T.M. Cullen wrote on Jul 7^th, 2009 at 10:56pm:



I'm actually impressed how people live by assumptions alone.   

Since you are so offended by his/her antics go complain otherwise you're nothing more than a mouthpiece with no action.

Call the office and ask to speak with his supervisor, if you are so upset by the wasting of taxpayer dollars.   

You are someone that talks about change but does nothing, truly very sad.  Keep talking and posting because at this rate nothing will ever change.  Congrats on putting your money where your mouth is.

Again if this stuff actually offends any of you, then thank god non of you guys are in any position of importance.

Quote:


I think federal employees like DEA SA Sean Hacking shouldn't be wasting tax payer dollars while on the job trolling this board, and spending time posting numerous and lengthy posts  while on the job at the Seattle DEA office.

Are your posting your whinny nonsense on your employer's dollar?  If so, and if I were your employer, I'd want to know about it.

TC

Don't worry George, you won't have to ban me and put an add in the paper about my personal information, you won't have to tell my employer or come by my job.  This will more than likely be my last post.

Make believe science is better than make believe integrity.

Take care.

Hey there George why not just answer my initial question "Why post personal information as a sense of punishment for those who disagree with you"?

That was the point of my first post and 14 posts later you have not done that.

It is apparent to me that if you disagree with someone and want to get back at them this is what you do.

This website could really have a purpose of education and change BUT you have failed in allowing this administrator to actually create a THREAD about the identity of one of it's anonymous users, are you kidding.

I read most of lbcb's post and if you really found any of that offensive then there would be no way you could have handled the g man job.

George, there is no excuse to post someone's personal information online.  If you have a website that invites opinion and when you simply disagree with that opinion, it does not look good that you would allow this to happen.  If you can't see that then no one can help you.  Petty, very petty.

If you want to be taken seriously especially within the community you want to change you need to show them something more then what you're doing.  You show them that you are petty, vindictive, and that when you tire of them you will simply try to embarrass them personally.  Let's say that you're not any of those things George, but you know what, you allow this stuff to happen.

Do this right or don't do it.  This way will never bring about the change you are striving for.

You know I'm right about this George, what was the purpose of posting his information?  All you did was alienate the group you're trying to bring about change in.

George when people get banned they simply use another username, this is the way of the forum world.

I for one, since I'm sure you have checked, have never been registered on this forum but I have been a guest for years now and have always found this interesting and your approach admirable for the most part.  But as you have guess, the posting of personal information has gotten into my crawl and someone should call you out on it.

You do your research, great; you know the in's and out's of some of the business, congrats; but you also appear to be vindictive, petty and maybe even lazy by allowing this stuff to happen.  Very unprofessional.

Quote:


They think nothing of smearing the name of other people they falsely accuse of "deception" with their fake scientific garbage, but when the shoe is on the other foot, they cry like indignant little babies.

TC

P.S.  I'll bet you that T.S. Elliot is non other than Ed Van Arsdale.  It's positively amusing!

I think that any objective reader on this board would doubtless conclude that, while George always conducts himself with civility and poise, the same cannot be said for a large number of pro-polygraph posters, many of whom seem to feel that civility and poise are only necessary when you agree with the person with whom you are having a discussion.

If you paid for and moderated a message board, what would you do with trolls who came to the board only to disrupt and annoy you and the other posters, and who kept doing so after being banned multiple times?  I think George's posting of the names of such trolls is appropriate.   

The incivility and propensity for personal attacks shown by various polygraph examiners on this board are indicative of a lack of ethics.  It seems that their belief is if they don't agree with your posts they are free to treat you like a piece of garbage, and so they do.  That indicates a lack of common courtesy, at the very least.
The patience and willingness to encourage opposing points of view that George has shown is certainly not indicative of a lack of ethics.  Try posting opposing points of view on the message board at PolygraphPlace.com.  You need not even be rude or engage in personal attacks - simply post a point of view which is counter to the views held by the board's polygraph examiner moderators.  Your post will be deleted and your account banned almost immediately.
In contrast, George is quite welcoming of any and all views on the polygraph, and has always conducted himself with civility, even when dealing with people who feel strongly that his opinions are incorrect.
The issue you seem to have is George's treatment of posters who are obviously, without a shadow of a doubt, trolls.  Look up the definition of trolls and you will find examples of the behavior demonstrated by each person George finally made the decision to "out" by posting their names.

