Two Block,

Thanks for the complimentary remarks.  To answer your question, I would assert that any examiner who worked for a legitimate, reputable organization would apply similar standards for suitability. 

Regards. 

Anonymous and Beech Trees, 

You obviously read over my post quickly.  I said the caregiver (that would be a psychologist, psychiatrist, or physician) would be consulted.  I did not say anything about making such a diagnosis myself.  If I were to suspect a psychological or physiological disorder not disclosed by the examinee (perhpas not diagnosed), which might cause a problem, I would discontinue examination until a healthcare professional could be consulted.   

In the case of emotional distress: regardless how ignorant you'd like to believe I am, I am fully capable of recognizing obvious outward signs of emotional distress which might be counter-productive to valid polygraph results.  If the examinee chooses to conceal some sort of emotional issue, despite my asking about such in pre-test, there's is little I can do (and that would not change if I had an MD or PhD).  This could also be appied to any other possibly problematic disorder (Phys. or Psych).

My citing of the acquaintance exam, was not as a diagnostic exam, but merely an opportunity to see if distortions due to physiological conditions, might limit my ability to analyze the polygraph charts.   

Beech,  I put "the challenge" in quotes because I was referring to the so-called  counter-measure challenge time clock.  It is quite the annoying, over beaten, dead horse; and I'd hate to see another start here.  I am neither alarmed , nor significantly challenged by your rantings here.  You are the one who has expressed concern about safety on these boards.  I have no fear of a battle of wits with such a meagerly armed person as yourself.   

Perhaps, over-reaching was not the appropriate word.  SPIN better describes your methods.   You put your spin on everything I write here, and it is no less dishonest than actual mis-quoting.  Don't worry Beech, I have no plans to file suit.

Yes, let the gentle reader (and not so gentle readers as well) read the actual thread (if they have not already done so).  They will see that I was not engaging in the "blame the examinee" excuse.  You pulled out a small exerpt, wherein I addressed the examinee as one of three major variables involved in a polygraph examination.  A fair minded individual will see right through your tactics, regardless of their beliefs on the issues.   

To answer your last question, Beech, these are my personal opinions, represented here.  Of course, they are based, to a degree, on my training and regulatory guidance of my employer.  However, if you want official positions of DoDPI, APA, etc, I suggest you go to their official sources.  I represent neither.  I post here as a private citizen, not part of a government agency nor interest group.

Good Day.

Public Servant,

You slay me!!  LOL.  What is your educational background.  What credentials do you have that make you even the least bit capable to determine a subjects psycological, emotional, and/or physical condition so as to determine whether someone is fit to take your polygraph without worry that their current mental, emotional, and/or physical state may alter the "results".  I took a preemployment polygraph and never once was I asked or tested for my physical, emotional, and/or mental state.  All that mattered to the polygrapher was that I had an arm with a pulse.

You would have to take approximately 15 to 20 years post secondary education to be able to make those claims.  Far short of the 400 hours you probably took to gain your "ticket" in polgraphy.  Don't go blowing sunshine up our A$$e$ by implying you are deeply concerned with the emotional, physical, and/or mental state of your test subjects.   

Judging from your posts I can only assume that your reputable establishment requires the examinee to take and pass a physical and phycological evaluation both tailored to determining a candidates suitability for taking the poly?

OK, perhaps what I left out is what I thought was obvious -- During the pre-test the examinee is asked about health issues, and specific disorders of concern would be mentioned.  If the examinee indicated he had a disorder which might be of concern, coordination would be made with the appropriate health care professional to determine if the person is fit for examination.   

In no way do I seek to diagnose disorders.  If someone chooses not to disclose a problematic disorder, there is little I can do.  Of course, if the person displays obvious signs of some possibly disqualifying disorder, I would seek the assistance of an appropriate professional and/or discontinue the exam.   

No where did I say I would, or could, diagnose a physical or psychological disorder.  I must be dealing with media professionals here.  The SPIN is quite professional and deviously deceptive.

Guest from Canada, if you were not asked of your health, then your exam was not conducted properly.

Anonymous, again I would only use the acquaintaince test to see what type of effect on tracings a disclosed disorder might have.  It would not be used to diagnose a person's condition.


Beech, before you go back to Fox or CNN, you might want to clean up your potty mouth.  And seek therapy and a physical exam.  It does not take all that post graduate training Canada spoke of, to see you have issues and your Blood Pressure must be at a dangerous level.  Get well soon!!

Public Servant (and other polygraphers),

I have noted that your community is generally fairly quick to respond to posts that place you in a poor light and perspective.  Public Servant, in contrast, I notice that you have responded to other posts in the last 24 hrs, but apparently don't know what to do with my recent post confronting you with the obvious fraud we are now encouraged to refer to as an acquaintance test.  I will repost it again to see if repetition will lead you to overcome your embarrassment...


Quote:

I do have to add that I was given a blind stim test, where I was told to write down a number between 1 and 10, stick it in my pocket, and not tell him what the number was.  Then he tested me (I responded no to each number), and correctly identified the number I chose.

It is possible that he somehow saw the number, because he briefly left the room.  He could observe me through the one way mirror or the camera, but that would seem a little risky to rely on that.

Of course, I always believed he would be able to tell if I lied.  I knew I would react.  The problem was, and is, that they cannot identify the truth.  So I was completely unimpressed.

George,

In my case, I didn't write it on carbon paper.

George,

It was the second polygraph exam I had in 1995.  The first was a general screening test, and this one, about two weeks later, was a follow up.   

Has anyone ever heard of the polygraph machines or the software having some sort of override that can be used during these so called stim tests like the one Public Servant describes?  The polygrapher knows what number the examinee picks, hits a button or key when the examinee is asked about the number in question?  Public Servant shows a relatively flat graph with a pronounced spike underwhich is "magically" written the number the examinee chose.  Sounds relatively easy to me and much more convincing than the card trick to the uninformed.  Maybe the polygrapher prints off a generic chart with one pronounced spike and writes and asks the numbers so the spike conveniently coincides with the number the examinee picked?  Sounds logical.