Batman wrote on Feb 2
nd, 2003 at 11:07pm:
. . . is very capable of lieing . . .
. . . like lieing isn't . . .
Batman,
First off, learn to spell. It's
lying, not
lieing. For a man who does this evey time he gives a polygraph, you should know how to spell it. Your posts immediately lose credibility with me when I see your errors.
And what is it with you polygraphers not being able to determine gender? You're "supposed" to be able to detect when some one is telling the truth or
lying, but you can't even tell if they can pee standing up! Your buddy The_Breeze called me a "gal" once, so I put that little gender symbol next to my screen name, just like Seeker has. Those symbols may be confusing for a man of your intellect, but really, come on. They're color coded, for Pete's sake!!!
As to the issue of secretagent's polygraph . . .
I happen to see well delivered points on all sides of this discussion. As always, the pre-employment polygraph screening went well beyond its advertised parameters of spies, drugs, and false application information. I understand that agencies choose to use the polygraph in lieu of (that means instead of, Batman) a more detailed background check.
Apparently, this agency had some disqualification parameters that were met by the admission of secretagent. This agency got what it was looking for by using the polygraph, but it could have also gotten the same information through similiar methods -- bamboo, dripping water, car batteries w/ jumper cables, etc.
Subjecting unknowing applicnts to such methods of interrogation is unfair. They should be treated with more respect. But as a very famous polygrapher told me, "the polygraph will work better and better the less and less the subject knows about the methods of the test."
My major contention is the admission made by secretagent. If said admission is minor, but happens to meet DQ parameters, was it necessarily information withheld an an application?
Batman you said:
Quote:You most likely were given the opportunity to bring up your past "situation", but you chose not to. You gambled and lost.
I disagree with this. Applications are very broad in asking questions, and even the pre-polygraph interview doesn't ask enough questions to elicit all information. There may be a DQ parameter that is met for an admission that is made in which the question is never asked during the polygraph and the pre-test interview.
I'm stabbing, but let's say that secretagent was involved in a crime of passion, a situation that could easily get out of control. I have yet to see a standard law enforcement application that asks questions of that sort, or heard of anyone getting asked these questions in a pre-test interview for a standard law enforcement position (there have been cases of the CIA using the poly to "enter the bedroom"). If an admission was made about an inappropriate relationship, could that have sparked a DQ parameter yet not been withheld on an application or during the pre-test interview?
The torture of the polygraph on the unknowing is truly intense, yet pro-polygraph types make light of the issue and continue to lay blame on the individual as if they were a criminal.
I would have preferred bamboo in my test, because the questions asked would be direct, like "are you a spy?", and under great pain I would scream "No!" They would ask the question enough times unti lI passed out, and then believe me.
Instead I was treated to the polygraph torture, where the my answer to the question of "are you a spy?" was'nt determined by what I said in response, but how I responed to the question asked 3 earlier, and the assumption that my answer to that question was a lie, even though I was telling the tuth . . . .
Just give me the damn bamboo.
Chris