Truth,

I can only come to the conclusion that you simply read the site's title and left your message without actully reading any of the content of this web-site.  I challenge you to direct me to any portion of this site where it is stated that a polygraph examinee should lie and cheat.  The opposite has been stated many times over by posters of this forum, including myself.  If it is the counter-measure information you are speaking of, again many times over it has been stated that counter-measures are to aid the truthful examinee in producing a chart which is interpretted by the examiner as truthful.

Another conclusion I can draw from your poorly researched post is that you have never been on the undersirable end of a false positive result.

As is known by many of the poster's on this site, I have endured two polygraph examinations of the pre-employment variety.  One returned DI and the other NDI.  The same exact question which was DI on one was NDI on the other.  To answer the question you may be thinking:  No I did not attempt or consider using CMs for either test.  I did it their (polygraph examiners) way and had a 50/50 outcome.

Also, I didn't lie either time.

Truth:

You hit the nail on the head. Some people in here will try to SPIN it like they are not teaching people to be dishonest but no matter how they SPIN it you are correct.  This board is full of hypocrisy.

I've passed some polygraphs and failed one.  The funny thing is that I answered the same questions (truthfully) on all of them.

If you can flip through any of my posts and find where I've advised anyone to lie, please let me know.  I'll take corrective action immediately.

You don't have to lie to pass a ploy, er poly (darn typos).  That's our argument in a nutshell.  Polymen want you to believe that their box works?  Okay, fine.  If they say it can detect lies, then what difference does it make if I try to prove the binomial theorem by using Pascal's Triangle during control questions?  Obviously, if you believe the polyman, the machine factors this in, and thus it does not matter.  Right?

Of course not.  Argument thread:

Blowing the whistle on something inherently dishonest is an act of virtue, not vice.  That's what George is doing here.  I would suspect that he would not have a problem with a device or process that could divine the truth 100% of the time.  I wouldn't, as long as it was used in an ethical manner.

The end, no matter how just, never justifies the means.  That's Stalinism.  It is worse to perpetuate a lie and finger an innocent person thereby, even whilst catching ten guilty, than to let the ten guilty go (paraphrasing from Thomas Jefferson there- see, I quote my sources) 

A government that will knowingly lie and use lies and artifices, even in the quest of effecting a "nobler purpose", is a government of lies and deceit, not of laws and ethics.  A lie to a deceitful government or government organ, or agent of said government, is at worst greatly tempered in its wrongness.  At best, it is noble.

Thus, while I still advocate taking the higher ground and not lying, I have no problem with bending the truth short of a lie if faced with a poly...

Have you ever driven drunk?  No, never been caught, so legally, that's the truth, if I need to go that route... or if I have...

No, because I was not actually drunk; I blew .09, was arrested, convicted, and fined, but was still fully in control of my faculties.  I was legally DWI, but factually still perfectly sober and capable of driving.

For the record, I have driven while I was >.08, I think, but have no DWI convictions.  So I suppose I can just read into what the polyman is implying (just as he tries to read me) either way and go with whichever.

So what is the truth?

Given what this government does and is capable of, I don't have much compunction about walking right up to the line without crossing it...

nonombre wrote on Aug 5^th, 2006 at 4:13pm:


Nonsense! You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You're not conducting double-blind experiments when you conduct polygraph examinations and you are in no position to make such a judgment as you do here.

Quote:


More nonsense. The FBI and other federal agencies use a question about driving under the influence of alcohol as a probable-lie control question! They simplistically assume that everyone who has a driver license and consumes alcoholic beverages has driven while under the influence, or at least has considerable doubt about it. Thus, showing a strong reaction to a question about DUI actually benefits the examinee.

nonombre wrote on Aug 5^th, 2006 at 9:35pm:


Of course you don't.

Quote:


You can indeed tell me that, but you and your department remain anonymous, and your assertion thus remains unverifiable. Personally, I find it hard to believe. An applicant's drunk driving record is easily verified by non-polygraphic means. From the perspective of an agency that relies on polygraph screening, it's stupid to "waste" a relevant question on drunk driving.

Quote:


This might be true if polygraphy were a valid method of lie detection, but it isn't.

Quote:


Examples please.

Quote:


I certainly don't claim to have  a monopoly on knowledge. If you think I've written anything that is in error, please explain.

Quote:


Well, sure, you can tell us that.  You can tell us that the sky is green on a clear day and that the moon is made of limburger.  But we're not obliged to believe you.  By the way, what agency do you work for?

Quote:


I want examples, too.  I was one of the ones identifying questions as this type or that.  I have never misidentified an IQ as an RQ or CQ, I know an RQ when I see one, and I state my CQ knowledge as best I can.  I don't think I have missed one.  If so, for the sake of a clearer debate, nonombre, you should be happy (you don't have anything to hide, do you?  Is there anything you would like to clear up?  There must be...  ) to enlighten me.  Also, to all who read this, if you have to ask yourself if it's a CQ or RQ, treat it as an RQ.  Please.  Don't spike an RQ.

