Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory (Read 69440 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #30 - Mar 11th, 2009 at 8:40am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Sergeant I didn't say I didn't know what they were, I told you where to find them. I simply declined to post them for you because it has been my experience that if I were to quote the numbers, instead of responding to the numbers the members of this board would simply attack my representation of the reasearch. So go read them yourself, they are not hard to find. Post them if you feel they support your position but I encourage you to ise the research and not someone elses characterization of the research.

I think that the real reason that you want to get into a numbers argument on error rate is that you have found yourself unable to refute my comments. †I can certainly see why you would want to change the subject.

You are at the very least unwilling to respond to my questions about the way some cops and troopers seem to use deceipt and psychological manipulation to con drivers into waiving their rights.


I see...  You know but you won't say...

WIth regards to the tactics some police officers use when dealing with suspected drug couriers, that has nothing to do with the current topic under discussion.  I can understand why you would seek to go off on a tangent and make the conversation about me, but I decline to do so.

For a polygraph supporter it must be difficult to come up with a logical reason or reasons to refute the idea that, barring any corroborative phsical evidence, the only one who knows if each polygraph result is accurate or not is the examinee, not the examiner.  Yet examiners are the ones who claim to be the authority on the results of the tests and the accuracy of the process.  It seems backwards to me, and is simply not logical on its face.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous Ítes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box ed earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #31 - Mar 11th, 2009 at 11:11am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
TWOBLOCK        The height of STDs??? Interesting.  Are you perhaps comfused concerning the difference between Astrolabe and Astrolube?
( the obvious ANALogous quips concerning your confusion would probably get me accused of an AD HOMINUM attack)

Oh well I'm not that surprised. Did you know there were people on here who think Columbus discovered the earth was round?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ed Earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #32 - Mar 11th, 2009 at 12:16pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant, I not only told you where to find the numbers you asked for, I provided you numbers from the NAS study and the FBI and then explained them for you. †If you are going to learn, you need to figure out how to look things uo.

Polygraphers have been repeatedly accused of lying and psychological manipulation on this board. I think a discussion about a nationwide program that teaches 100 or 1000 times more police officers how to lie and psychologically manipulate people into surrendering their rights not only germain to the topic. It also provides perspective. It isn't going off on a tangient at all. I'm sorry if it hits too close to home for you to provide a comfortable response, but the question was not about you. If you look at the questions I first asked about interdiction it was about your experience and knowledge of the program.

When a police officer suspects someone of drunk driving the driver is the only person who knows if they have been drinking too much or using drugs, but the officer still puts them through a screening test without even informing them that they have the right to refuse. He †then uses a subjective "scoring system" to render an opinion as to whether or not the subject is under the influence. Without any further information the officer can handcuff them, tow their car and haul them off to jail. If a blood test is used, the suject is booked and in order to obtain release the subject has to post bond. weeks or months later if it turns out the subject was stone cold sober, He doesn't get an apology, he doesn't get back the money he paid his bondsman, and he doesn't get back the money he paid the towing company all because of a subjective opinion rendered as a result of an error ridden screening test. The only way he can get anything back is to file an expensive law suit that costs him more money and the same error ridden screening test is used to defend the officer from accusations of false arrest.

Everyone knows that there is no single or group of observable physical characteristics that only be attributed to drug or alcohol intoxication. Are there? Likewise there are no observable characteristics of a driver or vehicle moving down the highway that only be attributed to drug trafficking. An inderdiction officer screens the driver and vehicle and renders an opinion based on his observations. An applicant who fails a polygraph fills out another application and goes to work elsewhere. Isn't that what you did?

The only thing preventing you from seeing the similarities that exist in screenig drunk drivers, drug traffickers and liars is a set of blinders.

In any case the question that changed this line of discussion from a clear and convincing example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory, http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_biotox06.4609a6f.html †(you should read this if you haven't. If it wasn't for polygraph this guy might have gone to work for your agency.) was this one: Quote:
Gino, and you too George if your reading:
Iím going to leave you with one question. Iím betting I donít get an answer. I expect you will ignore it entirely or try to change the subject. †Here it is any way.

Why havenít you and George ever told your readers that the ONLY way you will ever be able to prove that your countermeasures actually work in field situations is with the assistance of liars and criminals.?

George must have found it "too hot a potato" and once I explained to Gino why a truthful person attempting countermeasures and passing their polygraph test DOES not prove that countermeasures work, here come you and Cullen attempting to divert attention from the fact that they can't prove their countermeasures work in the field.
Cullen regurgitating ad nauseum generalizations an your incessant demand for "numbers" you can easily find for yourself.

