sackett wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2008 at 4:53pm:


When I took my polygraphs I believed in their accuracy, and I told the truth, and I was judged a liar.

I don't see how that all worked out in the end...

Mr Cullen, et al,

it always amazes me how I can say one thing and you poor misguided souls can turn it into something else completely.

Cullen wrote:  "You know as well as I do that the purpose of a preemployment/periodic polygraph is to "fluster" the testee, and see what you can get out of him."

First off, do not ever think or presume to think you know what I know.  You have no clue as to who I am (other than a mean spirited examiner) or what I know.  The purpose of the pre-employment is to collect the information needed for consideration for employment and test the veracity of what is reported.  Nothing more.

Also, being considered "self-serving" by the likes of you is a compliment, given your propensity for the very same thing demonstrated daily on this board...

lethe said, " Sackett admits that he doesn't care if he fails people who answer the relevant questions with 100% honesty.  He doesn't care if he screws up someone's life.  He's already got his."

Nope!  Once again, your skewed view of the polygraph world results in (probable and purposeful) misinterpretation of statements.  Re-read the portion of the quote YOU saved in your posting.  Sheesh, this is really getting old and repetitive...

lethe, you also said, "Think about that.  They don't get paid to find out who doesn't like the polygraph; they're not hired to find out who has done research on the polygraph; they don't get paid to see who has "ever told a lie even once ever".  However, they take great pride in doing all of those things.  They appear much less concerned about finding out who is lying on the relevant questions, which was initially their sole purpose for existing. "

How absolutely disingenuous. I never said that but will address it.  No,. I don't care if "you" like the polygraph, nor done any research on the polygraph, that is your poor interpretation, once again.  It IS my job to find out what my dept wants to know about an examinee then test him on the truthfulness of their statement; nothing more.

Also, "Now they just exist to exist and suck money and resources out of society while defending themselves."

I'm defending my organization and community.  Who else will protect the society, you?!  I don't think so.  

Sackett 

sackett wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2008 at 4:26pm:


If a person answers the relevant questions truthfully but is failed on account of his or her polygraph results then you have failed.  Period. 
Yet you make a joke out of it--out of other people's ruined lives.  I'd be a rich man if I had a dollar for every one of you virus particles that expressed his joy--joy!--at failing people who use countermeasures when most of those people were truthful on the relevant questions and  acting to preserve some chance of passing.  Their failure to pass represents a failure of the polygraph system.  But you count those as successes, don' t you?  But, that's okay, you don't have to think about it; you're making a killing.

sackett wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2008 at 4:26pm:


You're protecting yourself, nothing more.  I don't want the polygraph to be used to screen for pre-employment purposes; it does far more harm than good in that capacity; society should be liberated from the likes of you.   

Of course, no polygrapher is willing to have a real discussion in which the costs and benefits of the polygraph are weighed, so that's that.

Incidentally, do you purposefully keep your children stupid, Sackett, so that you can more easily detect their lies?  If you are consistent (keeping members of society stupid so they can more easily be polygraphed) you should do so.

SlimShady13,

I thought the same thing prior to my polygraph at the NSA in March 2000.  I failed anyway.

If the polygraph really detected deception, then a person answering the simple yes/no question truthfully would not  have to "get every  little thing off their chest" to stop the machine from reacting.  Of course, that is exactly the purpose of the test.  To TRICK the person into talking their head off.  The examiners job is to see what he/she can "get out" of the person.  Not to test for truthfulness.  It's a pretty neat trick.

Problem is, you can "get everything off your chest" and still have a "reaction" show up on the machine.  The mere fact that they are focusing in on A PARTICULAR question, and falsely claiming you are being "deceptive", is reason enough for your autonomic nervous system to react when that question is asked during the test.

And just because they precede the question with "besides what you have already told me...." will not necessarily cause your subconscious (which controls ANS reactions) to stop reacting.  It knows that it is just a permutation of that same original question (the one they are falsely claiming you are lying about).  That is enough to put ones ANS "on the defensive".

And if you continue to "react" they will continue to prod until you finally say something they can use to justify the chart "reaction", and then fail you.  It is like any INTERROGATION.  They will just try to wear you out until they get you to say something they want to hear.


TC

Quote:


If that is all that is necessary to pass I would have passed all four of my polygraphs.

Instead, even though I told the truth and "got everything off my chest", I failed the first three and passed the fourth.

yankeedog wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2008 at 12:19am:


The best field studies of polygraphy suggest that a truthful person may have roughly a 50-50 chance of passing a polygraph "test." See Dr. Alan Zelicoff's "Positive and Negative Predictive Values of Polygraphs: Results from published 'field' studies":

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-051.pdf

and also Dr. Michael Langan's "The Art of Deception: Polygraph Lie Detection":

https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-053.shtml

Langan notes that "if a medical test had a similar sensitivity and specificity to that of the polygraph examination it would simply not be used in the field of medicine." And Zelicoff has elsewhere observed, "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."

Hi TC,

Whats your point here ?