I agree with the content of chrismcphee33's last post.

For the polygraph to work, the subject must have the correct psychological set in place.  Otherwise, the correct psychophysiological reaction won't be produced.  If a coworker standing in front of a soda machine asks you for money, the changes to your pulse, breathing, and sweat glands will be much different than if a big burly guy in a dark alley asks if you have any money; in the one case the question presents no threat, in the other all but the most foolhardy would be quite alarmed at the query.

P.S. There's nothing in Revelation (not Revalations--the title is singular), or the rest of the Bible, for that matter, about Christians being naked when going to heaven; Barry is correct on that point and Jesper Paten is mistaken.  Insofar as sartorial matters are concerned, all of the good guys in the book are clothed in white robes (Rev. 7:9, etc).

Donna.Taylor wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 8:45pm:


Of the 70% of those who passed, how many used countermeasures?

I just reviewed my stats for the past two months on pre-employment exams.  I had a 30% failure rate.  90% of the deception calls were verified with admissions - 2 were currently using drugs and one will end up with federal time because of the crimes he has committed.  1 DI call was hired after the BI investigated the issue further.  I had 5 no-shows and I also had 5 individuals trying to manipulate the polygraph and was disqualified - one would not admit to using the CM's probably because of the advice on this site. (I included them in the DI %).  Again, this is only on pre-employment exams.


Like Yankeedog stated, I never brag about the failure rate to anyone.  I have vented on this site about catching another person using CM's as to notify everyone CM's are detectable and they will ruin an honest persons chances of employment with a LE agency.   If you lie to cover up illegal/deviant behaviors I don't care if you use CM's as you will be caught and disqualified.

As I and others have stated numerous times, Polygraph is not 100% accurate; however, it is a great tool to assist the BI or other entities.   

Sancho,

I have no problems with providing statistics on pre-employment screening.  During the past ten plus years, my "DQ" rate is 35%.  And no, I am not proud of and do not brag about that rate.  I don’t look for or need a trophy, as some who post here want others to believe polygraphers do.  Every DQ has resulted in wasting allot of time, resources and effort up to that point.  I would love it if they all would be determined to be NDI.  Those are confirmed DI tests with confessions that I am talking about.  And a few of those have been law enforcement officers currently employed by another agency. Those are applicants who if they not been subject to the polygraph probably would have been hired, since the polygraph is almost the last step in the process.  Only the psych test remains after I am done with them.  Less than 3% of my DI tests are not confirmed.  That actual number of unconfirmed DI tests to date is 39.  Yes, 39 actual people out of more than 1,000 applicants have been unresolved.  Some of those people were hired anyway because the polygraph is not the sole determining factor in the hiring process.  And in some cases, it was later learned they should not have been hired, and were dismissed for misconduct. The polygraph is just one part of the entire process, and I could give a rats backside what other agencies do.

Anyway, Happy New Year!

chrismcphee33  you say you have nothing to hide but you plan to lie and cheat anyway. Is that the behavior of someone YOU would trust? If that is a representative sample of applicant behavior in Canada, I can ony respond with God Bless America.

See my response to Sergeant regarding another explanation why so many recruits might fail the test. I think the failure rate you cite is inaccurate and I would encourage any of the polygraphers here who do pre-emloyment tests to cite their applicant polygraph failure rates. I'm guessing it is nowhere near 75%

You must remember that the NAS study is over five years old not and subsequently has not been able to address the most recent research. Maybe someday they will repeat the study and have the opportunity to evaluate the research published since their finding as well as the research currently under way. 

You must also recognize that the NAS DID NOT CONDUCT ANY RESEARCH INTO THE ACCURACY AND VALIDITY OF POLYGRAPH. They simply performed an academic review of selected published research. They did not invite the polygraph community to present whatever evidence good or bad concerning polygraph. 

Part of the NAS study that said specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection. 

As to your comments regarding the NAS study you should really check your comment about screening exams.

Your quote pertains to espionage screening NOT pre employment examinations. The NAS study DID NOT conclude that the results of pre employment examinations were inaccurate. If you read the study you will see that NAS had a problem with the inference that past behavior was an accurate predictor of future behavior. If this is so, please explain why Mr. Mashke spends so much time talking about his education, experience and background making him the ideal applicant absent his failed polygraph. If you accept the premise that past behavior is not a reliable predictor of future behavior or performance, then we might as well do away with job applications all together and just hire whoever walks in the door first. 