I am becoming more and more convinced that you guys are using the back end of this forum to plan response strategies. Unless of course some or all of you are just some of George's "alternate personas"
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #33 - Mar 12th, 2009 at 9:51am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
George must have found it "too hot a potato" and once I explained to Gino why a truthful person attempting countermeasures and passing their polygraph test DOES not prove that countermeasures work, here come you and Cullen attempting to divert attention from the fact that they can't prove their countermeasures work in the field.
Cullen regurgitating ad nauseum generalizations an your incessant demand for "numbers" you can easily find for yourself. 

Perhaps you should go back and read my posts again.  I wasn't trying to divert your attention from anything, I didn't write about the efficacy of countermeasures, and I hardly think my posts regarding the "error rate" you referred to could reasonably be considered an "incessant demand" of any sort.

Maybe you will have a different response after rereading my earlier posts.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous Ítes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ed Earl
Guest


Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #34 - Mar 12th, 2009 at 12:46pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Sergeant, I can certainly understand your unwillingness to discuss the similarities between SFST and Drug interdiction to the tactics polygraphers are accused of using by the members of this forum.

To acknowledge those similarities would be a tacit admission that police officers routinely use intentional deception and psychological manipulation in conjunction with an error prone screening process to identify "wrongdoers". I'm betting that you have been trained in and practiced both techniques(SFST and the Drug Interdiction "pitch"). Am I wrong?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #35 - Mar 12th, 2009 at 6:25pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Sergeant, I can certainly understand your unwillingness to discuss the similarities between SFST and Drug interdiction to the tactics polygraphers are accused of using by the members of this forum.

To acknowledge those similarities would be a tacit admission that police officers routinely use intentional deception and psychological manipulation in conjunction with an error prone screening process to identify "wrongdoers". I'm betting that you have been trained in and practiced both techniques(SFST and the Drug Interdiction "pitch"). Am I wrong?

Please see my response at the top of this page.  Your question about me have nothing to do with the topic of this thread and are irrelevant to my previous posts.

If you have an issue with someone accusing you of deception you should probably take it up with whomever is accusing you.  I have not done so, but apparently my questions have nonetheless struck a nerve.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous Ítes intellectuellement faillite.
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: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #36 - Mar 12th, 2009 at 6:26pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Cullen you are AGAIN putting forward a fallacious argument by generalization in that you are attempting to draw a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. You are in no position to know what "examiners" routinely do which adds a second fallacious argument to your comment by your uninformed opinion. While the term Deception Indicated is used by polygraphers  to describe the results of an entire specific issue polygraph test it does not refer to any single reaction on a polygraph chart.


Oh really? 

Recent post from applicant today:

Quote:
Yes she specifically said "deception indicated". I then asked what questions showed reaction for my own knowledge and she said....All questions even the "known truth" questions. So.......if all questions were smiliar as for sensitivity wouldnt that still be considered "inconclusive" because technically you cant tell whether im lying or telling truth when the meter jumps on EVERY question. I know im not a polygraph expert but i dont understand. Undecided


Here's another posted just today:

Quote:
I was told that the polygraph indicated I was lying when I stated that I did not ever use heroin. d today



"Deception indicated" is used routinely and to describe specific answers to specific questions.  The above is an example.

You failure to acknowledge the demonstrable fact that polygraphers routinely claim the polygraph machine capable of "detecting deception" hurts your credibility.  But by all means, keep it up. 

TC
« Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2009 at 6:48pm 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 Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #37 - Apr 9th, 2009 at 3:46pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Ed Earl,

It is a simple fact that no polygrapher has ever adduced any evidence that departments or agencies that use pre-employment screening have workforces that are in any way better than those of agencies that do not. †

As I pointed out here, it would be easy to obtain such information, but polies don't do so and don't even care about doing so. †That is strong evidence that their claims to want to improve the personnel at these places is bunk--they just care about their own enrichment and aggrandizement.

If you do have actual statistical data that pre-employment screenings improve the quality of a places workforce in any meaningful way, you will do us all the greatest favor by sharing it. †I'm not going to hold my breath.
  

Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid?

Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work?

Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
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: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #38 - Apr 10th, 2009 at 4:47am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Lethe,

Ed "E.B." Van Arsdale, Ponca City, OK. (aka Ed Earl, Sancho Panza, Anonymous too, Phillip Queeg) was banned again. †So you are posting to a ghost.

Give him a call and schedule a polygraph! †Talk over old times.  Just do not squeeze your (or his) cheeks!

