LARRY, LARRY, LARRY:  It seems every time somebody shows up with a point you can not dispute you respond with something like "And these people are in a position to effect people's careers?  Scary! "  SCARY !!!  seems to be an internal operating word with you. So let me tell you something scaredy cat !  Guys like me have been to the middle east many times and were men enough to leave scary behind in our youth.  Once again Larry, somebody got the job, and you can't say that they were less qualified than YOU !  Your being Sold the job by the human resources types and being given a tenative offer is NOT the same as a bona fide offer.   

  You continue, as if on sesame street, to repeat the mantras you here on this site.  No Scientific Basis ?  That's just stupid to say !  Like the wheel the aspect of Psychological Set does NOT have to reproven each time. You were in a room with no artificial stimuli, so why did you react to the questions posed to you, as they were not surprises to you.  They were reviewed in advance and you made a commitment with a yes or no.  When we peel away the smoke screen you rejects put up, it becomes clear that you don't want any test in place, and want to be hired on face value.  The gray area for you is very wide.  However, the field of intelligence, its professionals and methods, are to reduce gray areas and produce a timely informational product for our national leaders / decision makers.  You were not the best fit for that job overall, and don't blame JUST the polygraph.  This is the third or fourth time I have had to tell you this now.  Didn't you take the MMPI written psyche test as well ?  It has ONLY an associated basis for comparison doesn't it ?  It casts you into a group which passed, or didn't pass, or showed you as not worth putting more time into.  You and I / We just don't know the WHOLE Truth about your full background.  Somebody got the job, the mission is being met, and you are free to apply elsewhere, and I think they told you that you could also re-apply for the same agency again right ?  Do so, and leave the CM's at home, as GM has been the tune up man for this profession, and in reality did it more good than he will ever know or want to take credit for.

Chris,

My opinion only:

The purpose of this site is the elimination and removal of polygraph from the face of the earth.  The manner is by presenting enough information in such a way that the gullible person of normal intellect will blindly believe what they read and attemt to "beat" the examiner during their upcoming test; thereby, making the process obsolete.

The purpose of this board is to provide, under the guise of information and sharing,  a "pity me" environment allowing the few who claim to have been false positives to come and whine about their experience and "get it off their chest."  Problem is, some have bigger chests than others and it takes longer for them to get back to normal and move on with their lives....

Do false positves occur?  Yes.  
Do false negatives occur?  Yes.  
Do true positives occur?  Yes.  
Do true negatives occur?  Yes.  

Everyone on this board seems to agree to that premise.  The extent to which each occur, is the only thing really being debated here...and that, despite a chapter and verse quote involving the partially reported opinion of the NAS.

Sackett

TheNoLieGuy4U,

Maybe if you backed up an argument with facts, rather than rant, make assinine assumptions, and ignore facts you'd be taken seriously here.   

You don't even know that a "conditional offer" of employment is an OFFER of employment.  IOW, the agency in question want's to hire the person.

You still haven't shown us an example of anyone on this board claiming they are "entitled" to a job.   


Quote:


Really, got anything to document that with?

Right, it's the scientists who are wrong.  They are purposely trying to smear the polygraph industry!  Yeah, that's it.  They were out to get you from the start.  STUPID SCIENTISTS!!

I notice you don't mention anything in the report that you question.   Just more ranting and raving.

Right.  Better to get info from people who make a living off the test.  After all, they're the unbiased EXPERTS!

Hey, let's start a NEW THREAD.

This one has gotten old.

And our young "Mountie" candidate seems to be long gone.

T.M. Cullen wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 4:50am:


Wen,   

most scientific testing have those results as a possibility.  Once again, you're missing the point and only reporting half the information.  I also said it is the frequency in which those findings occur, which is the discourse on this board.

If your gunna report the facts, at least report them all and let the readers make up their own minds...

Sackett

P.S.  I agree!  Let's move on to another issue.

nopolycop

I believe Sackett is correct in his opinion that the anti posters want more than an extension of EPPA into the governmental workplace.  In all my reading on this board I have never read an anti post that  acknowledges even a single legimitate use of the PDD techniques.

Sackett,

Suppose you perform a polygraph examination on an individual, and the person shows markedly stronger reactions to the relevant questions than to the control questions. How do you know that the reason that the person has reacted more strongly to the relevant questions is that the person has answered them untruthfully?

Quote:


How many "false positives" were there last year at CIA?
How many "liars" took and passed the test?

Quote:


DODGE!!

Quote:


Never said it wasn't.  I said "lying when answering a question" is only one possiblity.  Here are others:

Anger (This dumbass polygrapher keeps telling me I'm lying but I'm telling the truth).

Fear (I'm not gonna get the job if I can't get this guy to believe I'm telling the truth!)

Also, (internal dialog) "there's that question again, the one he say's I'm reacting to, but telling the truth.  He keeps changing it so it won't bother me, but I know it's just another permutation of the original question.  Damn!  This is bugging me!...etc."

Of course, the ANS is largely controlled by the "unconscious", not the conscious mind.  The unconscious is the seat of a person's memories and fantasies.  So there is a whole myriad of reasons for a ANS reaction, other than deception, that is.

Quote:


Numerical evaluations?  What numerical evaluations?  In statistics, probability theory is applied to QUANTIFIABLE data.   

How do you know if you pass somebody who was lying, or fail somebody who was truthful?

Quote:

 
Well, how do you KNOW there is an "extreme probability" I am lying.