Steve Furlong wrote:
The questionable usefulness of lie detectors is a topic for another diatribe.
The machine is called a polygraph, and all it does is measure physiological parameters and graph them on a stripchart. The "lie detector" is the operator, who needs to have considerable skill and discernment to do the job effectively. Unfortunately, some government agencies contract out their poly tests to outfits that, as far as I can tell, give some high-school dropout a booklet and let him loose on the box without supervision - that is the only way I can account for the results. Selection of Army polygraph operators (the only ones I know well) is extremely tight, with hundreds competing for a few training slots every year. Training is demanding, and once you pass you still have to work under the supervision of an experienced operator of (I think) a year, or until he signs you off. Whenever possible, the work of one operator is reviewed by another. Finally, the polygraph is the investigative tool of last resort; any agency that uses it routinely at the beginning of an investigation or (worse!) as a substitute for a thorough background check is systemically incompetent. If you are applying for a position and it requires that you be "boxed," take the following precautions: - check that the test is scheduled for after all other investigative results are in and have been reviewed - insist on proof of operator competence; the operator must be identified to you and proof of training and experience furnished - the polygraph test procedure must include a PRIOR review of all the questions that will be put to you. This is to eliminate the effect of surprise, which can skew results. If they refuse - RUN, don't walk - to the nearest exit. - there will be calibration questions - questions to which you will be required to give a false answer e.g. (are you three years old? - YES) and questions to be answered truthfully whose answers are already known. No problem there. Marc de Piolenc