Brant, that's great that your dad is a judge, you should be proud. I'm sure he would be interested in seeing the other side; why don't you invite him to this website?

Quickfix, what you wrote about spies and sex offenders doesn't sound very congenial. Usually those that hate sex offenders the most are the ones with the real skeletons in the closet.

Arkhangelsk:  I guess you didn't read my post;  there is no deep-seated hatred.  Therefore, your question is baseless.

Thank you quickfix that was very helpful. I do not think you are hatefilled and I realize it is probably your job to deal with these kind of people. 

Dear Arhhangelsk, I believe in the system my dad is a prestigious judge. I asked him if they work and I trust his opinion. I have never personally used one, but I am told they work 80-99% of the time.

quickfix wrote on Feb 19^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

How do you prevent this deep seated hatred from introducing examiner bias into your scoring?

Quote:

May I ask what led to your belief in lie detectors? What exactly convinced you?

Brant, thanks for the words of support. Someof my opponents on this site incorreclt assume I am hate-filled toward everyone; not the case.  The worst of the worst are spies and child molesters/sex offenders.  Even in prison, child molesters are despised by other inmates.  Notice how "Chuckles" has disappeared fromthis site?  No doubt he has offended again and hopefully he is back in prison where he belongs.

To answer your question, I would not spend time or money on these so-called home polygraph machines.  Having conducted research on many of them (under federal research grants), I can tell you that they don't collect the physiological data necessary, nor is the data collected on these devices accurate.  An examiner with proper training and experience is the way to go.  Inviting "friends" along is not appropriate.  Privacy is strictly enforced in any polygraph exam, whether conducted by a private, law enforcement, or federal examiner.  Onlythe person being tested, the person's attorney, and if required, an interpreter, are allowed to participate.  The attorney is also required to leave when the test portion begins, usually observing from an adjacent monitor room or other remote viewing device.

Fees for private testing can vary from examiner to examiner.  Expect to pay a minimum of $500-$750 for a simple straight-forward test;  more for a more complicated test.  Even more if the examiner has to travel, since you must pay for his travel, lodging, and incidental expenses.

Hope this answers your questions.

Dear Quickfix, I believe in lie detectors and I want to buy the usb lie detector to play truth or dare with my girlfriends. Will it be accurate enough even though it is cheaper? How much does it cost to go to a real examiner and have them do it. Will my friends be able to come? 

Also this was a very educational conversation for me I am 20 years old and have never seen a girl act so mean towards someone. I am completely on your side you can not become a sex offender randomly, but you are still a woman and must remain professional no matter how jacked up this guy is.

seryty wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 2:13am:

Translation: the polygraph is used as a rubber hose to trick those under interrogation into confessing.

It is only effective for those who have not yet awakened to the folly.

seryty wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2012 at 2:13am:


The polygraph is the final word in the hiring process, which is the reason this web site exists.

pailryder, stefano and chuckles: great conversation. All have opinions and all speak well of their views.
quickfix and yourallsheep: Unreal. You need to converse intellectually, not with the obvious hate you are displaying. I am sure their are bad polygraph examiners out there as there are "the bad" in everything profession. You can not hold all to the actions of "the bad". I believe in the polygraph and have seen it used effectively evry time. The polygraph is a great investigative tool. As far as being deceptive; a person lying about their crime is often cornered by the deceptive interviewer. I know LE who have interviewed a person for a couple of hours and longer and have finally had the suspect confess. It is not a simple, "yes I did it." It is an admission with supportng facts. Often the facts are only known by the suspect or someone tod by the suspect, the victis and the LE. LE doesn't rely on confession alone. There have been many people who  confess or admit to a crime only to have LE disprove it and send them on their way. LE deal with the facts but LE is subject to mistakes also. I have seen Polyygraphs were the person showed to be lying and the examiner called the examinee on the lie. The examinee continued to lie and fnally gave up the act and admitted. The examinee then went on to relay the details of the crime. There iis no doubt about the confession. The examiner held true to the test result and ould not relent. I am sure tehre are tests that are not so obvious and this is where a  skilled inteviewer is needed. Deception is part of it. It is about solving the crime and getting resolution for the victims.

Everyone has their opinion. That's the way it should.
LE have their hands full trying to keep up  with investigating crimes.
Polygraph examiners are an investigative tool who have proven their worth many times over.
Chuckles: Not knowing you, if what you say is true; then, I can not explain it or even try to and I would not want to be in your position. My view to your situation is; if you did it, dont do it again. If you didn't do it, you were wronged somewhere.
The polygraph is only a part of the investigation and not the final word.

I humbly yield to the new king!!!

Quote:

Quickfix, you may have just been dethroned.