If you want to talk about their conclusions concerning problems with espionage screening tests being subject to false positives you must recognize that Any SCREENING test in ANY scientific discipline has an unacceptable false positive rate. That is why they are called screening tests. A positive result on a screening test just indicates the need for more specific testing. If you will read a similar NAS study of DNA research you will see that they also criticised that research for failing to adequately address error rate. 

While the NAS study did point out the need for improved research, and offer significant suggestions as to how that research should be conducted. I don't see it as the scathing indictment of polygraph it has been represented here to be. 

Sancho Panza

Sergeant1107 wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 5:23am:


Well Sergeant at least you agree that Mr. Mashke and his web site has failed so far in causing any significant changes in polygraph laws or policies. However, you also seem to have a lack of knowledge as to why EPPA was passed. I have not misstated that polygraph works. 

Your main argument seems to be that if it is not 100% accurate then it doesn't work and that is a foolish position for you to take. DNA researchers, Latent Fingerprint Examiners, and even doctors who analyze biopsied tissue to detect cancer will NOT say their tests methods are 100% accurate. They all must take steps in their protocols to minimize false positives and false negatives as do polygraphers.

If you would bother to check with your chief of police or agency head or human resource guy and ask them about the declining quality of police applicants, maybe you might find another reason that the number of applicants failing the polygraph seems to be high. 

I did NOT imply that "courageous honest people" are somehow changed into "dishonest liars" by visiting this site and reading TLBTLD 
I'm not implying anything. What I am saying is that if an honest person is convinced by this site to lie and attempt counter measures, Which by the way is exactly what they are encouraged to doe here. THEN they become dishonest liars.

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza, I have nothing major to hide, and maybe if I put all the cards on the table I would pass this the test....but I think the risk is higher in trusting a process where 3/4 people fail. I got this info first hand from a recruiter. I bet 95% of these people knew nothing about countermeasures....are they all liars? Are the people who over and over agin come to this and other sites who say "why did I fail, I told the truth!" really lie? This process is flawed...I don't say this because I have spent years researching documented facts...thats inpossible becasue that kind of thing can't be documented...I say this because of first hand accounts from real people. You say I am being too one-sided but you are being very one-sided because you never once admitted that many trurthfull people are branded as liars. 

I have read the NAS report on the polygraph and pasted a couple of statements below:

"Reliability across examinees is another important component of overall test reliability. For example, two examinees may have engaged in the same behaviors and may give the same answers to the same test questions, but due to different interpretations of a question, may have differing beliefs about the truthfulness of their responses and so produce different polygraph readings."

"special populations that may be likely to show false negative results (e.g., people who want to deceive the examiner and who use countermeasures to try to “beat” the test); and populations that may be likely to show false positive results (e.g., truthful people who are highly anxious about the test). The same is true for test situations."

From executive summary:
"CONCLUSION: Polygraph testing yields an unacceptable choice for DOE employee security screening between too many loyal employees falsely judged deceptive and too many major security threats left undetected. Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."

SanchoPanza wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 4:44am:


Was the Employee Polygraph Protection Act signed into law because the ideas supported by this web site are wrong?  I am aware that this web site was founded long after the EPPA became law, but isn't the existance of the EPPA at least an indication that someone else on the planet besides George believed that polygraphs are not reliable detectors of deception?
 

BTW, I don't believe one can convince honest people to become liars.  If they choose to lie they were not and are not honest people.  I think you are deliberately misstating things when you imply that "courageous honest people" are somehow changed into "dishonest liars" by visiting this site and reading TLBTLD.

I think you are also deliberately misstating things when you refer to studies that prove the polygraph works.  If the polygraph "worked" in the way you contextually imply that it does, then truthful people would always pass and deceptive people would always fail, and no other results would exist.  That is simply not the case.

Of course, you could say that the polygraph "works" because sometimes it is correct in labeling a specific person a liar, and later that result is proven correct by incontrovertible physical evidence or a credible confession.  Or sometimes the polygraph indicates a subject is truthful, and no incontrovertible physical evidence comes to light to prove that result incorrect, and the subject does not come forward and admit that they lied or used countermeasures.  None of that, in my opinion, proves that the polygraph works.  It simply indicates that in each polygraph the examiner has a 50% of being right, so it stands to reason that he or she will be right some of the time.

You could toss a coin for all police applicants and disqualify all tosses that landed on tails.  For every "coin-landed-on-heads" applicant that turned out to be a good cop, you could claim that their success was proof that the coin works.  For every disqualified applicant who went on to get into some sort of trouble later in life, you could point to their problems and claim the coin toss methods worked yet again.  And none of that would "prove" the coin toss method of applicant screening is any more or less accurate than the polygraph method.

