Quote:


Well then. You should have absolutely no trouble beating, er, uh, passing the test. 

By the way where did you gain your expertise in polygraph? From "the book?"

Quote:


Easy killer (WW touched a nerve or somp'in). There just might be some sex offenders reading this site, and you wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings now would you. Sex offenders are people too. They simply have some "issues," or something. Maybe they just don't talk about there true feelings enough. So, you go right ahead and vent. We're all listening. Right everyone? (right??) 

George is providing an equal opportunity service here, because sex offenders deserve to beat/pass polygraphs too. 

And if you do get hired, don't go pissing in the pool and making a bad impression for public servants -  like ya'll have some kind of calloused attitude towards the troubled folks.

Oh, Dougie's book.

That'll make you an expert for sure.

Ludovico wrote on Sep 29^th, 2007 at 8:13pm:

If sex offenders, or anyone else for that matter, are able to beat/pass a polygraph simply because they have access to the Internet, how valid a test can the polygraph possibly be?

Information on polygraph procedures and countermeasures predates the existance of this site.  If you believe that the information on this site enables sex offendes to beat/pass polygraph exams, it logically follows that sex offenders have always been able to beat/pass polygraph exams.  Before this site existed they simply obtained their information somewhere else.

It would seem that, if you believe countermeasure information enables people to beat/pass the polygraph, then polygraph examiners cannot possibly have any accurate figures for how many people have used countermeasures on them in the past in order to beat/pass their polygraph.  By definition, successful countermeasure use would remain undetected.

The only difference this site has made in this regard is now polygraph examiners worry that more people will be able to successfully use countermeasures.  Since they have no idea of how many people were able to do it before, the thought of more people doing it now has them understandably upset.

Ludovico wrote on Sep 29^th, 2007 at 11:29pm:

I guess you guys really do believe you can detect thoughts...

What is my negative purpose for coming to this web site?  I am not aware of any, so if you would be so kind as to let me know, I'd appreciate it.

I passed my pre-employment polygraph more than ten years ago and haven't taken one since.  I doubt very much I would ever have to take another polygraph for the rest of my life.

I have absolutely nothing to gain if the use of the polygraph is curtailed.  And I have nothing to lose, either.

I am here because I believe the polygraph is inaccurate in pre-employment screening and is damaging because of that.  It stands to reason that if it is inaccurate in that arena it is inaccurate in others as well...

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 29^th, 2007 at 11:54pm:

I was calm and answered all the questions honestly in all four of my polygraphs.  Yet I failed the first three.

Maybe I would have passed one of my first three if I'd used countermeasures.  I could not have done any worse than I wound up doing...

I have yet to hear a compelling argument against using countermeasures.  I still believe it is important to tell the truth, but if an applicant answers all questions honestly and uses countermeasures to protect against a false positive, is he or she doing anything unethical?  I don't think so.

Simply telling the truth is, at best, a shot in the dark with regard to passing your polygraph.  If I answer all the questions honestly and then do long division in my head, or bite my tongue, or do whatever after each answer, are my odds of passing going to go up, go down, or stay the same?

Ludovico wrote on Sep 30^th, 2007 at 12:41am:

I'll ask this again, since no one seems to have a valid answer for it...

If you are using a test to monitor the behavior of sex offenders and to prevent "undesirables" from getting hired, and that test can be beaten, defeated, or confounded by someone with access to the Internet, how valid can that test possibly be?

I had three different polygraph examiners tell me they knew I was lying when I knew I was telling the truth.  How can any reasonable person go through that experience and not be open to the possibility that sex offenders can rape a child on Monday and pass their polygraph exam on Tuesday?  Or that a police applicant with a history of carjacking, sexual assault, and ecstasy use can lie about all of that on their pre-employment polygraph and pass anyway?

In my personal experience the polygraph is not accurate.  I don't think it should be used for anything of importance.  As an interrogation intimidator it is certainly useful, but only if the subject believes it is capable of detecting deception.   

If you are an examiner and you believe the test can be beaten by someone after surfing the web for a weekend, how exactly are you supporting community safety?  Shouldn't you stop conducting pointless tests and bring it to someone's attention that the polygraph is not a valid form of monitoring sex offenders and screening applicants because it can be defeated by anyone with a computer and a modem?

Quote:


You wear a bullet-proof vest Serge? Why bother; they are easily defeated, by more powerful weapons, and by not aiming for the vest.

If you are really going to have an intellectual conversation, it would help to have a less black-and-white understanding of the concept of validity. It would also help to refrain from drawing global conclusions from personal or annecdotal experience. That just ain't science, boss.

By your logic, one could argue that the use of bullet proof vests is invalid, as a measure of police safety and protection - else why would cops still get killed by gunfire in the line of duty. (I apologize for this example. I do not mean to trivialize people who are harmed while doing good work - I simply couldn't find a more powerful metaphor at the moment.)