Wow this site is impressive, actually some very intelligent people. Im used to forums overun by sheep.. the general public, mostly complete morons.. anyways 

Chuckles your a sick f*ck u deserve to raped mentally in the water ever way hurts you most because i big nig in jail prob doesn't bother you much. Hopefully you cant get the women or men you desire and are so hurt by it you act out w sexual perversions> if you can get the people you desire I hope they tear your heart and your mind apart leaving to know and feel what a piece of shit you are. you destroy innocent childrens lives you crappity smacking mucus

and other guy we all hate drunk drivers just the same as nigs , jews and sex offenders... no im not racist although i love using the words to enrage the weak.. hate is healthy displacement of anger take a psyc class 

im a jew black person 3 time conv drunken driver but atleast I can rent an apartment chuckles u shitbag

stefano

I did not say that I currently use the R/I technique.  I simple cite it as one of several techniques that does not depend on examiner deception. 

pailryder wrote on Mar 31^st, 2011 at 10:03am:

I agree that the GKT by itself does not involve direct deception on behalf of the examiner; other than the general deception regarding the polygraph's accuracy. However, if a successive hurdles approach is employed, other formats will come into play.

The directed lie format as proffered by the University of Utah, does simplify the pretest interview. I don't believe the technique is widely used at this point. I have had discussions with Dr. Honts regarding this technique and he tends to believe the underlying concepts are based on mental work. He stands firm that lab experiments reveal higher levels of accuracy, but I have not scrutinized the empirical data.

You should not be using the R/I test technique as its as useless as a coin toss.

stefano

The Guilty Knowledge Test, Directed Lie Comparison Question Test and Relevant/Irrelevant Test are all techniques that do not rely or depend on examiner deception.

Thank you for the calm and thoughtful discussion.

quickfix wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

Sorry I don't don't subscribe to your witch hunt mentality. I choose to see the world from a sober footing. It's all about hate. You need someone to hate. Before it was acceptable to hate blacks, jews, gays etc. But now that's not permissible anymore, but it's still okay to hate sex offenders. I am not on their side, but I don't ally myself with those who think sex offenders have the corner on slime. So, we can overlook drunks who kill children in cars simply because they didn't intend to? That's the rationalization of the year. Your issue is not sex offenders but rather the hatred that is poisoning your heart.

pailryder wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 7:26pm:

I have yet to see a polygraph exam that was free of deception by the examiner. If you are the exception, then I salute you.

The only victims here are the children molested by you.  So you didn't reveal the details of your crime?  That makes your crime a little more acceptable???  What an imbecile you are.

While it would be great if we could expect professionalism and honesty from people working in an official capacity, that just isn't the case. Investigators and prosecutors and polygraph examiners are all just humans with the same faults and prejudices as the rest of the population. In any profession there are going to be some bad apples mixed in with the ethical people. In AA I learned to accept the things I can't change, and I think I have the wisdom to know that I don't have much control over the attitudes or habits of other people.

The thing that we should all be able to agree on is that the polygraph exam is not a reliable way to tell if someone is lying. I think quickfix is so hateful towards me because she thinks that I went into a polygraph exam and lied about molesting children and got away with it. For her to make the kind of comments she made proves that she knows that the polygraph is unreliable and can be beaten with counter measures. I don't take her hate personally - maybe she is just describing her worst nightmare, the thing she goes to work every day trying to stop. I have never given any personal details about my crime, so she just filled in the gaps with whatever was on her mind.

Bottom line, both the victims of the polygraph exam and the examiners all know that it's unreliable.

"Why don't you have similar hate for people who get drunk and kill kids in car wrecks? I really think you have some unresolved issues. It would be interesting to have a look inside your closet."

stefano:  the analogy isn't even close;  the difference is intent;  child molesters don't molest by accident;  drunk drivers don't intend to kill others;  molesters are scumbags, like Chuckles;  drunk drivers are just plain stupid.  Try looking in your own closet;  sounds like you're the one with issues if you can't distinguish between the two.

I do not deceive my clients.

pailryder wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 6:12pm:


You will never be dubbed the analogy king. However if you need such rationalizations to justify deceiving your clients, go for it.

So during WWII if our ambassador lied to the Nazi's to protect innocent Jews, you hold his actions, lies if you prefer, to be unethical?

Lying is not always bad or wrong, it can be the moral ethical thing to do in some circumstances.

pailryder wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 12:04pm:

I like how you change "lie" to "bluff." I think it's unethical to lie and deceive while working in any official capacity. Previously, you used the phrase: "liars don't deserve to be told the truth." In all fairness, it goes both ways. How much of a bad guy do you want to become in order to catch other bad guys?