Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Passed the mandatory maintanance exam (Read 26268 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Skeptic
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 549
Joined: Jun 24th, 2002
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #30 - Mar 4th, 2003 at 2:22am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Torpedo wrote on Mar 3rd, 2003 at 11:17pm:
Pre-employment screening -- I am in favor of it if used in a standardized manner. I am exasperated when a "bad" employee is identified and many people remark "why wasn't he/she polygraphed.  We are a convenient "whipping boy" to most of you on this board.  When you need us, you wonder where we are...when you have something else to do, we are a burr under your saddle and an esasy target.


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
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box orolan
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 363
Joined: Dec 25th, 2002
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #31 - Mar 4th, 2003 at 3:32am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Since this thread seems to be sliding "off-topic", permit me to steer it back. Torpedo;
1) What is your opinion on the use of polygraphs for maintenance testing of sex offenders?
2) Innocent people will use countermeasures ONLY because the polygraph is just as liable to show they are guilty as it is to show they are innocent. Agree or disagree?
3) In the case of a Florida PCSOT,  a questionaire consisting of some 150 questions is given to the examinee. These questions cover everything from traffic violations to sexual activities,  sexual fantasies, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, you name it, it's in there. After discussing each of these answers, the examinee is hooked up, and the examiner asks the question "Other than what you have already told me, were you truthful on the questionaire?". So, if there is a response indicating deception, how would you as an examiner decide which of the 150 questions the response applied to?
  

"Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." &&U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Marty
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 499
Joined: Sep 27th, 2002
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #32 - Mar 4th, 2003 at 4:14am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
orolan wrote on Mar 4th, 2003 at 3:32am:
2) Innocent people will use countermeasures ONLY because the polygraph is just as liable to show they are guilty as it is to show they are innocent. Agree or disagree?


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
  

Leaf my Philodenrons alone.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box orolan
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 363
Joined: Dec 25th, 2002
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #33 - Mar 4th, 2003 at 5:07pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

Marty wrote on Mar 4th, 2003 at 4:14am:
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.
-Marty

Sorry about that. I did not intend to say that the odds were 50/50, but I can see how my words convey that opinion. Of course,  "considerably less than perfect" is not that great. And what are "ideal conditions"? An examinee who has no anxiety about the test and got a good nights sleep, it's a beautiful sunny day, and the examiner is a decent guy with no pre-conceived notions regarding the examinee's guilt or innocence?
  

"Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." &&U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box steincj
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 103
Joined: Dec 8th, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #34 - Mar 5th, 2003 at 1:36am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Torpedo,

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

Torpedo wrote on Mar 3rd, 2003 at 11:17pm:
 You jump all over me for making ad hominem attacks, but say nothing of the person who initiated them.  


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:
And for the record:

Pre-employment screening -- I am in favor of it if used in a standardized manner. I am exasperated when a "bad" employee is identified and many people remark "why wasn't he/she polygraphed.  We are a convenient "whipping boy" to most of you on this board.  When you need us, you wonder where we are...when you have something else to do, we are a burr under your saddle and an esasy target.


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:
Security screening -- I am absolutely for it. I know of many instances where its use is invaluable. Nuff said


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:
Event specific testing -- Won't argue with you here.  Considerable research has been done in this area...it works...period.


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:
Use of Countermeasures -- I too am against it.  I think it is ludicrous to teach innocent people to perform countermeasures.  I woulds be willing to bet that there are many people who read this board but have chosen not to provide posts that they used CM's, were caught....by whatever reason....and now regret it.  I am particularly incensed about the incredible narrow logic used by proponents of this site that when sex offenders use the "lessons" provided in TLBTLD, that is something akin to collateral damage and then turn around and lay blame at the feet of the government for using polygraph in the first place.


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:
I maintain my position that those who know what they are talking about (not just carping on this board) took a polygraph and failed it and now they have an axe to grind.  That's okay, I can deal with that.   


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:
When your proponents propose writing in bathroom stalls to advertise your site, I just grin and realize that while there may be some of my colleagues who make me shake my head in disbelief, there is certainly an equal number on your side of the fence who cannot, will not and never will accept the fact that there just might be another side to all of this.

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

Quote:
I can sleep well at night knowing that I have done the right thing.  I work hard to protect the innocent examinee and work just as hard to ensure that the guilty examinee does not slip through my fingers.


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
« Last Edit: Mar 11th, 2003 at 2:51am by steincj »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box orolan
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 363
Joined: Dec 25th, 2002
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #35 - Mar 6th, 2003 at 3:41am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
UMMMM!!! Torpedo, did you run out of gas???? Or do you choose to ignore posts that require something besides mud-slinging?
  

"Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." &&U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box unknown
Guest


Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #36 - May 5th, 2003 at 6:29am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box beech trees
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 593
Joined: Jun 22nd, 2001
Gender: Male
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #37 - May 5th, 2003 at 6:59am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
unknown wrote on May 5th, 2003 at 6:29am:
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.


What is this person's name, and in what court was he convicted of violating the conditions of his parole/probation by using countermeasures on his polygraph?
  

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." ~ Thomas Paine
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box orolan
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 363
Joined: Dec 25th, 2002
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #38 - May 5th, 2003 at 4:48pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  

"Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." &&U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box sie
User
**
Offline



Posts: 27
Joined: Mar 5th, 2002
Gender: Female
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #39 - May 6th, 2003 at 12:40pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
unknown wrote on May 5th, 2003 at 6:29am:
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.


The problem with the polygraph is that its "SUBJECTIVE" not objective. Because of this you would be hard pressed to state unequivocally under oath in a court of law that the reaction measured could only have been produced by one employing a countermeasure and not by some emotional reaction to the question.

Ones probation is not revoke based on assumptions.

Simply put: PROVE IT.



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Verbatim
Guest


Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #40 - May 15th, 2003 at 4:19am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box orolan
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 363
Joined: Dec 25th, 2002
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #41 - May 15th, 2003 at 8:52pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Verbatim,
Now you find yourself within a moral dilemma. If your fellow probationer is offending, ie molesting children, you owe it to society at large to do something about it. If he is offending by viewing "inappropriate" material like teenagers in bathing suits, than you probably still should do something about it. Do you go to therapy with this guy? Maybe you can bring it up in group in a roundabout way?
Countermeasures are good for preventing people otherwise innocent of being accused. They are not advocated for the use of guilty people to hide their evils. I trust you will do what is right in this situation.
  

"Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." &&U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box OkieBoy
User
**
Offline



Posts: 46
Joined: Apr 27th, 2003
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #42 - May 20th, 2003 at 9:10am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Poly-Killer
Senior User
***
Offline


"Knock, Knock!"

Posts: 78
Location: Everywhere
Joined: Apr 29th, 2003
Gender: Male
Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #43 - May 20th, 2003 at 9:45am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
OkieBoy,

Do any of the methods taught in the "Sting" differ from those taught in TLBTLD? IF so, which ones? You can reply directly to my registered name here or in an open post, it really doesn't matter.

I am curious to know if there are differences, your response would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

PK
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Fed-up
Guest


Re: Passed the mandatory maintanance exam
Reply #44 - May 20th, 2003 at 7:56pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Passed the mandatory maintanance exam

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X