Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Quote:


I agree, and I have read it, but just look at one of their final conclusions regarding the "VALUE" of the test:

"Danger of Overconfidence Overconfidence in the polygraph—a belief in its accuracy not justified by the evidence—presents a danger to national security objectives. A false faith in the accuracy of polygraph testing among potential examinees may enhance its utility for deterrence and eliciting admissions. However, we are more concerned with the danger that can arise from overconfidence in polygraph accuracy among officials in security and counterintelligence organizations, who are themselves potential examinees. Such overconfidence, when it affects counterintelligence and security policy choices, may create an unfounded, false sense that because employees have appeared nondeceptive on a polygraph, security precautions can be relaxed. Such overconfidence can create a false sense of security among policy makers, employees in sensitive positions, and the public that may in turn lead to inappropriate relaxation of other methods of ensuring security. It can waste public resources by devoting to the polygraph funds that would be better expended on developing or implementing alternative security procedures. It can lead to unnecessary loss of competent or highly skilled individuals because of suspicions cast on them as a result of false positive polygraph exams YES!!!!!! or because they avoid or leave employment in federal security organizations in the face of such prospects. And it can lead to credible claims that agencies that use polygraphs are infringing on individuals’ civil liberties for insufficient benefits to national security.

Note the ref to false positives you claim only occur "rarely"!

It may only be part of the process, but if you get anything short of a "pass", you not likely to get hired.  And if you get a "fail", which you can get without being deceptive, you sure as hell ain't getting hired.

Quote:


Not as good?  No it isn't.  The specific issue test will provide results "well above chance, though well below perfection", as for the preemployment test:

"For each spy or terrorist that might be correctly identified as deceptive would be accompanied by at least hundreds of nondeceptive examinees mislabeled as deceptive"NAS Report

Doesn't sound like a very "valuable" test.  I suppose I could eliminate all the weeds in my garden by dousing it with kerosene, but many of the flowers would die also!  But hey, such a process would have SOME value.

Quote:


So then the best advice is DON'T make a confession or admission, no matter how small you think it is.  It will be used against you, and you at least have some chance of being hired with a DI w/o c/o as it's hardly ever used as the sole criterion for hiring!

And "deception indicated" is a misnomer, as you really don't know if they are being deceptive, you may suspect it, but you really don't know.

Quote:


You, a polygrapher who makes his living off the test, say false positives are a rare occasion.

Yet again, aprestigious body of scientific researchers reviewed findings on the subject and concluded there are hundreds of false positives for every spy or would be spy possibly caught.

Add to that my personal experience with the test, and my wife, and many other people I've talked to over the years.....think I disagree with your "rare occasion" estimate.

Quote:


Your statement above is an understatement.   

The NAS concluded the specific issue test is "...well below perfection"   

IOW, it's not anywhere near perfection.

So significantly better than a coin flip, but far from perfect (in at it's BEST), yet likely to smear the reputation of hundreds of people for each would be spy or security violator it catches.

Quote:


My favorite:  "Living well is the best revenge."

But that is neither here nor there.

The purpose of this board, contrary to what polygraphers would have you believe, is to educate people WHO HAVE YET TO TAKE THE TEST.  So they don't get scammed.  That is a positive thing.

If a soon to be tested applicant reads GM's book, it will level the playing field a bit.  Like educating oneself prior to visiting a used car lot or dealership.

Polyfibber,

If your question is, What do you do if the examinee is DI and does not make an admission or confession?  The answer is, you pass on the results to the adjudicator.  I don’t support using a less than acceptable polygraph test (DI) as the singular rationale to deny employment.  I never have and that was my view even before the APA put it in writing.  It is merely one part of the whole process.  A pre-employment test is usually very broad, unlike a specific issue test, and the research I have read on pre-employment screening is it is not as “good” as a specific issue examination.  The reason apparently has to do with the broadness of the test.  That is not to say the process does not have value, because it does, and for the reasons I have previously given.  When I have that occasional DI w/o a confession/admission, I will remind the adjudicator not to use the test results as the sole reason for denial of employment.  But, as I have posted earlier, those are rare occurrences, however, they do occur.   