Quote:


Sounds like something Gelb would say.  Or perhaps someone in the APA hierarchy.  An ancient way of deflecting the veracity of an argument is to cease honest debate and assail the messenger.  It's called an ad hominem attack.  Presidential candidates, Marc Antony, and polygraphers seem to use this device frequently.  Sorry, I don't accept the maneuver as legitimate debate.  Again, perhaps you can give us some examples?
 
Quote:


I don't think George's facts are in doubt.  I believe him.  I associate myself with his remarks.  It's not dime-store, nonombre.  And he may know more than what he thinks.

I'll tell you this, too: I have taken polys, and I have used CM's, and I have assured my passing through their usage.  I should have passed anyhow, and probably would have, but I slam-dunked passage by using them, copiously and unapologetically.  Now, if your machine can divine my truthfulness, and at such high rates, those last two sentences should mean nothing to you.

Do they matter at all to you, nonombre?  Are you bemused, concerned, angry, or apathetic to what I just said?

Quote:


Yes.  So if a DWI makes a difference, do a background check.  Do the legwork.  Do the research.  Don't rely on a needle, cursor, and BFB track.  Why in God's name would you -ever- trust a subjective practice over objective reality?  Alice In Wonderland comes to mind.

Quote:


More ad hominem tactics.  Sorry, had to identify it; it's embarrassing how obvious it is.  And I have yet to hear a reason as to why your department would ask an RQ about something you could call up the local PD and find out (or go to NCIC).
 
Quote:


I find it impossible to believe, myself.  This whole argument I would be laughing at if it were not so serious.  Nonombre, we, I myself, am laying all my points out.  I hold nothing back (truth).

Now, in a polygraphic setting, you want us to tell you everything, bare our souls to you.  It's not too much for this board to ask you to do the same.  Why not come clean, tell me, us, everything about you and the magic box?

Whom, I ask again, do you work for?
What questions did this site, perhaps I myself, misidentify?
What material advice did this site, or I myself, get wrong?

Come on, big fella, clear everything up that you're holding back, share it with us, and by the way we -know- you're holding stuff back    We're here to help you, here to go to bat for you, to work with you, not against you.  We want you to understand our points.  We need you to agree with us.    Sound familiar?  Sounds and smells like canned sardines gone out of date to me, but...

The difference between my saying that half-comically (I do believe you are misrepresenting yourself, such as your inner beliefs on how well the poly works, and I think you're discussing this in bad faith by not addressing the arguments presented to you) and you saying it "seriously" is that this site is here for honest discussion and full disclosure.  Knowledge is power, and the truth will set all of us free.  So why not dissect every part of the magic box?  Of what are you -really- afraid?  Lost paychecks?

Quote:


You don't need to, nonombre.  I think George and the rest of us have them committed to memory by now.

Quote:


I have posted my opinions, too, nonombre, and I know that the world can see them.  I consider this issue very important, as I have to deal with the poly when I feel I should not (nor should anyone).  My statements are from my heart, and I stand by all of them as much as if I were the admin here.  Thus, what you say to George, you're saying to me, for he and I seem to agree for the most part.

So I will ask again: what should I double check?  Where have I been wrong?  I don't believe you or your box, big guy; I live in facts and empirical evidence, not statements of "j'accuse!"  I've been wrong?  Then give me chapter and verse and let's rap about it.  What questions?  What statements?  You've made the counterpoint, so it's your job to back it up.  Will you do so?
 
Quote:


How has he, Eos, how have I done so?  Again, I want examples.  When I assert to you that Christ is my Saviour, and that I can be redeemed through Him, I will tell you my sources... John 3:16 and Romans 10:9, in the New Testament.  If you want to debate Scripture's reliability or accuracy, using factual argument, that's legitimate.  Stating that I am a kook for being Christian and leaving it there is personal and of no usage probatively.

Did I mention that I debated in high school?  Yep, I did, and you can find that out for yourself (assuming you can find me  8) ) by examining my school records.

Quote:


I myself have looked at both sides, keeping as open a mind as possible.  And I'm just an unsolicited contributor; I haven't made this a personal cause.

Last time, nonombre: what sources do you find fault with, what have I said that is in error?  I take full responsibility for what I say, and I am sure every other serious poster does as well.  What possibilities?  That your machine can finally be shown for what it is?  I don't think getting rid of something that failed to catch Aldrich Ames twice, that is admittedly subjective, and that uses unquantifiable measurements in an attempt to get confessions not by the machine per se but by its secondary or tertiary use (or pretended use) is such a bad idea.

The rest of your statements are ad hominem, as before, and I won't use bandwidth on them...