Human Subject,

This thread questioned the intelligence of polygraph examiners.  Let's take a quick look at Marston's resume.

- Three (3) degrees from Harvard University
- Wrote an article entitled "Emotions of Normal People" which subsequently led to the development of the Personality Profile used today to catergorize individuals into four personality types.
- Created one of the most popular comic characters of all time.

No one is staking the reputation of polygraph on anyone.  I love how you tried to spin that.  However, Marston was a highly intelligent man who believed in polygraph from it's infancy.  Regardless of your feelings about polygraph, can you dispute these statements?  Would you care to compare your resume to that of Marston's?   

Ray,

Your comment that "For every "testimonial" on this site and Williams' site, I have ten verified examples of the effective use of the polygraph" is pretty frightening as a defense of the polygraph. Even if this is true, and even if your personal experiences were representative of polygraph outcomes in general, is a 10:1 ratio really good enough when ruling on such critical issues? Is that margin of error acceptable when accusing people of heinous crimes, destroying careers, and making decisions that affect national security? I don't think so. Do you?

Ray:

You wrote:

No one is staking the reputation of polygraph on anyone.  I love how you tried to spin that.  However, Marston was a highly intelligent man who believed in polygraph from it's infancy.  Regardless of your feelings about polygraph, can you dispute these statements?  Would you care to compare your resume to that of Marston's? 

It's is the contraction for it is.  Its (without the apostrophe) is the possessive for it.

You had 2 spelling errors in the subject post.  Is this a comment on a typical polygrapher's intelligence?

Be careful on criticizing the spelling of other posters on any message board, for you open yourself up for others to find your errors. 

Skeptic,

What questions do you have for me?  Go ahead, ask away (within reason) and I'll do my best to answer them.   

Meangino,

I'm very disappointed with my improper use of "it's."  That is one of my biggest grammer error pet peeves...  I'll slow down and be more careful next time.

Quote:


You're absolutely correct here.  Damn, now I'm triple checking everything I write!   

Phil,

Quote:


Are you serious?  Body language can be a clear indicator of deception...there is no question about that.

Careful, Ray, about the body language being a good deception indicator, or there may soon be the AntiNeuroLinguistics.org to teach child molestors and <insert description for person who lies to pass polygraph> yet another way to remain free to do as they please.  And George, you sell yourself short.  You have to your credit, teaching numerous sexual predators the required skills to allow them to reoffend and violate their probation while still passing polygraphs!  You and Gino deserve a pat on the back.  And your reply to Saidme was harsh.  How 'bout some kind of update as to the progress of your site?  Public awareness?  You must have some empirical data on how many have beaten the polygraph using your technique, right?  That's progress.  "Drug Addict beats polygraph thanks to Antipolygraph.org - but promises he will be a good police officer because he only lied to get the job - now that he has the job, he will never lie again."  That would make a good poster slogan for your site!  And speaking of the site, since the campaign is going so well, and soon the evil polygraph will be defeated, to what crusade will you devote your entire life?  I guess you will just cross that bridge when you get to it, or if you get to it.

Now that is about what I expected.  "hiring all those criminal cops"  Without the polygraph, how many more criminal cops would there be?  Too funny.  You bash the system for allowing bad people to become cops, and you bash the system that prevents bad people from becoming cops the best it can.  Tell me, WHAT would satisfy you?  I do not get upset that G and G expose my secrets, I get upset that they are teaching criminals to beat the system, the only system we have in place to protect us from monsters.  From what I see, we need MORE pre-employment testing.  How about some statistics on employee theft?  workplace violence? It would appear that just asking them and then blindly accepting their answer is not working out.  How about this scenario:  20 employees being subjected to a polygraph for the actions of one thief?  I know, you will claim that no one should be polygraphed.  But I win, they will be interrogated and polygraphed as necessary, so assume that there are 19 innocent people that are "accused" of theft when a pre-employment poly might have prevented the thief from getting a job in the first place?  Just something to think about.  Now take out the "thief" and put "killer" armed with a semi-auto pistol shooting fellow employees?

And somewhere on this site it was suggested that examiners are out to fail everybody.  That they are only looking out for their jobs and wanting to get money for testing.  You are assuming that we judge prior to testing.  To fix the "reject everyone and keep testing to make more money" theory, we could counter with commissions for passing people.  The more that pass, the more you make.  That would solve the problem, huh?  My position remains:  If you want to bash polygraph, by all means do so, but if you continue to teach criminals to beat the system just to prove that polygraph is inaccurate, that is just plain wrong.  I don't care how many people claim that they just use CM's to "enhance" their truths, thousands of people pass without them.  More it seems that CM's are employed by people who need to beat the system.  And I can already hear the proclaimations of innocence, which will no doubt be along the lines of:  "I did not lie on my test, I just used CM's to insure that I did not get a false positive"  Which, of course, NO ONE can prove!

Atleast he admits that the CM's work!