ChrisMcphee33 
What I have been trying to tell you from the beginning is that if you intend to hold a position of public trust in Law Enforcement. You must possess the courage to tell the truth, even when it may cause you trouble, embarrassment or discomfort. 

You think that by playing with a BP monitor you can lie on your polygraph and attempt countermeasures without being caught, well go ahead give it a try. See what happens.   You think that by minimizing your behaviors or by changing definitions you to suit your behaviors will provide sufficient justification for you to pass. YOU ARE WRONG. 

If you think that taking the advice of a guy who bears a grudge because he couldn't pass his own polygraph will help you; you are naive.

Your research is too one-sided. You haven't read the studies that prove polygraph works. You haven't read everything that the NAS said about polygraph. You should probably NOT be making your decisions based on the out of context snippets from that report that you see repeated by Mr. Mashke and his cheerleaders. 

What you don't realize is that you have allowed them to place you in a win/win construct for them. If you get lucky and pass your polygraph, you will return to this site and sing their praises. If you fail they will use you as just another example of the "Evil Polygraph Conspiracy" They win either way, but either way YOU LOSE. 

The founder of this site has failed so far in causing any significant changes in polygraph laws or policies, because he is wrong.   I believe he has chosen instead to attack polygraph with a feeble little guerilla action by convincing the courageous honest people that are needed in government service to become dishonest liars. Thus he obtains the revenge he thinks he is owed because the government decided he was unsuitable for the service he desired to perform.

If you lie on that exam or try to cheat, whether you pass or fail, you will not be fit to polish a real cop’s boots. You will fall way short in the Honesty, Integrity, and Courage Departments. Why don’t you just try to be the honest person your prospective employers are looking for?

From your posts it certainly appears that there is a lot about the subject of polygraph you don't know.

In fact if the old adage;” What you DON'T know Can't hurt you" ever turns out to be true, IMHO you just might be invincible.


Sancho Panza

Quote:


Actually, that's a myth propagated by those who generally know little of polygraph.  The research demonstrates that is not the case.  See, for example, Dr. Lou Rovner's dissertation on the topic.

Quote:


Even if it's a malicious lie, it's not slander.

I am fairly new here and this may be known or obvious to others...but you must be a polygrapher right? Why else would you be so invested in the validity of the polygraph. This machine is just a fancy blood pressure machine. My bp machine at home takes bp and pulse so can can I call that a "lie detector"? You count on...no...you need people to believe this machine can magically catch a lie. If you have too many people who are confident and have knowledge and aren't afraid of this machine, the more useless the machine is. That is why you say silly things like "lead to a very rewarding Mc Job  some day" and "Would you like fries or a thick chocolaty shake with that sir?"...that is your attemp at scaring uneducated people. The machine is what it is, and the polygrapher has a job to do and I don't think people who have major problems, or have committed major crimes, or have connections with shady people should be police officers, but stop insulting peoples intelligence...like I said before, it makes you look closed minded and ignorant. Why can't polygraphers be less biased and admit to how the process really works.

What you posted was” Having sex in a semi-public place with a girlfriend and outdoor private nudity makes me a sexual deviant? I would love to be a fly on your wall." That is not a declaration of your behavior that is just a "What if?" question. 

And if that is to be your declaration and while engaged with sex in a semi-public place with your girlfriend OR outdoor private nudity and received some emotional or physical gratification from the possibility or probability of some unsuspecting stranger might catch you, you have engaged in criminal exhibitionism whether or not you were caught. The portion in bold establishes the Mens rea of the criminal act. 

You stated that YOU thought your behavior was weird. 

By the way, one of the reasons that dictionaries exist is to allow people from different points of view to achieve consensus regarding the meanings of words. While you are certainly entitled to change which words you decide to use, I don't think that anyone will agree that you are allowed to change their definitions after you have used the words. 

You have yet to say that you are not an exhibitionist or a voyeur under the definitions provided. 

If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear from the truth, but you don't get to change the definition of truth to accommodate your behavior.

Employers have no right to delve into legal sexual behavior any further than necessary to determine if it is indeed legal sexual behavior. 

Playing games with the polygrapher for a police position could very well lead to a very rewarding Mc Job  some day.  As you get ready to lie to the polygrapher or attempt counter measures remember to repeat to yourself 
"Would you like fries or a thick chocolaty shake with that sir?

"If you exposed yourself and recieved some emotional or physical gratification from the possibility or probability of some unsuspecting stranger might catch you, you have engaged in criminal exhibitionism whether or not you were caught. "

Can you please copy and paste from my previous post the part where I said anyting about exposing myself to another person? If you can't find an example of where I said I expose myself to another person, then I would like this post removed because this is slander.

