Fair Chance,

Your experiences with the FBI polygraph examiner number 2 should be taken in context. The FBI was one of the last agencies to adopt routine polygraphing of employees,  whereas the CIA and NSA have long considered the polygraph a key screening tool. A lot of this at the FBI happened due to political pressure facilitated by the widespread belief the polygraph is almost perfect. As for the spooks, who knows, they are full of bright people who should know better. If you are accepted and join the FBI do so with a view towards having an opportunity to serve with honor to the best of your ability. I have little doubt the agency is populated with honorable folks who feel real pride about the jobs they do for their country and perhaps working with them would take the sting off.

-Marty

confused wrote on Mar 7^th, 2003 at 11:58pm:

Dear Confused,

My previous posting stated that I have never manipulated my test and to the best of my ability answered all questions honestly.  I also stated how I was accused of countermeasures during my second test and was completely ignorant of such knowledge of countermeasures.  My second polygraph examiner was completely wrong in his accusations but quite sure that he was "right".  This led me to my personal decision that he had no idea how to detect "countermeasures".

If anyone reads my post from number one to this one, they would see that I had respected my first polygraph examiner because he displayed professional conduct and respect to the examinee.  All arguments aside about the validity of polygraphs, he was professional.  I knew the FBI was going to interrogate me during this process and I expected a little "rough stuff" psychologically.  This was a person who was trying to do a job that the government assigned him with class.  My first polygraph examiner could have videotaped his complete four hour exam and felt pride that he did not display any personal prejudices or bias  conduct independent of the polygraph procedure.  He performed his duty as if someone was watching and I felt that at least I was given a "fair chance" and thus my alias on this site.

My second polygraph examiner was of extreme prejudice and bias before I even got into the office.  He demonstrated arrogance, poor procedure, bias conduct, aggressiveness, and underestimated his "opponent".  The word "opponent" says it all.  He did not treat me like a law abiding citizen who applied for a job but as a convicted criminal who needed to be executed.  I have certain suspicions that he had some motives behind his conduct which reflected so poorly upon the professionalism of the FBI that I would have stopped my application just because I did not want to be associated with such an unjust person or Justice Department who employed such an individual.

As I stated to Marty,  I know the ins and outs of negotiation and government process.  The FBI saw this in my appeal letter and allowed me another test.

The third polygraph examiner was extremely professional like the first.  I knew that he had to glean information from me but he did so professionally.

My conclusion again being that if all of my polygraph experiences were videotaped and shown to a group of people, most would conclude that my second polygraph was completely different from my first and third.

The FBI needs all of the public support that it can get.  I can think of no worse way to destroy this support than to leave such an awful taste in an applicant's mind after a poorly done polygraph procedure.

This website is testimony to the tremendous negative impact of FBI polygraph prescreening.

The FBI has done their background check.  They cannot find a single person in my lifetime who says anything bad about me.  They almost seem frustrated in their questioning of friends, co-workers, and associated that no one would speak a bad word of me.

I have been going through hoops for almost eighteen months now.  I completed my physical with flying colors (and with my current law enforcement status I am well above their initial cut-off age of 37).

I am getting to the point of when they offer me a position after all of this to tell them that I do not think they are worthy of my loyalty and devotion that I have demonstrated to the Constitution of the United States through my whole life.  I have placed my life on the line for over eight years with the military and ten years with the Department of Justice in a law enforcement position and this means nothing to the almighty, arrogant FBI.  What further proof can I give but a lifetime history of loyalty to the Constitution of the United States? 

I am sorry for spouting off like this but my frustration over just wanting to serve my country and being so severely abused in the process is showing.

It has never been about getting a job, IT IS ALL ABOUT HAVING A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AGENCY SHOWING RESPECT TO THE CITIZENS AND APPLICANTS THAT IT IS SUPPOSE TO SERVE!  THE CITIZENS DO NOT EXIST TO SERVE THE FBI, THE FBI EXIST TO SERVE THE CITIZENS!