And I do not make any attempts to debunk or attack the NAS report.  I was, however, surprised that they did not conduct any of there own research.  Read it and learn, but read it all, not just selected portions.  How many times must polygraph examiners keep telling the opponents of polygraph that it is not perfect.  It never has been and never will be.  I think one beneficial outcome of the NAS report is that there are now ASTM standards for certain protocols and some testing protocols have mathematical calculations to determine probability of error.  In many polygraph tests there are variables that are unknown, and will never been known.  It is that unknown entity that allows the polygraph process to be attacked.  But, the documented successes of even those tests apparently have been judged to be “worth the cost.”  That is not my call.  Someone else has made that decision.  And if it ruffles some feathers, too bad.  My feathers have been ruffled in the past, but it hasn’t stopped me.   

I hope this was the response to which you referred.  In closing, I refer you to Bill Gates’ rules of life.  Rule #1:  Life isn’t fair.  Get used to it.

Still waiting for a response from you in the "Trimbarco" thread (reply #37)

Guess you're only good for short little quips.

Good story polyfibber.  I'm a beleiver.....not
 

Of course, sackett will not answer these simple, straightforward  questions.

Quote:


No.  The purpose is to get a gullible person to "open up" and provide info that can be used against him/her.  The polygraph is just a "prop".

Quote:


No.  Not according to the scientific community.  A response by the ANS to a question does not necessarily equate to deception.

Furthermore, you can "fake" an ANS response by puckering yer anus, biting your tongue, or altering your breathing pattern.

I had fun with a polygrapher once.  He told me the standard polygrapher lie that the test was 98% accurate.  When asked the question "is your name xxxxx", I puckered my anus, bit my tongue and altered my breathing slightly.

He stopped the tape, and asked me why I would react to such a question.  I said I wasn't reacting.  He persisted, so I pulled out my I.D. and said "Look!  My name is xxxxx!  Want to see my birth certificate?  What a joke!  This test is 98% accurate?  What a joke!"

His faced turned a sickening shade of red, and he left the room!  Of course I failed, but they were going to fail me anyway.

It's a long story.  It was for a preemployment test.  I was first tested at the agency as part of the preemployment process.  Three days of polytesting with the usual shennanigans, ended up with me ripping of the chest straps and me telling me what I thought about their voodoo ritual with some pretty salty language (I don't recommend others do that!).

To my great surprise, 6 months later I get a call from HR asking if I'd like to take the test again!

A few phone calls to my contacts at the agency, and I found out that the "hiring committee" and security were having a big "pissing contest" over me.  My contact told me that security was just going "through the motions" to satisfy the HR/OPS people and retest me.  They probably had no intention of passing me, and were out for blood, because I had made one of their precious polygrapher babes look bad.  I had insulted the "high priesthood"!

So, I decided to have some fun.

sackett wrote on Mar 9^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:


Anomoly of human nature?  NOOOOO, I am a cop, and knowing that other cops sometimes get into a jam on the side of the road, I slow down and make sure everything is okay, that's all.

And, regarding my questions, any reader will obviously see that you not only have not sufficiently answered my simple questions, but refuse to do so.   

Have a nice day. 

Okay, okay, nopolycop, you're the one anomaly of human nature.  But I suspect you're probably saying that simply to be argumentative.  Doesn't matter...readers know what I mean.

Sackett

P.S.  I've already answered your other question sufficiently. Stop trying to bait me... and you wonder why no examiner would touch "the challenge?"

sackett wrote on Mar 9^th, 2008 at 4:39pm:


BTW, I don't have an f-f-f reaction in the ANS when I see a cop by the side of the road when driving, I usually slow down a little to make sure my brother or sister is okay... But, that's just me.

No Sackett, please answer my questions directly.  I'll re-phrase for simplicity:

Is the purpose of a polygraph examination to find out if a person is telling the truth?

Does a polygraph examination accomplish this task to a reasonable degree of certainty?

notguilty1 wrote on Mar 9^th, 2008 at 4:31pm:


"notguilty1",

Once again, I try, I mean, I really try to make the things as basic as humanly possible.  This way even the most simple minded people can understand what I say.  The reader (that's you) does not have to agree with me, just understand. In your case and the case of your compadres here, I must say, I have failed to achieve even that minimal a level of accomplishment.  Since I don't have crayons and paper, I guess this will have to do.  

H a v e  a  g o o d  d a y.

Sackett

you replied, "What are you trying to say here, Sackett?  The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not?  Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?"

I certainly feel like an inarticulate layman.  I thought my postings were fairly clear and written for the simplistic of minds, apparently, I was wrong.  

