don't worry about nerves. they are your particular baseline. employ countermeasures on control questions, laugh on inside at silly little machine.

don't worry about nerves. they are your particular baseline. employ countermeasures on control questions, laugh on inside at silly little machine.

don't worry about nerves. they are your baseline, activate countermeasures above that line on control questions. laugh inside at silly little machine....
Quote:

yes, little george...you do love the game...for to you, it is nothing more than that...a game.
By the way...are all of these spankings that you are getting turning you on?  You sure do come back for more of it!

Quote:


george,
You don't have to be as brilliant as anyone else.  It would be nice, though, if you could make an attempt at engaging in honest debate regarding the polygraph.

Skeptic

I guess I'm not as brilliant as all the PHDs who have signed the on-line petition.
I guess in order to be that intelligent you have to be in the cult or should I say one of maschke's malcontents.
I do love this game.

Seeker wrote on Oct 30^th, 2002 at 4:05am:


Of course it is, and Polyman knows it.  You won't hear one word about the evidence of the polygraph's accuracy from these flacks.  Their function is to mislead, not argue honestly.

These are just desperation propaganda tactics by a group of worried polygraphers.

Take it as a compliment.  They may have felt they could ignore the end-the-polygraph movement before.  We evidently have their attention now.

Skeptic

Dear little "george,"

Everytime you post, people hold their breath hoping something  of substance will be forthcoming, why must you disappoint them so?

Four days after my first post the Maschke cult is still at it.
You malcontents really have nothing to do.
Pretty good for a fifth grader. Don't ya think.

Dear Seeker,

Do not be alarmed by Polyman2002's prattle.  He has impressed me that he can put more then three sentences in one post.  I am suspicous that he had help (from his twin brother little "george").  Please be happy that everytime he is reading your postings that you are helping him with his reading skills.  If you look at his discourses on other threads, he is still having problems comprehending "the book."    His special flare for inflammatory remarks is almost at the high school level.  Please keep posting and maybe you will help him get to college.

When he presents us with serious discussion, we will then take him seriously.

Polyman:
That is patently untrue!
The polygraph is biased against the truthful, and the NAS report supports this.
While I can totally understand fears of future employment by the polygraphers, I am sure the Good Old Boy Network will find you suitable work elsewhere.  Misinformation will do nothing to secure your livelihood.
With all due respect, until a scientifically accurate test can be developed, which the NAS says it has no evidence of such a possibility, such junk science does nothing but make absolute comical fools out of the proponents of this trickery.
Ms. Cleo has been exposed for her fraud, as will this fraud.

I can answer that question for you.  Don't too many people pass the polygraph using counter measures.  However, I can assure you that everyone pass the polygraph when being truthful.  Your future, career, and destiny is in your own hands ladies and gentlemen.  Just tell the truth.

How is it that it is totally acceptable to use review materials and to even be coached to pass tests such as the ASVAB, SAT, MCAT, LSAT, and many other life-determining tests, but some of you consider ANY assistance with the polygraph to be so patently immoral?
The polygraph doesn't come near to perfection in its results as even one of these above mentioned tests.  Yet, every year there are thousands of seminars that help prospects hone their test taking skills, and looking at my class ads right now in the local paper, there are 18 ads for coaches to help folks pass these various tests.  I find it utterly foolish to submit to any test without preparation.
When the test is flawed, as is the case with the polygraph, there should be an even more vigilant attempt to prepare oneself for such a test.  To not do so, is merely stupid.

watcher wrote on Oct 10^th, 2002 at 3:52am:


Yes, say hello to your polygraphing BI friends in the Los Angeles Police Department's Rampart Division. Their hard work really helped weed out the bad apples.

Quote:
It is amazing that you will actually be a law enforcement officer.  LAPD must be hard up.

Ah jeez, I'm an idiot. Sorry; when I posted that last tidbit I was busy yelling at my dogs outside. Upon re-reading it, I realized a sentence made no sense. The first sentence in the second paragraph SHOULD read: I can tell you this; I will have a very hard time taking anything that the pro-polygraphers SAY seriously UNTIL Dr. Richardson's challenge to the polygraph community is accepted. 

Thank you for your patience with this slowly depreciating mind o' mine.

Eis

I can think of very few things that would be more foolish to do than to post one's name and the name of the employer they "beat", using CM's or otherwise, in a public forum such as this. Several years ago, before I ever knew anything about CM's or even the polygraph itself, I took a polygraph and blatantly lied on it. I passed that polygraph, according to the examiner, "in record time". The only thing I knew going in was that there were things I'd done in the past that ONLY I knew about and therefore didn't need to feel nervous about questions dealing with those incidents. They would have DQ'ed me from the job. (For the record, these were things I'd done without *any*harm coming to others...at the time of my polygraph I was a recovering alcoholic/substance abuser and it was this that I lied about). Several years before THAT polygraph (when I was in recovery), I told the absolute truth about every question asked (there were no questions on substance abuse or alcoholism), and I failed. So to further explain the problem that I (and presumably most other opponents of the polygraph here) have with the polygraph, here it is in a very small nutshell: One can tell lies and pass it. That same person can tell the truth and fail it. Period. I simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND why you proponents of the polygraph fail to see the problem we have with this!!! Either you've never been forced to take one to get a job and been falsely accused of lying, or you truly believe this machine detects lies. 