If I take a job with the FBI, it will only be to make sure that I keep the FBI within the guidelines of the Constitution.  Maybe I will have to once again "do the hard thing", swallow my pride and take a job with an agency that I might not hold in high regard just to make sure that it is true to the spirit of the Constitution.  I have defended this country with my body but I now must use my mind.  I do not serve the FBI as a government employee, I serve the Constitution.

Regards.

confused wrote on Mar 7^th, 2003 at 11:58pm:


confused,

As you know, once a person becomes aware of the psychology and expectations of the probable lie comparison question they are more likely to fail absent use of countermeasures.  The whole point of the CQT is to reduce the false positives from early R/I tests that have been discredited by the majority of the polygraph community.

As an aside, the DLT (directed lie test) for of the CQT eliminates the normal PLT examiner deception and looks to be useful for testing poly examiners and others that are aware to the processes. Do you concur or not?  BTW, have you had a chance to read Kleiner's book? Lot of interesting topics in it.

-Marty

Fair Chance,  sorry I took so long but it has been busy lately.   

I think you had said something earlier about having taken three tests before you passed one.  I believe I asked you if you had lied or manipulated the test to pass.  I was not trying to insult you but it seems that many here feel you have to lie or manipulate the test to pass and I disagree, in fact kow better.  I was hoping you just passed it by being truthfull. 

Thanks for responding.  I have respect for several of the posters here and understand they are frustrated.  Others I have know sympathy for.  I and I believe other examiners get frustrated here, not because of the doubts about Polygraph but because they base their information on so little and then slam all examiners like we were the scourge of the earth.

Michelle, I doubt that you are even reading this thread anymore and don't realy care.  I just wanted you to know that several of your last attacks on me you used quotes that were in response to other people not you.  They know who they are and had no problem with what I was saying or at least were willing to listen.

confused

Seeker, 

The current field polygraph (different than many research polygraphs) whether it is an analog (paper recording) or digital (computerized) version is typically an instrument for monitoring and recording a few channels of human physiology.  The organ systems monitored with this instrument largely reflect various short-term (occurring so as to be time-linked to individual polygraph chart questions which are typically presented with 15 to 20 second interval periods between questions) changes in a part of the nervous system known as the autonomic nervous system.  Monitoring and recording this physiology can serve various purposes.  Within a law enforcement context, there are generally two different classes of experimental paradigms used for obtaining two different kinds of answers.  The first which is widely used in this country and which I believe to be quite unsound (a discussion of why is well beyond the scope of this answer) is a lie detection polygraph test (one of several different formats)  in which the examiner seeks to draw conclusions about the examinees emotional state (e.g., he is concerned because he has lied to a relevant question/issue) from physiological response (actually comparisons among various question types).  The latter paradigm (which can utilize the same instrument or others monitoring different physiology) and which I and others believe to have a sound foundation for practice and to offer true scientific control is the concealed information test, often referred to as a guilty knowledge test.  In this format the examiner seeks to determine if the examinee possesses some form of privileged information, e.g., information that might be known to only the perpetrator or the investigator of a specific crime.  Without elaborating further and in answer to your question, I have generally described two experimental paradigms for you (lie detection and concealed information detection) both of which might be accomplished using the same instrument (field polygraph).    I support the continued research and application of one (concealed information testing) and barring unseen theoretical developments for the other (lie detection) would recommend that utilization of this latter paradigm be discontinued.

confused wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2003 at 12:03am:

Dear Confused,

I was rereading this thread (which has taken a life of its own) and saw this reference in one of your posts.  I believe that I did answer it about five or six post after I saw it the first time, if I did not answer it completely would you please repost your question(s).  You have tried your best to be civil in your postings and I will do my best to be the same in mine.

Regards.

Quote:


Drew:

Perhaps you have answered this elsewhere, and I am just a tad bit too lazy to sift through all of your posts on here, but would you please be specific as to how you would agree to the polygraph being used?   

Could you also explain why the way that you would agree to the use of polygraph would be more effective than in CQT exams?

Regards,

Confused...

