Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) On the lighter side (Read 27117 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #45 - Mar 9th, 2008 at 9:26pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Of course, sackett will not answer these simple, straightforward  questions.

Quote:
Is the purpose of a polygraph examination to find out if a person is telling the truth?


No.  The purpose is to get a gullible person to "open up" and provide info that can be used against him/her.  The polygraph is just a "prop".

Quote:
Does a polygraph examination accomplish this task to a reasonable degree of certainty?


No.  Not according to the scientific community.  A response by the ANS to a question does not necessarily equate to deception.

Furthermore, you can "fake" an ANS response by puckering yer anus, biting your tongue, or altering your breathing pattern.

I had fun with a polygrapher once.  He told me the standard polygrapher lie that the test was 98% accurate.  When asked the question "is your name xxxxx", I puckered my anus, bit my tongue and altered my breathing slightly.

He stopped the tape, and asked me why I would react to such a question.  I said I wasn't reacting.  He persisted, so I pulled out my I.D. and said "Look!  My name is xxxxx!  Want to see my birth certificate?  What a joke!  This test is 98% accurate?  What a joke!"

His faced turned a sickening shade of red, and he left the room!  Of course I failed, but they were going to fail me anyway.

It's a long story.  It was for a preemployment test.  I was first tested at the agency as part of the preemployment process.  Three days of polytesting with the usual shennanigans, ended up with me ripping of the chest straps and me telling me what I thought about their voodoo ritual with some pretty salty language (I don't recommend others do that!).

To my great surprise, 6 months later I get a call from HR asking if I'd like to take the test again!

A few phone calls to my contacts at the agency, and I found out that the "hiring committee" and security were having a big "pissing contest" over me.  My contact told me that security was just going "through the motions" to satisfy the HR/OPS people and retest me.  They probably had no intention of passing me, and were out for blood, because I had made one of their precious polygrapher babes look bad.  I had insulted the "high priesthood"!

So, I decided to have some fun.
« Last Edit: Mar 9th, 2008 at 10:21pm by T.M. Cullen »  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box yankeedog
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 68
Joined: Jul 25th, 2002
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #46 - Mar 9th, 2008 at 10:05pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Good story polyfibber.  I'm a beleiver.....not
 Roll Eyes
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #47 - Mar 9th, 2008 at 10:34pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Still waiting for a response from you in the "Trimbarco" thread (reply #37)

Guess you're only good for short little quips.
  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box yankeedog
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 68
Joined: Jul 25th, 2002
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #48 - Mar 9th, 2008 at 11:33pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Polyfibber,

If your question is, What do you do if the examinee is DI and does not make an admission or confession?  The answer is, you pass on the results to the adjudicator.  I don’t support using a less than acceptable polygraph test (DI) as the singular rationale to deny employment.  I never have and that was my view even before the APA put it in writing.  It is merely one part of the whole process.  A pre-employment test is usually very broad, unlike a specific issue test, and the research I have read on pre-employment screening is it is not as “good” as a specific issue examination.  The reason apparently has to do with the broadness of the test.  That is not to say the process does not have value, because it does, and for the reasons I have previously given.  When I have that occasional DI w/o a confession/admission, I will remind the adjudicator not to use the test results as the sole reason for denial of employment.  But, as I have posted earlier, those are rare occurrences, however, they do occur. 

And I do not make any attempts to debunk or attack the NAS report.  I was, however, surprised that they did not conduct any of there own research.  Read it and learn, but read it all, not just selected portions.  How many times must polygraph examiners keep telling the opponents of polygraph that it is not perfect.  It never has been and never will be.  I think one beneficial outcome of the NAS report is that there are now ASTM standards for certain protocols and some testing protocols have mathematical calculations to determine probability of error.  In many polygraph tests there are variables that are unknown, and will never been known.  It is that unknown entity that allows the polygraph process to be attacked.  But, the documented successes of even those tests apparently have been judged to be “worth the cost.”  That is not my call.  Someone else has made that decision.  And if it ruffles some feathers, too bad.  My feathers have been ruffled in the past, but it hasn’t stopped me. 

I hope this was the response to which you referred.  In closing, I refer you to Bill Gates’ rules of life.  Rule #1:  Life isn’t fair.  Get used to it.



