Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Police pre-employment polys mostly IRrelevant & Relevant?.. (Read 23857 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Police pre-employment polys mostly IRrelevant & Relevant?..
Reply #60 - Oct 4th, 2007 at 1:40pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pailryder wrote on Oct 4th, 2007 at 11:42am:
Sarge 1107

My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test.  I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart.   After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know.  If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson?  Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:

A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again.     Alexander Pope (1711)    
 

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.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box rice80
User
**
Offline



Posts: 34
Joined: Oct 3rd, 2007
Re: Police pre-employment polys mostly IRrelevant & Relevant?..
Reply #61 - Oct 5th, 2007 at 12:53am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 4th, 2007 at 1:40pm:
pailryder wrote on Oct 4th, 2007 at 11:42am:
Sarge 1107

My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test.  I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart.   After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know.  If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson?  Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:

A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again.     Alexander Pope (1711)    
 

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.




Sergeant1107,

I agree. All of my tests were pre-employment as well. Each one with different outcomes.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Police pre-employment polys mostly IRrelevant & Relevant?..
Reply #62 - Oct 5th, 2007 at 2:45am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
rice80 wrote on Oct 5th, 2007 at 12:53am:
Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 4th, 2007 at 1:40pm:
pailryder wrote on Oct 4th, 2007 at 11:42am:
Sarge 1107

My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test.  I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart.   After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know.  If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson?  Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:

A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again.     Alexander Pope (1711)    
 

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.




Sergeant1107,

I agree. All of my tests were pre-employment as well. Each one with different outcomes.




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.
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box rice80
User
**
Offline



Posts: 34
Joined: Oct 3rd, 2007
Re: Police pre-employment polys mostly IRrelevant & Relevant?..
Reply #63 - Oct 5th, 2007 at 4:15am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle wrote on Oct 5th, 2007 at 2:45am:
rice80 wrote on Oct 5th, 2007 at 12:53am:
Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 4th, 2007 at 1:40pm:
pailryder wrote on Oct 4th, 2007 at 11:42am:
Sarge 1107

My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test.  I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart.   After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know.  If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson?  Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:

A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again.     Alexander Pope (1711)    
 

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.




Sergeant1107,

I agree. All of my tests were pre-employment as well. Each one with different outcomes.




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.



Well it seems you, Paradiddle, aren't that smart either. My comment was for Sarge. At no time did it say "Hey Paradiddle, please feel free to interject with your non-sense comments and self suspect theories!"

I wonder why a person like you who "swears" by the polygraph would be on a "anti" polygraph site trying to defend its vaildity. Maybe it's because you feel the need to sway the newcomers into thinking that it really and truely does detects lies. Well guess what? I'm one up on ya, I know better  Wink You don't know me or my educational background. All you see is "Oh shit another one who is against the polygraph. I better attack him cuz our numbers are few and I need to make a statement!" Well, you need not make a statement to me or even try for that matter. I know what this "so-called" machine is all about and it really doesn't detect shit. It only monitors and records the body's vital signs. I have seen first hand how "valid" it is. It's good for interrogations and making the guilty criminal think he has been caught in a lie. That's it. As for anything else, its just a bunch of squigly lines on chart paper.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box rice80
User
**
Offline



Posts: 34
Joined: Oct 3rd, 2007
Re: Police pre-employment polys mostly IRrelevant & Relevant?..
Reply #64 - Oct 5th, 2007 at 4:27am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
O I amost forgot, Paradiddle since your so smarter then everyone, show me in Sarge's above comment where there is a question??    Huh  All I see is statements. Now who is "disengenuious"?  Undecided
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Mysterymeat
User
**
Offline



Posts: 42
Joined: Sep 26th, 2007
Re: Police pre-employment polys mostly IRrelevant & Relevant?..
Reply #65 - Oct 5th, 2007 at 4:29am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
rice80

I don't know about your educational background either but it sure as hell does not include any education in polygraph! First of all, the polygraph is not a machine and it does not "monitor vital signs".

Based on your last post, I think your knowledge about polygraph rates right up there with Brittany Spear's parenting skills! Have another shot and go back to bed! Why are you here tonight? Was the NAMBL web site down?

MM
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box rice80
User
**
Offline



Posts: 34
Joined: Oct 3rd, 2007
Re: Police pre-employment polys mostly IRrelevant & Relevant?..
Reply #66 - Oct 5th, 2007 at 4:46am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 5th, 2007 at 4:29am:
rice80

I don't know about your educational background either but it sure as hell does not include any education in polygraph! First of all, the polygraph is not a machine and it does not "monitor vital signs".

Based on your last post, I think your knowledge about polygraph rates right up there with Brittany Spear's parenting skills! Have another shot and go back to bed! Why are you here tonight? Was the NAMBL web site down?

MM


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!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Police pre-employment polys mostly IRrelevant & Relevant?..
Reply #67 - Oct 5th, 2007 at 11:58am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Polygraph is an instrument---an instrument measures and a "machine" moves/works things. You wouldn"t (or maybe you would) call a thermometer a temperature machine.  Go back to school rice80.
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box 1904
Ex Member


Re: Police pre-employment polys mostly IRrelevant & Relevant?..
Reply #68 - Oct 8th, 2007 at 11:09am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Mysterymeat wrote on Oct 5th, 2007 at 4:29am:
First of all, the polygraph does not "monitor vital signs".

MM


For someone who is blind and apparently quite stupid, you type rather well.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box rice80
User
**
Offline



Posts: 34
Joined: Oct 3rd, 2007
Re: Police pre-employment polys mostly IRrelevant & Relevant?..
Reply #69 - Oct 9th, 2007 at 4:41am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Paradiddle wrote on Oct 5th, 2007 at 11:58am:
Polygraph is an instrument---an instrument measures and a "machine" moves/works things. You wouldn"t (or maybe you would) call a thermometer a temperature machine.  Go back to school rice80.



ok instument/machine whatever.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Police pre-employment polys mostly IRrelevant & Relevant?..

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X