Paradiddle wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 11:58am:



ok instument/machine whatever.

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 4:29am:


For someone who is blind and apparently quite stupid, you type rather well.

Polygraph is an instrument---an instrument measures and a "machine" moves/works things. You wouldn"t (or maybe you would) call a thermometer a temperature machine.  Go back to school rice80.

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 4:29am:


MM,

Doesn't monitor vital signs you say? So what are ,blood pressure, breathing rate, and sweat activity? You might want to educate yourself before you answer becuase I was a medic before becoming a cop. You also say its not a machine? then what would you call it? Please enlighten me? O wait I know A 'crude reaction recorder". You sir should go back to bed and also seems your polygraph knowledge isn't very good either!

rice80

I don't know about your educational background either but it sure as hell does not include any education in polygraph! First of all, the polygraph is not a machine and it does not "monitor vital signs". 

Based on your last post, I think your knowledge about polygraph rates right up there with Brittany Spear's parenting skills! Have another shot and go back to bed! Why are you here tonight? Was the NAMBL web site down?

MM

O I amost forgot, Paradiddle since your so smarter then everyone, show me in Sarge's above comment where there is a question??      All I see is statements. Now who is "disengenuious"? 

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 2:45am:



Well it seems you, Paradiddle, aren't that smart either. My comment was for Sarge. At no time did it say "Hey Paradiddle, please feel free to interject with your non-sense comments and self suspect theories!" 

I wonder why a person like you who "swears" by the polygraph would be on a "anti" polygraph site trying to defend its vaildity. Maybe it's because you feel the need to sway the newcomers into thinking that it really and truely does detects lies. Well guess what? I'm one up on ya, I know better  You don't know me or my educational background. All you see is "Oh shit another one who is against the polygraph. I better attack him cuz our numbers are few and I need to make a statement!" Well, you need not make a statement to me or even try for that matter. I know what this "so-called" machine is all about and it really doesn't detect shit. It only monitors and records the body's vital signs. I have seen first hand how "valid" it is. It's good for interrogations and making the guilty criminal think he has been caught in a lie. That's it. As for anything else, its just a bunch of squigly lines on chart paper. 

rice80 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 12:53am:




Classic antipolygraph thread. An examiner attempts some thoughtful discourse---a little food for thought. Than an anti guy writes that he agrees in part, but continues to wash his hands of the fact that this site advocates cheating on tests that it feels are unwarranted and invalid. Then the poster goes on to ask some repeated and previously addressed questions---several questions mind you. Then rice80 comes along and says "I agree." Agree with what....Serge's questions? How do you agree with questions rice? My theory is that you weren't really paying attention and that you were merely clapping your hands out of deferrance----only I must inquire Why? Why would a person post such a rediculous thread----you have already told your oddly suspicious war story (study statement analysis---and yes, it works on the internet boards too Serge.) Have you been instructed to do so in an effort to bury pro-polygraph discourse? Pardon my inquirey, but you Rice80, seem quite disengenuious.

Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 1:40pm:




Sergeant1107,

I agree. All of my tests were pre-employment as well. Each one with different outcomes.

pailryder wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 11:42am:

I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.

In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth.  If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them.  I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will.  I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth.  It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.

I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.   

I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening.  All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.

I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing.  But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.

If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen.  And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies.  Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.

Sarge 1107

My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test.  I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart.   After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know.  If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson?  Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:

A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again.     Alexander Pope (1711)      

Quote:


You wear a bullet-proof vest Serge? Why bother; they are easily defeated, by more powerful weapons, and by not aiming for the vest.

If you are really going to have an intellectual conversation, it would help to have a less black-and-white understanding of the concept of validity. It would also help to refrain from drawing global conclusions from personal or annecdotal experience. That just ain't science, boss.

By your logic, one could argue that the use of bullet proof vests is invalid, as a measure of police safety and protection - else why would cops still get killed by gunfire in the line of duty. (I apologize for this example. I do not mean to trivialize people who are harmed while doing good work - I simply couldn't find a more powerful metaphor at the moment.)

