stefano

I read a post here a few years ago by a polygrapher and he said that he preferred an analog because the computerized version has too much background noise.

A question though: Doesn't the computerized version have an analog machine hooked into a computer? If so, they are still using the analog machine. So what's the fancy of a computer?

I've heard  hat oregon has lifted its ban on polygraph's.  Any truth to this. Thanks

As a followup, I would say that digital instruments, along with their "chart scoring for dummies" software, would probably have more utility in conducting studies where many sample sets must be scored and to reduce examiner bias.

Perhaps at one time, having a "computerized" polygraph may have stiffened the rubber hose. However, now that our world has gone digital and laptops are ubiquitous, I'd think that an analog intstrument would be more intimidating. So, the only REAL advantage of a digital instrument is to make the polygrapher feel he is somehow on the "cutting edge"; which is pure folly.

pailryder wrote on Sep 30^th, 2012 at 1:48pm:

Wrong, they collect the same data and produce the same charts. Computerized versions simply make the polygrapher feel fancy. And by pure definition, analog instruments capture more data as the digital only samples the analog signal. Yes, I meant Backster, thanks for the correction.

Quote:


As a data collection system, the digital is vastly superior to the analog in every respect.  Ask the man who owns one.

Quote:


Wow

Simply not true.  Poly predates the CIA.  Backster added a numercial scoring system to an existing technique.

stefano

You have confused John Reid and Cleve Backster.

Wow,

Although you are replying to a post which is a couple of years old, Pailryder's comments are valid except where he is under the illusion that a digital instrument is superior to an analog which is simply not true.

Also, I don't go along with the idea that Mr. Reid's experiments with plants are pure balderdash. Plants have shown to alter their chemical states when harmed or even threatened. This is actually more scientific than assuming physiological responses have a predictable correlation to deception.

Pailryder...

You're a polygrapher... Or at least that's what I've read skimming through these posts. The polygraph is the brainchild of a CIA scientist who believed that we could communicate with plants. Telepathically. 

Given the history of polygraphs, I have a hard time taking you (or any polygrapher for that matter) seriously.

John W. Smith wrote on Aug 19^th, 2010 at 8:24pm:


I actually came to this site when I was convicted of my 'sex offense'. I did read alot, and the funny thing is, all the polygraphers and Sex offender 'treatment' counselors ORDER you not to go to Antipoly.org. 
Matter of fact, if they catch you reading this site, or finding literature regarding polygraphs, they will find whatever they can to 'punish' you.

I still managed to find ways around it. Read most of the basics at least to get myself primed (and lying to those people in the process). 

And the end though, I passed everything, countermeasures or not, etc. And that was with me still lying over the course of 2 years, heh.

Just an accountant wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 4:17am:


Frankly the MD anti-polygraph law is a big joke.  First, at least 80% of all IT jobs within a 20 mile radius of NSA require a full scope poly.  And these are private sector jobs doing contract work with NSA, so its not like they are even government employees.  I've applied for a few of these types of jobs and it cracks me up when I sign a form that says it is illegal for my employer to request that I take a polygraph, but at the same time I might receive a job offer contingent upon being granted a TS/SCI clearance w/full scope poly.

I've also heard that at least some local police forces in MD are also forced to submit to polys.

Irish,

Baltimore P.D. uses a psych evaluation and polygraph as a part of their hiring process.

....how did that happen?  In any case back on topic, to respond to Irish, this isn't a case so much where Federal law supersedes state law, it's rather the fact that the Federal gov is not subject to state law.  Although the NSA is located in Maryland (and presumably it's employees pay MD state income tax) the NSA is NOT PART of Maryland, hence they do not have to abide by MD state law, assuming the law will interfere with the NSA's duties i.e. to polygraph folks.

I think Minnesota also disallows the polygraph for employment purposes.

After reading as many posts on this website over more than seven years, it has to be one of the least censored sites regarding opposition ideas in the world.

Anyone who has posted any thought that is centered on even an abstract thread of logic is normally allowed to remain.

Profanity, name calling, accusations, summations, and conclusions without basis are held suspect.  Most of the conclusions without basis are allowed to remain if they try to respond to critiques in some reasonable fashion.

This website is far more tolerant of pro-polygraph postings than any any pro-polygraph site of anti-polygraph postings.

There are thousands of historical pro-polygraph postings on this site.  Can any pro-polygraph site say the same about postings that question the absolute faith of polygraph results?

pailryder wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:46pm:


It's hard to improve on what is already garbage.

You're a polygrapher, and therefore in my experience are inclined to believe what you wish, without regard to actual evidence.

It might be that the use of these pseudo-tests are on the rise, but the truth about them is also on the rise.

I consider what you do profoundly immoral, and unethical. Nazis used similar arguments to yours: what we're doing is more and more supported by science, the world is behind us, etc.
That doesn't make what they did right.

