The Connecticut State Police have provided the following statistics in a "Selection Process Update":


Quote:

As of August 27, 2003, all of the six hundred seventy three (673) candidates scheduled for polygraph examinations have completed it.  Two hundred twenty seven (227) applicants passing the polygraph have proceeded to the background investigation phase of the selection process.  One hundred five (105) polygraph reports have yet to be evaluated.

Excluding the 105 polygraph reports not yet evaluated, 227 out of 568, or 40%, passed. The remaining 341, or 60%, failed!

Note that the polygraph is the fourth step in the Connecticut State Police selection process. Those 60% of applicants who are being branded as liars have all passed a written examination, a physical fitness assessment, and an observational test.

Given that polygraph screening is completely invalid (as confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in its landmark report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, it is clear that the CSP is falsely branding large numbers of truthful, qualified applicants as liars and wrongly disqualifying them from employment.

It's very hard for me to believe that 60% of those applicants were lying about relevant issues. I'm trying to find out right now how much of an impact these results are going to have on DQ'd applicants, since many municipal departments in Connecticut use the state police examiners for their tests.

If anybody lives in the area and knows, I'd appreciate the info. :)

One of the things you also need to consider is that a polygraph can register a false lie. This would be the case if an applicant is extremely nervous about the test, even if they are telling the truth the examiner might see it as a lie. Remember a polygraph only reports physical readings such as pulse, breathing rate, and i think sweat (though im not sure). Also the polygraph can reveal if an applicant has lied about taking drugs. Some left out of the first message is Test 1 is a written test and only applies to remembering details and such, the second test is a physical test, and the third is an observation test about your judgement skills. The fourth exam is the polygraph, which is really the first real exam of teh moral character of the applicant. The fifth step is actually the background investigation of the candidate. Do i agree that the failure rate is extremely high... yes, is it all because of the examiners... i would certainly hope not. The CSP are one of the oldest State Police organizations in the country and I beleive they are doing an excellent job.

Jon V,

Your post is so full of contradicting statements......I don't know where to begin.

Ok, I'll try.

First you state:


wrote on May 26^th, 2004 at 2:34am:

One of the things you also need to consider is that a polygraph can register a false lie.

then you follow it up with:


wrote on May 26^th, 2004 at 2:34am:

Remember a polygraph only reports physical readings such as pulse, breathing rate, and i think sweat (though im not sure).

Ok Jon, which is it?  

Then in the very next sentence you write:


wrote on May 26^th, 2004 at 2:34am:

Also the polygraph can reveal if an applicant has lied about taking drugs.

Jon, you sound a little confused.  If there was ever a person on these boards that needs to read TLBTLD, it is you.  Does it sound reasonable that nearly 2/3 of all the examinees that took the polygraph failed it?  What is wrong with this picture?  Are all of these hundreds of applicants that failed the exam lying scum that are obviously hiding something?  If there were some sort of actual PROOF that these applicants were indeed liers, then I wouldn't have any problem DQ'ing them from the process.  The fact remains that they were eliminated from the possibility of getting the job because of the police department's wholehearted belief in this pseudo-science called the polygraph.  

Time to wake up Jon.

Kona

Ok I will conceed that my previous message may have seemed a little confusing (especially in re-reading it myself) Let me try to make some sense of it.

1) I do believe that 2/3 of the people failing the polygraph does sound high

2) There are certain actions that an examinee can take if they believe the test was either conducted incorrectly or if there was some other stressor that may have caused a problem. These are the following:
    a) Request a second examination
    b)retain an independent examiner for a second opinion
    c)file a complaint with a state licensing board
    d)file a complaint with the Department of Labor under EPPA
    e)file a request for the assistance of the American Polygraph Association
 
     Also at the bottom of the slections page (going back to the main focus of this thread regarding the CSP) it states "Candidates who are not selected for employment, are welcome to
reapply and undergo retesting in any subsequent process."

