Quote:


Yet another substantive, weighty post.

From the rather sparse intellectual content of your last 10 posts, it appears that you are hardly the one to judge intelligence. It appears that you are simply jealous of Mr. Maschke's intelligence. 

Uh, yes, you are absolutely correct, I am very jealous - 
Not! 8)

"Eastwood" to George Maschke:
Quote:

From the rather sparse intellectual content of your last 10 posts, it appears that you are hardly the one to judge intelligence. It appears that you are simply jealous of Mr. Maschke's intelligence. If this was not the case, I would expect you to reply to his well-developed criticism of polygraphy with logical rebuttals. Instead, all you seem able to manage are some flippant ad hominem attacks. Perhaps we should leave the judging of intelligence to the impartial observers of this debate. 

Quote:

On what basis do you assert this? Was there a discussion of the concept of good faith somewhere on this board or elsewhere where George displayed a lack of knowledge of the term? Without any support (lack of support combined with a personal attack seems to be the recipe for all of your posts), this sounds like yet another gratuitous assertion by an angry 'grapher.

If anything lacks good faith, it is polygraphy.

Black's Law Dictionary defines good faith as:

A state of mind denoting:
(1) Honesty or lawfulness of belief or purpose,
(2) Faithfulness to one's duty or obligation
(3) Observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in a given trade or business, or 
(4) Absence of intent to defraud or seek unconscionable advantage. 

Polygraphers may get by on numbers one and two. A person genuinely attempting to keep criminals out of government service by using a crystal ball can still be acting in good faith (this person would also be a moron and contributing absolutely nothing to his good faith goal). As far as number two goes, nobody can dispute the fact that polygraphers are faithful to their duty and/or obligation. People like you defend the art of polygraphy to the end, long after every rational argument for it has been defeated.

When it comes to numbers three and four, polygraphy is in big trouble. As readers of this site know, polygraphy is completely dependent on trickery and deception. 

Quote:

You can bet your bottom dollar that we will.

The words 'good faith' and 'polygraph' should never appear in the same sentence. They are mutually exclusive terms.

Eastwood wrote on Jun 26^th, 2002 at 4:21am:


"Good Faith" generally involves warranted trust.  No one who knows anything about polygraphs and their record is under the illusion that polygraphers deserve such trust.

And frankly, Eastwood, you're really not in a position to be criticizing the intelligence of anyone's posts.  Thus far, the content of your contributions have pretty much been limited to a demonstration of an unhealthy voyeuristic obsession with other people's lives.  IMHO, you might want to consider getting professional help with this.

I have a hunch that the polygraphy profession serves as a legal outlet for quite a number of people with the same affliction.

Skeptic

Eastwood,

I don't know how smart Mr. Maschke believes himself to be, but judging simply from his and your written words, he appears to be light years ahead of you in that department.  With regard to "good faith," a charlatan/polygrapher lecturing Mr. Maschke on the subject is about as ludicrous and hypocritical a notion as this message board has seen.

Mr Maschke, keep giving your countermeasures advice - frankly, you're not as smart as you like to believe.  You're doing nothing but hurting people who would be much better off going in and taking their poly in good faith.  You don't know what the term "good faith" even means.

I'd like to know if polycop is speaking for one agency (PD) or all agencies who rely on polys. when he stated that the test is not the SOLE factor in determining whether to hire an applicant. I doubt he's speaking for the feds. because they clearly don't. I took 3 polys. I was told the first one was inconclusive (on the issue of use of drugs) and was automatically afforded a second. I allegedly failed the second on the same issue. I petitioned for a third, and my petition was granted. I allegedly failed the third on the same issue. This proves that the system and certainly polys. are flawed. I'VE NEVER SEEN DRUGS IN MY ENTIRE LIFE OTHER THAN ON TV AND IN THE MOVIES. I didn't lie about the issue and had no reason to lie. What's disturbing is that the agent who administered the test on two of three occasions told me both before and after the two tests that he BELIEVED ME. The agent who interviewed me twice told me the same thing in both interviews. I understand that the both agents wrote very positive reports about me (I'm in the process of obtaining the records pursuant to the FOIA). The agency I applied with ignored the reports of its agents (who I assume were trained to conduct such interviews and prepare such reports) and SOLELY RELIED ON THE POLYGRAPH. I believe that I was given a third poly. only because of actions I had taken to challenge polygraphs, but that the agency never intended to hire me anyway. I was told after the third test that the examiner was asked not to render an opinion  on the test results, and that results were to be read by personnel in D.C. The same person who had rejected my application after the second poly. wrote me again after my third to advise me that I had been rejected again and this time I have no further remedies. Polygraph is the only decisive factor in pre-employment procedures.

Polycop says

Quote:
 

Well does that mean your dept. relies ENTIRELY on your analysis to determine fitness to be a member of your dept?  How thorough is your background investigation?

