Drew,

Yes, I suppose I overstated when saying "fear of consequences" drove development of the CQT. I had seen "fear of consequences" used in Kleiner's manual by one of the authors describing the benefits of the CQT over the older R/I test and incorrectly extrapolated.

I am impressed that you coined it. It seems so appropriate to describe the problems inherent in the R/I.

-Marty

Shadow,

I use the term "fear of consequences" to refer to the mechansim for why a probable-lie control question test (CQT) would likely produce false positive results ("not work").  I do this as opposed to/in contrast with the frequently offered (by the polygraph community) "fear of detection" explanation for why that community believes the test (various formats) would "work."  I am not aware of this term having been used in this context (admitedly not a quantum leap in theoretical thinking) prior to my use a couple/few years ago.

confused wrote on Feb 26^th, 2003 at 7:43pm:


Wait a minute.  How can something be sooooo scientific if it can depend on a bad call?  Doctors do not "do" medicine, they are honest enough to admit to "practicing" medicine.  Yet polygraphers claim science is behind their "facts" and clearly you make it obvious that it depends on how a polygrapher calls the shots.

Perhaps you do sleep at night.  Spiffy for you.  That does not change the fact that you could have easily claimed an innocent person is guilty or maybe you let a child molester go out and molest again.  Now I'm thrilled that you can sleep.  If I were in your place I could not claim the same.

Quote:


No, my claim is different.  You guys are dealing with the lives of human beings.  If I submit to YOUR polygraph and I am innocent, what recourse do I have when you call the shots wrong?  If a doc or CPhT gives me the wrong drugs I can sue the hell out of them IF it causes me problems within my life.  With you.... well, you'll sleep well that night knowing you did your best but I am still screwed.

The *only* issue I want to hide from a polygrapher is something that by law I do not have to disclose but because of social stigmas I react to basic questions of amphetamines.  You insist that means I am fibbing and cheating to get a job.  I have news for you... it is STILL none of your business that I take Dex and you can't do a damn thing about it.  I KNOW how to pass a polygraph in spite of people like you.  Deal with it.

Quote:


Yes, I did in the very beginning of the thread.  Perhaps post #3 or later, certainly on page one of this thead.  I spelled it out for you.

Quote:


Because it took 5 pages in this thread, over 100 posts before you made it clear that Batman was wrong for calling me a drug abuser.  YOU defend him per your own admission.  That's why.

Quote:


I'm not in a profession where that is an issue.  In my profession there is one other check and balance before a person can be harmed.  Unlike you.  However, I have gone to bat for something I felt was wrong.  I went to bat against Pfizer, the drug company and I won!  Class action lawsuit and all.  I do fight the battles I believe need fighting.  I am not afraid to put myself on the line, morally or legally for what I believe is right.

My group started out with four of us, we are now 10,000 people big, we are speading to places outside the US, our website was voted in the top 10 of its actual type within the US for the 2nd year in a row and we won our class action lawsuit before ever going to court.  Pfizer did not want a jury trial because we would have eaten them up for dinner.

My point is that I *do* fight for what is right and I fight to the very end.  We beat Pfizer for pities sakes!  How many can claim the same?  How many can claim front page/feature story of the Wall Street Journal?  I can!  I *earned* the ability to say that because I do fight for what is right.  I might even be willing to share this information with you via email since I can determine you will never know who I am.

Actually, George knows my real time name due to a written Rx from a physician.  If anybody would like I'd be happy to send George a link to the WSJ article as it does indeed list my name because I am one of the folks that started this whole thing.

When was the last time you did so, Confused?

Confused...

I wrote:

Michelle wrote on Feb 27^th, 2003 at 8:36am:


I have to take something back here.  Instead of "editing" a post I want to "correct" a post with a new post.

I don't think I can prove to you, specifically, about my involvement in outside activities that I believe are wrong an without morality.  The WSJ article lists my full name.  I am going to be taking a polygraph for a police department.  You have made reference to working for a police department.  The odds that you will be the same polygrapher are almost close to nothing but I am not willing to take the chance.  If you happen to want evidence of my choice to become involved with what I believe to be wrong... I will send my evidence to Skeptic, George, or Marty.  I trust them.  I shouldn't since I don't know them in real time but I am willing to take that much of a chance if you should happen to request it.

confused wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2003 at 12:03am:

Dear Confused,

I was rereading this thread (which has taken a life of its own) and saw this reference in one of your posts.  I believe that I did answer it about five or six post after I saw it the first time, if I did not answer it completely would you please repost your question(s).  You have tried your best to be civil in your postings and I will do my best to be the same in mine.

