Child brings gun to school, then the idiocy starts

[Inquartata]

Inq, most of your arguments come back to the quality of the polygraph examiners

No, they don't.

It's a gestalt. You cannot separate it into its component parts and judge each independently. First you guys want to concentrate on the machines, and talk about unreliability. Now it would advance your argument to make mine all about the examiners. But it's about both. It's about a system...

The answer is that you can't quantifiably assess their ability; there are too many methodological confounds.

And is it your position is that because you cannot quantify a human being, anything a human being does is inherently "unreliable"?

Aside from the fact that, when you're being subjected to a polygraph, you have no control over whether you have a good examiner or not.

Which leads you to conclude...what?

That puts them in good company with fortune-tellers, technical day-traders, and foil/saber directors.

And lawyers.

And...well...just about anyone whose tasks involve anything other than measurement of data.

Of course not. It doesn't show that polygraphs are unreliable, it shows that the study is unreliable as a tool for determining the reliability of the polygraph.

Meh, not sure which side of the argument you're on any more.

I would argue that the burden of proof is on the proponents of the system to prove reliability;

I would say that the only responsibility is to show usefulness.

That is a great argument for sending all examiners to re-education camps.

Why? Is there some inalienable right for a person to get a certain job despite failing the employer's chosen hiring process?

So the bottom line is that polygraphs are essentially about social engineering, not science.

You lost me, I'm afraid. I thought we were talking about screening job applicants for sensitive positions...

Let me get to the bottom line: Would you prefer to have cops on the street in your town who had not had to undergo a polygraph examination before being hired? Do you think we would have fewer corrupt, criminal and abusive cops, or more?

[Hauptman]

No, they don't.

It's a gestalt. You cannot separate it into its component parts and judge each independently. First you guys want to concentrate on the machines, and talk about unreliability. Now it would advance your argument to make mine all about the examiners. But it's about both. It's about a system...

You keep claiming it's reliable IF you have a good examiner; have you got any evidence to back that up? Can you even qualify as to how you can identify a "good" examiner?

I don't think you can since all you gave me was "the gov't uses it so it must be reliable". Or did I miss something?

[Slim]

So the bottom line is that polygraphs are essentially about social engineering, not science. If the examiners can convince people that the box can really tell if they are lying or not, the innocent person will be to scared to lie (Would you be willing to admit to murder on one of your polygraph tests, when it counts, and trust the machine to pick up that you are lying?) and the guilty will become more hesitant and obvious, even to the point of confession, thinking that they will be caught regardless. One doesn't need any actual science to do that--just a convincing looking box labeled "lie detector" and some common misdirection techniques from the magic profession.

Spot on. A "good examiner" is able to distill what they are looking for from responses to the follow up questions. This is where all the actual information comes from, not the charts. A person being examined could be hooked up to a coffee pot. The machine really doesn't matter as much as the examiner and their tactics.

I do believe that there is a physical reaction related to deception. Its the mostly the fear of being caught which is detectable. Tests I've had to take were after piles of questionnaires have been filled out and extensive background investigations have been done and the examiners preface the test with saying something like "we know all the answers already, so dont bother to attempt deception." In reality, they probably dont unless it's a criminal history or something on record somewhere. It's a mind game.

It's all about intimidation and how one responds to it. A skilled examiner with a clever set of questions could get most normal people to admit to just about anything. But, a good examiner with a polygraph and the proper set of questions can certainly weed out applicants that may have a shady background.

[Slim]

However, yes, it's my understanding---limited though my experience is---that if you fail, you are eliminated from the process. Budgets and time constraints typically do not allow for retesting simply in the interest of "maybe the machine was wrong or misread".

I know personally of only one exception to this. I knew someone ( a computer guy ) who underwent the selection process for the CIA. It included a polygraph ( rather a more elaborate one than usual, he was alone in a room facing a one-way mirror and heard the questions through a speaker, and apparently there were other devices as well in use ). He was told that he had shown deception on a question about drug use. He was asked to return the next day for a follow-up test.

Depends on the position you are trying for and the skills you have. If you're valuable to them, they will work with you to get through it.

I suspect that this was a stronger form of a common practice in polygraph examinations: Tell the subject that he has shown deception on a question or two, to see if you can rattle him and to shake his confidence in any countermeasures he may be attempting. Normally this is done in the same session; you're told that a question about X elicited a deceptive response, then follow-up questions are asked---at which time the supposed deception goes away...

( In this case the person was offended by the intimation that he was a lying druggie and did not go back. He was kicking himself after I told him it was probably all a stratagem. )

Common. I know of people that were offended by the "lifestyle" questions and were too shaken up to go back.