Also if people HAVE to get past you, why must applicants sign a release of liability before testing? This gives you Carte Blanche to do what you please regardless of the results. If the candidate doesn't fit your "standards"  you will deliver negative outcomes.

You also say
Quote:


Remember, you said people must get past you. If the above statement was true, why are applicants  DQ'ed after a  DI or Inconclusive poly. The rest of the personal history doesn't matter, does it? The applicant could have graduate school education, great work history, etc. But you fail poly, NO JOB


Think about it

Fred F.

Polycop,

You wrote in part:

Quote:


Considering that polygraphy has no scientific basis, and, not surprisingly, has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to work better than chance under field conditions, and considering the virtual consensus of the scientific community that polygraph screening is completely invalid and should be stopped, it's fair to say that any subject who strolls into your polygraph chamber has already demonstrated his willingness to "roll the dice."

Those who wish to reduce their odds of losing the polygraph crapshoot are well-advised to practice and employ polygraph countermeasures.

Mark,

You said, 
Quote:


I am not sure that is true.  I have in fact worked with P.D's that consider more than just the Polygraph exam.  It is just that DI poly results tend to lead to disqualifying admissions.  What's worse, are the subjects who conceal info that does not necessarily DQ them.  In those "DI" cases, if I can get the info out of the subject, then retest, he can still get the job.  It just does not get more simple than that.

In either case, I have not seen enough DI exams in which the subject just sits there with his lips sealed, to make a educated analysis of how many of those applicants still get the job in the end.  Nevertheless, I agree with you that the DI examinee is under a great deal of stress and has big decisions to make.  My only point is that I do not believe the advice he/she gets on this site necessarily "helps."

Regarding your comments about countermeasures, I can not answer for the whole polygraph community, nor am I in a position to talk for my agency (a small P.D.) but I believe that sooner or later the issue of the viability of countermeasures will be better addressed, whether it will be some form of answer to Drew's challenge, or some other venue.  I can tell you that although I catch alot of countermeasure attempts, I probably don't get them all.  What the examinee getting ready to attempt countermeasures has got to ask himself is "Am I willing to roll the dice?"  To that my answer has got to be....

Do you feel "lucky?"...
 
Polycop...

Polycop,

We both know that any applicant who fails a polygraph is not going to get hired, no matter how exemplary their record may otherwise be.  Do you disagree?  The Captain Jones account on this website is one case in point.

I can appreciate the enormous moral pressure an applicant would be under if their attempted countermeasures were exposed by the examiner.  And I know that many polygraph examiners are very effective interrogators who would be able to induce an admission in such circumstances, assuming such circumstances exist.

However, a technique that purports to be based on sound scientific principles (as polygraphers allege) must be able to withstand rigorous scrutiny, and not merely rest on anecdotes.   

Drew Richardson's countermeasures challenge provides such a framework.  I would have thought that the polygraph community would jump at such a chance to show the world that countermeasures do not work.  They would not even be obliged to show how they detected the countermeasures.

Quote:


But peer-reviewed research suggests that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector at better-than-chance levels of accuracy. There are no tell-tale "crumbs." Which is no doubt why no one in the polygraph community has had the courage to accept Dr. Richardson's Polygraph Countermeasure Challenge, which remains a daily embarrassment (147 days and counting) to those who falsely claim to be "dedicated to truth" (American Polygraph Association motto).

Quote:


George,

Remember when you were four years old and your mother caught you with cookie crumbs on your face?  She asked, "You were in the cookie jar, weren't you?"

That was no bluff 

Polycop

 

Quote:


I see... Your technique for "catching" people using countermeasures is essentially to use bluffery, a tactic we warn readers about in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

Polycop,

I have a solution for your countermeasure problem.  Eliminate its need.  If you and your colleagues were all to publicly decry the use of polygraph screening results as a sole determining basis for stopping an applicant examination (i.e., no applicant process would be terminated unless polygraph results were confirmed through investigative results), agencies were to see the light and protect examinees from false positive polygraph results, then your countermeasure problem (for this group of examinees in this application) would disappear overnight.  Until then, truthful applicants can not possibly listen to those who produce the false positives with the latter telling the former "Trust me, simply tell the truth, and everything will work out fine."

George,

You asked:

Quote:


I know this sounds like the old argument back and forth, but let me answer you this way:

I will not discuss the specific indicators of countermeasures I look for on a polygraph chart.  However, when an examinee is shown the specific places on a chart in which he clearly attempted to manipulate the polygraph results, he usually acknowledges what he did.  Now I know you advise people who visit this site to make no admissions. However, when the official giving the exam looks that person straight in the eye, points to the specific place on the chart in which countermeasures were attempted, and says, "This is where you attempted to do such and such, isn't it?"  It is REALLY hard for most examinees to deny what they did...

As a student of human nature, I know you understand this...

