Add Poll
 
Options: Text Color Split Pie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: polytechnic
Posted on: Jul 15th, 2008 at 2:06pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
yankeedog wrote on Jun 3rd, 2008 at 12:19am:


"...  I once sought employment with the FBI, but was "not within acceptable parameters." So what!  I moved on and .......and ultimately became a polygraph examiner


I understand why you could be so bitter. Thats quite a 'come-down'.
You should rather have tried applying for a burger flipping job. It comes with tips and smiling, grateful clients.

Blessings....
Posted by: polytechnic
Posted on: Jul 15th, 2008 at 1:59pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Hi TC,

Whats your point here ?
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Jun 8th, 2008 at 7:47pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
Langan notes that "if a medical test had a similar sensitivity and specificity to that of the polygraph examination it would simply not be used in the field of medicine." And Zelicoff has elsewhere observed, "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."


What does Langan know!  Did he attend the 14 week polygraph course?  Does he have any experience in the industry?  Has he ever been a practicing polygrapher?

I didn't think so!

Frankly, I am highly suspect of any so-called "study" coming from outside polygraphic circles.  It lacks credibility!

For example.  Would you put much faith in a medical study done by someone other than a medical professional?  I think not!

TC
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jun 3rd, 2008 at 3:42am
  Mark & Quote
yankeedog wrote on Jun 3rd, 2008 at 12:19am:
Or, you “could” have been a false positive.  It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen.


The best field studies of polygraphy suggest that a truthful person may have roughly a 50-50 chance of passing a polygraph "test." See Dr. Alan Zelicoff's "Positive and Negative Predictive Values of Polygraphs: Results from published 'field' studies":

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-051.pdf

and also Dr. Michael Langan's "The Art of Deception: Polygraph Lie Detection":

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-053.shtml

Langan notes that "if a medical test had a similar sensitivity and specificity to that of the polygraph examination it would simply not be used in the field of medicine." And Zelicoff has elsewhere observed, "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."
Posted by: yankeedog
Posted on: Jun 3rd, 2008 at 12:19am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
notguilty1 wrote on Jun 2nd, 2008 at 11:09pm:
No explaination from the nazis here but to say I must have been withholding something or a variable must have been off or simply I was infact lying.


Or, you “could” have been a false positive.  It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen.  Just like there are occasions when innocent people are convicted of a crime and sent to prison.  But we don’t just scrap the whole judicial process, although I think it needs a great deal of overhauling.  I once sought employment with the FBI, but was "not within acceptable parameters." So what!  I moved on and finished a career with the federal government and then went elsewhere to work.  Looking back, I'm content I was not accepted by the FBI as I am not overly impressed with their charter.  Wink
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Jun 3rd, 2008 at 12:04am
  Mark & Quote
Quote:
I have a relative who works for the NSA.  He told me has to pass a polygraph every 5 years.  He says that you can't use any tricks to fool the poly.  They'll figure it out.  Just act like you would every day and be honest.  Tell them every dirty little secret you have stored up in your head so you can make it less unnerving.  For example, if they ask you about whether you ever robbed a bank, you might think of the dollar you stole from your mom's purse as a kid.  You'll feel bad about the dollar and it will show up on the polygraph.  So, you have to tell them about it to get it off your chest so they can ask you a question like "Besides that dollar, have you ever stolen..."  The main reason people don't pass is because they don't open up to small things like that.  He says that nobody's a saint in the NSA and they have all done something they aren't proud of.  They don't care about those small things.  They want to catch the real bad guys.  As long as you haven't done anything bad while you were drunk before to get you into trouble, blown up a plane, killed somebody, or robbed a bank, you will be just fine telling them what is bothering you.  The main point:  Don't do anything seriously bad that you will feel guilty about or don't even try to take the polygraph.


If that is all that is necessary to pass I would have passed all four of my polygraphs.

Instead, even though I told the truth and "got everything off my chest", I failed the first three and passed the fourth.
Posted by: notguilty1
Posted on: Jun 2nd, 2008 at 11:09pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
All I know is when I failed mine. I was truthfull though I did feel my reaction to the relevant questions. I can only assume that it was becasue I knew that those testing me felt I was guilty. I don't know that this is the reason for sure but I do know that I was compltetly truthfull in my answers and failed.
No explaination from the nazis here but to say I must have been withholding something or a variable must have been off or simply I was infact lying. 
The fact is that you cannot con us ( those who have direct proff of the scam) and so you come here daily to "try" to discount or otherwise nulify our experinces and proof. This way if your succesful you get to continue your con job.
WHY THE HELL ELSE WOULD EXAMINERS BE ON AN ANTI WEB SITE DAILY THAT THEY CLAIM IS DOING NOTHING TO THE INDUSTRY AND IS FULL OF "MISGUIDED" IDIOTS ??
Grin
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Jun 1st, 2008 at 7:20pm
  Mark & Quote
SlimShady13,

I thought the same thing prior to my polygraph at the NSA in March 2000.  I failed anyway.