3) The debate is still on as to whether or not the polygraph is actually reliable or not. The previous statement made by George W. Maschke "Given that polygraph screening is completely invalid " is completely wrong. In reading the information in the link he provided I found this statement :

RELIABILITY, ACCURACY, AND VALIDITY
Psychophysiological testing, like all diagnostic activities, involves using specific observations to ascertain underlying, less readily observable, characteristics. Polygraph testing, for example, is used as a direct measure of physiological responses and as an indirect indicator of whether an examinee is telling the truth. Claims about the quantity or attribute being measured are scientifically justified to the degree that the measures are reliable and valid with respect to the target quantities or attributes.

I will again admit that there are people that mail fail a polygraph due to other reasons (as also stated in the article). These reasons may include being physically ill, or undergoing family problems. BUT The examinee can request to be retested.  http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun98/lie.html has some more interesting information on how it can go either way. http://www.polygraph.org/validityresearch.htm also contains some info about the validity.

4) This point probably comes to the core of everybodies arguments, I have read it in a few previous posts. The test can only be as good as the user. Although the examiner is run through a training course which runs about 400 hours . As a comparisson if you were to get into a Motor Vehicle Accident and become seriously injured the EMT-B that might be working on you would ahve at most 194 hours of training (in Michigan with a national average of about 120-130 hours). Naturally mistakes can be made, humans are flawed it is in our nature.

5) Everything is open to interpretation. There are many theories regarding our own universe. Does it really go on forever or is there an end. Or if you are more Quantum Mechanically inclined... is there 1 universe or a Multiverse. Psychology, forensics, or religion is all open to interpretation. There are differing views on psychological diseases. Psychologists can argue whether or not a patient really has a disease or not. Forensics can argue about how many points on a fingerprint constitute an exact match. Physics... is there one universe or many.

Anyway... a really, really, really long story short there is evidence going both ways. Most of the evidence that I have seen tends to lean slightly more toward reliable than not, agian with there being many factors.  There was a time (and probably still is) that psychology was considered a pseudo-science.

This is all I have to say, I just wanted to clarify my point while I had some more time. I frankly don't care whether you agree with me or not, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

wrote on Nov 8^th, 2003 at 11:07am:

The Connecticut State Police have provided the following statistics in a "Selection Process Update": Excluding the 105 polygraph reports not yet evaluated, 227 out of 568, or 40%, passed. The remaining 341, or 60%, failed! Note that the polygraph is the fourth step in the Connecticut State Police selection process. Those 60% of applicants who are being branded as liars have all passed a written examination, a physical fitness assessment, and an observational test. Given that polygraph screening is completely invalid (as confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in its landmark report, The Polygraph and Lie Detection, it is clear that the CSP is falsely branding large numbers of truthful, qualified applicants as liars and wrongly disqualifying them from employment.

My two cents...    ::)

In my experience, 50% to 60% of the applicants for the police departments I have worked with do fail the polygraph examination.  However, of those 50% to 60%, more than 85% admit/confess to disqualifying information not previously uncovered during background investigation.

I'm afraid as long as pre-employment examiners are consistantly turning in those sorts of numbers, your arguement that 50% + failure rates are unacceptable will continue to fall on deaf ears in the law enforcement and intelligence communities...

Poly Cop

wrote on May 26^th, 2004 at 3:12pm:

My two cents...    ::) In my experience, 50% to 60% of the applicants for the police departments I have worked with do fail the polygraph examination.  However, of those 50% to 60%, more than 85% admit/confess to disqualifying information not previously uncovered during background investigation. I'm afraid as long as pre-employment examiners are consistantly turning in those sorts of numbers, your arguement that 50% + failure rates are unacceptable will continue to fall on deaf ears in the law enforcement and intelligence communities... Poly Cop

That's SUCH a bullshit argument. If 100% of people who are administered polys were told they "failed" and subsequently interrogated, 85% of all applicants would "admit" to something, and the polygraphers could then boast much higher numbers.