Polycop...
     

Polycop,

You wrote in part:

Quote:


Absent an admission on the subject's part, how can you tell if a subject has employed countermeasures of the kind described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?

Anonymous,

You asked:
     
Quote:


I hold to my statement that polygraph results should not be the SOLE determining factor of the applicant hiring decision.

On the other hand, PLEASE don't get me going on all the advice given to honest police applicants by people on this site, advising them to engage in "countermeasures."  Whether you all believe it or not, I have caught a good number of otherwise honest folks, who because of thier visit to this website and others, engaged in countermeasures in a futile attempt to "help" themselves.  The results were generally disasterous for them and the hiring panel did not look kindly on their attempts to manipulate their test results.  One of the panel members once told me that he equates the attempted use of polygraph countermeasures by an applicant to "cheating" on the police applicant exam...

Polycop...

Anonymous,

You asked:
     
Quote:


I hold to my statement that polygraph results should not be the SOLE determining factor of the applicant hiring decision.

On the other hand, PLEASE don't get me going on all the advice given to honest police applicants by people on this site, advising them to engage in "countermeasures."  Whether you all believe it or not, I have caught a good number of otherwise honest folks, who because of thier visit to this website and others, engaged in countermeasures in a futile attempt to "help" themselves.  The results were generally disasterous for them and the hiring panel did not look kindly on their attempts to manipulate their test results.  One of the panel members once told me that he equates the attempted use of polgraph countermeasures by an applicant to "cheating" on the police applicant exam...

Polycop...

Polycop,

You state:

Quote:


If you truly mean what you say and are intellectually honest about its consequences, then you must be willing to state (as others do on this site) that the FBI and other agencies who disqualify applicants based solely on polygraph results are wrong to do so and completely misguided about how this tool should be used.  This, of course, is completely independent of the differences that we would have regarding the validity of polygraph screening in the first place and the advisability of truthful examinees using countermeasures.

Mark,  I would like to comment on some things you said:

Quote:


#1:  Eastwood and I are not the same person...

#2:  Regardless of what misguided advice may be found  in "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector", I would suggest that the  vast majority of applicants willingly cooperate with the process for one VERY important reason.  I have something they want.  A JOB!  They must get past me to get that job.  That very fact puts me (and not the applicant) in charge in the polygraph laboratory.   Yes, I do catch a few wiseguys trying to manipulate the process, but most simply do as they are instructed.

#3:  For the most part, I do agree with your summation...     However, I know that in some of your cases, your exposure to polygraph had nothing to do with the applicant process.

I would add that the hard core users (administrators) of this site are true believers in their cause and are definately on a "mission." 

I would even add this stipulation to the polygraph process:  There are false positives in polygraph.  They do happen and every responsible polygraph examiner understands that...  I, for one believe that polygraph is only part of the process and I believe that a hiring agency must consider the entire applicant and not just his polygraph results.  Would I refuse to hire someone just because his neighbors think he is dishonest, or his ex-wife has a few unpleasant things to say?  However, one must remember that the applicant process is subjective and when all is said and done, the hiring panel either has a positive or negative "feel" for a particular applicant.  All the "objective" tests in the world will never replace this process, nor should it.  I support the use of polygraph as part of the entire hiring situation.  You and the others on this site, do not.  That is the basic difference that all the postings on this site will not change...

Polycop...

                       

Quote:


The individuals who established this site "failed" because the "test" championed by individuals like yourself is an unreliable fraud. Instead of making ad hominem accusations against people you have never met, perhaps you could tell me of any disinterested individual in academia that supports the process of polygraph screening.

Also... If the intellectuals you refer to are the readers of this site.... they have no problems passing this joke of a "test". They are well informed on how to employ polygraph countermeasures to defeat it.  These are the techniques for beating the polygraph that the "intellectuals" who run peer-reviewed scientific studies have told us that experienced polygraphers cannot detect at better than chance levels . Speaking of detecting countermeasures, perhaps you could point us toward some literature purporting to explain how one can detect them on polygraph charts...

Eastwood,

Every time you post something you're proving my point about the ad hominem approach invariably taken.  Why don't you prove me wrong and post something substantive?

You know, I'm wondering whether you are really an anti-polygraph guy masquerading as a pro-polygraph guy, whose purpose is to make the pro-polygraph side look like a bunch of goons.

I'm also wondering whether you and Polycop are the same person, because you both spew the same inanities.

As for your bluster about us being an admission-rich environment, nobody reading the Lie Behind the Lie Detector would be fooled by your act.

I would sum up your position as follows: we're all just a bunch of liars who are disgruntled because we failed a polygraph test, which undermined our ambitions, and now we're pissed off and whining and complaining about it.   

Is that an accurate account of your position, or am I missing something?

Hmmmm, it appears that you "intellectuals" are the ones who can't pass a test - not us.