If the polygraph really detected deception, then a person answering the simple yes/no question truthfully would not  have to "get every  little thing off their chest" to stop the machine from reacting.  Of course, that is exactly the purpose of the test.  To TRICK the person into talking their head off.  The examiners job is to see what he/she can "get out" of the person.  Not to test for truthfulness.  It's a pretty neat trick.

Problem is, you can "get everything off your chest" and still have a "reaction" show up on the machine.  The mere fact that they are focusing in on A PARTICULAR question, and falsely claiming you are being "deceptive", is reason enough for your autonomic nervous system to react when that question is asked during the test.

And just because they precede the question with "besides what you have already told me...." will not necessarily cause your subconscious (which controls ANS reactions) to stop reacting.  It knows that it is just a permutation of that same original question (the one they are falsely claiming you are lying about).  That is enough to put ones ANS "on the defensive".

And if you continue to "react" they will continue to prod until you finally say something they can use to justify the chart "reaction", and then fail you.  It is like any INTERROGATION.  They will just try to wear you out until they get you to say something they want to hear.


TC

Posted by: SlimShady13
Posted on: Jun 1st, 2008 at 7:01pm
  Mark & Quote
I have a relative who works for the NSA.  He told me has to pass a polygraph every 5 years.  He says that you can't use any tricks to fool the poly.  They'll figure it out.  Just act like you would every day and be honest.  Tell them every dirty little secret you have stored up in your head so you can make it less unnerving.  For example, if they ask you about whether you ever robbed a bank, you might think of the dollar you stole from your mom's purse as a kid.  You'll feel bad about the dollar and it will show up on the polygraph.  So, you have to tell them about it to get it off your chest so they can ask you a question like "Besides that dollar, have you ever stolen..."  The main reason people don't pass is because they don't open up to small things like that.  He says that nobody's a saint in the NSA and they have all done something they aren't proud of.  They don't care about those small things.  They want to catch the real bad guys.  As long as you haven't done anything bad while you were drunk before to get you into trouble, blown up a plane, killed somebody, or robbed a bank, you will be just fine telling them what is bothering you.  The main point:  Don't do anything seriously bad that you will feel guilty about or don't even try to take the polygraph.
Posted by: Lethe
Posted on: Apr 24th, 2008 at 4:45am
  Mark & Quote
sackett wrote on Apr 23rd, 2008 at 4:26pm:

lethe, you also said, "Think about that.  They don't get paid to find out who doesn't like the polygraph; they're not hired to find out who has done research on the polygraph; they don't get paid to see who has "ever told a lie even once ever".  However, they take great pride in doing all of those things.  They appear much less concerned about finding out who is lying on the relevant questions, which was initially their sole purpose for existing. "

How absolutely disingenuous. I never said that but will address it.  No,. I don't care if "you" like the polygraph, nor done any research on the polygraph, that is your poor interpretation, once again.  It IS my job to find out what my dept wants to know about an examinee then test him on the truthfulness of their statement; nothing more.


If a person answers the relevant questions truthfully but is failed on account of his or her polygraph results then you have failed.  Period. 
Yet you make a joke out of it--out of other people's ruined lives.  I'd be a rich man if I had a dollar for every one of you virus particles that expressed his joy--joy!--at failing people who use countermeasures when most of those people were truthful on the relevant questions and  acting to preserve some chance of passing.  Their failure to pass represents a failure of the polygraph system.  But you count those as successes, don' t you?  But, that's okay, you don't have to think about it; you're making a killing.

sackett wrote on Apr 23rd, 2008 at 4:26pm:

I'm defending my organization and community.  Who else will protect the society, you?!  I don't think so. 


You're protecting yourself, nothing more.  I don't want the polygraph to be used to screen for pre-employment purposes; it does far more harm than good in that capacity; society should be liberated from the likes of you.   

Of course, no polygrapher is willing to have a real discussion in which the costs and benefits of the polygraph are weighed, so that's that.