The problem with that theory is that, of the 15% that didn't admit to squat, how many of those people were lying? YOU DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THIS PSEUDO-SCIENCE CAN'T TELL YOU!

In the meantime, someone that lied about smoking pot once or twice, or someone that shot up pharmacist prescribed steroids 15 years ago in Germany where its legal, or someone that committed some other minor transgression in their life (as every last human has or will eventually have) get's eliminated. And this is regardless of how good a person he or she may be, their qualifications, or extenuating circumstances.

The polygraph can not look into a persons soul and determine their validity. It's not even a good indicator of how strong an individual's "moral compass" is ...

For future refrence for the most part they don't care if you did drugs 15 years ago. They generally care about anything within 2 years. Their main concern is whether or not you are willing to tell the truth. This can be very important in a court room seeting, if you have consistantly lied about crititcal issues, then whats your credibility? Why should the jur believe you? If it's a simple question as to how high that failure rate is... consider the FBI. They canget around 60,000 applications for a Special Agent. Of those 60,000 about 7% (about 4200) actually make it to being tested by the FBI. These are very competative jobs and they only want the best of the best. If they have a choice between say a person who admits to commiting a misdemenor or say a low end felony (c or lower in most places) and a person with a clean slate, they are naturally going to pick the person with the clean slate as they will be more believable in a court room setting.

Again: A polygraph is not always 100% accurate, but there is very little that actually is.

You write in part:


Quote:

...A polygraph is not always 100% accurate...

Although this is a true statement, it is really a meaningless statement inasmuch as it does not address or resolve the apparent conflict with two equally true statements:  (1) Polygraphy has not been shown in a field setting through an analysis of the totality of peer reviewed research to have an accuracy greater than random chance, and (2)  Because of theoretical flaws there is no reason to expect that common lie detection techniques would have greater accuracy than random chance when assessing matters of truth and falsehood.
.

wrote on May 26^th, 2004 at 8:02pm:

You write in part:  (1) Polygraphy has not been shown in a field setting through an analysis of the totality of peer reviewed research to have an accuracy greater than random chance, and (2)  Because of theoretical flaws there is no reason to expect that common lie detection techniques would have greater accuracy than random chance when assessing matters of truth and falsehood. .

Wrong.  Read the 2002 report from the Nat'l Research Council Committee - especially the phrase ".... can tell truth from lies at rates well above chance ..."

MrAugust,

Actually, Anonymous got it exactly right. The conclusions of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences report regarding polygraph accuracy are much more nuanced and caveated than your selective quoting suggests, and moreover are based in large measure on non-peer reviewed research (to which Anonymous made specific reference). Here is the full citation from p. 214 the NAS report, with the context you omitted:


Quote:

Notwithstanding the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection. Accuracy may be highly variable across situations. The evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy or provide confidence that accuracy is stable across personality types, sociodemographic groups, psychological and medical conditions, examiner and examinee expectancies, or ways of administering the test and selecting questions. In particular, the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures. There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods.

As noted at pp. 28-29 of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (you read it, right?):


Quote:

Some in the polygraph community have attempted to hang their hat on the first sentence of the above citation to support the claim that polygraphy “works.” But note that the Committee’s conclusion that “specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance” is conditioned upon the subject population being similar to “those represented in the research literature,” that is, ignorant of polygraph procedure and countermeasures. Such ignorance cannot be safely assumed, especially with information on both polygraph procedure and countermeasures readily available via the Internet. It follows from the Committee’s conclusion that “the evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy” that software algorithms peddled by polygraph manufacturers such as Axciton and Stoelting that purport to determine with mathematical precision the probability that a particular individual is lying or telling the truth are unreliable. And because, as the Committee concludes, “the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures,” it is not safe to assume that anyone passing a polygraph “test” has told the truth. The last sentence of the above-cited passage is the key one with respect to polygraph validity (as opposed to accuracy): “There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods.” What this means is that there is no evidence that polygraph “testing” provides greater predictive value than, say, interrogating a subject without the use of a polygraph, or with a colander-wired-to-a-photocopier that is represented to the subject as being a lie detector. Indeed, in the first chapter of their report, in a subsection titled, “The Lie Detection Mystique” (pp. 18–21), the Committee members compare polygraphy with superstitious lie detection rituals in primitive societies, likening the polygraph community to a shamanistic priesthood “keeping its secrets in order to keep its power.”

