|
Author
|
Topic: George/Drew Badmouthing FBI and polygraph
|
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 10-17-2005 12:00 PM
  
If none of you have seen this, and I certainly do not know the credibility of CQ magazine George and Drew blindly badmouthed the FBI's testing of the recent source claiming NYC subways were about to be hit. Located at:
http://www.cq.com/public/20051017_homeland.html It is (currently) on the drudgereport.com website. Jim IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 10-17-2005 12:44 PM
They clearly weren't in search of the truth on that one. They don't know the type of test used, but it couldn't have been a pre-employment exam, which is what they spend their time talking about. What's up with that? I also missed which one of them was a polygraph examiner with the knowledge about this stuff.When is David Lykken going to admit his intuition is not science? He keeps saying studies supporting polygraph (other than his GKT) are not science because the CQT simply doesn't make any sense to HIM. Now that's scientific isn't it? I don't exactly understand why it works either, but the evidence is clear: it does work most of the time - a fact he must ignore to support his own gut feeling. IP: Logged |
Bill2E
Member
|
posted 10-17-2005 06:53 PM
Will someone go on Georges Site and simply state the facts? We seem to be allowing him to send information to all sorts of people and not refuting any of his postings. Someone with more knowledge than I have needs to address some of his statements. I am sure they will be met with less than "clear reception", however they need to ba answered. IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 10-17-2005 07:23 PM
I agree with Bill and the many others who feel the need to provide positive polygraph press to the uninformed. Notwithstanding the forum or audience found in CQ magazine, I find it simplistic and immature to attack our profession in the manner it was addressed. BUT, it was seemingly effective! Then, to introduce results that a 12 year old was taught to beat the test as credibility of the ease at which polygraph can be beaten is fraudulent, to say the least. Unfortunately and some day, these voices will be heard at higher and more influencial levels. Guys, I am a practitioner of the art and do not feel qualified to defend or attack deposers of polygraph on an intellectual or academic level. But, I know there are some out there reading this post who are. We as a profession are under attack from 2 fronts, one anti-polygraph and the other CVSA/VSA people, who now seem to have the federal government to thank (for partial validity and credibility) if what they are saying is true concerning the military and spy guys using CVSA now. The days of standing by and letting others make comments assuming all will quiet down in time is a "head in the sand" routine that is getting us nowhere but pushed backwards. At some time in the future, our backs will be against the wall and we'll have no where to go. By that time, it may be too late. What will happen when we read about the P.A.P.A., 2012 (Prohibition Against Polygraph Act). Fictitional now, but what about 7 years from now... I think we, as a profession need more positive and proactive face time in the press. Not just our own periodicals or web sites. The question only remains who, where and how to make a stand. I'm willing to do what I can, but how to coordinate and where to address it baffles me. Greater minds exist out there. Then I think, is this even possible? Can we as a profession even come together, overcome our own egos, agencies, and motives and make this happen? Maybe, maybe not... Thoughts/Ideas? Jim [This message has been edited by sackett (edited 10-17-2005).] IP: Logged |
Bill2E
Member
|
posted 10-17-2005 11:55 PM
If enough examiners go on the antipolygraph site and simply explain that the system works, there are occasional errors, listen to the complaints, disucss them in this forum, then handle the complaints as they relate to actual polygraph examinations and possibility of abuses, I believe we would look much better. There was recently posts where an examiner had a discussion with Drew Richardson, it did not degrade into an argument and Richardson acknowledge that portions of polygraph work, others are not so good. If other examiners were to take up the converstion and bring forth the studies that show ignorance or simple manipulation by Richardson, the entire audience at antipolygraph would be able to see. We need to flood that site with responses to questions, not in a sarcastic argumentative manner, just give reponses supporting polygraph. WE may get banned, no loss for trying. Excuse the spelling, I'm very tired and don't worry about spelling as much as content. IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 10-18-2005 07:31 AM