One last time... The same way you have a f-f-f reaction in the ANS when you see a cop on the side of the road when driving, your body reacts to the mental developement of a lie because we subconsciously know it's wrong (based on the natural thought process being truthful and the sociological reinforcement throughout our life that lying is wrong).  All societies in the world have the same basic premise.  The correlation is clear and obvious.  BTW, why do we have the ANS reaction versus maintenance of homeostasis when seeing a cop?  What is it about a guy on the side of the road, in a marked car, with a radar gun that poses the threat.  We have that reaction before going through even the first of cognitive thoughts of, what is my speed?  Did he get me?  How much is the ticket, etc? (Also equivalently post presentation thought to, am I going to be falsely accused a liar, etc) 

You and others like to address lying as the sole act of saying something (out of your mouth) that is not true.  This allows for the further premise that, I told the truth and they called me a liar.  The facts is, withholding, minimizing, rationalizing and avoidance are also manners of lying through the natural thought process. All of this are causes for the mental conflict resulting in the ANS reaction. Are there other reasons for ANS reaction? Yes!, but not generally in a polygraph suite.

Besides, you can't give yourself an ANS reaction voluntarily. You can't think through the question of, "did you do___..?." and later cause a ANS reaction if you have no recollection of the incident and/or conflict arising from the answer of no."  Meanwhile, you know if you're not telling everything which you have knowledge of about an issue and are withholding that information.  This knowledge is a reason for the ANS reaction.  

Finally, as I've already discussed in previous postings, the general nervous system, i.e., cognitive thought, residual to a question and answer will not cause the same ANS reaction, though it will certainly effect the GNS.  BUT, that effects the whole system, and throughout the entire test, not specifically to one question or the other.

I hope that explain things stisfactorily enough.  If not, I can not make it any more easier to understand, and I give up trying to get through to you and your anti-buddies.

Sackett   

nopolycop wrote on Mar 9^th, 2008 at 2:52pm:


Nonpoly,
It's useless to get Sackett to use his brain ( I guess thats why he had to have this as his "chosen profession")
He tells you that somehow the term lie detector is a slang and does not exist, however he admits that the industry uses that "slang term". Which leads me to wonder if the "slang term" for the machine was what it accualy is "scam machine" if the "industry" would be so willing to embrace the term.
By Sackett's own admission the term " lie detector" though missleading is conviently perpetuated to increase the "scam quality" of the test.
Besides, agian Sackett shows his blind ingnorance or unwillingness to see the truth by his admission that poly's do not dectect lies but somehow gauges truthfull statements by some arbitrary physical response to untruthfull statements.  This play on words and nonsense is of course all part of this scam.

sackett wrote on Mar 9^th, 2008 at 2:05pm:


What are you trying to say here, Sackett?  The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not?  Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?

LALE,

first off, I don't know a thing about Scantool; nor do I want to.  I do understand when the mechanic who uses it and tells me my timing is off, though...  It means I'm gunna be paying out some money!!

BTW, you have totally misrepresented my statements on "lie detection."  No doubt purposefully, so for your benefit I'll type this slowly.  The term, "Lie Detector" is a common slang used to identify the polygraph process.  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIE DETECTOR! (w/ the exception of your mother, of course).  Do we, the polygraph community use this common slang?  Yes! Yes! Yes!  So get over it, already!!!  

Sackett

I sit corrected.

EJohnson wrote on Mar 7^th, 2008 at 4:12am:


I don't believe the root of "articulate" is "art".  Rather, the root of the word is "articulatus", which means "to divide into distinct parts."


"Ars" (not "art") is the Latin word for "art".

Edited:


So that is why you're here, eh? I thought you were here for the recipes.

Quote:

No, they would not disagree. The first space shuttle had less computer memory and hard drive than a modern Ford Taurus. The more complexities were the space shuttle back-up systems, and the back-up for the back-up systems. The first shuttle was very much a more analogue type vehicle. 

Quote:


sometimes, but I generally retain my wits----especially if operating heavy machinery.

Quote:


Do you actually believe polygraph examiners agree on everything? Are you 17 years old?

Quote:


I suppose in your profession, there are no errors? I'll have to contact Dominos to see.
OK, cheap shot----sorry, I'm grouchy. 
Yes Lale, errors happen. My wife has a client who was told last month that she had HIV. It was a false positive. The woman made drastic changes in her life---until the mistake was rectified 2 weeks later---the woman had already cashed her 401k, taking a huge loss in annuities/interest. That's the second false positive they have had in 2 months. Go figure.

Edited:


I never said Scantool was not accurate. I just said it is a great tool to diagnose peripheral malfunctions----but the public has this steadfast misconception that the machine is the end all simple solution.

"Zero chance" eh? Now you are just being blustery.