Regarding the theoretical basis of polygraphy, to which Anonymous also referred, the NAS report concludes (at p. 213):


Quote:

Theoretical Basis The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.

Under the circumstances, to rely on polygraph results to make decisions regarding a person's truthfulness is foolhardy.

Perhaps it is foolhardy if the person takes the time to viligantly study polygraph procedure and work hard on countermeasures, but the impression I get from reading all of the stuff you pointed out is that it is pretty accurate if you only tested unknowing folks who wouldn't understand how to beat it.

In the first quote, where you showed what I excluded, all I can think of while reading it is those drug commercials where they say "... Some users report side effects like nausea, fever, etc....".  It's a disclaimer - just because the drug doesn't work properly on a few people doesn't mean it is useless.

All I'm saying is that my impression is that polygraph testing is pretty accurate for the majority of folks who make no serious attempt to beat it, are not under altering medications, etc.  Every piece of literature you've shown me states or implies that countermeasures are the biggest threat to accuracy.  I'm not disagreeing with that.

I'd love to know what they are really getting at with this quote:  "....the Committee members compare polygraphy with superstitious lie detection rituals in primitive societies, likening the polygraph community to a shamanistic priesthood “keeping its secrets in order to keep its power.”  What's the deal with the attack on priests ?    I'm not sure how a veiled jab at organized religion is relevant to the study.  That definitely sends up a red flag with me with respect to the credibility of these people.

MrAugust,

From reading your previous posts, I detect a pro-polygraph bias. Not that this is a problem, as all opinions are welcome on this website, (unlike the pro-polygrapher website. where you get thrown out if you dare to preach blasphemy to the great polygraph demigods),  But you are correct in assuming that the ill informed and naieve will significantly fail the polygraph at a higher rate. By being informed and well read you remove the fear, doubt, and anxiety, that the polygrapher needs to make his voodoo work. That is why that community tries to keep its secret rituals to themselves. But go on over to the pro site and get another opinion if you like. Best part is, I do believe that their answers will always tow the company line, that they are 98% accurate at detecting deception, caveat ---it only works if the examinee buys in to the BS that is being slung at them. Once you know it doesn't work and is a load of crap, it never again is a problem.
good luck  

EosJupiter wrote on Nov 24^th, 2005 at 10:56pm:

MrAugust, Best part is, I do believe that their answers will always tow the company line, that they are 98% accurate at detecting deception, caveat ---it only works if the examinee buys in to the BS that is being slung at them. Once you know it doesn't work and is a load of crap, it never again is a problem. good luck

They don't claim 98% accuracy - well most of them don't anyway.  The ones that do are possibly some of the bad apples that are responsible for some of the false positives / negatives.

General consensus I've heard is 80-90% - and that's probably assuming no countermeasures or drugs.

[quote author=MrAugust link=board=Policy;num=1068278826;start=0#11 date=11/24/05 at 08:29:21]Perhaps it is foolhardy if the person takes the time to viligantly study polygraph procedure and work hard on countermeasures, but the impression I get from reading all of the stuff you pointed out is that it is pretty accurate if you only tested unknowing folks who wouldn't understand how to beat it.

In the first quote, where you showed what I excluded, all I can think of while reading it is those drug commercials where they say "... Some users report side effects like nausea, fever, etc....".  It's a disclaimer - just because the drug doesn't work properly on a few people doesn't mean it is useless.

