AntiPolygraph.org Message Board
Polygraph and CVSA Forums >> Share Your Polygraph or CVSA Experience >> Thanks to TLBTLD, I PASSED!!!
https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1039991742

Message started by Great--Ful on Dec 16th, 2002 at 1:35am

Title: Re: Thanks to TLBTLD, I PASSED!!!
Post by The_Breeze on Jan 3rd, 2003 at 5:48pm
George
You still seem angry.
Faulty: "having a fault or faults, defective".  Like all who post here, I am stating an opinion. Posting here can never be mistaken for actual proof, although you evidently believe your words meet that standard.  Yes, I do believe that your and others advice could hinder, confuse or delay fact finding in a criminal or screening exam.  So, I find that faulty in the sense that it is counterproductive and potentially dangerous.  It is defective in my view because our culture is filled with selfish examples, and the over riding importance of the one.
You claim I am boasting when I simply point out that my experience base on this topic is much greater than yours- then you immediately throw up a few texts that you have skimmed as an example of your detailed research.  I have read all but the Reid text (although I have others by this author team) I would not consider this extensive, and it is clear from reading your work (yes I have) that you needed to provide authoritative descriptions and test sequences.  You were not looking for a discussion on possible efficacy, just detail to reinforce your pre-existing view.
Let me ask you a serious question now that we have defined faulty in my opinion:
Do you believe there is a chance that the high failure rate in Federal LE screeing is intentional, possibly as a result of no other means of reducing a largly talented but unremarkable applicant pool?  I ask because this failure rate of half, is way out of line with my experiences.  Perhaps this is more of a desirability issue than a polygraph issue.
In other words, I am an administrator at the FBI and am faced with hundreds of applicants who are qualified, and sucessfull through the process.  How then do I legally weed out such numbers for my limited openings?  I suggest that now minor admissions become significant (absent same in others) and the trimming process begins.  The failure is placed at the polygraph for simplicity sake (no video, no background check, no proof) and an applicant is told they are not within parameters.  Your thoughts?

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.