Troubling news story for polygraphers

[Lethe]

Here is an interesting news story from the Associated Press, "Pentagon's Intelligence Arm Steps Up Lie Detecting Efforts on Employees."  At first, the headline made me groan: more polygraphs are not what we need, this must be bad news.  But upon actually reading the piece, it's about as bad as it gets for polygraphy.

Consider the following:

A polygraph is not foolproof as a screening tool. The test gives a high rate of false positives on innocent people, and guilty subjects can be trained to beat the system, according to expert Charles Honts, a psychology professor at Boise State University.

The National Research Council noted these deficiencies in a 2003 report. The council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, found that lie detectors can be useful for ferreting out the truth in specific incidents, but are unreliable for screening prospective national security employees for trustworthiness.

"Its 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," the council concluded. "Polygraph testing as currently used has extremely serious limitations in such screening applications, if the intent is both to identify security risks and protect valued employees."

John Sullivan, a polygrapher with the CIA for 31 years, noted that turncoat Aldrich Ames, a CIA mole for the Soviets, beat a polygraph test twice.

Any polygrapher who is honest with himself will admit that all of the above is correct and accurate.  We don't need to convince them that the polygraph isn't as accurate as they claim; they already know that.  They claim it is "98% accurate" and throw out other such imaginary and fantastical numbers, but they don't really believe that.  

They don't support polygraphy because it catches 98% of the bad guys.  I will leave off my cynical hat which tells me they support it because it (1) makes them money and (2) earns them prestige, and say that they support the polygraph because they think it: (1) elicits confessions that indicate bad behavior that otherwise would remain unknown; (2) it deters current employees from doing bad things; and (3) it deters some bad people from applying.  That's why they support the polygraph; they'd support a colander with wires coming out of it just as much except it doesn't accomplish their three purposes as easily as does their more sophisticated box.

The story gets that right too.  "[T]he prospect of facing a polygraph can deter future security violations, according to the council's report. That prospect also increases the frequency of admission of violations — taking home classified documents, for example — and discourages people who may be security risks from applying."  

Of course, once people realize how inaccurate and vulnerable to manipulation the polygraph is, the three purposes of the polygraph will be harder to attain through it, leading to loss of revenue and prestige to the Guild.  They really don't want that to happen and this story is very, very bad news for them.  Who knows, if the press is being honest about the polygraph today, maybe tomorrow Dr. Phil will tell the truth about it!

[notguilty1]

Here is an interesting news story from the Associated Press, "Pentagon's Intelligence Arm Steps Up Lie Detecting Efforts on Employees."  At first, the headline made me groan: more polygraphs are not what we need, this must be bad news.  But upon actually reading the piece, it's about as bad as it gets for polygraphy.

Consider the following:

A polygraph is not foolproof as a screening tool. The test gives a high rate of false positives on innocent people, and guilty subjects can be trained to beat the system, according to expert Charles Honts, a psychology professor at Boise State University.

The National Research Council noted these deficiencies in a 2003 report. The council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, found that lie detectors can be useful for ferreting out the truth in specific incidents, but are unreliable for screening prospective national security employees for trustworthiness.

"Its 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," the council concluded. "Polygraph testing as currently used has extremely serious limitations in such screening applications, if the intent is both to identify security risks and protect valued employees."

John Sullivan, a polygrapher with the CIA for 31 years, noted that turncoat Aldrich Ames, a CIA mole for the Soviets, beat a polygraph test twice.

Any polygrapher who is honest with himself will admit that all of the above is correct and accurate.  We don't need to convince them that the polygraph isn't as accurate as they claim; they already know that.  They claim it is "98% accurate" and throw out other such imaginary and fantastical numbers, but they don't really believe that.  

They don't support polygraphy because it catches 98% of the bad guys.  I will leave off my cynical hat which tells me they support it because it (1) makes them money and (2) earns them prestige, and say that they support the polygraph because they think it: (1) elicits confessions that indicate bad behavior that otherwise would remain unknown; (2) it deters current employees from doing bad things; and (3) it deters some bad people from applying.  That's why they support the polygraph; they'd support a colander with wires coming out of it just as much except it doesn't accomplish their three purposes as easily as does their more sophisticated box.

The story gets that right too.  "[T]he prospect of facing a polygraph can deter future security violations, according to the council's report. That prospect also increases the frequency of admission of violations — taking home classified documents, for example — and discourages people who may be security risks from applying."  

Of course, once people realize how inaccurate and vulnerable to manipulation the polygraph is, the three purposes of the polygraph will be harder to attain through it, leading to loss of revenue and prestige to the Guild.  They really don't want that to happen and this story is very, very bad news for them.  Who knows, if the press is being honest about the polygraph today, maybe tomorrow Dr. Phil will tell the truth about it!

AMEN TO THAT!!!

[polytek]

IF IT LOOKS LIKE CRAP, FEELS LIKE CRAP AND SMELLS LIKE CRAP,
THEN GUESS WHAT.........................
IT IS CRAP FO SURE.

[abcdef]

I don't think polygraphers will be "troubled" by this news story as it clearly indicates expanded opportunities for them to practice their profession.  Polygraphers already know the test doesn't detect lies and aren't terribly bothered by this fact.  

[CuriousGuy]

An interesting article that claims Bruce Ivins (the man who committed suicide just as the FBI was about to arrest him for sending anthrax in the mail) passed the polygraph.....twice:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=67069&sectionid=3510303

[Lethe]

I don't think polygraphers will be "troubled" by this news story as it clearly indicates expanded opportunities for them to practice their profession.  Polygraphers already know the test doesn't detect lies and aren't terribly bothered by this fact.  

There's truth to what you say, but only because polygraphers are short-term thinkers.  In the next few years they will have increased opportunities to get money and prestige, but I think the trends indicated by the story spell big trouble for the long term prospects for the polygraph, which cannot exist without a cloak of lies and misinformation.  The media may no longer be playing lap dog to the polygraph industrial complex; there is a tear in that cloak.

Polygraphers should consider gaining education and training in another field and updating their resumes; there may soon be a glut of them made available to the labor market.