Perhaps you could start a website called "ProTroll.org" so you could champion the cause of inconsiderate people who visit other people's message boards with the childish intents of stirring up trouble, disrupting discussions, and attacking other members.  See how that works for you.  Maybe there's a lot of other people on the Internet who feel that trolls need to be endlessly coddled rather than banished, but somehow I don't think there is.

Tron wrote on Jul 7^th, 2009 at 3:53am:


Okay. Your position seems to be that you fear that were you to state specifically what in my reply to the original poster you believe to be untrue, I would become so upset that I would publicly post your personal information.

Yet for some reason, you evidently don't fear that your 1) having characterized my reply as "garbage" and 2) having denigrated me in numerous of your other posts might produce the same outcome.

Under the circumstances, I don't find your explanation for your unwillingness to state precisely what in my post you believe to be untrue the least bit credible.

Let's say you are 100% right George.  With the way you approach things with your "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude, no one will ever listen.

Stop posting personal information about people on your site, it's not right and you know it.

When you do at least that, then and only then will people begin to listen.

George W. Maschke wrote on Jul 6^th, 2009 at 7:06am:



Then that would be twice in one day that you would be wrong.  If you're calling me uneducated about this topic I would hope you would have the testicular fortitude to just say it.  By the way, why answer your question?  You would just post my personal information online if you got upset with me about being right. 
You see George, integrity is something either you have or don’t.  I’ve passed all of my polygraphs and have participated in administering of dozens more (probably means that I have more experience than you in this area) and from my vantage point, if someone lied they didn’t pass.  So to say that there are false positive’s all the time is ludicrous.  There are not.
Remember Georgy, the initial problem I’ve had with this site wasn’t the fact that you find a bunch of people trying to cheat the system, finding a way to lie, or even people telling themselves something over and over and over again in a hope to make it true, it was the fact that YOU allow the personal posting of personal information in hopes of shaming and embarrassing a person who disagrees with you.  This displays to me a crucial lack of ethics needed in law enforcement.  Thank god you didn’t pass your poly because it would mean people like you would be working for the Federal Government or local police department.
I have answered you question, don’t lie, won’t fail.  I have never failed a poly and you have never passed one.  Sure there are holes in the poly system and it can be incorrect with the wrong training but then again so can a pair of barber scissors. 
The polygraph is PERFECT, the people that use them aren’t.  

Antipolygraph.org is not changing the way the world looks at polygraphs, sorry it’s just not, especially with the lack of integrity and bulk of excuses I have seen on display by those who are in charge.

Tron wrote on Jul 6^th, 2009 at 6:52am:


I've specifically invited you to point out the error in my reply to Beanhead. I think the reason that you decline to do so is that you can't.

George W. Maschke wrote on Jul 6^th, 2009 at 4:33am:


I would hate to "ruffle your feathers" but with the lack of integrity I've seen here why bother.   

I would hate to have my personal information posted (where I work and for whom) on this website.  So I would rather not tell you the obvious.

If you ever want change and for people to take you seriously than you really have to try something other than getting upset with people in the business, banning them, and then posting their information online.

Your countermeasures don't work.  Sorry but just because you're passionate about something doesn't make you right.  I'm truly not at all sorry that you didn't pass any of your polygraphs, don't get mad at me because I have.

I passed and I didn't use countermeasures, theory, or by visiting websites like this.  I passed because I told the truth and I had a competent examiner.

Tron wrote on Jul 5^th, 2009 at 11:19am:


Tron,

If you truly believe my reply to Beanhead (the originator of this message thread) is "garbage," then please show me my error and state specifically what in my reply you think is untrue.

Tron wrote on Jul 5^th, 2009 at 11:19am:

Once again it seems necessary to ask why the experience of someone who has failed a polygraph while answering all the questions truthfully should be ignored.

Of the two people in any polygraph, only the examinee knows if the results are accurate.  It hardly lends any credibility to the polygraph operators when they continuously counsel people to ignore the examanee's opinion.

Don't listen to this garbage Bean,

Not only have George never administer a polygraph exam, he's never passed one either.

It's very simple, the polygraph examiner will go through the questionaire with you in detail.  It's not that hard to understand so don't make more out of it than it is.