Sarge, I think your experience with polygraph reflects the opinion many in LEAs have formed after exposure to a preemployment screening poly.  I agree with you that no employment related decesion, whether in the public or private workplace should ever rest soley on the opinion of a polyex.  That is why EPPA, a law designed to end private poly testing actually worked to improve the private end of our profession.  But lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.

If you take recruits to the range, and provide a good lecture on safety, sight alignment, and trigger control, can most of those trainees be expected to hit a single target?  Could most hit seven seperate targets in the same string?  Or would that be seven times harder?  And would they always know which shots were misses and which were hits?

The single issue specific exam is essentially different from the multiple issue screening exam.   The undeniable fact that many LEAs use poly screening simply as an interrogration prop, is regretable but, does not, in and of itself, invalidate other uses of the techniques. 

Thank you for your service to community.

Ludovico wrote on Sep 30^th, 2007 at 12:41am:

I'll ask this again, since no one seems to have a valid answer for it...

If you are using a test to monitor the behavior of sex offenders and to prevent "undesirables" from getting hired, and that test can be beaten, defeated, or confounded by someone with access to the Internet, how valid can that test possibly be?

I had three different polygraph examiners tell me they knew I was lying when I knew I was telling the truth.  How can any reasonable person go through that experience and not be open to the possibility that sex offenders can rape a child on Monday and pass their polygraph exam on Tuesday?  Or that a police applicant with a history of carjacking, sexual assault, and ecstasy use can lie about all of that on their pre-employment polygraph and pass anyway?

In my personal experience the polygraph is not accurate.  I don't think it should be used for anything of importance.  As an interrogation intimidator it is certainly useful, but only if the subject believes it is capable of detecting deception.   

If you are an examiner and you believe the test can be beaten by someone after surfing the web for a weekend, how exactly are you supporting community safety?  Shouldn't you stop conducting pointless tests and bring it to someone's attention that the polygraph is not a valid form of monitoring sex offenders and screening applicants because it can be defeated by anyone with a computer and a modem?

Quote:


Do you really think you are supporting good police work and community safety, by ancouraging a bunch of sex offenders to try and defeat their monitoring exams, or by helping a bunch of undesirables to try to get hired? Do you really think its working?

Is this the best form of community activism that you can think of?

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 29^th, 2007 at 11:54pm:

I was calm and answered all the questions honestly in all four of my polygraphs.  Yet I failed the first three.

Maybe I would have passed one of my first three if I'd used countermeasures.  I could not have done any worse than I wound up doing...

I have yet to hear a compelling argument against using countermeasures.  I still believe it is important to tell the truth, but if an applicant answers all questions honestly and uses countermeasures to protect against a false positive, is he or she doing anything unethical?  I don't think so.

Simply telling the truth is, at best, a shot in the dark with regard to passing your polygraph.  If I answer all the questions honestly and then do long division in my head, or bite my tongue, or do whatever after each answer, are my odds of passing going to go up, go down, or stay the same?

I said it earlier. Honesty makes you calm---not a cheesy performance of INTERNET COUNTERMEASURES. I won't even buy a CD on the internet without feeling like I am going to get screwed, much less take career advice from people who flunk polygraphs but get bright ideas after the fact. 
Tell the truth, even about the damn dog---it will have a calming effect that no "knowlege or trickery" will ever remedy.

Pass the crappity smacking test, come back here, tell George and all that your Examiner was a decent human being and that you felt initially nervous, but eventually liberated. Tell the examiner that the dog thing was such a point of humiliation that you flirted with the idea of using countermeasures, but decided not to. Been there, done that. I am always impressed with examinees who tell me up front of knowlege and temptation. It is strikingly candid, and if told by a compelling individual, is quite endearing. I S U not.

Ludovico wrote on Sep 29^th, 2007 at 11:29pm:

I guess you guys really do believe you can detect thoughts...

What is my negative purpose for coming to this web site?  I am not aware of any, so if you would be so kind as to let me know, I'd appreciate it.