Mr. August,

Your analogy about drug side effects and the accuracy of the polygraph is an interesting one and brings a memory to mind. I never paid much attention to  adverse side effects of prescription drugs until I experienced a frightening situation some years ago when I suffered a severe reaction to a drug given to me by a doctor. The reaction is quite rare, in fact, only one of the doctors in the facility where I was treated had even seen it before. That experience enlightened me  and gave me a new respect for the power of  prescription drugs and what they can do to some people. To this day, I always research possible drug reactions and side effects, however rare, and dread taking a drug I've never had before.

Years later, when I was failed on an FBI polygraph that I thought to be nearly 100% accurate, after telling the truth, I believed that I must have been part of a small percentage of the population--just as I had been when I suffered that severe drug reaction. I thought a re-test would clear up the mistake, but I was wrong. I was also wrong to think that false polygraph positives were rare. If polygraphs were reliable and accurate, their use would not be so controversial. I had just never paid attention before, the same as before I suffered that horrible drug reaction. Some things that seem harmless and innocent at first, can turn out to be dangerously  destructive.        

Several posters have given you sound advice about your situation, but it seems you have already made up your mind. It's terribly sad that you would leave the fate of your marriage to a piece of worthless trash. What's even sadder, is that if you really knew your wife, you wouldn't need a machine to tell you whether she'd been unfaithful.

MrAugust wrote on Nov 25^th, 2005 at 5:46am:

They don't claim 98% accuracy - well most of them don't anyway. ......  General consensus I've heard is 80-90% - and that's probably assuming no countermeasures or drugs.

MrAugust

Well just by your response your most likely a polygrapher yourself. As someone without  a truly vested interest wouldn't know as much as you.  Why not just come on out and debate us without the hidden agenda. Its not as if we haven't had them before. But again your welcome to post and debate. And even at 80-90% (which is garbage) your still failing 10-20 innocent people for every 100 polygraph interrogations.
Just 1 failure of a truthful person, is one too many, and is not acceptable collateral damange. Especially if it destroys someones name and integrity because of a false positive. I get in trouble by George and other senior posters on this web site because of my opinions from time to time. But unless you have 100% accuracy in deception detection, then the whole premise of what the APA and polygraphy community represents is BS and nothing more than a sham. Believe what you want, but the fact is as another message thread rightly proves. Countermeasures can't be detected and polygraphs have no valid scientific basis in reality.  And the reason most of the polygraph community is so upset with this website is, it blows out  their little secrets to the general public. ( But lets not forget that it is the abuse of a polygrapher to Geroge, that made this website possible), Much to their dissatisfaction. And now in any polygraph  interrogation the Control question, " Have you researched anything on polygraphs", is now a standard question, or some derivation of the question. The best part is knowing that, no matter how much you may wish to catch those who know countermeasures, it isn't possible unless the examinee is weak and coughs up the information. As far as drugs are concerned, drug users get what they deserve unless they are under a doctors care. And if they are under a doctors care, the drugs in question, make them ineligible to take a polygraph anyways.

Regards

EosJupiter,

I see little basis for accusing MrAugust of being a polygraph examiner. I think it's perfectly understandable that someone who suspects his wife has been unfaithful might be eager for something -- anything -- that would offer some degree of confidence in the matter. Polygraphers profess to offer a high degree of confidence in situations where ascertaining the truth is difficult or even impossible. (After all who can truly prove that s/he has not been unfaithful to his/her spouse? One cannot prove the negative.) I don't find it surprising that someone in MrAugust's difficult situation might look to polygraphy or some other pseudoscience (such as voice stress "testing") for answers. Such wishful thinking ensures polygraphers a steady stream of customers.

Ok George Point well taken, I will restrain myself.  

Its this wolverine personnality I have.  

