Nonombre wrote:
Quote:


     ...and some people think polygraph examiner's don't have a sense of humor.

This statement does however give credibility to my post.

I would agree that the ignorant examinee would believe that the laundry would be pinned on the line within minutes of the exam's conclusion.

Let me expand on the question.  What of the knowledgeable examinee (not someone trained in polygraph, but someone who has done a bit of self-study on the topic)?  This would be an examinee that knows there is no way for such information to be discovered.  What fear would such an examinee have of discovery?  I would assert that there is no fear much as would likely be the case in the poly challenge.  Could such an examinee be deemed as non-cooperative?

Also, the only Dolly I have met is Dolly Madison.  She has some tasty treats but I would never do anything bah-ah-ah-ad with them.    

Dippityshurff,

You write:
Quote:


For the record, I expect to win too  As far as any loss of face is concerned, I suppose the national media coverage that I have insisted upon to cover all aspects of the procedure will likely take care of that issue.  I do not have time to discuss all the ramifications of fear of consequences and how it relates to external validity (completely misrepresented by commenting polygraphers and perhaps overstated with this exercise), but with regard to monetary incentives, a time-limited one was previously offered by one of the regulars on this site (5000.00) to any qualified (see my initial post for qualifications) polygrapher (and specifically not payable to me) who could systematically show an ability to detect countermeasures.  There were no takers on this offer.  

Dippityshurff raises one of the issues that arose in my mind when Drew first made his offer.  The suggestion is that the question of whether examiners can truly recognize mid-level countermeasures is to be settled by the results of a laboratory experiment.   

     The web masters for this site, together with most people who have posted on this site categorically reject the results of laboratory research regarding the accuracy of the polygraph because they are not “real life” settings.  Why reject mock crime accuracy research yet advocate mock crime countermeasure research?   

     If you are so eager to accept the results of a laboratory CM study, why not accept the results of the many dozens of laboratory validity studies that have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

Peace.

Gordon

nonombre wrote on Aug 25^th, 2005 at 3:36am:



Nonombre: I am absolutely astounded by your ability to know what's going on in the mind of an examinee. Did they teach you that in school? Give me a freak'in break! You have no idea what an examinee is thinking. How could you and why do you believe that you can read minds? Is it because of the things examinees confess to you? Surely you would not be gullible enough to believe everything that someone tells you? Your comments are a perfect example of too much reliance on this tool. You know how to record a person's heart rate, sweat activity and breathing patterns, so you can read minds. 

I disagree with your statement about an examinee fearing that his dirty laundry will be on display for all to see. I could buy that arguement if you were talking about a current employee, but you're not--you're talking about job candidates. If one is not already employed by the prospective agency, he is not thinking in those terms and therefore, not concerned about what agency employees will find out.   

It is true that an examinee may be thinking whether the deed he may be about to confess to is proveable and I would think that definitely has some influence on whether one confesses. The thought about whether certain deeds I was asked about being proved through corroborative (your  favorite word) statements definitely made me spill my guts when I really didn't want to. I knew the answers to the questions could be found in a background check, thus I came clean. However, I probably would have confessed to the deeds without witnesses anyway, because I believed all the bogus hype about polygraphs actually being able to detect lies. Stupid me.

I also would never have believed that anything I told the examiner would have been disclosed to my family or  that I would be prosecuted for it. Applicants disclose past drug use to LE agencies all that time, that doesn't mean they'll be booked and thrown in the slammer for hitting a bong when they were a teenager. Take your and Brandon's example of Dolly. Do you really think your hypothetical examinee would think that he would face charges for  getting it on with Dolly on the family farm when no one else was looking? That's ridiculous.  There are some practices that are still on the books as illegal, but aren't enforceable. Take for example, adultery--illegal in some states- but you don't see cops barging into bedrooms to enforce it. Spirit vs. letter of the law. Adultery would even be proveable since it would require the participation of another individual. The only evidence you would have with Dolly is the examinee's confession, but yet, you would expect the examinee to believe that on his way out the door, employees would be lined up, laughing at him with fingers pointed and that an agent would stop by his house to tell his family about his rendezvous with Dolly just before officers arrive to take him downtown for booking? 

P.S. Just for the record, my misdeeds had nothing to do with Dolly. 


           

looking for some insight, wanted to apply for a police job, they do polygraph. Prior to 2 months ago I had'nt smoked marijuana for over 8yrs (smoked 5 times before the 8 yrs) I want to make sure... if I lie on my recent drug use, I would just have to make sure I have a stronger reaction to control questions (tounge biting ect) than relevant questions? just want to make sure how should I treat the drug use questions?

Thanks

Quote:


and in what way do you plan to tell the difference?

Nonombre

nonombre wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2005 at 4:03am:


The general approach I take is to assume that all requests for information are for legitimate purposes, unless there is reason to believe otherwise (as was the case with icotto56's post).

nonombre wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2005 at 8:17pm:

Nonombre,

I would be interested to listen to your explanation of that opinion.  How exactly is providing information on the way a polygraph is conducted in any way similar to placing a deadly weapon in a public place?

Providing information is not wrong or irresponsible, and certainly not akin to leaving a dangerous weapon unattended.   

I am still of the opinion that putting any faith in a supposedly scientific test that can be “beaten” after reading a couple of pages on the Internet is the truly irresponsible act.  If the polygraph relies on examinee ignorance in order to function, wouldn’t that suggest a problem with the polygraph itself rather than a problem with anyone who provides information to enlighten the ignorant?