|
Author
|
Topic: CMs and the Anti-Poly Crowd
|
blalock
Member
|
posted 07-26-2007 06:42 PM
  
In tandem with creating false reactions on poly charts, diminishing responses can be misleading to examiners as well. Among those efforts to mislead examiners, drug use seems to present an interesting obstacle for TDA at least to some extent. Over the past, there has been some insightful dialogue regarding drug use as a countermeasure on the antipolygraph.org site. I recently received an email from someone who undoubtedly has some nefarious goals... Read the email exchange below. It started by someone emailing me presumably after visiting my website. I decided not to respond to this individual’s last email to me as nothing good can result from continued dialogue (at least not in a way that he won’t use the exchange as a post somewhere else). It may look familiar to some of the examiners on this forum, and can surely spark some interesting commentary on this site. Note that the most recent responses are first...Ben
*************************************
************************************* In other words; you don't know.
Which really means that your statements on your website
are false and misleading. Not So? Ben, you wouldn't know a decent CM if it leapt up and bit you in the ass.
Sincerely
RB ________________________________________
From: blalock@InternationalPolygraph.com
To: lieguys@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Your Website
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:43:03 -0400
I will send you to www.polygraphplace.com for your best advice. It is a community board where you can post questions you have about polygraph and polygraph examiners can respond.
Sincerely,
Ben
From: Russell Bertrand [mailto:lieguys@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:47 AM
To: Chief Polygraph Examiner
Subject: RE: Your Website
Hi Ben,
Just curious for now.
Rgds
RB
________________________________________
From: blalock@InternationalPolygraph.com
To: lieguys@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Your Website
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:08:22 -0400
Hi Russell,
Are you the examiner, the examinee, or just curious?
Ben
From: Russell Bertrand [mailto:lieguys@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:58 AM
To: blalock@internationalpolygraph.com
Subject: Your Website
Good Day,
Can you please be so kind and explain to me how the examiner can immediately
see in the polygraph tracings, that the examinee has ingested drugs / medication. As an example, if an examinee ingested 100mg Tegrotol 5 hrs prior to the examination,
what would the examiner notice exactly? If an examinee ingested 160mgs Codiovan at 06h00 and another 160mgs at 12h00,
then sat for a polygraph examination at 15h00, what if anything would the examiner
notice? Your prompt response would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely
RB
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 07-26-2007 07:51 PM
Let's see: first, he's has no command of English grammar at the junior high level, yet he wants you to believe he's on the ball on a topic requiring a little more know-how. Moreover, he asks about drugs. You give him no direct answer, and then he - out of nowhere - concludes you don't know what a "decent CM" looks like. Apparently he thinks he's found a drug that only works on the RQs. He's brilliant. I'm shaking. To whom do I return my instrument as it appears my career is over? On a serious note, if that anti site weren't there, we'd need to create one. As long as George et al are around, then we'll get folks showing up thinking they're going to beat us. The problem, of course, is the group of innocent people who think they have to try that stuff to be found truthful. IP: Logged |
blalock
Member
|
posted 07-26-2007 08:11 PM
My heart aches when I get those young applicants who are attempting CMs because they are just afraid of failing a poly exam, which they heard was "not much better than chance" and/or they think that because their particular package of mistakes were, in their own minds, the crimes of the century... Generally speaking, however, the great majority of CM usage seems to be attempted by those who show significant responses to one or more of the relevants anyway. DISCLAIMER: This observation does not count the spontaneous "calming" breathers who ignorantly are just trying to calm their nerves.[This message has been edited by blalock (edited 07-26-2007).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 07-26-2007 09:11 PM
His email uses the name Bertrand Russell with the address lieguys - at - hotmail.comHe has an arrogant sense of humor, despite his English. Bertrand Russell was a very important mathematician and philosopher (the two seem to go hand in hand sometimes). He was British, at Cambridge I think, but now I'll have to check. A friend and mentor of Wittgenstein - who's mathematical logic predated some computer logic systems by decades. Bertrand Russell is also know for giving us the very interesting correspondence theory of truth. As part of their epistemological ramblings philosophers have been trying to define truth (and find their navels) for over 2300 years. so, philosophy pop quiz time... What is the correspondence theory of truth? ............ its an answer to the question "what does it mean to say that something or someone is truthful?" Correspondence theory tells us that truth is not a thing, but exists when there is a complete correspondence between an object (or event) and what a person says about the object or event. For a statement to be truthful there must be complete correspondence between every aspect of the object or event and the statement. Incomplete correspondence = not truth??? You can see this is a nice idea, but somewhat unrealistic. Consider a simple chair. How many things can you describe about it? It is necessary to describe its molecular density or specific gravity for your statements to be "true." So, other folks have given us other theories of truth, like the modified correspondence theory, but all of those seem to have some practical limatations also.
-------
or maybe your email inquirer is really just a dork with some smarter person pulling the puppet strings. r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 07-26-2007 10:29 PM
Let me first state here that I have quite a bit of respect for Mr Blalock and the International Polygraph organization. However, with all due respect Ben, your site does state that "physiological effects that drugs have on people are immediately seen in polygraph tracings."
I don't side with punks, but I would be interested in how the firm is able to immediately identify drug countermeasures and or drug effects. Barry is right, drugs don't discriminate questions, but they do alter many other psychological and physiological norms. With individual subject reaction types, and a wide variety of personalities, cultural diversities, and physiological "uniquenesses", it is very difficult to distinguish whether your subject is a sober "Jim" from tv's "Taxi" or a bombed charismatic Jimmy Stewart type. I am no hack, but prescription drug use/abuse by examinees is rarely immediately obvious to this examiner.
------------------------------just my thoughts, Stat[This message has been edited by stat (edited 07-26-2007).] IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 07-27-2007 04:07 PM
That's my point Ray. He uses Russell's name (first red flag Ben) as if he's oh so cultured and intelligent, and then bang, an ad hominem attack when he doesn't get what he's the fight he wanted.I didn't know anything about the web info to which Stat referred. IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