Incidentally, do you purposefully keep your children stupid, Sackett, so that you can more easily detect their lies?  If you are consistent (keeping members of society stupid so they can more easily be polygraphed) you should do so.
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Apr 23rd, 2008 at 6:42pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Relax Sackett, your job is safe, that's the main thing!

TC
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Apr 23rd, 2008 at 4:26pm
  Mark & Quote
Mr Cullen, et al,

it always amazes me how I can say one thing and you poor misguided souls can turn it into something else completely.

Cullen wrote:  "You know as well as I do that the purpose of a preemployment/periodic polygraph is to "fluster" the testee, and see what you can get out of him."

First off, do not ever think or presume to think you know what I know.  You have no clue as to who I am (other than a mean spirited examiner) or what I know.  The purpose of the pre-employment is to collect the information needed for consideration for employment and test the veracity of what is reported.  Nothing more.

Also, being considered "self-serving" by the likes of you is a compliment, given your propensity for the very same thing demonstrated daily on this board...

lethe said, " Sackett admits that he doesn't care if he fails people who answer the relevant questions with 100% honesty.  He doesn't care if he screws up someone's life.  He's already got his."

Nope!  Once again, your skewed view of the polygraph world results in (probable and purposeful) misinterpretation of statements.  Re-read the portion of the quote YOU saved in your posting.  Sheesh, this is really getting old and repetitive...

lethe, you also said, "Think about that.  They don't get paid to find out who doesn't like the polygraph; they're not hired to find out who has done research on the polygraph; they don't get paid to see who has "ever told a lie even once ever".  However, they take great pride in doing all of those things.  They appear much less concerned about finding out who is lying on the relevant questions, which was initially their sole purpose for existing. "

How absolutely disingenuous. I never said that but will address it.  No,. I don't care if "you" like the polygraph, nor done any research on the polygraph, that is your poor interpretation, once again.  It IS my job to find out what my dept wants to know about an examinee then test him on the truthfulness of their statement; nothing more.

Also, "Now they just exist to exist and suck money and resources out of society while defending themselves."

I'm defending my organization and community.  Who else will protect the society, you?!  I don't think so.  

Sackett 


Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Apr 23rd, 2008 at 8:00am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
When I took my polygraphs I believed in their accuracy, and I told the truth, and I was judged a liar.


Sarge,

You mean you THOUGHT you told the truth.   

But the machine must have proved you wrong.

TC
Posted by: Sergeant1107
Posted on: Apr 23rd, 2008 at 5:52am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
sackett wrote on Apr 22nd, 2008 at 4:53pm:
Not dissimilar to the addage that, if you don't believe in God, you better be right...

If you don't belive in polygraph (and take one) you better be truthful, else you be judged a liar!

See!  It all works out in the end...


Sackett


When I took my polygraphs I believed in their accuracy, and I told the truth, and I was judged a liar.

I don't see how that all worked out in the end...
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Apr 23rd, 2008 at 4:40am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Sackett,

Is the info contained in the NAS report a "mantra"?

You know as well as I do that the purpose of a preemployment/periodic polygraph is to "fluster" the testee, and see what you can get out of him.

So how is volunteering information going to help?

You don't like that because it goes against YOUR mantra that the more the test subject says the better.

What garbage! 

Either a person has maintained an unauthorized foreign contact, or they haven't.  A consistent reaction on the machine doesn't prove otherwise, no matter what you might think.

Call it a mantra if you must.  But it's a factual mantra backed by the scientific community.

But hey, like you say, you've still got yer job.  Thanks for demonstrating to us all your self-serving attitude.  An attitude shared by many of your cohorts, I suppose....

TC
Posted by: Lethe
Posted on: Apr 23rd, 2008 at 4:11am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
pailryder wrote on Apr 22nd, 2008 at 7:15pm:
Mr Cullen

Lethe argues just the opposite, that the more you know and the less you believe "the myth" the more likely you will be false positive. You can't both be right.  


I'm impressed to see my views represented with only slight modifications, and those appear non-malicious.   

My argument is that all else being equal a subject who knows how the PLCQ test works who doesn't attempt countermeasures is less likely to produce accurate results than an ignorant subject.   

Once countermeasures are included you've introduced a large number of other variables that make it difficult to generalize.  But, as polygraphers readily admit, countermeasures cannot be reliably detected.
Posted by: Lethe
Posted on: Apr 23rd, 2008 at 4:02am
  Mark & Quote
sackett wrote on Apr 23rd, 2008 at 3:29am:
Mr Cullen,

wrong!  I do not care if the examinee believes in the polygraph, I know it works!  Those I test can attest to that statement from me.