One experience that should not be discounted is the experience of telling the truth and failing a polygraph.  At the end of each polygraph there is one, and only one, person in the room who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt if the results are accurate or not.  That person is the examinee, not the examiner.

When speaking of "experience" and the polygraph we should not be discounting the experience of having sat through a polygraph, answering all the questions truthfully, and being told you have failed because you were deceptive.  When compared to the polygraph operator's "experience" of reading the charts and the body language the way they were trained, the examinee's experience is by far the more significant of the two.

Thank you, T.M. I really enjoyed reading that discussion. I see that the Honts lab study was never successfully refuted by anyone on this forum, and I will not bore anyone with a rehash since you provided the link to the discussion.
I could go on to rub salt into open wounds but I won't. I recognize that there are some people in this world who may have actually been unfairly "convicted" by a polygraph even though I know they are very few and far between.
One interesting observation though. When it comes to lab studies we polygraphers have those that support our view such as the above Honts study, and there are studies that also lend support to T.M.'s and George's view. I noticed that George really likes to use lab studies without discussing their weaknesses when they seem to support his viewpoint, but when he responded to the Honts study he made a vain attempt to discredit it. How can one who, I must assume, has never conducted a polygraph accurately pick and choose which lab studies are good and which have weaknesses in methodology? Which brings us back to experience, doesn't it? At least polygraphers have their experience to support their belief in a particular lab study, while everyone else has only theory, and in George's case only theory that he feels support his inexperienced viewpoint. An amateur should sometimes listen to a professional, wouldn't you agree?
But of course it seems predictable that someone will not allow this topic to simply die without attempting yet another vain attempt at cleaning up the mess, so I will leave you with a quote by Walt Whitman that I think sums things up--

All I mark as my own you shall offset it with your own,
Else it were time lost listening to me.

Thank you and adieu.

Quote:


There was a long thread on this very topic on this board that discussed the merits of the above study, and point/counter point between GM and former APA president Skip Webb.

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1192473646/0

So grab a cup of coffee, turn off your phone or have your secretary hold all calls, and enjoy the above thread, quite interesting.

Note:  If you want to cut down on "eye strain" and are concerned only with the debate of the subject study, I advise readers to just read the posts of GM and Skip Webb, and scroll past everything else.

TC

Yes Beanhead, the polygrapher will go over the questions with you in the "Pre Test.

Sergeant, I am glad you are at least open minded about the possibility of sensitization to relevant questions due to a subjects's prior knowledge, and it goes without saying that knowledge can be independant of countermeasures. But there is something I think you misunderstood. Have you ever conducted a polygraph? Although no lab study results I know of can be directly applied to field settings, at least one recent study shows that knowledge of the polygraph does not effect the validity of the test. In case you are curious see

Honts, Charles,R. & Alloway, Wendy R. (2007). Information does not affect the validity of the comparison question test. Legal and Criminal Psychology, 12, 311-320.

So knowledge itself does not effect the validity of the test. But the same study says that knowledge combined with countermeasure attempts have been found to produce more deceptive results. This is what I meant about knowledge increasing reactions to relevant questions--when it is combined with countermeasures. This is why we polygraphers tell subjects to refrain from countermeasures. They very often do not work, and we often either detect the attempts, or the charts are obvious garbage that produce at best an inconclusive result. If you are going to hire people you want those who pass the polygraph and everything else rather than someone who is inconclusive or fails the test.
I know that if you have never been a polygrapher this may "ring hollow" to you as you say. But that is because you are listening to it in your own little vacuum with no practical knowledge but only theory and the opinions of other people like T.M. and George, who I still assume have never been polygraphers too.
No one has answered my question yet. I said that if you know of a good field study to support T.M.'s and Georges' view I would like to read it.
Thank you, good day or night depending on where you are in the world.

Beanhead wrote on Jun 10^th, 2009 at 5:59pm:
  I really like the conversation going on but could someone please answer my question?  thanks

TS Elliot wrote on Jun 11^th, 2009 at 2:55pm:

This always comes across as rather hollow.  It is often read as "You're wrong, but you don't know enough to understand why you are wrong."

While it is certainly possible for someone to be mistaken about a subject with which they are not familiar, in general I think explanations that follow a logical path will be accepted.  Such explanations are not always forthcoming when the topic is polygraphs.

