nonombre wrote on Jun 12
th, 2007 at 2:30am:
Quote:A few questions for the lurking p/g examiners:
1. Why can't the examinee have an independent person watching over the examiners shoulder?
A. I have run countless polygraph examinations with the subject's defense attorney staring at me through a two-way mirror. I can't think of a more significant guardian to have watching a polygraph exam. Can you?
1904: Staring at you from a distance aint the same thing and dont you just know it. Watching over
the shoulder would keep gung-ho p/g examiners in line.
[/quote]
2. Why wont p/g examiners provide the examinee with copies of his/her charts immediately following the examination?
A. Why does'nt your doctor provide you with your own personal autographed copy of your colonscopy pictures? If you should need a copy of those very attractive snap shots, (for a second opinion), your doctor can make them available. I have provided polygraph charts many times.
[/quote]
1904: You didnt answer the question, because you dont want to divulge the real reason. examiners
dont want to run the risk of being second-guessed or even shown up as a-holes.
[/quote]
3 Why not place the videocam directly behind the examiner, so that the examiners movements as well as those of examinee can be later observed?
A. That depends on the set-up of the room. In my polygraph room, the camera picks up my profile during the exam (I've been told I look like George Clooney from that side)
[/quote]
1904: Again, you didnt answer the question. Refer my response to Ans 2 above.
[/quote]
4. Why is it necessary to use the old card trick or stim test ? what is the real purpose thereof?
A. I have never used a "card trick." I run ACQT tests for several reasons. One reason is to see if the examinee cooperates and follows directions.
[/quote]
1904: You must be one of the very few that doesn't start with the old BS right from the outset.
[/quote]
5 How come most of the complaints on this site relate p/g examiners telling the examinee immediately after the exam that he has failed..? No QC procedures in place.?? Using software scoring..?? Weren't you guys taught to score your charts manually?
A. That was more than one question, but here goes: I have the advantage of working in an office with several examiners, so I always have someone available to Q.C. my work before my diagnosis is final. (built in 2nd opinion) and NO, I never use computerized scoring algorithms.
[/quote]
1904: You're fairly unique then. No BS stim test; no reliance on scoring software.....mmmmmm??
[/quote]
6 What is the APA's latest position on utilising scoring software?
A. Good question. I'll have to ask.
[/quote]
1904: None have been validated. Yet most examiners (except nonombre) rely on BS software scoring.
[/quote]
Now I have a question for you:
Why are you on the internet advising people to abuse prescribed drugs? How would you feel if some poor kid overdosed based on your asinine advice? AND don't even try to suggest that someone can't overdose on those medications. I once responded to a college dorm where a freshman died from a Motrin overdose....
[/quote]
1904: Very emotional outburst...! I didnt encourage anyone to ABUSE. I did say that a limited one-off
dosage will help. Once-off use of any of those meds can hardly be termed abuse. One would have
to imbibe a months worth to OD. Seeing as how non of those meds gets you "high" - It is difficult
to imagine why one would want to overdose. But I guess if one wanted to, one could swallow 100
Tylenols and hope to see dragons in the kitchen . And if that doesn't do it, swallow a gallon of
kerosene and stick a lit match up the rear end - maybe get to see the northern lights. Maybe not.
[/quote]