Torpedo wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2003 at 11:17pm:


For the record, Torpedo, I for one have never, nor will I ever, state that a bad employee should have been caught by the polygraph.  I could not in good conscience believe polygraph screening to be largely invalid then turn around and blame the lack of a polygraph for a bad employee slipping through the cracks.

I know such blaming does occur, but I believe it to be wholly naive, since I think a polygraph screen could very well have let the bad employee through, as well (or worse: given a false stamp of approval to the employee).

I am truly sorry that you have the impression no one here will listen to what polygraphers have to say.  Unfortunately, from my point of view the evidence polygraphers give here for polygraph testing is weak and unscientific (what scientific evidence there is -- that I've seen -- casts doubt on the efficacy of the polygraph, especially in screening situations).  And when claims are made here by polygraphers, they are almost never backed up; this gives the strong impression that most such claims are bluffs, and that the pro-polygraph side is really indefensible.

Please believe that it is my standards of evidence, not dislike of the people presenting it, that fuels my position on this issue.  You and I might not like each other in real life, Torpedo, and I'm as willing as any here to engage in a pointless flame war on occasion.  But if your side had the stronger evidence, that's the side I would support, from an argumentation standpoint.

Regards,
Skeptic

orolan wrote on Mar 4^th, 2003 at 3:32am:


orolan,

I think it is unlikely that the polygraph has only 50-50 odds of labeling an innocent person guilty. What NAS's study does say is that the polygraph is unproven and that it's accuracy is, at best, considerably less than perfect under ideal conditions.

There are also reasons to believe that once one knows about the polygraphers "trick" on a CQT that the test would become more likely to yield a false positive since it would devolve into a R/I type test. The reason the PL control question test was invented was to reduce the false positives from R/I tests.

I still have gotten no reponse from polygraphers testing another polygrapher and about how they sensitize another polygrapher with control questions since they would recognize axactly what they are doing - hence obviating the purpose of the control questions.

-Marty

Torpedo, 

For once you write with content.  I applaud you for that.

Torpedo wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2003 at 11:17pm:


Actually, Torpedo, it is funny you mentioned initiation, because, in my opinion, I was going after the person who initiated the personal attacks.  Had the roles been reversed, I would have done the same.  

You know that I am not extremely one-sided when it comes to the polygraph.  I do believe you and Batman even suggested that I join your treehouse club (Justice League).   I prefer to remain independant (and leaning heavy toward the anti-poly side), thank you. 

Quote:


First off, know your audience whenyou are making comments.  You have no idea what "whipping boy" means until you have been an intelligence officer in an Armor unit, especially the most brazen, lethal Armor unit in the world (3rd ACR).  I would have enjoyed being the "whipping boy" -- it would have been a step up from the way I was treated.

Anyway, I'd like to ask what the "standardized manner" is.  

And as far as your agency treating you as a "whipping boy," those that make such accusations have too much faith in a sketchy system.  I fully believe that given a polygraph examination, an interview, and a background investigation, the interview should be given the most weight, followed by the BI, and then the polygraph.  Those who blame you were probably once interviewers / BI agents, and believe themselves to be most thorough and infallible.  They can't be wrong, so you must be.

Quote:


Again, I feel that BI's and interviews are better tools than the polygraph for screening.  The screening test is too broad, and too many innocent applicants are falsely accused (see the NAS report.)

Quote:


I agree, but again, it can't be the end all to an investigation, rather a tool to guide investigators to the proper conclusion.  The human element of investigation is the most important.

Quote:


This is a circular argument.  Basically, the entire system is corrupt, from the unreliable results of the polygraph (see the NAS report) to the ability of countermeasures to manipulate the test.  That is whay I believe that the polygraph should be eliminated in total.  The only way to eliminate both problems is to eliminate the root cause -- the polygraph.  

I'm going to ask a sincere question here -- I know that countermeasures work best against a CQT test.  How well do countermeasures work on an event specific test?  Can the PL CQT be eliminated, rendering CM's useless, and still allow for the effective use of event specific testing? 

Quote:


Well, I guess you think that after every 5 words I type, I get back to grinding my axe.  Interesting.  I continue to ask that you put yourself in my shoes, and honestly, if you did, wouldn't you be grinding an axe as well?

Quote:

Don't worry, I hang my head in shame too, sometimes (but I still won't join your treehouse club).

Quote:


Well, if you are so confident that you have done everything to protect the innocent examinee, I suggest you try and convey the same to others in your trade.  After what I went through, I don't know how my examiner can lay his head on a pillow and feel good about himself.  There was no protection in that exam room that day.

Chris

I know someone that was sent to prison for using contermeasures. He was formally charged with failing to comply with the condition of submitting to a polygraph.

I too would like to know who and where. There is very little public information on probation revocations and their underlying causes, especially when the probationer has not committed a new offense.

Well, well, well!  It's been quite a while since i have viewed the site, and it seems that a thread that I started last year is still spawning discussion.  I am posting this update to let you all know what has been going on.  I have taken 3 polygraph tests since the initial one, and all have come up as passed.  I have become more confident in taking them, and don't worry any more about them.  However, something has been brought to my attention by one of my fellow probationers.  He says that he has been doing things that he should not be doing while on probation and passing the polygraph tests by "visualizing a calm place" the entire time he is taking the test.  This apalls me!  I do not know the extent of his offenses because he did not go into detail, however, the fact that he could beat the polygraph with no knowledge of countermeasures just by his visualization technique worries me greatly.  I regulary augment my responses so as to not be accused of probation violations, but to think that this is all it takes to fool this machine... FRIGHTENING!  Once again I bring my disdain for this procedure to the table.  If we are to rely on a "test" that can so easily be countered to ensure that the probation population remains in check what does that mean?  I offer up this scenario.  The correctional departments believe in the validity of the polygraph.  If a probationer is passing a polygraph, then they must not be doing anything wrong.  The reward for passing the polygrapgh is lighter supervision.  If a probationer is able to trick the polygraph, in essence he is able to reduce his/her supervision and, if disposed to, offend again.  This is alarming.  To all of those who would place faith in the polygraph, i have this to say; i believe the time is coming (if not already come) that a person who passes your polygraph can be out in the public offending at will because you rely on faulty methods.  This from someone in the trenches with those that would do this very thing.

I understand what you are going through, Verbatim.  I have three months left now on an indecent exposure charge, and I have been passing all of my polygraphs using the "sting" method.   
I have in turn tought a couple of guys to use the method to pass their tests, but I made sure I knew them and their crimes weren't too detestable in nature.  The guys that are in there for rape, incest, or other crimes, I think should sweat the polygraphs out.  Sure, the polygraph is bogus, but the thought of those guys knowing they could get away with anything gives me chills.   
I would tell the group what that guy said to you....unless he is going to rat you out for using countermeasures to pass the polygraph.  You didn't tell him did you?
That is something I will never understand.  Why do they lump all sex offenses in the same group and give them the same punishment.....polygraph testing, your picture on the internet, and sex offender registration?
Why does the government consider indecent exposure, or trying to pick up a hooker the same thing as a violent rape or raping a child?  They are giving them the same punishments and it doesn't make sense.

Hey Poly-Killer, why don't you and Okieboy and the rest of the perverts on this site start your own website.  You guys make me sick.