And MrAugust I do apologize for the accusation. And I do hope you resolve this trust issue with your wife without the use the of a polygraph exam.

Regards

EosJupiter wrote on Nov 26^th, 2005 at 10:53am:

Ok George Point well taken, I will restrain myself.   Its this wolverine personnality I have.   And MrAugust I do apologize for the accusation. And I do hope you resolve this trust issue with your wife without the use the of a polygraph exam. Regards

Dude I've never even seen a polygraph machine before - I'm just telling you what I've learned from information gathered.  And after speaking/writing with many people on both sides, it seems conclusive to me that as long as my wife is naive about the process (likely) then we should get an accurate result.

Yes, it is obviously a horrible way to resolve an issue - but if you were in my shoes and had to deal with what I've been through then you might understand.  Yes, we are also going to counseling.

Sorry to taint the board with my personal issues, but despite your apology I think you and some of the other folks, who unfortunately were in the bad 10-20%, are showing a bad side when you constantly accuse everyone who dares to challenge your assertions as polygraph examiners with agendas.

Even though I'm obviously skeptical of George's theories, I respectfully give him props for the tone of his last post.

Mr August,

Yes, I am very robust in my opinions and actions in regards to polygraphy. And sometimes get taken to task for it. But until your the one sitting in the chair getting grilled, there is no way you can understand the situation. And my feelings are for your wife, in  that you are going to make her suffer mental torture. Not something I would do to someone I cherish in my life.

MrAugust wrote on Nov 27^th, 2005 at 12:27am:

...it seems conclusive to me that as long as my wife is naive about the process (likely) then we should get an accurate result.

MrAugust,

Naive subjects pass and fail the polygraph all the time.  How does naivete make the polygraph accurate?  I failed the polygraph twice as a naive subject, despite telling the truth each time.  Would I fail a third one knowing what I know now?  Absolutely not--because I would not participate in another polygraph.  Naive subjects also pass the polygraph, but they are the lucky ones.

Perhaps you meant to say that a naive subject might be more likely to admit to something during a polygraph if she believed that whatever she was hooked up to (polygraph, car battery, copier machine, toaster) was indeed a "lie detector."  Of course, if this subject has nothing to admit or calls the polygrapher's bluff, then it makes the whole procedure more of a farce than it already is, and innocent, honest individuals often face ridiculous accusations.  Hopefully your wife will not suffer that humiliation.  Hopefully she will be a lucky one.

Regards and good luck

Mr. August,

You obviously did some research on posters accused of being polygraph examiners on this site, which might I add, has turned out to be the case in just about every instance. I'm just curious as to why in all your research on this site, you've walked away with the impression that  being an uninformed examinee results in accuracy? This site exists for the very reason that people who know virtually nothing about the process are failing their polygraphs despite being truthful.

polyfool wrote on Nov 28^th, 2005 at 4:48am:

Mr. August, I'm just curious as to why in all your research on this site, you've walked away with the impression that  being an uninformed examinee results in accuracy?

Because in TLBTLD, for starters, it discusses this exact issue with the NRCC's conclusions during its 2002 report.

EosJupiter wrote on Nov 27^th, 2005 at 1:33am:

Mr August, Yes, I am very robust in my opinions and actions in regards to polygraphy. And sometimes get taken to task for it. But until your the one sitting in the chair getting grilled, there is no way you can understand the situation. And my feelings are for your wife, in  that you are going to make her suffer mental torture. Not something I would do to someone I cherish in my life.

What if you thought she may have cheated on you and have no other way of knowing the truth.  Perhaps you should sit in the chair I'm sitting in, sir, believe me - it's less comfortable.

Mr August,

Why are you wasting time going back and forth with the posters on this site? Don't you have a polygraph to schedule for your wife? Once you get the results, you'll have the rest of your life to wonder whether she cheated on you. According to your research, polygraphs are 80-90% accurate. That leaves a 10-20% doubt in your mind forever.  

