.
QuotePolygraph is the best we have now, and it will get better, I'm sure as we continue to research and change methodology in our chosen profession.
The National Academy of Sciences found polygraph screening to be completely invalid and that further investments in polygraph research are likely to produce at best only modest improvement, concluding that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."
QuoteAdvancements are made almost daily in all fields of psychology, physiology, medical and other fields, we are no different.
Yes you are. The NAS found (at p. 213 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=213) of its report):
QuoteResearch Progress Research on the polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner. Polygraph research has proceeded in relative isolation from related fields of basic science and has benefited little from conceptual, theoretical, and technological advances in those fields that are relevant to the psychophysiological detection of deception.
I posted a model policy statement from the APA and now we have the NAS report again posted. You are very much on the defense and I don't care to debate that report with you, it is history and advances have been made as a result of that particular report, and will continue to be made.
You have posted that:
"Unfortunately many, if not most, law enforcement agencies with pre-employment polygraph screening programs (including all federal ones) will disqualify an applicant based on a failed polygraph alone."
Do you have any studies to back up that statement? I have found none. Departments I have spoken with attempt to find the truth through investigation and polygraph, polygraph being the last portion of the process. If you are deceptive on the polygraph, further investigation is conducted to attempt to clear the case or applicant if we are talking about pre employment. You are not convicted on the basis of a polygraph and you are not denied employment based on polygraph alone.
I am not looking for debate, and will not enter into one with you.
Quote from: Hunter on Nov 06, 2007, 11:03 AM
I posted a model policy statement from the APA and now we have the NAS report again posted. You are very much on the defense and I don't care to debate that report with you, it is history and advances have been made as a result of that particular report, and will continue to be made.
From That NAS Report that you would like to 'wish away':
Research Progress Research on the polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. It has not accumulated knowledge or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner. Polygraph research has proceeded in relative isolation from related fields of basic science and has benefited little from conceptual, theoretical, and technological advances in those fields that are relevant to the psychophysiological detection of deception. Quote
Do you have any studies to back up that statement? I have found none.
Dude. dont you read any news at all ?