anythingformoney wrote on Feb 19^th, 2005 at 2:18am:


So basically you are discrediting your profession even more then it already is? If a polygrpaher based himself on integrity why would it matter who pays for the exam?

I agree with sluggo.

Basically you are saying that the polygrapher is not a cognitively thinking person, but one who readily takes orders?  If the examiner cannot develop the questions, what business does he or she have asking the questions?  Are polygraphers not investigators?  Or is it that polygraphers are asking questions without basis?  It would seem to me that polygraphers are goats to true investigtion, providing direction is whatever manner they are directed.  Science is not a truly descriptive word for polygraphy, rather hypothesis.  You can guess to your heart's content.  But guessing is truly no more than opinion (i.e. bullshit).  My polygraphister ( I love that because it is humorous and true) must only have been guessing.

I hope everyone is getting to enjoy this beautiful weather we're having rather than sitting in front of the computer writing a paper for college like myself.

However, I feel I must put my young two cents in.  How can people stand for something and say it's just without justifying it.  Actions speak much louder than words, I'm tired of hearing talk by politicians and Fox5.  Even Bill Mauer's 'Real Talk' portrays his propaganda.  I agree with most of it, but why is it so hard to get a straight answer from anyone interviewed on CSPAN.  Which I might add is the most unbiased media aired today.  Politicians avoid subjects like the one's expressed in this site out of fear.  Aren't the selfish men we've elected because we didn't have a good choice supposed to inflict justice? So why is this not an issue in the media?  Why was Fox5 talking a couple weeks back about Terry Schiavo's mother and her simple followers trying to make it in the supreme court? Why haven't they brought this issue up? This is all just my opinion and it must not mean much to you elder folks.  I'm after all just 22.  But it seems to me that through my research that polygraphing isn't a 100% thing.  How come in 1992 Dr. Lykken of Minnesota concluded from his studies that more than half of rape VICTIMS failed polygraphs recalling their own cases?  Then, Congress addressed security in our nuclear weapons facilities and asked the D.O.E. to instate polygraph testing of SOME employees. (check this website out)http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/sandia.html
If security was that important to require polygraph testing of applicants, why not all of them. Since administers of these tests use personal opinion to read results of the machines and make judgements about those readings, could ethnicity or sex affect their decision?  If it did, how would they be proven guilty of discriminating against anyone?  Would they call in another polygrapher working for the same system to confer with those results.  By the way, I'm white and good looking and polite.  Winning people has never been hard. If people with authority don't have strict rules placed, how can they be trusted.  Ask this question, see if you can find out.  How many muslim secret service agents does Bush employ? I wonder. He's very christian, as if that makes this country better or worse. Have you ever heard anybody who goes too far with jesus and infringes it on somebody else? How is that a teaching of Jesus.  I'm Presbyterian. Does that explain alot?

A very recent study by Eli Lehrer points out that basic polygraph technology has not changed in the last 60 to 70 years.  Skeptics and polygraph professionals agree that the fundamental technology, which measures breathing, pulse, blood pressure and galvanic skin response (sweating) has remained unchanged since … the 1930s. American Polygraph Association President Richard Keifer says that computers have simplified the work but agrees that the measurements have not changed.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/sandia.html

Go to that government website and read the entire thing if you have time. Can you find a phrase including 100% anywhere?  Polygraph testing can't prove anything.  The only thing it can be used for would be fear.  If you want to terrorize innocents into prison, go ahead you analsphincter.  And at the same time, keep telling yourself you do just work. How many scientists have proven your Psudoscience false? How many people have you reproached into demur of you? Who are you to judge without proof?
Sweet dreams analsphincter.

This is my first post as you see and you wont see me changing my name later and come one as someone else.
Anal, I think you are a narrow minded person because from the beginning you showed to be adeceptive person showing your true character and trying to psychoanalyze every one that disagreed with your opinion and come to a conclusion that everyone else's lying except for you.

I truly believe that a private polygrapher would have less reasons to show deceptive practices then someoneworking for the FBI, Police Department, or any other law enforcement agencies since everyone that works for law enforcement assumes everyone is lying.  The lines on a polygraph look- like EKG reading and a EKG willgive basically the same kind of reading when certain questions are asked because your pulse rate changes with questions of specific origin.   
I have had my dealings with the police department in the past and always, and I mean always, been treated unfairly and presumed guilty when I am totally innocent for a fact.

