Baaad Feeling in my Stomach

[George W. Maschke]

Dear Propoly5822,

With your comments noted, why do so many agencies, specifically, the FBI, use the pre-screening polygraph which was recognized as better than chance but far below "perfect"?...

Fair Chance,

The NAS report does not characterize polygraph screening as being "better than chance." That characterization was made (at p. 214) with regard to specific-incident "tests" and with an important caveat that polygraph advocates prefer to ignore (that the subject population be untrained in countermeasures -- a condition that is in practice unverifiable):

Notwithstanding the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.

Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods.

For discussion of the above, see pp. 27-29 of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

[George W. Maschke]

...

The purpose of the study was to discredit the polygraph because the persons at DOE that were against being subjected to polygraph requested the study....

On the basis of what evidence do you make this allegation? Please be specific.

It is true that DOE scientists and engineers had serious concerns about the validity of polygraphy, and that this influenced Senator Bingaman to press the Department of Energy to fund this research review. But the Secretary of Energy at the time, Bill Richardson, was himself a polygraph supporter who had himself ordered the expansion of DOE's polygraph program.

[Fair Chance]

Fair Chance,

I do agree that all testing should be audio/video recorded and stored for a minimum of 3 years.  If there are complaints the examination should be reviewed by someone outside of the agency conducting the examination.   

Darkcobra2005,

This is something that all people on this site could probably agree on.  I believe audio and visual recordings combined with polygraph results would be key to providing a data base which could be submitted to a completely seperate scientific.

I knew I was telling the truth, the examiner was "convinced" by either personal bias or complete misinterpretation of the charts that I was not truthful (or using countermeasures which I was not).  The group of "experts" in Washington, D.C., concurred with the examiner. Yet, on appeal, I am found "within acceptable parameters" on the third exam.  Without such recordings, how can any quality control be exhibited to document the problems?

Until such recordings become common place, I will always be suspicious of exams "held in secrecy" and this will always detract from any acceptance concerning polygraph exams from posters on this site who are against pre-screening polygraphs like myself.

[Fair Chance]

Fair Chance,

The NAS report does not characterize polygraph screening as being "better than chance." That characterization was made (at p. 214) with regard to specific-incident "tests" and with an important caveat that polygraph advocates prefer to ignore (that the subject population be untrained in countermeasures -- a condition that is in practice unverifiable):

George,

I believe that this site has been a wealth of information concerning polygraph pre-screening procedures as related to the FBI.  Information is now readily available.  We hear from many people who have not successfully "passed" an exam but how many have used the knowledge gained here to "pass" an exam and never post.  The FBI does not know either.


I am not concerned about "false positive" test because the applicant will still be required to pass a background adjudication the old fashioned way the FBI did things before the polygraph was introduced in the applicant process.  Moles could beat the old system and the addition of the polygraph will not stop them in the new system.

The FBI does not document facts other than polygraph results to blacklist an applicant and ruin their reputation and future federal careers.  Appeals are for face saving value only.  This is such a waste of tax payers and loss of good applicants.

Regards.

[Drew Richardson]

Darkcobra,

You write in part:

Much of the current research is submitted to ASTM, none of that research was included in the NAS.  I try to avoid using research figures or stats unless I am privy to the research methodology and monitoring of the research by ASTM, further that the research has been independently verified by other research projects.  These are hard to come by and some are still in progress.

With regard to ASTM, any adherence to its standards merely assures some degree of uniformity/reliabilty  (everybody doing the same thing).  And because most forms of polygraphy (lie tests) are not specifiable tests but unspecifiable and every-exam differing interviews, even this function is questionable on anything but cursory analysis.   Unfortunately whatever the function of ASTM guidelines and review, it has precious little to do with everybody doing the right thing or that which is valid and  that which guarantees any degree of accuracy.  With regard to any referenced but unspecified studies in progress, I hope that you realize there is a place for the polygraph community in such studies and several areas that this community and those funded by the polygraph community (government polygraph programs and the various trade organizations representing this community) should most definitely not be involved with.  It is quite fair and appropriate for trained polygraphers to be involved in conducting polygraph exams within a study but it is altogether improper for this group of people (anybody in the aforementioned interested groups, not just the participating examiners) to be involved in the programming of subjects (have any knowledge of ground truth with regard to subject guilt status) and to conduct analysis of the data.  The polygraph community obviously would not exist if polygraphy (in its various forms and applications) were found to be invalid.  Such a conflict of interest makes this community completely unacceptable for carrying out many of the roles in an overall research project.  As has been said before, any lessening of this kind of research rigor would be tantamount/analogous to putting the tobacco industry in charge of lung cancer research and would make the results/conclusions drawn/significance of any such studies candidates for immediate disregard.

[EosJupiter]

DarkCobra your missing the point here. Lets extrapolate this beyond countermeasures and studies. The role of the examiner is to get the subject to believe that the machine works, instill doubt, fear and anxiety. And if successful the polygraph responds to the persons physiological reactions. But without the doubt, fear and anxiety its just another printer that draws wavey lines. I know it doesn't work, the examiner tried his damnest to try and get me to respond, and all it did was draw lines. It really pissed him off... because he couldn't get me to respond to the stimuli. hmmmm  best he could do was say NO  ( no opinion ), He did try a post exam chat but shut him down there too.  Once the fear is gone ... you and your examiner types have no power what so ever.  Best part is ... Still got the job ..... and doing well.
So bottom line ... study is valid ... and the proof was proven in a real life scenario.    Don't you just love it.

