palerider wrote on Feb 21
st, 2007 at 9:34pm:
As far as Dr Richardson's challenge, I'm a little amazed at just how people believe such a challenge holds meaning. It is like me stating on a website (this site is fantastic by the way) that I will challenge any drug screener/urine tester to a public challenge. I will defy any tester to determine whether I'm using drugs or not, and once more whether I'm using an antidote (countermeasure.) Even if I was able to slip a tsp of bleach in the sample, and the tester didn't smell the bleach, does that mean that such drug tests are no good and that we should subsequently illiminate them due to the mere possibility of contamination? I think not. We should keep striving to make better tests. I rant about polygraph shortcomings with my peers constantly. When you critisize DODPI for changing their scoring criteria, aren't you actually critisizing the betterment of the field of polygraphy. Your deep seated hatred for polygraph,demonstrated by your "war" reveals that if the "Messiah" came (back?) and proclaimed love for polygraph, you would convert. That's ok.
I do grow tired from sex offenders attempting your countermeasures. It is too time consuming, and for pete's sake, I am tired of your posters saying that we give "green lights" to Offender's who pass there maintenance tests. If a test is 89-93% accurate, who the hell wants to place the safety of their children within the scope of that risk. If the weatherman predicts 7%-11% chance for rain, ya grab your umbrella just in case. A passed test for a child molester means that we freeze the parole/probation status in code orange--and keep heavy monitoring. Using polygraph for sex offender containment is a win win situation, regardless of your views on accuracy. If I thought that you would take your "post conviction" section off of your site, and take a few other simple steps, I would personally fly to Europe (I go several times a year) to meet with you, and provide you with a number of cases of clinical potency, a fanciful dinner, whatever. Our children need your help sir. I have child killers on my caseload who should'nt be taking advice from TLBTLT, and should instead be compliant.
palerider,
Any and all things that make a sex offenders life tough is OK in my book, to include putting them back behind bars. No 2nd chances for these dirtbags.
That being said, My beef remains with the polygraph being used in the employment arena. You touch upon drug testing, its quite the stretch to link drug testing (chemistry + pharmacology), known sciences, to polygraph testing, (A pseudo-science). I can with all certainty redo any drug test with known evaluation factors and produce the same result, time and again. How does your polygraph stand up to true double blind empirical testing, it doesn't. This is because human opinion and judgement drive the results, not proven scientific rigor. Hence why Dr. Richardsons challenge will never be answered by any polygrapher, you can not prove your statements with any known scientific procedure. And as a side note, you should review the (2) 60 Minutes Exposes on this website. The original is still the best, as this story more than proves what a load polygraph testing really is. This expose really is a double blind empirical test.
And as for me, your interrogation prop may work on the naive and unread, but it can't scare or intimidate those that are truly well prepared and practiced. The end result is always inconclusive, and that is without countermeasures. You can't make an evaluation of PNC if you can't prove it. I win on all accounts.
You mention in another thread the fMRI, their are scientists, I know, already looking at ways to warp or counter this piece of garbage. You ask why would they do this, because like me, its the challenge with messing around with authority or so called authorities. I dislike anything that portrays itself as a validation of someones veracity or background. As do quite a few of my counterparts. Real background investigations, (thorough ones), should be the basis of any hiring decisions. But this is expensive, and the polygraph is cheap. And in this society, cheaper costs always win, over doing what is right. Keep your work in the criminal realm and you will not get any grief from me. But do know that Its not the box you beat, its the polygrapher. And you never know who you have in the chair.
Regards ....