Quote:


Nothing about breathing a certain way, making your palms sweat on purpose , or causing you blood pressure to raise is inherently immoral or indicative of the amount of integreity a person has.

If you are lying to the question, you lack integrity. If you are telling the truth, you do not. You are not "cheating" or "beating" a test if you modify your reactions to produce a chart that will be indicative to the examiner of the ground truth. Now if you get "caught", that's your problem, but it isnt immoral anymore than getting busted by your kids for being Santa Claus is immoral. 

What IS immoral is representing to an job applicant/exmainee false impressions about the nature of a test in order to collect a set of charts that you think is an arbiter of truth when the examinee's mental state has been manipulated by you to begin with.

Now, Joe, the FBI can't hire people who might lie on the stand as it will ruin their credibility. Joe, have you ever lied to a person of authority?

You F%#^#-ing frauds.

I wish I could maintain the dispassionate logical reasoning that George manages, but I can't.

LieBabyCryBaby,

Feed their fears, I highly doubt it. Once someone comes here, and understands the process of polygraphy they relax and the fear and anxiety is greatly reduced. At worst you get inconclusive, after inconclusive. Which really does look quite bad for you doesn't it. And rubbing elbows with engineers and scientists seems like a much more productive thing to do, than screw people during any hiring process. People are not criminals nor should they be subject to such treatment.   

Now if your the great god of polygraphs, then take Drew Richardsons challenge,  prove your schlock machine really can detect countermeasures. But again I think you would rather hide behind your machine, and continue to dupe people. But thats fine, everytime you give a polygraph, you increase the numbers of those that will eventually help eliminate it.  I reiterate once the fear and anxiety is gone, and the vail of secrets removed from your process. You and your machine are impotent. Your greatest fear is an informed public.

Regards ....

EosJupiter wrote on Sep 15^th, 2006 at 8:35pm:


EosJ,

I'm afraid I've shaken you too much.  You can't even write complete sentences.

If the advice on this site actually did produce "inconclusive after inconclusive," that would be quite revealing indeed.  What it would say is that a guilty examinee did just enough to pull himself or herself from the depths of failure to the gray area of inconclusive.  If the information actually worked for innocent examinees, why would they end up inconclusive, going in the opposite direction TOWARD failure rather than away from it into higher positive numbers?

As for Drew's challenge, it is an empty challenge.  It could only be done in a lab setting or, worse, in a public setting where outside factors would likely contaminate and skew the results.  Lab studies can not duplicate real-world conditions.  And where would we find REAL criminals willing to put their lives on the line simply to satisfy a bunch of disgruntled polygraph failures?  Drew, George, and their minions make this challenge, but most of them know it isn't practical or even possible to implement an event that would prove anything one way or another. So, no serious polygrapher is going to bother responding to it.

I repeat, EosJ, where are all the criminals who have used the advice on this site to pass the polygraph?  And where are all the applicants who have used this same advice to pass the polygraph while lying their asses off to relevant questions?  All we hear on this site are a few people saying they used the information and it helped them pass, but can they prove they passed because of the information rather than simply because they were innocent to begin with?  I think not.  

EosJupiter wrote on Sep 15^th, 2006 at 9:25pm:


Don't worry, EosJ.  I don't intend, nor can I hope, to get the last word in here.  I am not an "Especially Senior User," so I don't post here that often.  Today has been quite an exception for me.  However, sometimes I simply can't resist replying when the response I get is so inane.

No, I don't openly admit anything of the sort.  You and other misinformed pretenders just don't get it--the lab does NOT equate to the real world.  You can do all sorts of things in an attempt to create a laboratory simulation, but it just doesn't have the impact on the examinee that the real life threat of failing the polygraph does.  For example, you can tell the examinee, "Ok, if you can fool the examiner I'll give you 50 dollars," or you can say to the examinees in your experiment, "Here's 50 dollars each, but if you don't fool the examiner you have to give it back."  Either of these manipulations would be an attempt to make the exam and the reward or consequences more significant to the examinee, but would any rational scientist believe that these manipulations would match the real-life threat of facing a lengthy prison sentence, public humiliation, etc.?