I passed my pre-employment polygraph more than ten years ago and haven't taken one since.  I doubt very much I would ever have to take another polygraph for the rest of my life.

I have absolutely nothing to gain if the use of the polygraph is curtailed.  And I have nothing to lose, either.

I am here because I believe the polygraph is inaccurate in pre-employment screening and is damaging because of that.  It stands to reason that if it is inaccurate in that arena it is inaccurate in others as well...

Quote:


Abuse. And you don't even know me.

Lets be clear. Nobody visits this website for any positive purpose.

Even George, just wants to help people defeat the polygraph, embarrass the folks he's ticked off at, and get away with no good. Even if you fail, due to the increased likelihood of FP's from all the blasted wriggling around and singin' numbers in yer head.

Don't think, anyone, that George care about your experience. He's read the NRC report, and what the committee said about the efficacy of countermeasures.

You're just Georgie-fodder - you beat the poly and the bad guys win. You FP-up your poly, and he wins too 'cause yer then ticked like him.

Later,

and do try not to worry about your polygraphs...

Ludovico wrote on Sep 29^th, 2007 at 8:13pm:

If sex offenders, or anyone else for that matter, are able to beat/pass a polygraph simply because they have access to the Internet, how valid a test can the polygraph possibly be?

Information on polygraph procedures and countermeasures predates the existance of this site.  If you believe that the information on this site enables sex offendes to beat/pass polygraph exams, it logically follows that sex offenders have always been able to beat/pass polygraph exams.  Before this site existed they simply obtained their information somewhere else.

It would seem that, if you believe countermeasure information enables people to beat/pass the polygraph, then polygraph examiners cannot possibly have any accurate figures for how many people have used countermeasures on them in the past in order to beat/pass their polygraph.  By definition, successful countermeasure use would remain undetected.

The only difference this site has made in this regard is now polygraph examiners worry that more people will be able to successfully use countermeasures.  Since they have no idea of how many people were able to do it before, the thought of more people doing it now has them understandably upset.

policeHopeful wrote on Sep 29^th, 2007 at 8:05pm:



Keep in mind that during a PLCQT there are 3 relevant questions.  Agencies are more concered with other areas of criminal activity.  As such I doubt such a question would appear during the intest phase of the examination.  However, it's pretty likely it will appear in the pretest interview.

Don't let Ludovico get to you.  He's obviously arrogant and despite what his in person claims might be, not trying to help you in anyway.  He's the type of person that causes false-positives.  That is discernable for his complete lack of ability to converse cordially and constructively.  To be blunt:  he's a dick.

Oh, Dougie's book.

That'll make you an expert for sure.

I actually agree with a lot of the people on here that polygraph test do serve a purpose in weeding out those who are unfit to become police officers. That is a big reason why I have decided to scrap using countermeasures and to just tell the truth.


"By the way where did you gain your expertise in polygraph? From "the book?"" actually "the book" helped but I learned most of it from Doug Williams' manual.

Quote:


Well then. You should have absolutely no trouble beating, er, uh, passing the test. 

By the way where did you gain your expertise in polygraph? From "the book?"

Quote:


Easy killer (WW touched a nerve or somp'in). There just might be some sex offenders reading this site, and you wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings now would you. Sex offenders are people too. They simply have some "issues," or something. Maybe they just don't talk about there true feelings enough. So, you go right ahead and vent. We're all listening. Right everyone? (right??) 

George is providing an equal opportunity service here, because sex offenders deserve to beat/pass polygraphs too. 

And if you do get hired, don't go pissing in the pool and making a bad impression for public servants -  like ya'll have some kind of calloused attitude towards the troubled folks.

And after much deliberation I have decided to take the honest way out. I will not use countermeasures to manipulate a reaction on the polygraph. I will tell the truth, or at least 99% truth. 
And for any polygrapher or polygraph expert I would love to ask a couple of questions via messages. Please only people who are willing to not judge me and people who will answer my question honestly. Thanks so much.