Quote:


Quote:


Now we agree on something (lol). Tell me more of your problems, and together we can make sense of why the voices keep telling you to do bad things.

Edited:
 

Don't we all. The root of "articulate" is "art." I don't use technical dictionaries when I write here (maybe it would help my spelling eh?)----it's useless, as many posters have problems with looking at science and how many fields have both strengths AND weaknesses----and the weaknesses don't negate the validity of the whole. Doing such is, again I say, Inductive Reasoning. Look it up.

night night.

EJohnson wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2008 at 6:23pm:


Quote:


Lale is here to debunk you. Confusion over.

Quote:
 
NASA would probably disagree.. 

Quote:
I think you are bored out of your wits....?

Quote:

Sackett et al will def disagree with you...

Quote:
 

Aint that the truth and the general pattern. ie - Polygraph errors.

Quote:


My friend, if scantool is unreliable when diagnosing man made articles that are to all intents and purposes - identical - Then what chance does your polygraph scantool have in pulling identical codes from human beings, of whom not one of the billions born have identical psyche ?
May I reply on behalf of yourself and Sackett: "Zero chance."

Quote:


Yes. My ICU has a system glitch. My 'actuators' are decompensing with inductive resonance.

BTW Jonsy, You articulate better when you stay away from the technical dictionary. 

Okay, I get it... I hurt your feelings cause I said that when you make the statements that polygraph isn't about lie detection, (flying in the face of what the rest of the industry is saying the purpose of polygraph is) is lying, misleading, deceiving, etc. and so that is what you are referring to when you say I called you a liar.  No my friend, that was just my opinion, which is all a polygraphers opinion of someone being deceptive being, an opinion.  Consider it akin to a false positive.

No, we are on the same planet, but because we are hashing things out here on an internet board, it is the best we have to communicate like this.  I know mistakes can happen with this form of communication, but there is no better way, we just have to live with these mistakes, okay?

"n.p.c.",

You wrote: "So, when you make these statements, you are lying, misleading, deceiving, etc."

Are you on the same planet as the rest of us?

Sackett

sackett wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2008 at 4:55pm:


I have never accused you of lying.  Of course, facts are not your strong suit, are they?

Quote:


LALE, you are clearly having fun, eh? Antipolygraph activists are trying to change the industry, pro-polygraph activists are advocating the positive uses and both parties come here to debunk one another. And LALE is after something altogether different.

My anology of using computerized Scantools on modern automobiles---which by the way are more technologically advanced than the first space shuttle----fits quite well. The Scantool doesn't detect malfunctions nor does it claim to (see your point here little man), as many a consumer has assumed. The Scantool pulls a code from the vehicles' computer system. The code doesn't merely tell the technician "fix the suspension actuators"---but instead, the code aids the technician by "indicating" (i.e."problem indicated")a system gliche, but the code does not pinpoint precisely what the malfunction is.

So one could not call the computerized scantool a diagnostic computer in the true sense of the word----but it is more properly labeled a "diagnostic aid." Techs love them, but do not worship them.

Similarly, the polygraph is short-hand called a lie detector, although it really is a tool to aid investigaters in "pulling a code" from individuals. It is imperfect, and when an error occurs, troublesome to say the least. Like in the analogy, Scantool does not work as well with some "types" of systems. As demonstrated by the site author's Bell's Palsy type ticks [see You Tube videos], and another poster who comes to mind who suffers from debilitating panic attacks, the instrument is not ideal for pulling good data on certain types of individuals. Such limitations do not make something unscientific, it merely makes it's use limited, period. 

Perhaps LALE is a sufferer of some form of degenerative disease or neurological ailment. He certainly has demonstrated a degree of decompensation.

nopolycop wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2008 at 4:11pm:


Once again, you haven't answered my question that you accused me of, i.e. lying.  What have I said or elluded to that was a lie?!  Avoidance of the topic is not responsible! 

And, again, oversimplification, which seems to be the order of the day...  I SAID I can't answer for a specific action of another examiner or person during an examination which has already taken place.  I CAN make observations and comments about the gengeneralizations of polygraph.  How you connect the two, totally opposing issues, I'll never understand.  

Sackett

P.S.  "LALE"  why are you trying to make it appear that I was hiding?  I've never hidden my opinions behind false monikers... and I'm not trying to conceal who I am, unlike you and some of the other anti posters.  A little disengenuous, I think!  

Finally, you wrote:  "We're not as stupid as you may think Jim"  Once again, your opinion and certainly entitled to it...