Regards.

Fair Chance,  sorry I took so long but it has been busy lately.   

I think you had said something earlier about having taken three tests before you passed one.  I believe I asked you if you had lied or manipulated the test to pass.  I was not trying to insult you but it seems that many here feel you have to lie or manipulate the test to pass and I disagree, in fact kow better.  I was hoping you just passed it by being truthfull. 

Thanks for responding.  I have respect for several of the posters here and understand they are frustrated.  Others I have know sympathy for.  I and I believe other examiners get frustrated here, not because of the doubts about Polygraph but because they base their information on so little and then slam all examiners like we were the scourge of the earth.

Michelle, I doubt that you are even reading this thread anymore and don't realy care.  I just wanted you to know that several of your last attacks on me you used quotes that were in response to other people not you.  They know who they are and had no problem with what I was saying or at least were willing to listen.

confused

confused wrote on Mar 7^th, 2003 at 11:58pm:

Dear Confused,

My previous posting stated that I have never manipulated my test and to the best of my ability answered all questions honestly.  I also stated how I was accused of countermeasures during my second test and was completely ignorant of such knowledge of countermeasures.  My second polygraph examiner was completely wrong in his accusations but quite sure that he was "right".  This led me to my personal decision that he had no idea how to detect "countermeasures".

If anyone reads my post from number one to this one, they would see that I had respected my first polygraph examiner because he displayed professional conduct and respect to the examinee.  All arguments aside about the validity of polygraphs, he was professional.  I knew the FBI was going to interrogate me during this process and I expected a little "rough stuff" psychologically.  This was a person who was trying to do a job that the government assigned him with class.  My first polygraph examiner could have videotaped his complete four hour exam and felt pride that he did not display any personal prejudices or bias  conduct independent of the polygraph procedure.  He performed his duty as if someone was watching and I felt that at least I was given a "fair chance" and thus my alias on this site.

My second polygraph examiner was of extreme prejudice and bias before I even got into the office.  He demonstrated arrogance, poor procedure, bias conduct, aggressiveness, and underestimated his "opponent".  The word "opponent" says it all.  He did not treat me like a law abiding citizen who applied for a job but as a convicted criminal who needed to be executed.  I have certain suspicions that he had some motives behind his conduct which reflected so poorly upon the professionalism of the FBI that I would have stopped my application just because I did not want to be associated with such an unjust person or Justice Department who employed such an individual.

As I stated to Marty,  I know the ins and outs of negotiation and government process.  The FBI saw this in my appeal letter and allowed me another test.

The third polygraph examiner was extremely professional like the first.  I knew that he had to glean information from me but he did so professionally.

My conclusion again being that if all of my polygraph experiences were videotaped and shown to a group of people, most would conclude that my second polygraph was completely different from my first and third.

The FBI needs all of the public support that it can get.  I can think of no worse way to destroy this support than to leave such an awful taste in an applicant's mind after a poorly done polygraph procedure.

This website is testimony to the tremendous negative impact of FBI polygraph prescreening.

The FBI has done their background check.  They cannot find a single person in my lifetime who says anything bad about me.  They almost seem frustrated in their questioning of friends, co-workers, and associated that no one would speak a bad word of me.

I have been going through hoops for almost eighteen months now.  I completed my physical with flying colors (and with my current law enforcement status I am well above their initial cut-off age of 37).

I am getting to the point of when they offer me a position after all of this to tell them that I do not think they are worthy of my loyalty and devotion that I have demonstrated to the Constitution of the United States through my whole life.  I have placed my life on the line for over eight years with the military and ten years with the Department of Justice in a law enforcement position and this means nothing to the almighty, arrogant FBI.  What further proof can I give but a lifetime history of loyalty to the Constitution of the United States? 

I am sorry for spouting off like this but my frustration over just wanting to serve my country and being so severely abused in the process is showing.

It has never been about getting a job, IT IS ALL ABOUT HAVING A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AGENCY SHOWING RESPECT TO THE CITIZENS AND APPLICANTS THAT IT IS SUPPOSE TO SERVE!  THE CITIZENS DO NOT EXIST TO SERVE THE FBI, THE FBI EXIST TO SERVE THE CITIZENS!

If I take a job with the FBI, it will only be to make sure that I keep the FBI within the guidelines of the Constitution.  Maybe I will have to once again "do the hard thing", swallow my pride and take a job with an agency that I might not hold in high regard just to make sure that it is true to the spirit of the Constitution.  I have defended this country with my body but I now must use my mind.  I do not serve the FBI as a government employee, I serve the Constitution.

Regards.