Should I lie to beat the machine or tell the truth

[digithead]

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?

[day2day]

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.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

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.

[meangino]

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.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

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.

[day2day]

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.

[George W. Maschke]

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.

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.

[digithead]

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...

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...

[LieBabyCryBaby]

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.

[EosJupiter]

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 ....

[George W. Maschke]

When 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.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

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."

[meangino]

EosJ:
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.

[day2day]

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.

[digithead]

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...