"Exhibitionism is a mental disorder characterized by a compulsion to display one's genitals to an unsuspecting stranger.

Voyeurism is a psychosexual disorder in which a person derives sexual pleasure and gratification from looking at the naked bodies and genital organs or observing the sexual acts of others"

And here you decide to look up the terms in a dictionary and apply that to me...even though I clarified what I meant...which was nudity in private/public (ie no people around and sex with a girlfriend in car etc). This shows how ignorant and closed minded you are.

You people that respond like this are unbelievable...you make up stories in your head, and then write about it.

Chris you stated in your original post 

you stated in your original post
chrismcphee33 wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 1:03pm:


Exhibitionism is a mental disorder characterized by a compulsion to display one's genitals to an unsuspecting stranger.

Voyeurism is a psychosexual disorder in which a person derives sexual pleasure and gratification from looking at the naked bodies and genital organs or observing the sexual acts of others
Both of these are also criminal sexual activity in most jurisdictions.

Pardon me and anyone else who took you at your word when you said you were both of these, but it seems you are just trying to minimize your  behavior in some feeble attempt to avoid admitting that you engaged in criminal deviant behavior to you polygrapher. 

If you exposed yourself and recieved some emotional or physical gratification from the possibility or probability of some unsuspecting stranger might catch you, you have engaged in criminal exhibitionism whether or not you were caught. 

But you go right ahead and lie if you think you can get away with it, but be honest with us when the polygrapher catches you and you lose a job opportunity over what might be a minor issue if simply explained before your test. Be sure and come back here and tell everyone that the truth behind the lie behind the lie detector is that the methods don't work and how by following their advice you were cheated out of a career. 

Be fully prepared however for Mr. Mashke or some loyal minion to just say you didn't follow his instructions well enough. 

One other thing you need to think about. No one can change their past however much they would like to. 
All you can do right now is decided whether or not you are going to LIE about your mistakes. If you are completely truthful you will probably make it. If you chose to be a LIAR or attempt counter measures you probably won't make it. But even if you do, every good deed you perform from that day forward will be tainted by the fraud you chose to commit. 

If you plan on working for a law enforcement agency they are entitled to inquire into your character, your suitability, your honesty and your integrity. Lying to questions about your past behavior reflects negatively on all those issues and makes you appear untrustworthy. Why would another officer trust you when lives are at stake when you cannot be trusted regarding past indiscretions?

Sancho Panza

chrismcphee33 wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 1:03pm:


I'm sorry Jesper  When the person whose behavior you are presently defending said "  I am a bit a of a exhibitionist/voyeur at times" I took him at his word. I am not extrapolating anything. I am simply accepting that he is what he says he is. 

Exhibitionism is a mental disorder characterized by a compulsion to display one's genitals to an unsuspecting stranger.

Voyeurism is a psychosexual disorder in which a person derives sexual pleasure and gratification from looking at the naked bodies and genital organs or observing the sexual acts of others


When you say "Don’t extrapolate the naked poster's words to the nth degree. He never said or suggested that he exposes himself in busy public places. My understanding is that he is a naturist of sorts"  you are the one that is extrapolating from the information contained in his post. 

Exhibitionists and voyeurs alike are generally condemned by the naturist movement and it would be somewhat out of character in my opinion for a naturist to refer to him ot herself using those terms.

Sancho Panza

Quote:


Sir, when you urinate in a public toilet, do you not expose your genitalia. Yes you do. But it is not unlawful to do so even though many persons in your vicinity can view your ** if they want to do so.

Now, if one is in a remote (but public place ) area and one decides to be au naturel, why should that be more or less illegal than exposing in a public toilet. 

Nevermind the propositions and middle ground etc. The law is often an ass.

Dont extrapolate the naked poster's words to the nth degree. He never said or suggested that he exposes himself in busy public places. My understanding is that he is a naturist of sorts.

Try it for a time. The sun on your booty is a wholesome feeling.

Respectfully,
JP

Jesper Paten wrote on Dec 14^th, 2007 at 6:57am:



Sir,
There iss universal truth. There is personal truths. Every person has his
own truth. Every person owns his own truth. You cannot own my truth and I cannot own yours. We cannot own the universal truth and neither can we denyit - it is there for all t witness.
Nature is a universal truth.
Poligrapf is an attempt to undermine and subvert mans own, personal
truths.

