He who complains too much and too often has something to hide.  Complaining is all some of you anti-polygraph guys do - and you do it far too often.   

Arbeit macht frei, eh Eastwood?

I think you're confusing 'complaining' with vociferous illustration of the travesty of a sham of a pseudo-science called polygraphy.

The only think I'd like to complain about is the quality of the opposition's posts on this board-- pathetic.

Dave

Mark,

Your observations are right on target and speak to the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that beset the polygraph "profession."

Eastwood,

Every time you post something you're proving my point about the ad hominem approach invariably taken.  Why don't you prove me wrong and post something substantive?

You know, I'm wondering whether you are really an anti-polygraph guy masquerading as a pro-polygraph guy, whose purpose is to make the pro-polygraph side look like a bunch of goons.

I'm also wondering whether you and Polycop are the same person, because you both spew the same inanities.

As for your bluster about us being an admission-rich environment, nobody reading the Lie Behind the Lie Detector would be fooled by your act.

I would sum up your position as follows: we're all just a bunch of liars who are disgruntled because we failed a polygraph test, which undermined our ambitions, and now we're pissed off and whining and complaining about it.   

Is that an accurate account of your position, or am I missing something?

Mark,  I would like to comment on some things you said:

Quote:


#1:  Eastwood and I are not the same person...

#2:  Regardless of what misguided advice may be found  in "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector", I would suggest that the  vast majority of applicants willingly cooperate with the process for one VERY important reason.  I have something they want.  A JOB!  They must get past me to get that job.  That very fact puts me (and not the applicant) in charge in the polygraph laboratory.   Yes, I do catch a few wiseguys trying to manipulate the process, but most simply do as they are instructed.

#3:  For the most part, I do agree with your summation...     However, I know that in some of your cases, your exposure to polygraph had nothing to do with the applicant process.

I would add that the hard core users (administrators) of this site are true believers in their cause and are definately on a "mission." 

I would even add this stipulation to the polygraph process:  There are false positives in polygraph.  They do happen and every responsible polygraph examiner understands that...  I, for one believe that polygraph is only part of the process and I believe that a hiring agency must consider the entire applicant and not just his polygraph results.  Would I refuse to hire someone just because his neighbors think he is dishonest, or his ex-wife has a few unpleasant things to say?  However, one must remember that the applicant process is subjective and when all is said and done, the hiring panel either has a positive or negative "feel" for a particular applicant.  All the "objective" tests in the world will never replace this process, nor should it.  I support the use of polygraph as part of the entire hiring situation.  You and the others on this site, do not.  That is the basic difference that all the postings on this site will not change...

Polycop...

                       

Anonymous,

You asked:
     
Quote:


I hold to my statement that polygraph results should not be the SOLE determining factor of the applicant hiring decision.

On the other hand, PLEASE don't get me going on all the advice given to honest police applicants by people on this site, advising them to engage in "countermeasures."  Whether you all believe it or not, I have caught a good number of otherwise honest folks, who because of thier visit to this website and others, engaged in countermeasures in a futile attempt to "help" themselves.  The results were generally disasterous for them and the hiring panel did not look kindly on their attempts to manipulate their test results.  One of the panel members once told me that he equates the attempted use of polgraph countermeasures by an applicant to "cheating" on the police applicant exam...

Polycop...

Polycop,

You wrote in part:

Quote:


Absent an admission on the subject's part, how can you tell if a subject has employed countermeasures of the kind described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?

Polycop,

I have a solution for your countermeasure problem.  Eliminate its need.  If you and your colleagues were all to publicly decry the use of polygraph screening results as a sole determining basis for stopping an applicant examination (i.e., no applicant process would be terminated unless polygraph results were confirmed through investigative results), agencies were to see the light and protect examinees from false positive polygraph results, then your countermeasure problem (for this group of examinees in this application) would disappear overnight.  Until then, truthful applicants can not possibly listen to those who produce the false positives with the latter telling the former "Trust me, simply tell the truth, and everything will work out fine."