T.M. Cullen wrote on Mar 1^st, 2008 at 7:04pm:


I'll address both previous questions in one post.  

There is a difference between ANS reaction and CNS thought.  Why would someone react with ANS activity to any queston if no immediate threat existed?  I'm not talking about CNS threats associated with elongated thoughts of; "what if I'm falsely accused of lying, or I won't get the job", etc... That contributes to general (Central) nervous tension, not ANS reactivity.  

ANS is immediate and self-preservatory in nature, NOT,"OMG, now what will I do for money" (thought) or "now they're gunna think I did it, I'm going to jail, I can't make money for my kids, what will my mother do or think", etc, thoughts...

Remember, everything in the testing phase is discussed, ad nauseum prior to the actual examination.  And, there are NO surprise questions during the test!  Therefore, the simple introduction of the relevant issue, after having reviewed everything prior to the test should not be a threat to anyone if they have no recollection or memory of the issue.  

Further, you both are ignoring the major differences between CNS thoughts and ANS reaction; though some here would love to to make the correlation for convenience of explanations sake.  

That's the lay-version for the readers.  If that fails to address your questions, then I am sorry, I can't make it more simplistic.

"Polyf":  If, after an examination they refuse to provide explanatory information and they "steadfastly maintain their (so-called) truthfulness", then guess what?  They don't get the job!  

On the other hand, and as in many cases with me, after falling victim to false information, trying to hide that which they feel is not important or embarrassing, victimized by dis-information provided by friends or boards like this, they oftentimes do clean up their testing.  Then, after being totally honest, they pass the examination.

Sackett

George,

I think I addressed that in a different and previous posting; however, "notguilty1" I believe, hijacked the discussion and muddied the waters.

Sackett

I didn't expect this conversation to go on for so long! It seems like every one agrees that polygraphs can give inconclusive results... the degree to which this happens is what is being debated on these forms. That debate however, is over in the scientific world, it has been finished for quite some time and the polygraph lost. Again I encourage individuals to spend an hour at the library. 

There are a few other things that have come to my attention that may be interesting.

1. My polygraph interviewer was not an RCMP member. He a "guest ID tag" just like me. In retrospect I wish they had the respect to provide me with an RCMP member who (perhaps) would have been better at his job.

2. The RCMP only implemented the polygraph into the selection process two years ago. Since then they have not been able to meet their recruitment goal. They have so many polygraphs to conduct they need to hire outside help. 

3. It is illegeal in my province for police to use polygraph tests on applicants. The RCMP can because they are a federal police.

4. I was incredibly upset and confused when my interviewer told me I was being dishonest when I wsa telling the truth. In the following weeks I became even more angry as I researched the polygraph at the library and discovered that it was a total sham. They had lied to me! It took them two months to contact me after my test. During that time I had written them a letter explaining my concerns. When they called me they told me they never got my letter... I was again upset and basically said I cant work for someone who brands innocent people criminals. In retrospect I should have given them a chance to explain why they were calling. Were they calling to invite me for a re-test? To inform me they were starting the background check? To cut me from the process? I received a letter stating just that two weeks after the phone call, so I doubt it was for that. My point it this: if you are going to brand people criminals (when you know the polygraph gives inconclusive results) you should not wait two months to contact them! Tell them right away that they have a chance for a re-test or that sometimes they make mistakes and a background check will be conducted. 

5. Lastly I do not believe I was "out-competed" for a position. I scored 3.9 on the written test, a minimum of 3.2 is required. I ran the obstacle course in 3:59, under 4:45 is required. I passed the interview (dont know my score) do not have a criminal record, have lived overseas and have a University degree. With a police force that is not meeting its recruitment goal I'm not sure how I would be "out-competed"!!!

In closing I would like to thank the operators for providing this site. The truth does hurt: polygraphs do not work.    

 

       T.M.,

  You wrote:  Well, as you can see from their pattern of posting, the polygrapher regulars here would just respond by saying you simply don't know what you are talking about.  So just get over it and get on with your life.

Karma will finally catch up with them.  It always does.

  In regard to the Karma thing, it seems only those pretending to be polygraph examiners like John Grogan have faced such Karma as evidenced on the Tom Leykis show otherwise posted on this site.  The other examiners seem to be doing fine, have a solid and challenging job, satisfying career, and working well on behalf of their agency Federal or State, or local law enforcement.   

  Thus far all of the Karma I have seen dolled out has been on those who chose to rationalize their answers and not take the process serioiusly.  We already agree that the Examiners do in fact want to meet their agency's hiring goals, and must defend to their seniors what they are seeing in their charts for a judgement call.  So they where does the responsibility rest ?  I think on the subject much of the time unless you could show a deviation in the examiner's process.  You must by process of elimination, blame either the examiner's direct actions (their treating you differently), or on a recording device which records exactly what it says it does.  Your assertion as a novice that it doen't work is completely insufficient when compared to the amount of dollars spent by researchers more informed than you in these things.   
   
   At the end of the day, when all is said and done, the pragmatic use of the computer polygraph is the gold standard.  When you can show that some other device works better, then they will buy that.  The burden is NOT on them to make you Happy !!!  Their burden is find the best qualified within the pool for the tax payer's dollars.   

  Isn't it true that somebody could apply in one time period and be the MOST competative, and at another time be LESS competative overall.  The unemployment rate dictates that !!!  High unemployment equates to a large number of good and well qualified people out there chasing a few jobs.  Low unemployment equates to much fewer such applicants chasing jobs, so employers have to choose from who is actually available.  Simple Math !!! 

Speaking of karma, doesn't the results speak for themselves...?

Sackett

P.S.  On a more serious note, stop whining about the polygraph, it is here to stay.  On the flip-side, give us something better, then we'll talk.

Quote:


No Mr. Patrick Coffey, but you certainly seem to be.  Making unsubstantiated accusations under an alias.  What courage.

Well, you've been exposed!   

I hope your industry is proud of you.

TC

Quote:


I am sure you are.  And I am sure he is.   

CHECK IT OUT DUDE !!!  GROGAN GOT HIS KARMA AS YOU PREDICTED !!!!  HE IS IN A FAR DIFFERENT LEAGUE THAN THE OTHER PRO-POLY POSTERS HERE. 

GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE DOCUMENTED TRUTH ABOUT JOHN L. GROGAN & THE TROJAN HORSE ORGANIZATION    PEOA. 

         http://www.truthaboutgrogan.org/index.htm

FIRST EXPOSE ON JOHN L. GROGAN / POLYGRAPH PARASITE 

        http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/issue138.htm#1

SECOND EXPOSE ON JOHN L. GROGAN / PSEUDO-POLYGRAPH EXAMINER

         http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/issue142.htm#1


GROGAN WAS EXPOSED ON THE (33 Minute & 28 Second Mark) TOM LEYKIS SHOW 


                            http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/956464.mp3


                            http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/956500.mp3


YouTube.com VIDEOS OF GROGAN DOING PSEUDO-TESTS

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1otdXn-WGYM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4sPeD5FizTY

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3lPefCNKGbE

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tqoJIoPtfwg