I wrote:

Michelle wrote on Feb 27^th, 2003 at 8:36am:


I have to take something back here.  Instead of "editing" a post I want to "correct" a post with a new post.

I don't think I can prove to you, specifically, about my involvement in outside activities that I believe are wrong an without morality.  The WSJ article lists my full name.  I am going to be taking a polygraph for a police department.  You have made reference to working for a police department.  The odds that you will be the same polygrapher are almost close to nothing but I am not willing to take the chance.  If you happen to want evidence of my choice to become involved with what I believe to be wrong... I will send my evidence to Skeptic, George, or Marty.  I trust them.  I shouldn't since I don't know them in real time but I am willing to take that much of a chance if you should happen to request it.

confused wrote on Feb 26^th, 2003 at 6:14pm:


Actually I want to readdress this issue because you bring up an excellent point.  Let's examine what you have asked.

Let us say that your doc writes an Rx for Lanoxin, a heart med.  If you do not need Lanoxin you could die if you take it anyway.  I'm using an extreme example on purpose.

Let us also say that you come to me and get your Rx filled.  Let us say that I fill it with the wrong drug.

On the paperwork that comes with your medication you can find a place where it describes the exact description of the tablet.  You see each drug has a different description so that we can tell exactly what that drug is.  Perhaps yours says that it is white, round (vs. oval or square) and has #123 on the tablet.  You have the ability to compare what the tablet is *supposed* to look like vs. what it really does look like.  If it is a capsule with R3694949 written on it you can be assured it is not the correct drug.

You can also take this drug to your doc, the one who wrote the Rx and you can ask... is this what you wrote the Rx for??  Your very own doc can say yes or no, that is what I wrote the Rx for.

What kinds of guarantees do you have on *your* work?

Quote:


This is another point I *should* have addressed and failed.

I actually believe you.  If batboy or torpedo would have said the same I would not believe them.  But FWIW I do believe you believe this to be true.  This is the *only* reason I am rethinking my stand that you and batboy are not one in the same.  Batboy could never ever make a claim such as yours.

That does not mean I have more faith in your test, and make no mistake, that is what it takes ... faith.  But I do believe you are more apt to try for the truth vs. your buddies on this thread.

Question for you.  Really think about this for a moment.  If you reread post #1 and that post makes it verrrry clear what my issue and my intent are.... let us say that I end up in your office for a polygraph.  How many preconceived ideas would you have as your standard issue human being on this planet?

I take Dexedrine, I don't want to tell you that AND I am not a Xtian.

How fair *can* you possibly be?  Since you make it clear that some of the test is not scientific and does indeed depend on the skill of the polygrapher, then it stands to reason that there is some amount of *human* vs science involved in this test.  So, how fair can you be as a standard issue human being?

confused wrote on Feb 26^th, 2003 at 7:43pm:


Wait a minute.  How can something be sooooo scientific if it can depend on a bad call?  Doctors do not "do" medicine, they are honest enough to admit to "practicing" medicine.  Yet polygraphers claim science is behind their "facts" and clearly you make it obvious that it depends on how a polygrapher calls the shots.

Perhaps you do sleep at night.  Spiffy for you.  That does not change the fact that you could have easily claimed an innocent person is guilty or maybe you let a child molester go out and molest again.  Now I'm thrilled that you can sleep.  If I were in your place I could not claim the same.

Quote:


No, my claim is different.  You guys are dealing with the lives of human beings.  If I submit to YOUR polygraph and I am innocent, what recourse do I have when you call the shots wrong?  If a doc or CPhT gives me the wrong drugs I can sue the hell out of them IF it causes me problems within my life.  With you.... well, you'll sleep well that night knowing you did your best but I am still screwed.

The *only* issue I want to hide from a polygrapher is something that by law I do not have to disclose but because of social stigmas I react to basic questions of amphetamines.  You insist that means I am fibbing and cheating to get a job.  I have news for you... it is STILL none of your business that I take Dex and you can't do a damn thing about it.  I KNOW how to pass a polygraph in spite of people like you.  Deal with it.