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #49 - Mar 10th, 2008 at 1:14am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
It may only be part of the process, but if you get anything short of a "pass", you not likely to get hired.  And if you get a "fail", which you can get without being deceptive, you sure as hell ain't getting hired.

Quote:
unlike a specific issue test, and the research I have read on pre-employment screening is it is not as “good” as a specific issue examination.


Not as good?  No it isn't.  The specific issue test will provide results "well above chance, though well below perfection", as for the preemployment test:

"For each spy or terrorist that might be correctly identified as deceptive would be accompanied by at least hundreds of nondeceptive examinees mislabeled as deceptive"NAS Report

Doesn't sound like a very "valuable" test.  I suppose I could eliminate all the weeds in my garden by dousing it with kerosene, but many of the flowers would die also!  But hey, such a process would have SOME value.

Quote:
When I have that occasional DI w/o a confession/admission, I will remind the adjudicator not to use the test results as the sole reason for denial of employment.   


So then the best advice is DON'T make a confession or admission, no matter how small you think it is.  It will be used against you, and you at least have some chance of being hired with a DI w/o c/o as it's hardly ever used as the sole criterion for hiring!

And "deception indicated" is a misnomer, as you really don't know if they are being deceptive, you may suspect it, but you really don't know.

Quote:
But, as I have posted earlier, those are rare occurrences, however, they do occur. 


You, a polygrapher who makes his living off the test, say false positives are a rare occasion.

Yet again, aprestigious body of scientific researchers reviewed findings on the subject and concluded there are hundreds of false positives for every spy or would be spy possibly caught.

Add to that my personal experience with the test, and my wife, and many other people I've talked to over the years.....think I disagree with your "rare occasion" estimate.

Quote:
How many times must polygraph examiners keep telling the opponents of polygraph that it is not perfect.  It never has been and never will be.


Your statement above is an understatement. 

The NAS concluded the specific issue test is "...well below perfection" 

IOW, it's not anywhere near perfection.

So significantly better than a coin flip, but far from perfect (in at it's BEST), yet likely to smear the reputation of hundreds of people for each would be spy or security violator it catches.

Quote:
Rule #1:  Life isn’t fair.  Get used to it.


My favorite:  "Living well is the best revenge."

But that is neither here nor there.

The purpose of this board, contrary to what polygraphers would have you believe, is to educate people WHO HAVE YET TO TAKE THE TEST.  So they don't get scammed.  That is a positive thing.

If a soon to be tested applicant reads GM's book, it will level the playing field a bit.  Like educating oneself prior to visiting a used car lot or dealership.
« Last Edit: Mar 10th, 2008 at 1:38am by T.M. Cullen »  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box T.M. Cullen
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 858
Location: Hawaii
Joined: Dec 5th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #50 - Mar 10th, 2008 at 1:47am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Read it [NAS report] and learn, but read it all, not just selected portions.


I agree, and I have read it, but just look at one of their final conclusions regarding the "VALUE" of the test:

"Danger of Overconfidence Overconfidence in the polygraph—a belief in its accuracy not justified by the evidence—presents a danger to national security objectives. A false faith in the accuracy of polygraph testing among potential examinees may enhance its utility for deterrence and eliciting admissions. However, we are more concerned with the danger that can arise from overconfidence in polygraph accuracy among officials in security and counterintelligence organizations, who are themselves potential examinees. Such overconfidence, when it affects counterintelligence and security policy choices, may create an unfounded, false sense that because employees have appeared nondeceptive on a polygraph, security precautions can be relaxed. Such overconfidence can create a false sense of security among policy makers, employees in sensitive positions, and the public that may in turn lead to inappropriate relaxation of other methods of ensuring security. It can waste public resources by devoting to the polygraph funds that would be better expended on developing or implementing alternative security procedures. It can lead to unnecessary loss of competent or highly skilled individuals because of suspicions cast on them as a result of false positive polygraph exams YES!!!!!! or because they avoid or leave employment in federal security organizations in the face of such prospects. And it can lead to credible claims that agencies that use polygraphs are infringing on individuals’ civil liberties for insufficient benefits to national security.

Note the ref to false positives you claim only occur "rarely"!
  

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."

Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Administrator
Administrator
*****
Offline



Posts: 333
Joined: Sep 28th, 2000
Re: On the lighter side
Reply #51 - Mar 10th, 2008 at 4:29pm
Print Post  
Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.
  

AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
On the lighter side

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