The problem is that "you people" believe a particular mantra and can't get past it.  Well, you preach on!  The more you think you know, the "better" the information provided to the masses, the easier it is to catch those who would otherwise pass; but, thanks to you and your ilk will fail or go N/O and not get the job anyway... I don't care, I have a job!

Besides, your recruitment techniques are working fine. 

Sackett


Sackett admits that he doesn't care if he fails people who answer the relevant questions with 100% honesty.  He doesn't care if he screws up someone's life.  He's already got his.

This attitude is very widespread among the polygraph community.  Their job is to find who is lying on the relevant questions but they don't care if they don't do this.

Think about that.  They don't get paid to find out who doesn't like the polygraph; they're not hired to find out who has done research on the polygraph; they don't get paid to see who has "ever told a lie even once ever".  However, they take great pride in doing all of those things.  They appear much less concerned about finding out who is lying on the relevant questions, which was initially their sole purpose for existing.  Now they just exist to exist and suck money and resources out of society while defending themselves.
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Apr 23rd, 2008 at 3:29am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Mr Cullen,

wrong!  I do not care if the examinee believes in the polygraph, I know it works!  Those I test can attest to that statement from me.

The problem is that "you people" believe a particular mantra and can't get past it.  Well, you preach on!  The more you think you know, the "better" the information provided to the masses, the easier it is to catch those who would otherwise pass; but, thanks to you and your ilk will fail or go N/O and not get the job anyway... I don't care, I have a job!

Besides, your recruitment techniques are working fine. 

Sackett
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Apr 22nd, 2008 at 9:25pm
  Mark & Quote
The goal of the polygrapher is to get the test subject to believe it can detect deception.  He wants to convince the person being test that he must get everything off his/her chest, or else the "magic box" will pick up on it.  That is the "mantra", to just fully disclose everything.  At any rate, the goal is to get the person "talking".

So, even though the test subject knows he/she is telling the truth, they  let the polygrapher con them into  suspending their critical judgement momentarily and question their own mind.  Gee, I know I'm telling the truth, but maybe, just maybe there IS something bothering me!  Better start talking!

The goal is to get them to provide the rope the polygrapher needs to hang him.

The smart thing to do is KNOW you are telling the truth, that the machine DOESN'T necessarily detect deception, and that the polygrapher is just playing mind games.

So the more you know about the con job the better.

It is alot like going to a used car lot knowing the little "games" the salesman plays.   

If you don't know a con game is going on, there is a very good chance YOU are the one being conned!

TC
Posted by: pailryder
Posted on: Apr 22nd, 2008 at 7:15pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Mr Cullen

Lethe argues just the opposite, that the more you know and the less you believe "the myth" the more likely you will be false positive. You can't both be right.
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Apr 22nd, 2008 at 6:08pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
If you don't belive in polygraph (and take one) you better be truthful, else you be judged a liar!


That assumes that the polygraph can detect lies, which it can't.

The more you believe in the myth of the polygraph, the more naive and gullible you'll be, and, consequently, more likely to come up false positive.

TC
Posted by: sackett
Posted on: Apr 22nd, 2008 at 4:53pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Not dissimilar to the addage that, if you don't believe in God, you better be right...

If you don't belive in polygraph (and take one) you better be truthful, else you be judged a liar!

See!  It all works out in the end...


Sackett
Posted by: Lethe
Posted on: Apr 22nd, 2008 at 11:52am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
T.M. Cullen wrote on Apr 22nd, 2008 at 9:13am:
Quote:
I can't say that I'm a fellow believer however, Brother Pailryder.


Your torment shall be eternal!


I'm not afraid, T.M.  To slightly paraphrase one enemy of polygraphers: Question with boldness even the polygraph; because, if God is real, God must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.  That same person swore "upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."  It is thus easy to see why polygraphers despise him so.
Posted by: T.M. Cullen
Posted on: Apr 22nd, 2008 at 9:13am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Quote:
I can't say that I'm a fellow believer however, Brother Pailryder.


Your torment shall be eternal!

Posted by: Lethe
Posted on: Apr 22nd, 2008 at 7:31am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
pailryder wrote on Apr 21st, 2008 at 7:05pm:
Gee Mr Cullen, I thought Dr. Lethe was the only anti who lacked a  sense of humor.  Don't give up the day job.


What's wrong with my sense of humor?  It's awesome!

Anyway, the best way to pass the polygraph is to be ignorant and to place your faith it in as your personal lord and savior.  I can't say that I'm a fellow believer however, Brother Pailryder.

Dr. Lethe, PhD
 
  Top