Quote:


Yes, I did in the very beginning of the thread.  Perhaps post #3 or later, certainly on page one of this thead.  I spelled it out for you.

Quote:


Because it took 5 pages in this thread, over 100 posts before you made it clear that Batman was wrong for calling me a drug abuser.  YOU defend him per your own admission.  That's why.

Quote:


I'm not in a profession where that is an issue.  In my profession there is one other check and balance before a person can be harmed.  Unlike you.  However, I have gone to bat for something I felt was wrong.  I went to bat against Pfizer, the drug company and I won!  Class action lawsuit and all.  I do fight the battles I believe need fighting.  I am not afraid to put myself on the line, morally or legally for what I believe is right.

My group started out with four of us, we are now 10,000 people big, we are speading to places outside the US, our website was voted in the top 10 of its actual type within the US for the 2nd year in a row and we won our class action lawsuit before ever going to court.  Pfizer did not want a jury trial because we would have eaten them up for dinner.

My point is that I *do* fight for what is right and I fight to the very end.  We beat Pfizer for pities sakes!  How many can claim the same?  How many can claim front page/feature story of the Wall Street Journal?  I can!  I *earned* the ability to say that because I do fight for what is right.  I might even be willing to share this information with you via email since I can determine you will never know who I am.

Actually, George knows my real time name due to a written Rx from a physician.  If anybody would like I'd be happy to send George a link to the WSJ article as it does indeed list my name because I am one of the folks that started this whole thing.

When was the last time you did so, Confused?

Quote:


Did I suggest otherwise?  No, I did not.  Care to try again?

Quote:


Yes, I recall.  After he accused me of being a drug abuser you defended his various stands on issues.  This is supposed to help you not look silly?  How?

Quote:


Ohhhh my, does that mean you would lie and cheat???  You would need to lie?  Or you could take the test and pass even though you are a dishonest person?  If taking a chance means that you might pass or you might not, how the hell do you expect to determine when others are telling the truth vs. being dishonest?

Do you understand that you are reinforcing the points of the antipolygraphers?  Do you?  Do you realize how many times it took asking this question before you responded?  Do you have any idea how very telling that is?

Quote:


Sorry cutey, I've answered this one outright.  Go back and read the thread and you will see.  You will also see that others have attempted to explain this one as well.  Seems to me that you simply don't like the answer so you keep asking until you hear what you want to hear.  Is that how you conduct polygraphs as well?

Quote:


Yet... you don't.  Telling, isn't it?

Quote:


How many of your dispatchers reveal all their meds and medical conditions with their supervisor?  Are you going to tell me that your doc writes a note to your supervisors explaining anything that might be a medical problem for you?

Go blow your smoke somewhere else.  People are looking at you with a raised eyebrow.

Why do you suppose the LAW makes it clear that I should not have to tell idiots like you about my ADHD?  Why do you suppose there are such laws?  Care to answer question #2 in this ... 5 pages worth of thread?  When the law is quite clear that I do not have to tell idiots such as yourself about my ADHD, why should I?  It does not cause medical conditions as you would imply.

Again... go blow your smoke elsewhere.  People are looking at you with raised eyebrows here.

Shadow,

I use the term "fear of consequences" to refer to the mechansim for why a probable-lie control question test (CQT) would likely produce false positive results ("not work").  I do this as opposed to/in contrast with the frequently offered (by the polygraph community) "fear of detection" explanation for why that community believes the test (various formats) would "work."  I am not aware of this term having been used in this context (admitedly not a quantum leap in theoretical thinking) prior to my use a couple/few years ago.

Drew,

When you say you termed "fear of consequences" a few years ago on this site, exactly what are you implying?

Didn't the late Bill Yankee use that term back in the early 90's in the Yankee Paradigm?

Drew,

Yes, I suppose I overstated when saying "fear of consequences" drove development of the CQT. I had seen "fear of consequences" used in Kleiner's manual by one of the authors describing the benefits of the CQT over the older R/I test and incorrectly extrapolated.