I can tell you this; I will have a very hard time taking anything that the pro-polygraphers seriously when Dr. Richardson's challenge to the polygraph community is accepted. No matter the result! Put your money where your mouth is, gang! I forgot who it was, but one loudmouth made a statement that read something like this; "I'd love to see you anti-polygraphers get in my chair! I could write a book about your admissions!". Here you have a man blabbing crap like this when this challenge was made MONTHS ago. PLEASE get Dr. Richardson in your chair, or be silenced. Of course, I have no doubt this was a troll in the first degree, but it does apply to all pro-polygraphers. The challenge has been set forth. Accept it or quit spreading the toxins.

Eis

Eastwood wrote on Jul 7^th, 2002 at 8:35pm:


I can only speak for myself on this, Eastwood.

I'll take your last question first:  I would no more view as "cheating" the use of countermeasures to ensure a correct outcome on what otherwise would be a roll of the dice than I would view it as "cheating" to sell my qualifications in a job interview effectively, or use personal connections for an "in" to a position.

The polygraph does not indicate truth or falsehood.  Its use in employment screening (aside from elicited confessions) amounts to the use of a tarot card reading to determine whether I would get a job.  That is neither fair to me nor, in fact, to the employer who foolishly relies upon it, who would quite possibly be missing out on needed talent otherwise.  I'm sure the polygraph rejects qualified people and passes unqualified people all the time; at least in my case, I could ensure that the correct outcome was reached.

As for the first question:  I have no doubt that most employers who would rely upon the polygraph in the first place would incorrectly view countermeasures as "cheating" and a sign of deception, which is the reason I would choose anonymity.

Skeptic

Eastwood,

I think the answers to your questions are self-evident. It would be foolhardy for anyone who used countermeasures and passed an employment-related polygraph interrogation to post his/her true name and the name of the organization involved. To do so would be to invite retaliation.

With regard to the truthful using countermeasures to protect themselves against a false positive outcome, as Elizabethan playwright Henry Chettle once wrote, and as we explain in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, "'Tis no deceit to deceive the deceiver." Do you disagree?

I'm curious:  Of those  of you who used the CM's and passed your tests, would you care to post your true name and the organization you "beat"?  If not, how come?  Or do you think that organization, and perhaps yourself, view this as cheating?

Polycop,

   I believe it quite likely that that which primarily distinguishes the environment of a CQT (probable or directed-lie) polygraph examination regarding a real crime versus a simulated crime relates to the consequences of the relevant issues.  The fear of those consequences and accompanying heightened physiological response to relevant questions on a polygraph exam is quite natural and may well result in this type of examination being made more accurate for guilty subjects and less accurate for innocent examinees in a field setting.  This, of course, is true because a large response to relevant questions makes more likely an accurate result for a guilty examinee and less likely an accurate result for an innocent examinee.  Unfortunately polygraph validity studies which utilize simulated crimes may well have this effect masked in the absence of any meaningful relevant issue consequences, i.e.,  simply suffer from a lack of external validity.

   I believe this aforementioned effect is manifested day in and day out with the sorts of polygraph screening examinations that are widely administered to applicants and employees in this country.  If I am correct, it is not much of a leap in logic to see that in a real setting that innocent examinees have a substantial reason to employ countermeasures to correct for this effect.  You are correct in assuming and even suggesting that this need does not necessarily and theoretically equate to a successfully employed solution.  The answer for innocent examinees however is not to let this need go unanswered because of any theoretical associated risks and/or empty bluff(s) of detection, but to become knowledgeable and efficient in doing that (properly employed countermeasures) which will lead to a successful outcome.

Quote:


How would the negative consequences of being caught increase the likelihood of a polygrapher detecting countermeasures? How would they increase the likelihood that the subject would admit to having employed countermeasures?

What posts are you referring to? I'm aware of only two posts wherein the author claims to have admitted using countermeasures: Reformed and Grateful posted by Zena/Boy Wonder on 17 May 2002 and What you teach DON'T WORK! posted by "screwed" four days later on 21 May. The first is an admitted fabrication and the second is highly suspect.

Quote:


What about the negative consequences of being falsely accused? How would the physiological output of a test subject who fears a false accusation which might result in the destruction of his family, his career, and his reputation differ from someone fearing detection of an actual crime?

George,

You suggested:

Quote:


I would like to put forth the possibility that under field conditions, and the real threat of negative consequences in being caught, the unsure subject would be more likely to "screw it up" and easily confronted if coutermeasures were suspected.  I have read a few posts on this site in which just this situation appears to have occurred...

Polycop...

Batman,

You ask:

Quote:


When I spoke of this research "suggesting" that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, it's because I don't believe that the available research conclusively proves the point. Nonetheless, a reasonable inference that such is the case may be drawn therefrom. That is essentially the conclusion of Honts himself, which he expressed as recently as last year at a public meeting of the National Academy of Sciences' polygraph review committee. (Click here for a RealPlayer audio file with his remarks on countermeasures.)

Honts et al.'s research was indeed conducted under controlled settings, with subjects receiving at most 30 minutes of instruction about polygraph procedure and countermeasures. The research was also conducted in the absence of jeopardy. Under field conditions, it seems likely that subjects would have much stronger motivation to master polygraph countermeasures and would likely spend more than a mere 30 minutes to prepare themselves. You'll find abstracts of Honts et al.'s countermeasure research in the bibliography of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. (Have you taken the time to read the book?)

If you are aware of any credible evidence that the polygraph community has developed a better-than-chance technique for detecting countermeasures of the kind described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, please let us know.