You just like any other law enforcement personnel is only human, and humans make the most mistakes especially when working law-enforcement agencies and the more guilty people you have the better you look.
I will be more than happy to give you my real name, my address, my phone number, and any other information you need to get to my house or local area and have some from this form of reputable statue to witness on videotape and hardcopy that I can pass any polygraph given regardless of the questions.
I would love to be the one that put you in your place.I'm not saying there arenot some legitimate polygraphers but again when you work for law-enforcement you can make them read what you want, how you interpret it,to say if someone is guilty or not. 
to give someone that much power over someone else is wrong because I'm sure you will not like my attitude toward you and you will form a bias opinion of me and try to make me look bad because you have no facts, just scare tactics and interrogation techniques that you are trained to use or have read about and I know what your first questions would be if I've read about this site or not and from there you assume I am guilty because I have come to this site to be informed instead of scared.

so to the people who read this forum I can honestly say that a polygraph is nothing to be afraid of it has no validity or is based on no scientific fact, just scare tactics.
I look forward to your response soon. sorry for the bad wording.
Im from Florida and according to law a polygraph is not admissable in a court of law so why take one.... but people like Anal will tell you if you have nothing to hide then why not take one................
Where supposed to be innocent until proven guilty... and never trust a states attourney....
Law enforcement will lie to you to make there job alot easier, in some cases this is a good thing but in other cases it makes the cops fat and lazy but thats a whole different story....
JUST REMEMBER THIS....You are guilty until proven innocent.
Why I put my opinion in is because I was married and my ex suffers from SAIDS, DIVORCE RELATED MALICIOUS MOTHER SYNDROME, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Stockholm Syndrome, Borderline Personality Disorder and being a pathological liar and every chance she gets she accuses me of something that I wouldn't even think of doing and I have been in court several different times over false accusations and outright lies but this doesn't constitute me happen to take a polygraph test.
Sincerely, Wally. 

EosJupiter wrote on May 18^th, 2005 at 9:51am:

Good point.   

Several recent posters have made the claim that examinee knowledge of the testing procedure is no longer a concern for polygraph examiners.  Claims have also been made that countermeasures do not work and are easily detectable anyway, and if you attempt to use countermeasure you will automatically fail.  So why the closed board?  If the people viewed as “cheaters” have an open board why wouldn’t the people with the motto “Dedicated to Truth” have one as well?

Nonombre or any other polygraph examiner,

I know it has been stated that no polygraph examiner will take this challenge as there is nothing to lose on the part of the examinee employing countermeasures.  This would be akin to a lab study, which most agree is not the same as an actual field exam.

With regard to nothing to lose, I must present the following question:  What of the applicant who has no fear of being deceptive when there is no other means to prove otherwise?  I will use an extreme example to help clarify the question (with a bit of humor).  As we are aware screening exams routinely contain questions about unlawful sexual conduct.  Applicant A was raised in a farm setting.  Upon reaching puberty, he enters into an illicit encounter with Dolly the sheep.  This is a one time occurence.  No one was around to witness this conduct as the barn doors were closed.  During the in-test phase of the polygraph exam, Applicant A is asked if he has ever committed a sex act with an animal.  Applicant A knows that there is no way to for the hiring agency to know or discover this conduct.  Where is the fear of being caught which would evoke fight or flight?

To me this would seem to be along the same lines for the oft-given reason to refrain from attempting Dr. Richardson's challenge.  Your thoughts?

Nonombre,

Thanks for the reply.  However, I think you missed my point.  As stated there are no witnesses, save good 'ole Dolly and she can't talk.  Where is the fear of being caught?  Knowing such conduct cannot be confirmed why would the examinee be fearful?  (note: I'm not trying to start a circular argument)

Also, please explain why the applicant would be subjected to public humiliation and ridicule.  Would the examiner release information attesting that the examinee failed a question regarding sexual conduct with a farm animal.  I was under the impression that such information was not for public consumption.  Also, again, no witnesses = no prosecution as there would be a lack of or at minimum extreme deterioration of evidence.

Quote:


Seems polygraph examiners jump to conclusions and assumptions with an accuracy rate of pre-employment polygraph exams.  Much the same as you (I hope) I have never met Dolly.