Polygraph

[121Traffic]

In the psych I'd imagine...

as for polys, I have yet to take it.

[George Maschke]

George, contrary to previous statements of mine saying I wouldn't go back to your website, I did read that piece you linked us all to. I will quote one part of Paul M. Menges' words that I like:

"These efforts, while currently not illegal, cross the bounds of ethical conduct and present a threat to public safety and good order in society."

I agree with that statement, and this it is very important.

Menges' assessment is based, however, on the false premise that polygraphy is "scientifically valid." It isn't. The polygraph doesn't detect lies or deception: it's sheer pseudoscience.

I think that institutional reliance on such quackery such as the polygraph, which is falsely represented to the public as a "scientifically valid" test for deception, presents a greater "threat to public safety and good order in society" than does our pointing out that the Emperor is naked.

Nothing is stopping criminals from employing techniques found on your website and elsewhere on the internet, and that is what is scary. Do you want a pedophile for example passing a polygraph and becoming a police officer? Of course you don't, but the information is there for him, and your website makes it that much easier to obtain it. Sure he could get it elsewhere if your website didn't exist, but that is beyond the point.

Again, the polygraph is not a scientifically valid test for deception. Ultimately, responsibility for the hiring of unqualified applicants rests with those who choose to make hiring decisions based on unsound criteria.

In your last post you said this:

"It is certainly not AntiPolygraph.org's purpose to help unqualified applicants to get hired. But there is no way to make information about polygraphy available to truthful applicants without also making available to everyone."

The way to do is not make it available to anyone. If the counter measure techniques work, that is highly dangerous. Nobody should have access to them on the internet. That is impossible unfortunately.

Your website, is ANTI polygraph...so why not focus only on getting the polygraph eliminated? Don't teach people counter-measures which according to Menges "cross the bounds of ethical conduct", stick to getting the law changed if you feel it is necessary.

AntiPolygraph.org is indeed seeking the elimination of the polygraph through legislative reform. (See, for example, the proposed Comprehensive Employee Polygraph Protection Act that would extend to law enforcement employees and applicants the protections enjoyed by other Americans under the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act.)

But changing the law will probably take years -- years during which many truthful applicants are being falsely branded as liars and wrongly disqualified based on polygraph chart readings. These individuals need to know how to protect themselves.

If the "purpose to help unqualified applicants to get hired" is not yours, why are the messages on your message board not deleted when they admit to lying to pass the exam?

Because we chose not to censor the message board. All on-topic posts (including pro-polygraph ones) are welcome, even if those who operate the site don't agree with the viewpoints expressed. Such a free exchange of ideas is to be valued, not feared. Even those who admit to having lied to pass the exam (for example, the post linked in Thank God this guy got help passing the polygraph) offer insight into policy aspects that would not otherwise be available.

Respectfully,

[metallicat]

"I think that institutional reliance on such quackery such as the polygraph, which is falsely represented to the public as a "scientifically valid" test for deception, presents a greater "threat to public safety and good order in society" than does our pointing out that the Emperor is naked."

I don't think so. I would rather have someone not become a cop than have a pedophile or a pervert driving a police car.

"But changing the law will probably take years -- years during which many truthful applicants are being falsely branded as liars and wrongly disqualified based on polygraph chart readings. These individuals need to know how to protect themselves."

Being deceptive is grounds for immediate deferral from the hiring process where I live...I call using counter-measures deceptive, regardless whether the polygraph is "pseudoscience".

This is going nowhere once again. Nobody is going to change your mind, and we are all going to just have to accept that your website isn't going anywhere. I just wish you wouldn't make deceptive information available to law enforcement applicants.

[TX Kid]

Maybe we keep getting off topic because I'm a rookie here?

[metallicat]

No, I apologize for messing up your thread TX.

[George Maschke]

...I would rather have someone not become a cop than have a pedophile or a pervert driving a police car.

But the polygraph doesn't detect pedophiles, or thieves, or drug users, or liars for that matter.

Being deceptive is grounds for immediate deferral from the hiring process where I live...I call using counter-measures deceptive, regardless whether the polygraph is "pseudoscience".

