Not trolling Doug, just wondering how the pathological liar survived the B/I to make it to the poly?

scubadiver1 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 3:27am:

This is a discussion forum, not a dedicated scubadiver advice service. Most of us probably agreed with the advice George gave you, hence no further input.

@doug - Not all polygraphers accuse and coerce the person being interviewed.  Sure, some of them do.  I've been accused of having a drug problem when I've never done drugs nor produced any response to the question on the polygraph.  They push hard for a little bit but quickly drop it.  Yes, it's an interrogation.  But if someone is willing to lie just to make it stop, then they're probably not a great candidate for the job anyways.

@pailryder - friend is a misrepresentation.  He was a co-worker and we shared an office at the time, hence why I saw him leave and come back in an hour.  They usually process the SCI portion of the clearance before the collateral, so the B/I probably hadn't been conducted yet.  Also, have you ever known someone who's a friend to not lie for a friend?

Ex Member wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2013 at 2:40am:


I do not disagree with your statement, we do infer both truth and deception.

Ex Member wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2013 at 2:40am:



Pailryder:  I don't think he meant that polygraphers "do infer both truth and deception" based on the polygraph chart tracings, but rather from the information you elicit, (by whatever means).  In other words, if a person admits to having lied, that may allow you to infer that further investigation is needed.  But you and I both know that you can't "infer either truth or deception" by evaluating the polygraph chart tracings.

To infer means to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises - we see smoke and infer fire.  To infer from a "reaction", that a person is being deceptive is ludicrous. When you see a nervous "reaction" to a question, you may only infer that the person had a response to a stimulus - nothing more.  That response, or "reaction" does not indicate deception, and you cannot infer that it does.  I quote Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University who said, "There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)."  So if you say "we do infer both truth and deception", and you infer that based on the polygraph chart tracings, you are wrong.  You can't infer either truth or deception from anything the polygraph records, that inference must be drawn from facts - not "wild ass guesses" as your cohort Sullivan is quoted as saying.

pailryder wrote on Jul 4^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:



You are done?  You never even started!  Why?  Because you know you can't win a debate with me!   The reason you are done before you even start is because you know you can't prove that the polygraph is a "lie detector" - and you know that I have already proved it is not!  I stick to the facts and let the facts speak for themselves, but you have no facts to support your position.  You know you can't defend your position that the polygraph is a "lie detector"  - so you quit before you even start.   

Since you can't win the debate, or even engage in an intelligent conversation, your only recourse is the same old ad hominem attack that you and all the other polygraphers resort to.  And you all get so riled up your posts don't make sense and your spelling and grammar is terrible!  But I'm sure that is no reflection on your intellect.     "SO I WANT"??????  Want what?  Want to make believe you are not a fraud and a con man?

I see you quote Dr. Lykken at the bottom of your posts: "No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers."   David Thoreson Lykken.  

I would have you know he changed his mind about that after he met me and read my manual.  I met Dr. David T. Lykken, professor of Psychology and well-known polygraph opponent, when I testified in Congress in support of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act.  He wrote me to thank me for my manual and he even endorsed the techniques taught in my manual & video/DVD and my PERSONAL TRAINING in his book saying, "...if I were somehow forced to take a polygraph test in relation to some important matter, I would certainly use these proven (methods) rather than rely on the truth and my innocence as safeguards; an innocent suspect has nearly a 50:50 chance of failing a CQT administered under adversarial circumstances, and those odds are considerably worse than those involved in Russian roulette. (A Tremor in The Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Polygraph, 2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998, p. 277)  This great man was totally opposed to your insidious Orwellian industry and, as you can see, he actually advised people to use my techniques to protect themselves from being falsely branded as a liar.

  
And here is a special Fourth of July treat for you and your grandson!

Doug

Doug Williams wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2013 at 1:47pm:


Mistake 1  You fail to distinguish between an interview and an interrogation.  We do not coerce and accuse anyone in the interview, we save that for the interrogation.  A small distinction which may escape many but should not be lost on the greatest self proclaimed expert in the antipolygraph universe. 

Mistake 2  You fail to distinguish between LEA, government and private practices.  As a private examiner, the client or his attorney requests and pays for my services.  I have no incentive to accuse or coerce anyone.

Mistake 3  Inference   In your chosen example, you see smoke, you infer fire.  But there is no direct and unequivocal connection between smoke and fire, is there?  Your inference is likely correct, but it could be mistaken.  There can be fire without smoke and smoke without fire.

We see smoke, or empirical observable response, and infer fire, or deception as the most probable likely cause of that response.  Not the only possible cause, but the most likely.  We have never, to my knowledge, claimed a direct unequivocal connection.    

Doug Williams wrote on Jul 5^th, 2013 at 9:22pm:

Proven demonstratively wrong by your own post.