Many of the studies used to support the polygraph are, in fact, field studies rather than lab studies.  They use post-polygraph confessions to confirm what the charts already showed.  This is great because they are using real-world polygraph results rather than lab results.  But the argument could always come from the anti-polygraph side that these real-life criminals both believed in the legitimacy of the polygraph AND failed to use countermeasures.

Either way you look at it--lab manipulations or outcome verification--there are going to be people on both sides who believe what they want to believe and refute the results.

So, we are back to the question I keep asking you, which I know you can't really answer: Where are the criminals and applicants who used the information on this site to beat the polygraph while lying to the relevant questions?  All we see here are people who used the information they got here and then attribute their passing to the use of that information without any evidence that they wouldn't have passed the polygraph anyhow.

I agree that No Opinion or Inconclusive is better than failing.  Of course it is.  But there's no way you can reasonably say that an innocent examinee can push himself or herself DOWN to inconclusive because the countermeasures worked.  And where are the actual guilty people who pushed themselves UP from failing into the gray inconclusive area by lying to crime questions?

Your arguments are pretty weak, EosJ.  But I wouldn't expect more from someone who has no actual experience, but who is simply a parrot who repeats what other parrots are saying.

"Regards."  

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Sep 15^th, 2006 at 10:59pm:


See the Iowa court case in Willis v. Smith, et al (2004) which involved access to countermeasure literature by a civilly committed sex offender. This offender was required to undertake polygraph examinations as part of his treatment and he had ordered George's book on countermeasures. He sued the institution that housed him because staff denied him access to the book. The judge allowed the book to be given to the offender but ordered all discussion of countermeasures to be redacted. This case demonstrates that there is documented evidence that offenders are becoming aware of countermeasures and their effectiveness.

Another clear issue demonstrated by the testimony of a staff member in Willis v. Smith, et al (2004: 8) who admitted that "it is more important for patients to believe the polygraph is valid then for the test actually to be valid." From this testimony, the judge concluded that "the polygraphs act similarly to a placebo for some patients, in that if the patient is worried about being caught in a deception, the patient may admit things before the test is administered" (Willis v. Smith, et al 2004: 8). 

Do you think this is the only guy who's trying to get information on countermeasures?

Face it, the polygraph's utility is solely attributable to the bogus pipeline effect (Jones and Sigall, 1971) where its utility is reduced to nil once a subject is aware of the bogus nature of the instrument.

LieBabyCryBaby,

If I am so closed minded and your oh so strong a debater, then post your studies for all to see. Show us the validity of your data. There are enough people of science and logic on this website to evaluate fairly what you have. I include myself in that list, and  I will not jaundice anything I believe in the data , and I will fairly evaluate it on face value. You polygraphers always quote your studies, but why is it they are never out for public scrutiny by the scientific community at large ?? So its up to you now .... see how weak that is 

Regards

It always seems odd to me that polygraph examiners can decry the questionable ethics of anyone who posts countermeasure information for all to see, and soon afterward claim that countermeasures don't work and even if they did they are easy to detect.

If the sum total of advice on this website consisted of something ridiculous such as, "Wear a blue shirt - polygraphs don't work on blue" or something similar I doubt that any examiners would bother to take the time to post rebuttals.  I also doubt that anyone would be accusing George of unethical behavior for posting his "blue shirt" countermeasure advice for all to see.

If the countermeasures on this site don't work, why do pro-polygraph people care if they are available?

Polygraphy babble continues.

If you people research this site, which I am sure most have because of you posts, you know the numbers of applicants who have professed their innocents and still failed the poly. You don't know doddly shit about any of them yet you automatically brand them liars. It doen't matter to you that some maintained TS credentials and worked in Military Intel. You still brand them liars. 

If a truthful person is going to be branded a liar by the polygrapher anyway, then why not use countermeasures and inhance the chances of passing. Your punitive minds are going interpret the chart squiggles to suit you. You probably can't determine what the squiggles are so, the first thought is COUNTERMEASURES. Since you are the judge, jury and hangman, you send them an they way without a chance to enter their chosen field. You should be damned well ashamed that you use you ill-gotten power to solely deny imployment. Especially those who served well in the military. Something a lot of you didn't have the GUTS to do. It makes my blood boil and for that reason I must stop.