I agree with you anal.  funny name too!  I have worked for "the agency" for many years now.  I have taken quite  a few polygraph tests and passed them all and I never used any of the dumb countermeasure stuff on this forum  I probly shouldnt even read the stuff here because it could be detremental (spelling?) to me, huh?
Thanks for being a voic of reason here too.  Oh and how did you get that cool picture next to your name, I want one.

Thanks again anal. You are my new hero! My advice to the forum is to just be your self and you should pass the polygraph. I am a pretty honest person and I havent had problems with it. I hate taking the polygraph even tho I havent had a really bad experience with it I do not like being asked all those questions. I guess like you say it is a necesary evil. Thanks for telling me how to get a good picture also.

Our polygraphers are nice people too if not just a little strange. So anal where do you work if you dont mind me asking. I kinda told you so maybe you can kinda tell me too. My name is not from the grinch, but that comment made me laugh. Luanne is a special name to me and Im kinda loopy I guess. 

ok anal I will accept that. I just love your wit and humor!!!  Are you single by any chance?  oops, guess that answers if I'm a female. I dont think anybodys gonna accept that challenge though. who wants to admit they really lied on the polgraph? what if big brother is watching? I for one would just like to tell people that if they want to pass the polygraph dont mess with it and you should do fine.  those guys really know what they are doing and they will see right through you. bye bye now.

The same reasons that polygraphs are not used in court are the same as the reasons why polygraphs should not be used against anyone applying for a job. 

THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE ANY WHERE NEAR 100%

Meaning for those who are hard headed, they do not work.

PG, you can't just lay that out there and not expect to be hammered, buddy.

So, here is a reply I just sent to one of your most distinguished (or should I say extinguished) senior members, Gino Scalabrini.  Thank heavens for cut and paste:

OK, Gino.  Although this will probably just lead to both of us citing studies and articles that none of the worriers on this forum will actually read, I'll humor you . . . at least once.  We'll look like two people arguing over the true meaning of an obscure Biblical passage.     
 
In 1983, the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress selected 10 field studies they believed had scientific merit.  The overall accuracy of the polygraph decisions was 90% on criterion-guilty suspects and 80%  on criterion-innocent suspects (Lykken, D.T. (1997) The detection of deception.  Psychological Bulletin , 86, 47-53). 
 
Pretty darned good, huh, Gino?  It gets better, so read on: 
 
In 1997, the Committee of Concerned Social Scientists found four significant field studies that showed the average accuracy of field decisions for the CQT (comparison question test) was 90.5%.  It is signficant, though, that nearly all of the errors made by the CQT were false positive errors.  (Still, when you're dealing with accuracy over 90%, don't place too much emphasis on those FP's--besides, it just gets better after this, Gino.)  In the four studies, the data was derived from independent evaluations of the physiological data (the raw charts).   Because it is usually the original examiners who testify in court, and because they obviously make the decisions on how to proceed in their exams, the Committee went further in an effort to ascertain their accuracy compared to that of the independent examiners.  The Committee also included an additional two studies in this evaluation.  What they found was that the original examiners were even more accurate than the independent examiners.  In fact, the mean acccuracy for the innocent was 98%, while the mean accuracy for the guilty was 97%.  The studies used by the Committee are as follows: 
 
Horvath, F.S. (1977)  The effect of selected variables on interpretation of polygraph records. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 127-136. 
 
Honts, C.R. and Raskin, D.C. (1988) A field study of the validity of the directed lie control question. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 56-61. 
 
Kleinmuntz, B. and Szucko, J. (1984) A field study of the fallibility of polygraphic lie detection.  Nature, 308, 449-450. 
 
Raskin, D.C., Kircher, J.C., Honts, C.R. and Horowitz, S.W.(1988)  A Study of the Validity of Polygraph Examinations in Criminal Investigation, Grant No. 85-IJ-CX-0040.  Salt Lake City: Department of Psychology, University of Utah. 
 
Patrick, C.J. and Iacano, W.G. (1991) Validity of the control question polygraph test: The problem of sampling bias.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 229-238. 
 
Honts, C.R. (1996) Criterion development and validity of the control question test in field application.  The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309-324. 
 
So much for your crystal ball/tarot card/flip of the coin analogies, huh, Gino? 
 
(By the way, those two sunglassed smilies in the dates of one Honts and one Raskin reference should be 1988--your forum has a problem with the number one thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight--it shows the last eight as a smiley--weird!) 
 
 
Go ahead and come back with some more referenced studies that the worried boys and girls on this forum won't ever read.  This is more for you and me, Gino, just so you and I both know that I know what I'm talking about.  The difference between you and me, though, is that all you can do is counter with your own citations, while I have real-world experience and have rubbed elbows with the Top Guns of the polygraph world.  Take your best shot, Gino.  I probably won't waste so much time to counter your inane, memorized rhetoric again, so rest easy, baby! 
 
Oh, where, oh where has my little George gone, oh where, oh where can he be?  He'll be back, of course. This ridiculous forum is his whole life.  He's not much good for anything but entertainment, though.

Now, back to my "challenge."  That's right, I thought so--nothing but the sound of crickets in the grass.  Ha ha ha ha ha!!! I slay me!

Posts by "Anal Sphincter" and "LoopyLuWho" in this message thread originated from the same IP address.