TC



  

"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 LieBabyCryBaby
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 246
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #39 - Apr 22nd, 2009 at 12:58am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Why was Ed banned? He made a lot of sense in his arguments and was getting the best of Mr. Cullen and others most of the time.
  
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: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #40 - Apr 22nd, 2009 at 9:25pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Ed provides some pretty good advice to attorney client prospects trying to decide on whether or not to have THEIR clients voluntarily submit to a police polygraph:

1. †If the police polygraph examiner becomes "aggressive or accusatory", †IMEDIATELY TERMINATE the polygraph.

2. †Do NOT submit to a POST TEST INTERROGATION.

This speaks volumes coming from a retired police polygrapher/detective.

Of course it only applies to police polygraphs not employment polygraphs,

TC

P.S.  He denied vehemently while posting here under his many aliases that the polygraph was an INTERROGATION.
  

"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 LieBabyCryBaby
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 246
Joined: Apr 28th, 2006
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #41 - Apr 23rd, 2009 at 1:05am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
That doesn't explain why he was banned. Multiple aliases, I suspect, are also used by administrators of this forum, but that doesn't affect the validity of an argument. The only time that would be a reason for banning someone would be if one alias was communicating with another alias (all by the same person) in a dishonest effort to support an argument while pretending to be two or more people.

Also, polygraph is NOT an interrogation. It may LEAD to an interrogation, especially in a criminal polygraph, when a subject fails and then doesn't terminate the process or demand his/her attorney. I mean, what would someone expect from the polygrapher when he/she fails the exam? Whether or not you believe in the validity of the polygraph, the examiner certainly does, so he/she feels that the liar has been caught, so why not try to get to the bottom of the lie?
  
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: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #42 - Apr 23rd, 2009 at 3:53am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
He (Mr. Van Arsdale Queeg Panza) was banned months ago when posting as Sancho Panza. †I forget why. So he had already been banned before coming back under new aliases. †

Quote:
Also, polygraph is NOT an interrogation. It may LEAD to an interrogation, especially in a criminal polygraph, when a subject fails and then doesn't terminate the process or demand his/her attorney. I mean, what would someone expect from the polygrapher when he/she fails the exam? Whether or not you believe in the validity of the polygraph, the examiner certainly does, so he/she feels that the liar has been caught, so why not try to get to the bottom of the lie?


Sounds reasonable to me.  So why would Mr. VanArsdale be against his client submitting to a post test interrogation, or walking out if the examiner get's aggressive or accusatory?

  

"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 George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6046
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #43 - Apr 23rd, 2009 at 5:25am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
LieBabyCryBaby wrote on Apr 23rd, 2009 at 1:05am:
Also, polygraph is NOT an interrogation. It may LEAD to an interrogation, especially in a criminal polygraph, when a subject fails and then doesn't terminate the process or demand his/her attorney. I mean, what would someone expect from the polygrapher when he/she fails the exam? Whether or not you believe in the validity of the polygraph, the examiner certainly does, so he/she feels that the liar has been caught, so why not try to get to the bottom of the lie? 


If polygraphy were truly a scientific test for deception, then those administering that scientific test should have no role in interrogating those they test, any more than do those who conduct DNA, latent fingerprint, or ballistics tests. The fact of the matter is that polygraphy, which has no scientific basis, is all about interrogation.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
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: An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory
Reply #44 - Apr 23rd, 2009 at 6:25am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Polygraphers would have you †believe that unless there is a "post test interrogation", the polygraph is not an interrogation. †However.....

During each and every polygraph I've taken the examiners interrogated me in between the three chart runnings (where they ask the questions while you are hooked up...etc.), I was interrogated. †

Usually, they would start out by looking at the chart and saying that the †chart was indicating I was being deceptive. †"Why is that Tom? †Why would you be having trouble with that question? †Are you telling me everything about your foreign contacts? †Is there anything you have to tell me?!"

It IS all about interrogating which is why polygraph operators, Like Mr. Holden and VanArsdale, tend to be former/retired police interrogators. †Duh?

This is why I am so interested in why Sancho, such a pro polygraph defender, would recommend his clients NOT submit to a post test interrogation and TERMINATE the test is the person behind the machine gets aggressive or accusatory. †Which they usually do? †

Am I the only one who finds that more than a little REVEALING?

Anyone facing a police polygraph might well conclude, from Sancho's advice, that it would be in there BEST INTEREST not to play the police polygraphic interrogator's game. †To simply show up, politely and cooperatively answer questions posed during the pretest interview (so long as answering them would not self-incriminate them), give the perfunctory "yes" or "no" answers during the chart data collection phase, then LEAVE!

TC
  

"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
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
An example of why pre-employment polygraphs should be mandatory

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