It seems logical that a person familiar with the polygraph process, and thus able to correctly identify relevant and control questions, will be sensitized to the relevant questions more than a person who is unfamiliar and unable to identify them as such.  It also logically follows that such knowledge is independant of countermeasure use, and therefore could easily be present regardless of whether the examinee chooses to employ countermeasures.

I understand and will admit that the most logical explanation may not always be the correct one, but it will be so an overwhelming percentage of the time.  I think an argument more compelling than, "You don't understand because you're not a polygraph operator" is needed to overcome the obvious logic and common sense in George's earlier answer.

Ok let me see if I can explain my argument so you can understand it better. First though, is it safe to assume that neither George nor T.M. have ever conducted a polygraph? If so then your failure to understand what I'm saying makes more sense. I don't want you to think that I am being condescending toward you just because you don't have any experience with the polygraph but sometimes when we represent our statements as fact it lends us more credence when we actually have some experience to know what we are talking about. Does that make sense without offending you? Hope so.
If you have no experience conducting polygraphs then your arguments might sound plausible, George and T.M. But to experienced polygraphers they simply aren't supportable by what we see all the time with actual people.
In Shakespeare's Hamlet, Queen Gertrude, while watching a Queen character in a play says "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Often this line is quoted by people to say that someone is objecting with such exaggeration that they are losing credibility. This isn't what Shakespeare's Queen Gertrude was saying--she was actually saying that the Queen in the play was making vows that were too strong to kept--but the modern interpretation by most people who quote the line will suffice to help explain my point with regard to countermeasures. There is such a thing as a garbage chart, and to any good polygrapher a garbage chart stands out. When there are consistently strong responses to relevant questions at the same time there are what we see as consistent, highly exaggerated responses to comparison questions, it just isn't normal. It's garbage. As they say, garbage in-garbage out. When we go to analyze the chart we very often end up with inconclusive results, yet we know something is amiss because of the consistently strong responses to the relevant questions as well as what we see as trained investigators in outward behavior and verbal clues from the person taking the test. When we see all of this going on, we might say that the subject "doth protest too much."
There are some studies that suggest countermeasures might actually work against a non-deceptive subject and I don't know of any study that provides support for the idea that they will help a non-deceptive subject pass the test. If you know of a good field study that supports your argument then I will be happy to read it though.
That ends today's lesson. I'm sure there is much more to be said but I am tired now.
For next time's lesson I would like to talk about the inconclusive result on a polygraph test because I think there is some confusion not only here on this forum but also with many people who will have to submit to a polygraph test in the near future.
Thank you for your time and cordiality.

Quote:


That is not logical.

Either countermeasures, correctly applied, work or they don't work. Again, using logic, if they DON'T work, then they won't work irrespective of whether a person has something to hide or not.  Likewise, if they DO work, they will work whether the applicant has something to hide or not.

In a similar vein, there is no DIRECT correlation between telling the truth, and variations in the physiological variables depicted on a polygraph chart.  IOW, you can lie and have a "garbage chart", or you can tell the truth and have a "garbage chart".  This is logical.

Mr. Spock

TS,

The flaw in your argument that I pointed out is a logical one, and one doesn't have to be a polygraph operator to see it. You basically argued that if a person uses countermeasures, she's going to involuntarily react more strongly to the relevant questions, too, because she will understand their significance. But the point I'm making is that once a person understands polygraph procedure, then whether or not that person chooses to employ countermeasures, she will still understand the significance of the relevant questions.

I take it you've never conducted a polygraph test in your life, right George? The reason it makes no sense to you is that you have not seen it firsthand like many of us polygraphers have. Knowing polygraph procedure does not help you on the test. In fact when you think you know enough to effect the outcome of the exam with countermeasures you know just enough to ensure that you will either fail the exam or be inconclusive. People who have nothing to hide don't need to use countermeasures, and the people who do have something to hide should not be taking the polygraph in the first place. I have seen this time and time again and it makes it very hard for someone to pass the exam when their head is filled with the garbage that T.M. Cullen suggests above. Sometimes I have to work very hard to help these people through an exam. Usually they don't fail if they really don't have something to hide, but they end up with an inconclusve result due to garbage polygraph charts. If you don't believe me that's your choice but I know because I've walked the walk not just talked the talk like T.M. is doing.

During the "Pre Test" when the polygrapher is going over the questions with you, will you answer them then and then in the "In Test" itselfe?