pailryder wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 11:42am:

I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.

In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth.  If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them.  I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will.  I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth.  It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.

I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.   

I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening.  All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.

I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing.  But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.

If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen.  And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies.  Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.

rice80 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 12:53am:




Classic antipolygraph thread. An examiner attempts some thoughtful discourse---a little food for thought. Than an anti guy writes that he agrees in part, but continues to wash his hands of the fact that this site advocates cheating on tests that it feels are unwarranted and invalid. Then the poster goes on to ask some repeated and previously addressed questions---several questions mind you. Then rice80 comes along and says "I agree." Agree with what....Serge's questions? How do you agree with questions rice? My theory is that you weren't really paying attention and that you were merely clapping your hands out of deferrance----only I must inquire Why? Why would a person post such a rediculous thread----you have already told your oddly suspicious war story (study statement analysis---and yes, it works on the internet boards too Serge.) Have you been instructed to do so in an effort to bury pro-polygraph discourse? Pardon my inquirey, but you Rice80, seem quite disengenuious.

O I amost forgot, Paradiddle since your so smarter then everyone, show me in Sarge's above comment where there is a question??      All I see is statements. Now who is "disengenuious"? 

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 4:29am:


MM,

Doesn't monitor vital signs you say? So what are ,blood pressure, breathing rate, and sweat activity? You might want to educate yourself before you answer becuase I was a medic before becoming a cop. You also say its not a machine? then what would you call it? Please enlighten me? O wait I know A 'crude reaction recorder". You sir should go back to bed and also seems your polygraph knowledge isn't very good either!

Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 4:29am:


For someone who is blind and apparently quite stupid, you type rather well.