Mr.August

I agree with polyfool.

You talk like God in AMOS. "For three transgressions and for four, I will not turn away the punishment of my wife". Is it in you to forgive?

Your mind is already made up. So go ahead and do it and destroy your wife's life then try to live with that the rest of your life. The "flip" of the polygraph is NOT going  to prove or disprove her guilt. OH sorry, you have the misguided belief that it's 90% or better. On the other hand, what if she is in the 10%?

The last 2 responses are just typical of how a lot of you folks think (and debate).

I just answered the question and explained why I believe it's accurate, and since there's no valid response the best thing to do is flame.

Polyfool why do YOU waste YOUR time on this site ?  That's the real question.  I'm dealing with a real time issue here while you are apparently dealing with some false positive bitterness that you're going to take out on every single person who dares to show you the truth.

MrAugust wrote on Nov 29^th, 2005 at 4:47pm:

The last 2 responses are just typical of how a lot of you folks think (and debate). I just answered the question and explained why I believe it's accurate, and since there's no valid response the best thing to do is flame. Polyfool why do YOU waste YOUR time on this site ?  That's the real question.  I'm dealing with a real time issue here while you are apparently dealing with some false positive bitterness that you're going to take out on every single person who dares to show you the truth.

Don't take it too personally.  You have to understand that most of the members of this site have been bitten by the polygraph, in some form or another.

You initially came to this site asking for honest opinions about the polygraph, under the guise of a concerned husband wanting answers about his wife's possible misdeeds.  You said something to the effect of, "I really don't have a clue about the polygraph other than what I've read."  While that may be true, once you started to receive the honest answers and opinions you asked for, you immediately started with the typical pro-polygraph rhetoric that we are all too used to seeing on this site.  You got us hook, line, and sinker.  You sucked us into your debate and now here we are.  If you sense any frustration on our part it's because we would prefer that people just be honest up front about their position and start a dialog without the needless games, and indeed, without wasting our time.  

That is the best explanation I can give.  It would seem you already had your mind made up, even while posting your initial message to this board.  This is our perception, just as your perception is we are all "dealing with some false positive bitterness."  This is an emotional issue for many of us here, so when you come here asking us for our opinions, especially when it concerns the possible future of someone's marriage, you better believe we are going to give it to you hard and straight.  If you think we are bitter, wait and see what happens with your wife if she becomes a false-positive victim.

Regards and good luck

mustbaliar

MrAugust writes like Mercible. Not completely condeming, yet, but trolling just enough to draw responses. He mentions debate but he hasn't offered anything about the polygraph to debate. Could be him with a different ISP.

Twoblock wrote on Nov 29^th, 2005 at 8:19pm:

mustbaliar He mentions debate but he hasn't offered anything about the polygraph to debate.

{sigh} For the umpteenth freaking time, read the findings in TLBTLD from the 1983 Congressional OTA report, and the 2002 NRCC report - read where it talks about accuracy rates in situations where there are no countermeasures attempted.  Then come back and tell me again then I haven't brought anything up for debate.

It's hysterical that now that I've done a little research and have formed some opinions that I'm being branded as a polygraph examiner.  I don't even know what these machines look like for crying out loud.

Listen, I won't take it personally and I appreciate that you were honest with me - but there really is not much debate happening here - just accusations that I'm making this whole story up or that I'm really some user whom I've never heard of.

To be blunt, the reason why I've "...made up (my) mind..." has a LOT to do with the fact that for the most part noone really attempts to debate anything on here except George and Drew.  At least when I disagree with them I can respect the fact that they are making a case, right or wrong, without being overemotional bitter flamers.

MrAugust wrote on Nov 29^th, 2005 at 4:47pm:

The last 2 responses are just typical of how a lot of you folks think (and debate). I just answered the question and explained why I believe it's accurate, and since there's no valid response the best thing to do is flame. Polyfool why do YOU waste YOUR time on this site ?  That's the real question.  I'm dealing with a real time issue here while you are apparently dealing with some false positive bitterness that you're going to take out on every single person who dares to show you the truth.

