Guest,

Your contribution to this discussion is welcome. You might consider registering on the message board so that your posts will not be confused with those of others. (Registration will also enable you to edit your posts and to exchange private messages with other registered users.)

I would very much like to believe that an examinee's admission to knowing about "the lie behind the lie detector" would never be used against an applicant for employment, but the feedback we have received from those who have adopted the "complete honesty" approach is not encouraging. Neither is the polygraph community's failure to articulate how polygraphers should handle informed sources.

The NSA's polygraph regulation and associated documentation, which we obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, makes no mention of how NSA polygraphers are to handle informed subjects. If you are in a position to know, perhaps you could tell us how NSA polygaphers handle those subjects who admit to knowing that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific sham?

Quote:


Credibility? 

Guest,

The National Academy of Sciences did not find the polygraph community's claimed ability to detect countermeasures to be credible. Why should we?

Quote:


It would appear Antipolygraph.org is more than willing to back up its faith in countermeasures. I understand you're new to this site so you might not have noticed it yet, but Dr. Richardson has setup a challenge (on the main page) to the polygraph community that hopes to prove that countermeasures are not detectable. Furthermore, I believe it's fair to say that the burden of proof now rests on the polygraph community to present evidence that countermeasures are detectable, and not ap.org to prove that they aren't, since this site has provided research to support its claim (i.e. studies by Dr Honts) and is willing to demonstrate the veracity of that claim through Dr. Richardson's challenge. 

Members of the polygraph community, on the other hand, have provided absolutely no evidence to support their claims other than "just take our word for it."

I'm sure everything will work out.  I will be sure to let you know how I do on the test.  If they know I posted here well good for them.  I'm a reliable American and only took this job to help my Country.  If things don't go well I will just find a different job which doesn't have as much benefit for my Country.

Thanks for the information, you did scare me a bit about the polygraph but now I just don't care.  I am just going to go in and give them the answers to the questions they ask.  If they ask me how much I know about polygraphs I will let them know i've been to a few websites about polygraph tests but never really got in to reading in detail about them.  If they ask which websites I will tell them i've been to all the websites which came up on google.com.  If they have a problem with me searching the web then the job wasn't right for me in the first place.  Also if the person thats going to do me reads this well i'd like to say hey, ill see you soon..

I have stopped reading information about polygraphs except for this thread and some of the for-polygraph websites.

Reminds of that cartoon where people are exiting an x-rated movie, and a man is embarrassed to be seen by someone he knows, so he says:

"I don't watch these things myself; I'm looking at who else is here watching this stuff."

Quote:


This quote is especially odd.

He has something to hide, else he would not be here.  After all they call it a "lie " detector, not truth detector.

In any case, if he passes, he's using some knowledge gained here.

Jonnlaw