I am impressed that you coined it. It seems so appropriate to describe the problems inherent in the R/I.

-Marty

confused wrote on Feb 27^th, 2003 at 1:43am:


If you call 'a 50% chance' 'not that hard' then I agree with you.

Quote:


My goodness, you do live in a cave. Regardless, polygraphers routinely make blatant lies on television news programs concerning the accuracy of polygraphs, claiming anything from 100% accuracy to the old Dove Bar 99.97% accurate. Either they are lying or you are lying. Which is it? If I pointed out specific polygraphers who characterize the polygraph as nearly infallible both in print and in the televised media, will you personally take the time to correct them? Let's start with The Nationwide Polygraph Network. They boldy proclaim on their welcome page that the polygraph is '90-95% accurate'. Then in their FAQ they claim U.S. Government studies have concluded that the polygraph exam, conducted properly by a qualified examiner, is 87 to 95 percent accurate. Kind of a large disparity between those two sets of numbers, but oh well-- when did THE TRUTH ever matter to a lying sack of excrement like a polygrapher? Will you drop what you're doing and correct Michael Martin, aka 'The Lie Detector Guy'? Call him at (877) POLY TEST.

Quote:


In the interests of accuracy, you are saying that if you answer 100% truthfully to the Control Questions, you will not be deemed as deceptive with regard to the relevant Questions?

Dave

ps I characterize anyone who lies for a living a lying sack of excrement. Your opinion or characterization may differ-- so be it.

Marty,

Actually Confused is partially right.  The present control question CQT examination was not constructed to deal with "fear of consequences."  That, in fact, is a term that I coined a couple of years ago (on this site) to explain why the present probable lie CQT (several formats) would not be expected to work.  The CQT exam when developed in the early 1960s was initially thought to provide some degree of scientific control  (hence the name) and was a remedy for the problems associated with asking the litany of hot button (relevant question) items associated with the largely now discredited RI test.  It was not until the mid 1990s that more responsible CQT practitioners admitted that there was no scientific control (but unfortunately overlooked their responsibility for providing such) associated with control questions and then began referring to these questions as comparison questions. 

Confused,

You ask what is the problem with trying to help truthful examinees with the use of control questions.  I suppose I should indicate before answering that question that I have never before and do not now question the good intentions of most examiners.  The answer to your question, however, is that it simply does not work and/or cannot be shown to work as you would hope.  In order for CQT practice to work, fundamental theory would require that it would be necessary to show that for every control/relevant question pairing that the affect (emotional content) for the control be greater than for a relevant question for a given truthful examinee which in turn would naturally lead to greater physiological responses (over the various monitored channels of physiology) for control versus relevant questions.  Unfortunately this cannot be demonstrated to be the case with any given examinee.  It is NOT demonstrable that this is the case qualitatively or quantitatively for any given examinee (regardless of what you think you may have accomplished through the setting of control questions) on any given asking for any R/C question pairing (spot) for any given chart on any given day with any given examinee.  In fact, that which I have previously discussed at some length and referred to as “fear of consequences” would lead me to believe that what you would hope to accomplish with innocent examinees is not only not demonstrable, but in many many cases not likely.  Again, I am sorry, but your good intentions will not overcome the weaknesses of the tools in your arsenal.  It is primarily for this reason and the great consequences to innocent examinees that I have been driven (for both academic/validity and ethical  issues/concerns) to information based tests.  I do not believe that polygraphy should be or need be done away with, but I believe it must be and is not currently (with most lie detection formats) practiced as a serious undertaking.