John W. Smith wrote on Aug 21^st, 2010 at 7:40pm:


Please refrain from such name-calling, which contravenes AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy.

pailryder wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:46pm:

Both sides are still allowed to post here.  I am certain you know that.

I know that some polygraph supporters have been booted from this site after repeated violations of the posting policy, but even this site's detractors should be able to recognize that opposing points of view are not censored here.

Pailryder,

Because you volunteered the comparison between computerized polygraphy and computerized astrology, I will not further continue with that apt analogy.  But I will repeat what I said in my 1997 testimony before the U.S. Senate and that is that computerizing an invalid technique/paradigm merely produces a faster production rate of “garbage in/ garbage out” results and does not compensate for any lack of innate validity of the uncomputerized paradigm.

With regard to the home page cartoon, as best I can tell, the point of the cartoon is irrelevant to computerized vs. analog polygraphy, but clearly relates to the widespread practice of polygraph examiners lying to examinees (independent of whether the examinee is also deceptive during the encounter).

Your post is evidence that, as always, opinions that differ with the site hosts are quite welcome and that in doing so, in the opinion of the site administrator(s), that you have not violated the clearly stated rules for offering either concurring or dissenting opinions.

Are you aware of any pro-polygraph sites that allow such freedom of dissenting but respectful commentary?  I am not.

Best Regards…

Mr Smith

I am breaking my self imposed ban for this one post, not to argue with you or to contradict your opinion, but simply to offer my observations on the state of polygraph today and for the future.   The demise of polygraph has been predicted before.  EPPA was to be the end of private testing yet 22 years later the private sector is alive and growing.  One example is the growing use in sex offender treatment and containment programs.

International growth is increasing.  A significant number (my guess at least one third) of new applicants for membership in the American Polygraph Association are from examiners outside of the U.S.  Read the chapter on police use of polygraph in Japan in Kliner's Handbook for an excellent example of a technique that even the late Dr Lykken favored.  I am sure Dr Maschke will correct me if I overstated this.

Thanks in part to this site, the polygraph community is more committed than ever to following the scientific model, whenever possible. An example www.oss3.info.  Yes, I know you could do astrology on computer, but that article does not sound like fake science to me.

Indeed, it seems to me, that this site is behind the times.  I offer as proof the depiction on the home page of a test using equipment  from twenty years ago.  Not a single examiner in my state uses the analog polygraph, not one!  People, especially young people who have visited this site, often come to my office expecting an analog and are surprised to see that they face a computerized collection and scoring system.  Why not update your cartoon to accurately depict the equipment used today?    

EPPA was needed and, in my opinion, improved greatly the use of polygraph in the private workplace.  But if the protections of EPPA are to be extended to the governmental workplace, which political party will advance that cause?  Repubs will buy the national security argument.  Demos?  I think poly is far from the top of their agenda.  

Hey, all I know is:

When I first came to antipolygraph.org, the site was way down on the list if you typed the word 'polygraph' into Google.

Now, when you type the word 'polygraph' into Google, the first hit is the Wikededia entry which includes a reference to the National Academy for Sciences report, basically saying that polygraph is a load of pseudo-scientific garbage.
The second hit is antipolygraph.org.

Polygraph Place, which looks pretty pro-polygraph, is the 8th or 9th hit. Everything prior to Polygraph Place is anti-polygraph.

In other words, the polygraph's days are numbered. Polygraphs tend to intellectually cocoon themselves the same way religious nuts do: It's true because they SAY it's true, and they're closed-minded to any other possibility. When the day comes that these stupid 'tests' are illegal (and the day is out there) polygraphs will be shocked to find themselves unemployed.

But I definitely think things are getting better, not worse. The federal agency from whom I recently rescinded interest was SHOCKED when I withdrew from processing. The more people learn, the harder time these places will have recruiting the very type of people they CLAIM to want.

So there!

Irish

Federal laws are controlling. States like Oregon, which have a law permitting the growing of mj with a prescription for personal use, the feds still raid the prescription growers and they are charged. The same goes for federal agencies operating in any state. The feds can even prevent states from enforcing their own federal laws. Look what happened to Arizona's immigration law. It's the same damn law that was passed by congress in Washington. D. C. and neither the Bush nor Obama administration would/will enforce it. We the people have played dead far too long and the feds has gained enough power that they are now throwing dirt in our faces. What has happened so far is just a drop in the bucket unless WE THE PEOPLE give them some attitude adjustment and rearrange some faces in Washington.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph
In the States of Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware and Iowa it is illegal for any employer to order a polygraph either as conditions to gain employment, or if an employee has been suspected of wrongdoing.

Umm, isn't the NSA in Maryland?  Are they exempt from this law or is there more to it?

Add to the list: Massachusetts, Michigan, and Oregon.

Incidentally, according to the wikepedia entry on polygraphs, these so-called 'tests' are illegal in pre-employment screening (private AND public sector) in a lot more states than MN. They're illegal in New Jersey, also.