Get Real

[F. Marc de Piolenc]

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