[EosJupiter]

Eosjupiter,

Lets stick with the original study, not extrapolation or your personal experience.  As with all types of testing, none of it is 100%, much of it is above chance.  

DarkCobra,

I will give you credit for honesty. But even 1 false positive or even 1 false negitive. Anything less than 100% accuracy, is wrong. Messing with peoples lives with a machine that is really nothing more than another persons opinion is exceptionally wrong. IF you get a criminal with the use of a polygraph then this is a good thing. But tag one innocent person a liar and deceptive then the whole process is flawed and needs to be done away with. I would not even be here if you had 100% accuracy.  Anything less is just plain wrong.
LIke the death penalty, if we execute one innocent person, then the whole process must stop. Anything less than 100% proof is just state sponsored murder. And we all know that as of late how many DeathRow inmates have been cleared by DNA  evidence and found innocent.  Messing with peoples lives and veracity without the 100% certainty again is just wrong. But if you can get a crook to confess with a polygraph, then have at it, but like all things in a free society, collateral damage to the innocent in any circumstance should never be tolerated, especially by authorities, from this a police state cannot be far away.

[Drew Richardson]

Darkcobra,

The quality of the poor research that the NAS panel had to deal with was largely not caused by the absence of ASTM testing guidelines (more later) nor in any way biases (against lie detection and the community that promotes its practice and is largely responsible for its allegedly supporting research) on the part of the NAS panel but by the poor performance on the part of the polygraph community that has largely produced this product.  Having talked to several members of the panel, I know that their difficulty and challenge was not to say something negative about polygraphy and the community that conducted polygraph research (this was almost unavoidable), but to find something/anything to say which might appear to be encouraging and positive.  As critical as the report was, it was only due to the graciousness of the panel members and deference to the agency that technically requested the study that it was not more uniformly scathing.  

One of the major shortcomings of the research was that (aside from the polygraph community doing screening exams without even the pretense of scientific support, i.e., a non-existent research literature) was that virtually none of the simulated-crime research had any external validity whatsoever.  Some of it, beyond the scope of this specific post, was/is quite comical in terms of the manner in which and the extent to which it sought to recreate "real life" conditions.  Such was the case with the research that was the grist of the NAS's study pool, and such is the case now.  Nothing about ASTM guidelines addresses this serious shortcoming.  This shortcoming is not a mere academic oversight but one, which if left unaddressed, will likely mask any examinee fear of consequences (real-life consequences to an examinee following having been branded a liar in a polygraph exam) and which in turn would contribute to underestimating (perhaps considerably so) the true rate of false positive outcomes in real life conditions--something that I have spoken of before and which so many on this board have claimed as being a part of their own personal experience.   I would suggest to you in terms of assuring operational/external validity that the ASTM guidelines and regulations have as much impact on polygraph research as the proverbial rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic did on iceberg avoidance and damage remediation.

 In addition to avoiding the obviously and previously discussed general bias and conflict of interest that the polygraph industry would have if involved in current polygraph validity research, I think its handling of the ASTM guidelines calls further into question its ability to be involved in such research.  It should be readily apparent to this community (and perhaps you as well as a doctoral grad student, yes?) that ballyhooing ASTM guidelines (that do not adequately address concerns about external validity) as a remedy for past poor performance in polygraph research is shall we say less than satisfactory and represents even further (although not needed based on previously mentioned general considerations) disqualifying credentials for participating in this type of research.

[kane]

Darkcobra,

You said:  <<<The individuals that pass a polygraph while not being truthful is a minor concern for me personally, they simply beat the test for what ever reason, and this does occur occasionally, >>>

That does not make me, or I would suspect, anyone else who has been through the horror of polygraphs, to feel any better about them.

Please explain to me why I failed, or better yet, had three inconclusive, not within parameters, polygraphs when I did not lie or mis-state anything in regards to the questions asked of me?

Polygraphs are useless, and utterly unreliable.  

By the way, even though the following will no doubt sound like whining, I know the real reason I "failed" my polys.  I did not fit the proper gender and race parameters the FBI was looking for.

I am a white, married male.  Those of us who have been involved with the feds in any capacity, (I as a parole officer have frequent contact with federal personel), know that the feds adhere to very strict hiring guidelines in regards to race and gender.

Once I found out that a minority female got the IS job I applied for, I knew what was up.

The FBI, having no other way to disqualify me, used a polygraph.

That, in a word, sucks.

[Mercible]

darkcobra,

You state ...

The reason I come to this board is to learn what is going on with persons that have had bad expeeriences with polygraph and attempt to adjust the manner in which I do polygraph examinations to avoid these tragedies.  There are a number of bad examiners in the field, I don't wnat to be one of those.

Based on other postings of yours that I have read, you seem sincere in this quest.  However, I'm curious what it is you do to improve yourself as an examiner in order to avoid false positives.  Have you found ways in which you can do this?  Also, when you identify these, are you reporting that information to others in your field of work so they can also avoid false positives?

Mercible

[polyscam]

Darkcobra,

Would that ammunition come with or without tracers?

      

[Shrek]

Oh boy, what did I cause here? I could not log on for a couple weeks and this threat gets out of control  ...

Besides the baaad feeling in my stomach: I passed!!! I was in and out within an hour and the questions were kept very general. My examiner was very nice and we chatted for a little bit (he was, like I, stationed in Kosovo). He did not really say "you passed" but if there would have been an issue, he would probably discussed the "sour question" with me. Plus he said "You did fine".

So, let's see if I get hired!

Shrek