Mr. August,

Another polygraph examiner asked me the very same thing several months ago. I'll tell you the same thing I told him. I do not consider the time I spend on this site a waste. I believe it's time well spent in helping to educate others about the myths surrounding the polygraph. Just in the nine months or so that I have been aware of the site, I've noticed the number of guests and registered users growing--a very good sign, indeed. That means more and more people are becoming aware of the polygraph's shortcomings. I use every chance I get to help spread the word about how polygraphs don't really work and warn others to NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES submit to one. I'm satisfied when they tell me how they've passed the message along to others.    

It would be fair to say that prior to taking a polygraph, I had much more faith in them than the average person. The idea of taking one seemed cool to me and I thought the experience would be a neat one. I possessed very little knowledge about polygraphs and had never even heard the word countermeasures before. Those circumstances did very little for me in the way of accuracy as I told the truth and failed like many other posters on this site.

Your ASSumption that I am bitter couldn't be farther from the truth. My polygraph failure was actually a blessing in disguise and I don't regret that it prevented me from making a mistake. What I do regret is that I foolishly consented to something I knew nothing about. I hate the fact that what happened to me continues to happen to others and that  a test that doesn't work is eliminating skilled, quality employees from the government workforce at taxpayer expense.  

The only person who is bitter and overemotional around here is you.

Twoblock wrote on Nov 29^th, 2005 at 8:19pm:

mustbaliar MrAugust writes like Mercible. Not completely condeming, yet, but trolling just enough to draw responses. He mentions debate but he hasn't offered anything about the polygraph to debate. Could be him with a different ISP.

Twoblock,

You noticed the similarity too .... hmmm !!!

Check my earlier posts ......  Only Administrator can tell  us if this is a known TCP/IP address. Unless he comes in under an anonymous domain.

So they don't care if you did stuff when you were 10 and didn't really kno better?

wrote on Mar 8^th, 2009 at 1:48am:

So they don't care if you did stuff when you were 10 and didn't really kno better?

Call the person in the State Police who is handling your background check and ask them about the incident or incidents to which you are referring.

One major point to remember in all of this is this: there has never been any evidence that pre-employment screenings create a better workforce.  The only people these exams can be said to be helping are the polygraphers themselves, vampires on society.

Furthermore, they're not particularly concerned that there's no evidence that they're actually helping others.  All they care about is helping themselves, so who cares if it works?  

[url=-https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1233987559]Here[/url] I describe some very simple (and cheap) ways they could demonstrate that they are doing some good.  They won't do it; they're evil.

polyfool wrote on Nov 30^th, 2005 at 6:11am:

Just in the nine months or so that I have been aware of the site, I've noticed the number of guests and registered users growing--a very good sign, indeed. That means more and more people are becoming aware of the polygraph's shortcomings.

Actually, it more likely means that polygraph use is increasing, and as a result there are more people coming on this website and others like it, where they receive poor advice from self-portrayed "experts" who have never had any practical experience whatsoever in conducting polygraph exams. The "anti-" crew on this website consists of a few people who failed the polygraph and then came on this website where they found like-minded individuals, all of whom also have no experience whatsover. That's the more likely story.

My favorite part of the whole "polygraph" bull shit...which is exactly what it is..is that the crazier you are..or the bigger liar you are..the better your chances are of passing it..as long as you believe yourself then you will not be nervous enough to fail the test...My biggest questions are..did any of our troops who fought for us ever have to take a poly to enter the military?? NOPE...did our President of the united states ever take one to get into office...NOPE...Do our teachers who work with our young innocent children have to take them...NOPE...so what exactly is the point of making some one willing to put themselves in danger everyday to protect a community have to pass it....a test that isn't even accurate!!  Doesn't make sense to me!!!