Respectfully,
JP
[/quote]


Mr Paten,  Since it seems that your view of "truth is somewhat philosophical I would like to direct you to. 
#1 The law of excluded middle  ( Every proposition is true or false) 
#2  The law of non-contradiction (No proposition is both true and false)
#3 The Correspondence Theory (The truth is the relationship that holds between a proposition and its corresponding fact)

Under these laws if I put forward the proposition that exposing ones genitalia is wrong because it is against the law, I have stated a proposition [exposing ones genitalia is wrong] and it's corresponding fact [it is against the law] because I have both a proposition and a corresponding fact I have established truth under the correspondence theory and according to the laws of the excluded middle and non-contradiction it cannot be false. 

When you say “To be naked is natural. Not sinful. The sin is in the eye of he who believes nakedness to be shameful or sinful”, you have offered a different proposition which in no way invalidates the truth my statement. Your proposition lacks a corresponding fact that would establish it as “Truth” under the Correspondence Theory. What you describe as YOUR TRUTH is merely a statement of values or in other words; you are just giving your opinion. 

Even if you locate and include a corresponding fact that fits your proposition, you have not negated the truth of my proposition you have just established the truth of a different proposition. That does not become “your truth” it just becomes a different truth.  If you simply quote someone else’s opinion or a bible story in support of your proposition all you are doing is supporting a proposition with a proposition which does not survive the application of the Correspondence Theory. 


Sancho Panza

Barry_C wrote on Dec 14^th, 2007 at 1:03am:


Quote:


Sir,
I will do so when I find the inclination. 
To walk naked in the desert, would that be a crime ?
To falsely accuse a persons truth as a lie, would that be a sin, or a crime?

Respectfully,
JP

[quote[
Where I disagree with you is your supposition that the truth can be owned. Truth is not yours or mine, it is simply the truth. This concept of "your truth" presupposes that Your truth can be different from "the truth" and that is fallacy. [/quote]


Sir,
There iss universal truth. There is personal truths. Every person has his
own truth. Every person owns his own truth. You cannot own my truth and I cannot own yours. We cannot own the universal truth and neither can we denyit - it is there for all t witness.
Nature is a universal truth.
Poligrapf is an attempt to undermine and subvert mans own, personal
truths.

Respectfully,
JP

Quote:


I'm going to need you to cite me the chapter and verse as I must have missed that one.  Maybe we can start a new post.

Exposing oneself, as stated above, is (generally) a crime (as well as a sin).

[quote author=456A7C7F6A7D0F0 link=1197464639/0#3 date=1197558418
To be naked is natural. Not sinful. The sin is in the eye of he who believes nakedness to be shameful or sinful.

Tell them your truth. They must take it for what it is.
[/quote]
I don't disagree with the part of first comment I quoted above, but you should probably still wear trousers and a shirt to your polygraph test,  because exposing ones genitalia to someone who does not want to see it, is deviant behavior as is intentionally putting yourself in situations where your nudity is likely to be exposed to anyone who does not want to see it as a means of self gratification.

The second part of the section I have quoted from your post is close to what someone taking a polygraph should do TELL THEM THE TRUTH. 

Where I disagree with you is your supposition that the truth can be owned. Truth is not yours or mine, it is simply the truth. This concept of "your truth" presupposes that Your truth can be different from "the truth" and that is fallacy. 

Sancho Panza

chrismcphee33 wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 1:03pm:


Sir,
Might you pose to the examiner, "Do you believe in The Holy Bible?"
und "Do you say that Adam committed sin by being naked?"

Even in Revelations, when the believers leave the earthly realm, they went (will go) naked. 

To be naked is natural. Not sinful. The sin is in the eye of he who believes nakedness to be shameful or sinful.

Tell them your truth. They must take it for what it is.

Thanks Rice80

chrismcphee33 wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 1:03pm:


Chris,

I can't tell you from a poly operators stand point but I can tell you from one who has taken several of these tests that the first sexual question you are refering to can be either/or control or relavent. I mean that in most states any sexual position other then the missionary is considered illegal. Which most if not all people are guilty of this crime.. If the PO rewords the question, which most of the time they do,  then its a good chance it may be a control. The other questions you are referring to are safe to say that they are relavent. 

If you have never taken a poly I would recomend reading and fully understanding how it "works" before taken one. This site has a lot of useful information. 

I must also say that without knowing the full extent of you past activities I cannot be sure whether they may exclude you from a law enforcement career. I myself am a law enforcement officer and have a general idea of what departments look for in a candidant and what they may allow.  The main thing they look for is honesty. 

reguards,

rice