Policehopeful.....due to your obsession with your upcoming test---which albeit is a stressful event.....your absolute fixation makes me think you are not so "hopeful."

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2007 at 8:53pm:

I'm not sure I understand.

You seem to be saying that you are trained to catch people who attempt countermeasures.  That seems to imply that you can catch people who attempt countermeasures, but I could be mistaken.

You also seem to be chiding Eos for helping people learn countermeasures.

If the countermeasures are either noneffective and/or easily detected, what is the concern?

Wonder_Woman wrote on Sep 27^th, 2007 at 8:53pm:


And just how do know what 'great percentage' of professionals are addicted to porn, deviant sexual behaviours and bestiality ??
Where did you get your info from?? Does your p/g have a 'Clairvoyant' mode ?

Personally, I think that 98,36% of your statistics are made up on the spur of the moment,
together with your p/g calls.

I notice you didn't cite a source for your "codified phylosophy" on countermeasures.  Your cite might have greater credibility if you did.

Since you appear to like the term "clear and present danger," the following quote from the National Academy of Sciences could easily be interpreted as describing a "clear and present danger" to national security objects. The quote was from page 219 of the following report: The Polygraph and Lie Detection. 

Quote:
 


Regarding your "codified phylosophy" of countermeasures, can you elaborate on what "ideal circumstances" might be?

If you are using a test to monitor the behavior of sex offenders, and under "ideal circumstances" that test can be successfully rendered pointless by someone using countermeasures, isn't the continued use of that test the actual "clear and present danger" to the community?

As already mentioned, George did not invent the information on this site.  All of it was freely available to anyone who chose to look for it.

You can't un-ring the bell and make knowledge of the polygraph go away.  And no reasonable person should be looking to blame someone for that knowledge being available.  If you are relying on a test that requires a subject's ignorance in order to have any chance of success I submit you are using a flawed test to begin with.

The reliance of governmental agencies on the pseudoscience of the polygraph, which as you have already admitted can be defeated by countermeasures, is the truly negligent act here.

Information on countermeaures has been available probably since the first polygraph was used.  The only difference is now it is more widely available than before.

Prior to this widespread dissemination of countermeasure techniques, I would imagine that examiners hoped their subjects did know know anything about the testing procedure and how to obviate it.  They couldn't tell for sure then any more than they can now, but they could reassure themselves that such knowledge was relatively rare.  Now, they cannot.

So, please, if you are able...  Explain the threat that the use of countermeasures presents.  And, if you are able, explain why the fact that information on countermeasures exists is more to blame than the simple fact that you are relying on a test that can be successfully obviated (by your own admission) by someone with Internet access.

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 28^th, 2007 at 3:30pm:

I don’t recall ever posting that mere knowledge of the construct of the test itself is detrimental to its accuracy, so I am uncertain as to why you chose to pose that question to me.  However, I did not look through my past several hundred posts, so I may very well have written it.

However, as I sure you are already aware, any theoretical or actual requirement that “many” polygraph examiners take the test is completely irrelevant.  What would be relevant are the results of those tests compared to the actual truth or deception on the part of the subjects, and whether the subjects’ knowledge of the construct of the tests did or did not affect their accuracy.  The number of examiners who do or do not take the test means nothing in and of itself.  I am sure you can see that.


Paradiddle wrote on Sep 28^th, 2007 at 3:30pm:

And now you question my veracity?  That is hardly polite.  None of the posts I have directed toward you have contained anything resembling ad hominem attacks or remarks.

Police applicants are hardly in the position or possessing of the mindset to question the qualifications of someone whose endorsement they must receive in order to be hired.  And if you read my preceding posts, you will note that I failed three polygraphs with three different examiners.  Your post indicates you believe I failed three times with the same examiner.

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 28^th, 2007 at 4:21pm:

I believe my tenacious adherence to my belief that the polygraph is worse than worthless in pre-employment screening is based on exactly the same thing that your adherence to its worth is based – our own experience.

Clearly in your experience the polygraph has high accuracy rates, a low or nonexistent false positive rate, and is therefore worthwhile as a detector of deception.

In my experience I have been subjected to four polygraph exams by three different examiners (I had the same examiner on my third and fourth exams) in three different agencies/companies.  I answered the same sets of questions with the same truthful responses in all four tests.

On my first three tests the examiners looked me right in the eye and told me it was clear I was lying (each time the deception was apparently regarding a different subject.)  On my fourth test the examiner must have concluded I was truthful because they said I passed.

I do not see how any reasonable individual could go through that experience and not conclude that the polygraph is worthless in pre-employment screening.

I gave the same sets of truthful answers to the same sets of questions four times in a row.  Three times the examiner concluded I was being deceptive, one time the examiner concluded I was not.  How could anyone have that happen to them and not become concerned that the same machine is used to screen applicants for jobs that impact national security?  That the same machine and process are used to monitor the activities of sex offenders?  How could I help but wonder how many other outstanding police applicants were summarily struck from hiring lists because of nothing more than a “failed” polygraph?

In my opinion, I have an advantage over you and all the other polygraph examiners.  You take educated guesses, based on your training and experience, as to the accuracy of the polygraph.  If the test indicates deception and your training and experience lead you to believe the subject is in fact deceptive, your belief in the accuracy of the polygraph is confirmed.  But the fact is, and I hope you would be willing to admit this, lacking evidence or a confession you never really know if the subject was deceptive.

Therein lies my advantage, though that advantage is a Pyrrhic victory at best.  Each time I failed, I didn’t have to guess if I had been deceptive or not; I knew I had been telling the truth.  I know the polygraph is not accurate in pre-employment screening; polygraph examiners believe it is.

EOS wrote;

Quote:


We are the world, we are the children...we are the ones to make a ....Jesus H Christ Eos, are you a pastor? I don't share your puritanical views on mankind, as I have spent too much time working with sexually violent predators, my specialty. I only wish you could read minds, as it might give you more insight into the "dirty dozen" of criminal thinking errors. Perhaps a large number of your "clients" are such innocent victims to be tested with the diabolical FOF Box, but based on your faithful portrait of your fellow man, I doubt that you are steely-eyed enough to recognize a con-artist when you see one up close and needy. 


"The honor system works when others are watching"---unknown poet


also:


"Virtue is insufficient temptation"

wonder_woman, first of all I know exactly how polygraphs work and I fully understand everything on the book. And secondly I am NOT a crappity smackING sex offender. That is a word that is labeled on people all to liberally today. The real sex offenders are the rapists, people who get their rocks off of looking at child pornography, and child molestors. Those are the real sick and twisted people. I have moved past the events of my youth. I will not concern myself with those past event for the rest of my life. I am a good person. I have never been intoxicated(if you have it does not make you a bad person), I have never tried illegal drugs, I have never shoplifted, I have never downloaded illegal music, I have never recieved a traffic violation, and I served my country.