Not all deception is grounds for deferral/disqualification. Again, the polygraph procedure is based on the assumption that all applicants, even those that the agency involved would like to hire, will be deceptive when answering the "control" questions.

Whether to use countermeasures or not is an ethical choice that anyone facing a pre-employment polygraph examination must make for him- or herself, and I respect your choice not to use countermeasures. In fact, I think it is the ethically preferable choice (see the "complete honesty" approach discussed in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.) But it is a choice that entails considerable risk. In any event, I think it behooves all applicants to make an informed choice on how to approach the polygraph (which is why I replied to TX Kid's query).

This is going nowhere once again. Nobody is going to change your mind, and we are all going to just have to accept that your website isn't going anywhere. I just wish you wouldn't make deceptive information available to law enforcement applicants.

It's a mischaracterization to say we're making "deceptive information" available. We're not. We're simply telling the truth about polygraphy.

Respectfully,

[BigGerman]

If you are not trying to cheat it then why do you need to know anything about it? If it works just tell the truth and you will pass.

[Stump]

TX, most likely your poly will not be as intense as one for a popo. After all, the government is issuing them a firearm, and you will not have one.
Don't sweat it, it will probably be some very minor questions regarding your honesty (stealing, passing on confidential info), drug history.... sometimes it will be to clarify some things you put on your BI packet.

And if everyone doesn't want to talk to George, then just IGNORE him. He will keep coming back to prove his point if you keep arguing with him.

[TX Kid]

No ya'll didn't ruin my thread metallicat. It's actually good to see that there are still honest people out there who wouldn't want to cheat the polygraph, as opposed to those who would WANT to find out how to cheat it. Thanks stump. Oh, BTW, I think i will be putting GM on iggy, he seems to know nothing relevant.

[lnichols]

TX i took a poly once and i was very nervous, they stuck me in a little room that was about 80 degrees in it. The guy giving the test to me was very good when asking the questions he would always down play them. The point is i was very nervous and i told the truth and i passed. Another guy failed they gave him a lot of crap for it and then let him do it again and he passed.

[sgtbear111]

The polygraph detects deception. Deception Indicated or No Deception Indicated. Deception can be to any issue under examination. When a person lies, there is a reason.

I am an examiner. Countermeasures are deception. Examiners are trained to recognize countermeasures and we read the "how to" books too.

I will never agree with George, his positions are his and he stands for what he believes. Out of curiosity, (who is this guy?) I did a metacrawler search on George, and read some of his writing. Beyond his org., he is a middle eastern region linguist, computer language expert, with several advanced degrees. George is a brilliant man, he had a bad day at a polygraph exam several years back. First amendment goes both ways.

Serenity prayer, and time to move on.

[metallicat]

Sgt, check your PMs.

[George Maschke]

sgtbear111,

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences does not agree that the polygraph detects deception. They concluded that polygraphy has no scientific basis. Why should anyone reading this message thread believe you instead of them?

You state that polygraph examiners are trained to recognize countermeasures, and yet no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to reliably detect them. And retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Dr. Drew C. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge to the polygraph community has gone nearly two years without any takers. If you are confident in your ability to detect countermeasures, perhaps you'd care to be the first?

You seem to suggest that because I "had a bad day at a polygraph exam several years back," that which I have to say about polygraph matters should be disregarded. This is not, however, a rational argument. If you believe that anything I have written about polygraphy is untrue or misleading, why not refute it with logic, reason, and facts?

Respectfully,

[lawdawg]

The only way, unfortunetly, to convince some of you of the wrongness of the poly, is if you are put on the machine, tell the truth, then fail. It's easy to say you would rather not have a pedo or perv become a cop than a truthful good person become one, until that person is you. If it did really detect pedo's and the like, then wouldn't they prosecute them? "Um, you lied and you are a pedophile! You can't have a job, but you can go free." Obviously, the poly doesn't detect pedophiles or liars, and the poly machine simply does not have psychic abilities. How can you dispute that?

[metallicat]

I am not going to dispute your guys' opinion on this anymore. The bottom line for me is I need to take a poly eventually, and there is nothing I can do about that. If I don't want to take the exam, I will look for employment in a field other than LE.