On a note of lesser importance, Marty is quite correct that clinical trials of investigational new drugs will  involve the experimental subjects knowing about the nature of placebos, their possible effects and adverse side effects, etc.  As Marty further indicated neither physicians nor patients in a typical double blind study will be aware of which pharmaceutical preparations that they receive contain active ingredients and which are placebo, but as opposed to the pretest characterization of probable lie control questions in a polygraph examination, there will be absolutely no deceit connected with the discussion involving experimental subjects regarding the nature, identity, and effects of placebos.

confused wrote on Feb 27^th, 2003 at 1:43am:


Having read the history of the CQT in Kleiner's manual let me be more specific. Earlier, the polygraph was given with questions like "Is your name xxx?" together with relevant questions like "did you rob the bank?"  This produced a high false positive rate due to some people that feared being falsely accused (fear of consequences).  The CQT was developed to mitigate this by coming up with a question the examiner doesn't really care about but can convince the examinee that they do. Though I am bothered by the deception involved, it can, if pulled off, improve the odds of a not getting a false positive.

Quote:


I agree with you on both counts.  It is the more naive general populace that believes the polygraph nearly infallible.

Quote:

That does get back to my real question of interest, how polygraphers test each other.  A control question helps innocent people when they don't understand how it works but not if they do or if they are unusually honest. It works against them then. Polygraphers certainly can't fool each other and should be at higher risk of false positives if CQTs are also used on them - assuming they are scored the same as naive subjects. I guess I just don't like deception, even when it is used for good ends, especially in employee screening.

Quote:


Actually in ethical drug tests, and this has long been the practice, the subjects are told that some of them will recieve placebo's and they are told what percentage.  That's part of informed consent.  The doctors administering the drugs don't even know who is getting the placebo.


Quote:


Hmm. Are you saying that when you give another polygrapher a test that you exclude Control questions? Since the way a CQT is scored is comparison of the Controls to the Relevant's (again Kleiner) it would seem a person who is not actually deceptive on either would score as inconclusive. It would then seem the test becomes a R/I or at best a directed lie type test. I'm not trying to hammer you, just understand how you adapt the test when testing other polygraphers.

Quote:


Yes, it helps a little. Thanks.

-Marty

Marty,

Acouple of small points.  I don't believe CQT testing came about due to "fear of consequences".  It came about over concern for truthful people.  Do you think that some one lying about crime questions on a test care about any other questions on the test?  It is not that hard to catch a liar on a Polygraph.

I don't know of any Polygraph examiner who feels the test is nearly infallible.  You have to work hard to do a good test. 

If the purpose of a control question is to help truthful people on a test why is that bad?  It neither helps nor hurts liars, so whats the problem.   

Let's talk about drug research.  In trials it used to be common to give a control group placebo's.  If they were told that, would it not defeat the purpose of the placebo?

As far as testing other examiners let me talk about my own Philosophy on taking the test.  If I don't lie I won't respond to the questions and they have no basis to say I did.  I will say further that on examiners I have tested a few showed responses to the relevant questions and I told them that.  All but one told me I was correct.  They said, just as normal people have, that they were embarrassed and didn't want to tell me about something.  When they did tell me and were later tested on that issue they all passsed.  All but one who wouldn't tell me and refused to come back and be tested in the area of concern.  I can't help that it was their choice to withdraw from the process.

I don't know if that helps and I know it didn't make a dent in some of the people here but again I can't help that.

I am not sure exactly what your last sentence meant but I wouldn't argue with the content.

confused,

I do believe most polygraphers believe in what they do and don't want to make mistakes.  Indeed, trying to reduce the number of mistakes due to "fear of consequences" was one of the driving forces in creating the nearly univerally used CQT half a century ago rather than the more deficient R/I test. One of the reasons the polygraph community encourages belief that the polygraph is nearly infallible is, in addition to self interest, that it is assumed to reduce the number of false positives by lowering anxiety on the relevant questions. For similar reasons they don't tell the examinee the true purpose of the control questions.

Of course one can't deceive the deceiver hence my curiosity about how polygraphers examine another polygrapher. Obviously they can't go through the usual control question sensitization process.

IMO, deception in the pursuit of truth is no virtue.

-Marty

Ok, if I miss quoted you I am sorry.  I guess its easy to get confused with everyone trying to bash me and all examiners on this site.  I guess that meets your challenge??   

Please devine unsustantiated as you mean it.

