pailryder wrote on Feb 1^st, 2009 at 1:48pm:


I find it interesting that you say this about them, yet the presence of that quote in your signature clearly suggests that they must be right about something.

Quote:


Such as?

Quote:


I must be mistaking your from somebody in another thread.  But GREAT!  Most people come here AFTER failing the polygraph after having gone in the examination room believing in the popular myth of it's accuracy.  So you have one leg up.  You've got time to research it.  

Read TLBTLD and the NAS report.  Then go to the Pro-site I mentioned and see what a "snow job" you get there.  

Quote:


I retired from the military in Hawaii as a Chinese Linguist having held a TS/SCI for 20 years working in the SIGINT field.  Hawaii was one of the main duty stations for a person in my field and I managed to acquire some rental properties over the years.  So the bit about managing real estate is true.

Of course the porn ref was in jest.  I may be a dirty old man, but I am not a perve.  Remember, it is poloygraphers who employ one way mirrors!  

TC

P.S.  If you are years away from taking the polygraph then you shouldn't even be hypothesizing about imaginary conversations with polygraph operators that may or may not happen at some point in the distant future.  And if I was young like you, I'd take Jack Nickelson's advice in "One flew over the coo-coos nest"  I'd be:  

"Chase'n skirts and bang'n beaver!"  

Quote:


Please...

http://books.google.com/books?id=USg-j9esZagC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=polygraph++%...

Sorry about the long link.

Only the first couple of pages pertains.

Like I said, you have to know WHEN and HOW to use CMs.  If you pucker your butthole like you're trying to eliminate a tortoise shell,  when they ask you if your name is XXX,  that probably won't be of much help.  Some studies claiming that CMs do more harm than good, and makes a person more likely to fail, do not really take the level of proper CM usage on the part of the examinee into consideration.

There is NO  field studies that empirically prove that CMs in general work or don't work, or that polygraphers can detect them.  I think that iis the drift in the above link.

TC

Quote:


It means constricting the anal sphincter muscle. It's a technique that can be used to produce a reaction when asked a control question, increasing the likelihood of passing a probable-lie control question test. For reasons explained in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, AntiPolygraph.org no longer recommends this countermeasure method.

Quote:


The polygraph is not perfect. But it is much better than a 50% chance.  Some people call it a "lie detector." It doesn't detect lies. All it does is show what is going on inside you when your are asked and you respond to a particular question. But when you consistently respond to the same question many times, something is definitely going on inside you with regard to that question. Only YOU can answer what that is.

My point has nothing to do with the subject of countermeasures, to which this thread has detoured.  It also has nothing to do with why a "false positive" is a possibility, although a very slim one. My point is that when a person gets all caught up in "this question is a comparison" and "this question is a relevant," I think they make the relevant questions MORE relevant than they would otherwise be if they had just gone through the test without worrying about all that stuff.

The advice on this website can hurt you more than it can help you.  There's some good stuff on here, but there's also pure drivel on here, much of which is posted here by non-polygraphers, phonies, and self-proclaimed experts.

The polygraph isn't perfect, and there IS an extremely slim chance that you could end up as a "false positive."  But I believe that chance is much, much smaller if you don't screw with your own head by following the advice of people who failed a polygraph. I've passed multiple polygraphs myself, and I am a polygrapher. Trust me more than George and all these phonies on this website.

Quote:


Every polygraph operator I dealt with claimed it detected deception.  Where they lying?   How do you then explain use of the phrase "deception indicated"?

Quote:


But deception is only one.  There are other reasons why a person nervous system could register a "defensive" reaction.  In fact, if a person had been repeatedly told he was lying on a given question when he/she wasn't,  his nervous system could just as easily react to that question.  And a consistent reaction simply means he/she is consistently "reacting", whatever the underlying reason is.

Don't believe me, read the quote below from Dr. Zimbardo.  Still not convinced, NAS report said the same thing about there being NO direct connection between an F3 reaction and "decption".  It's just a huge supposition.  That's why you need to badger, cajole or otherwise harrass the examinee until he/she gives you something you can twist, take out of context, or blow out of proportion, to prove your theory that the consistent reaction means "deception".

Quote:


I think the FIRST THING a person would be well advised to do is:

Know at both conscious (through study and learning)  and subconscious levels that reactions on the machine don't mean a thing.  The more one learns about what the polygraph machine actually does, and it's true limitations,  the less afraid of it they will be.  I mention "subconscious" above because it is at that level that "reactions" are produced.

Know also, that who process is nothing more than an interrogation disguised as a test.   And that the polygraph machine is just a prop.

This is just the opposite of most examinees.  Most believe (mainly from the "pop" culture) that the polygraph is extremely accurate and scientific.  That is the polygraph claims the machine "indicates" deception,  then "shoot!  there must be something I did!  What the heck could it be?  Better start talking!"  This is JUST THE OPPOSITE way they should be thinking!