I've thought about the same thing, but they're not going to listen. (Once I got sucked in and responded here, to no avail.) Additionally, don't you think responding to their ridiculous arguments makes them look like we think they are capable of on intellectual debate on the subject? Why should we engage in such a discussion with people who haven't run a single polygraph exam in their lives.I would be willing to help put together a general response (without calling it a response) in the QA section on polygraph in this site if Ralph were willing to add such a piece. It could be a "what about those sites that claim to...?" section. We could then site, briefly, the studies - or at least refer to them - that refute their claims. There are some out there. George keeps saying a Honts study showed anybody could learn to beat the polygraph in 20 minutes. What he fails to mention is that study showed what he offers - reading about them - wasn't enough. The people that "beat" the exam were personally trained, and only a portion of them did so, so. Moreover, Honts stated that no counter-countermeasures were used, which is not the real world (in most professional settings), purely theoretical. To add insult to injury, Honts has done additional studies since that one, and he has concluded the only really (potentially) dangerous CM training is one who is trained on an instrument by a trained examiner. Our very own Lou Rovner did a study some time ago, which I found very telling. CMs are not as dangerous as many make them out to be. Again, it's ignored by the people who want to harm us, and we could make that info more readily available, but let's face it, George has read it and since it doesn't prove his point, he ignores it. If you post it on his board, I suspect it will be deleted in little to no time. That's just my initial thoughts. IP: Logged |
Bill2E
Member
|
posted 10-18-2005 11:03 AM
I again urge that all go on the anti site and post answers to the questions being asked without sarcasim. Get our side out there and not engage in arguments, just be persuasive and engaging. Maybe we cannot rise above our own ego's, possibly the anti persons are correct in stating we are "Above" them and unable to respond to the most simplistic critisim (*sp)I assure you that may of our state legislators do read the anti site, I have been campaining for a polygraph act in our state and many legislators have been invited to the anti site to abolish polygraph in our state. IP: Logged |
detector
Administrator
|
posted 10-18-2005 12:37 PM
Hey Everyone,Nice to see this discussion. Bill, I'd be happy to create a new area that is a 'response' to the anti's. I've been wanting to do a FAQ or something similar for quite some time, but I can't do that alone, basically I need the actual data and information from all of you. So my promise is that if you guys will put it together, I'll get it out there. ------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator
http://www.polygraphplace.com
IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 10-18-2005 01:07 PM
Bill, great idea! But we can hardly get the academics to provide input on this (pro-polygraph) board, what makes you think they will go to another site...? Besides, whenever george begins to lose an argument, he will block the site address from posting.Ralph, a separate dicussion page could be a good start (maybe). Any attention we can take away from the babbling tribes of whiners out there on the anti site, the better. Maybe if we post a permanent introduction at the top of the link, "This is an open post site and all intelligent comments, opinions and inquiries will be allowed. This open discussion board may include organizers and operators of other sites which have repeatedly blocked the free introduction and intelligent discussion of polygraph issues. Profanity, name calling and other immature acts will not be tolerated; though all opinions and honest inquiries are encouraged." And, while I don't know how to do it, if there were no registration requirement, you would find an abundance of postings. Of course, you would need the help of the rest of us to prevent unacceptable postings. Shoot, once set up, send George an e-mail and invite him to post, just to prove it... Just an idea Jim [This message has been edited by sackett (edited 10-18-2005).] IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 10-18-2005 04:02 PM
Okay Ralph, I'm in the midst of a couple projects right now, and I'll be teaching another course at a local community college (yes, criminal justice students) for the next couple months, but I should be able to HELP put something together here and there. It'll take time, but I do think attacking the issues head on - on our terms - will be worthwhile. (I think responding to george directly - which I considered - would be a waste of time as he'd either delete us or block us.)IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 10-18-2005 08:33 PM
Boys-Boys-BoysIf you wrestle with a pig........ Everything you post on George's site will be subject to attacks (both professional and personal) by Boy George and his FOGs. We already have a great site right here that answers all kinds of questions. Why reinvent the wheel? If an interested party does a Google search on polygraph, this site comes up right there with George's. I just think posting to George's site does nothing more than give him a little credibility. He is like any other nut case-ignoring him will make him go away! Ted IP: Logged |
Bill2E
Member
|
posted 10-18-2005 11:38 PM
Wrestle with pigs??? I was talking about answering questions and replying to comments of persons going on the anti site for information, not debating George, Drew and some of the others. Why not impart knowledge and listen to the ones that may have been called SR when they were not??? Is there a problem with learning from others mistakes?Having a specific area on this board would be great, we do need to let the anti site know it is there and answer the questions rather than doing put downs and calling people whiners. We do have some "less than credible" examiners in the field.
WRESTLE WITH PIGS??? I don't even eat pork!!
IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