Sorry your profession is immaterial.  My point was that most of the rehtoric spewed here could be applied to alot of professions.  You can't seem to believe or choose not to, that the Polygraph profession does try to correct problems aas best as possible.  We believe in what we do.  You do not.  I can't help that but attacking any examiner who shows up here and treating them like gum from the bottom of your shoe isn't particularly productive.

I voice my opinion if I beleive something is wrong with this profession or with anything else.  Where I do it and how I go about it depends on the situation.  You throw out the baby with the bathwater if you want, me I try to get the "facts" before I decide

Confused,

I have never said all polygraph exam results were unsubstantiated. (I challenge you to quote me as having said so or apologize).  My comments to you have not included such or even addressed what percentage is unsubstantiated.  I have simply said it is cowardice on your part and other polygraph examiners not to criticize those agencies that use these results improperly (taking action against the interests of examinees based on unsubstantiated polygraph results).  My profession is immaterial and irrelevant to this discussion and apparently is the only diversion and hiding place from the substance of this exchange that apparently comes to your mind.  Again, such is irrelevant and immaterial.  This conversation is about polygraph and the site is antipolygraph.org.  But in reality my comments might well have been made on a site not entitled antipolygraph.org but one entitled siteforamoresaneandethicalpolygraphprofession.org
Regards...

According to you, all Polygraphs are unsubstantiated.  Obviously I disagree.  Do examiners make bad calls? Yes.  Do doctors mis-diagnose? Yes.  Do lawyers blow cases and get their clients sent to prison?  Yes.  Do pharmacy techs ever give out the wrong Rx?  Yes.  Do Police officers ever arrest the wrong people?  Yes.  Everybody,especially polygraph examiners are evil when they make a mistake and therefore you can't trust them.

By the way, you didn't say what your profession is.  Could it be that it is a very unreliable profession and all of its practicioners are evil?

What makes you think we in the profession don't address what we feel is wrong?  When was the last time you were on tv or in the paper saying " the other people in my profession are incompetent and my profession needs to be cleaned up"?

Confused (Or whatever name you desired to be called now),

You write:

Quote:


Really???   And which agency (there are several that are known to arbitrarily eliminate applicants for further consideration for employment folliwng deceptive polygraph results) that uses unsubstantiated polygraph exams as a basis for further action have you publicly criticized (whispering under your breath, gossiping with fellow polygraph examiners, or even expressing such a view in a polygraph meeting doesn't count) and what benefit has come of your public commentary.  If you have actually done so, I loudly applaud you...if not it is time for you and those in your community who have the intellect to recognize the problems we have discussed to exhibit the courage to stand up and castigate those who would continue in such activity.  Anything less may be understandable in a practical sense, but is nevertheless ultimately indefensible and nothing short of cowardice when truly scrutinized.

What is it exactly you want me to publicly critisize?  I would need more information.

If you are asking me if I would point out publicly something I thought to be wrong? Yes I would and have.

Tell me what profession you are in?  I am sure someone could find something bad about it.  Maybe an anti-site might be started regarding the many wrongs done by your profession to humanity.

I do now and have always tried to be as professional and ethical and I can.  Everyone who comes to me for a test gets my best effort and I expect that from all examiners.  I am not perfect and never will be but I try.  I am the one who has to live with what I do.  I sleep pretty well.

confused? no

Confused

In my previous post, maybe I used the wrong terminology in the first paragraph. Instead of "give rise to debate" I should have said "enlighten me". As stated, my lack of polygraph knowledge caused me to ask the question. How can you hope to win over visiters to this site if you don't truthfully answer those who are trying to understand. I am pretty set in my ways but still willing to learn.

Batman, Torpedo, etc.,

I will put the question as a hypo: You have a subject in you chair. You ask a relevant question that greatly angers the "innocent" subject causing his BP to spiral upwards and changes his breathing pattern (these changes significantally different from the control questions), would you determine him deceptive? Would the anger response show differently than a lie response? I have my own uninformed ideas but would like to hear from some pro's.

Maybe some anti-polygraph answers?