I have been talking about screening polygraphs. The only stress there is whether or not you get a job. Most of the time, anyway.

Different from my experience. I was told that if I was found to be deceptive, I could be prosecuted based on my responses. Nothing like a little more stress to amp up the situation.

Interestingly enough, at least to me, I was talking to one examiner after he had conducted my test and he told me that he had had applicants calmly confess to every imaginable crime except skyjacking. He could not explain why (a) these people thought that they could become police officers with such undiscovered crimes in their pasts, or (b) why they would confess to undiscovered felonies, up to and including murder, to a police officer...

Same reason some people go to confession. ;-)

[Inquartata]

I do believe that there is a physical reaction related to deception.

There are several, and this is why I don't believe countermeasures work. Maybe if you have a lot of meditation practice you can control your heart rate and breathing. But can you simultaneously control your blood pressure, AND your perspiration? I'm dubious. And if you could it would take a lot of training and practice. Maybe if you're a spy you could do this, and you would have the motivation. But when the only bad consequence is that you don't get a particular job?

Tests I've had to take were after piles of questionnaires have been filled out and extensive background investigations have been done and the examiners preface the test with saying something like "we know all the answers already, so dont bother to attempt deception."

This has not been my experience with the tests. YMMV.

Depends on the position you are trying for and the skills you have. If you're valuable to them, they will work with you to get through it.

Yes...depending also on what "it" is.

Common. I know of people that were offended by the "lifestyle" questions and were too shaken up to go back.

In every one I've taken except one, the question to which I was supposed to have tested deceptive involved drug use. That has to be about the most common infraction in modern society, so it's no wonder they like their odds there. Unfortunately, they stumbled upon the one guy in a million who never even experimented. ( Probably because the idea of smoking ANYthing repulses me. ) So there was not even the shadow of a doubt to creep into my mind.

The one exception: An examiner who said I read deceptive on forgery. Logical, I suppose---most people have probably signed their parents' names on report cards or something.

[Slim]

There are several, and this is why I don't believe countermeasures work. Maybe if you have a lot of meditation practice you can control your heart rate and breathing. But can you simultaneously control your blood pressure, AND your perspiration? I'm dubious. And if you could it would take a lot of training and practice. Maybe if you're a spy you could do this, and you would have the motivation. But when the only bad consequence is that you don't get a particular job?

The only real counter measure is to create a noisy environment where the control question and actual question causes a similar response. "Puckering" is the most effective way to do this, but a good examiner might be able to see through it and end the test.

This has not been my experience with the tests. YMMV.

Depends on the agency sponsoring the test I would imagine. Mine had 3 letters, starting with N.


Yes...depending also on what "it" is.

In every one I've taken except one, the question to which I was supposed to have tested deceptive involved drug use. That has to be about the most common infraction in modern society, so it's no wonder they like their odds there. Unfortunately, they stumbled upon the one guy in a million who never even experimented. ( Probably because the idea of smoking ANYthing repulses me. ) So there was not even the shadow of a doubt to creep into my mind.

That's usually the one they drill down on regardless of what your response was. Answering NO is highly unusual. Answering yes leads them to think you're not telling everything.

The one exception: An examiner who said I read deceptive on forgery. Logical, I suppose---most people have probably signed their parents' names on report cards or something.

But did you think of this when he asked? Or are you suggesting it was something subconscious?

[Inquartata]

But did you think of this when he asked?

No, I only thought about it later.

Not that I ever did anything like that either, of course.

[dcmdale]

Kid handcuffed and arrested in class for doodling on desk.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/18/...est/index.html

[Philistine]

Kid handcuffed and arrested in class for doodling on desk.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/18/...est/index.html

I always think these cases show stupidity at all levels.

You had an ineffective teacher who couldn't resolve the issue herself, and passed it up the chain. You had an idiotic administration who called in the police for a kid doodling, and then you had a thug of a police officer who thinks that handcuffing and arresting a girl for doodling on a desk is an appropriate use of the police power.

--Philistine

[Hauptman]

I always think these cases show stupidity at all levels.

You had an ineffective teacher who couldn't resolve the issue herself, and passed it up the chain. You had an idiotic administration who called in the police for a kid doodling, and then you had a thug of a police officer who thinks that handcuffing and arresting a girl for doodling on a desk is an appropriate use of the police power.

--Philistine

It's simply passing the buck. The teachers and administrators don't have the guts to fail a kid, but they have no problem calling the police on them instead.