- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by sackett
- Feb 29, 2008, 08:09 PMUh-Huh!??
That was not your best posting...
Sackett
That was not your best posting...
Sackett
Posted by LALE
- Feb 29, 2008, 12:02 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Feb 28, 2008, 05:45 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Feb 28, 2008, 05:04 PMSackett,
I recommend not being confrontational AND AT THE SAME TIME being totally aware of the game the polygrapher is trying to play.
Interestingly enough and despite instructions to the contrary, many examinees I have tested over recent years have admitted to researching the web for polygraph material and access this and other sites.
Results: The forthcoming pass and the less than honest seem to have trouble, regardless of their knowledge.
Sackett
And who exactly deemed the latter to be "less than honest" ?
Sackett with his divine mental acuity ?
The tin box?
how do you know for sure that some of the former didnt dupe you and passed by using CM's ?
You dont know and you'll never know. But keep up the good work.
you're so good at it I believe. Well, you do anyway.
Sackett, I'm sure there are many of your past examinees that would dearly love to fess up and tell you screwed up - but then they'd lose them precious benefits - and thats how polygraph examiners are spared ridicule. ---- that is, till one o them spies falls out the nest.
Posted by sackett
- Feb 28, 2008, 05:45 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Feb 28, 2008, 05:04 PMSackett,
I recommend not being confrontational AND AT THE SAME TIME being totally aware of the game the polygrapher is trying to play.
Interestingly enough and despite instructions to the contrary, many examinees I have tested over recent years have admitted to researching the web for polygraph material and access this and other sites.
Results: The forthcoming pass and the less than honest seem to have trouble, regardless of their knowledge.
Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 28, 2008, 05:07 PMYou'll note that while Eric Johnson saw fit to rant, he didn't see fit to post a substantive response to your recommendation that examinees not be confrontational with their polygraph examiners.
And he seemingly put applicants selected for hire by the nation's top intelligence agencies with "child molestors". And he is in the position to effect people's lives? Scary!
I put THEM in the same category as "used car salesman". People in both professions routinely lie, and pretend to be working in the best interests of the client. Additionally, they hope the client is gullible and thus susceptible to trickery.
Of course they don't put forth substantive replies (except for Sackett whose replies are substantive albeit wrong and illogical) as they have none.
I find it very instructive to observe WHICH questions they CONSISTENTLY refuse to respond to. What they won't answer is significant.
And he seemingly put applicants selected for hire by the nation's top intelligence agencies with "child molestors". And he is in the position to effect people's lives? Scary!
I put THEM in the same category as "used car salesman". People in both professions routinely lie, and pretend to be working in the best interests of the client. Additionally, they hope the client is gullible and thus susceptible to trickery.
Of course they don't put forth substantive replies (except for Sackett whose replies are substantive albeit wrong and illogical) as they have none.
I find it very instructive to observe WHICH questions they CONSISTENTLY refuse to respond to. What they won't answer is significant.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 28, 2008, 05:04 PMSackett,
I recommend not being confrontational AND AT THE SAME TIME being totally aware of the game the polygrapher is trying to play.
I recommend not being confrontational AND AT THE SAME TIME being totally aware of the game the polygrapher is trying to play.
Posted by EJohnson
- Feb 28, 2008, 04:25 PMAs a result of my previous posts that have upset some who seek to silence me, my ability to post quotes is disabled. Hilarious.
So, allow me to address Cliff's advice directly.
I would recommend you be very candid with your examiner. If you truly believe that "polygraphy" as you call it is a pseudoscientific farce, than you should tell your examiner such. I have had countless examinee's tell me as much, and I respect the candor-------candor that will save the examinee from wihholding a belly full of aching communication that does not belong in the test.
So, vent till your heart's desire if you are to be tested. Raise hell, be rude or cordial----it doesn't mater in keeping with the antipolygraph.org philosophy that polygraph is balogna and the examiner is dumb and incurious as to the individual's sensebilities.
Interesting how clumsy the countermeasure advice is around here, but when the issue of just what manner in which the cheater is to cheat----"do it with dignity." Please. Ya can't have it both ways.
So, allow me to address Cliff's advice directly.
I would recommend you be very candid with your examiner. If you truly believe that "polygraphy" as you call it is a pseudoscientific farce, than you should tell your examiner such. I have had countless examinee's tell me as much, and I respect the candor-------candor that will save the examinee from wihholding a belly full of aching communication that does not belong in the test.
So, vent till your heart's desire if you are to be tested. Raise hell, be rude or cordial----it doesn't mater in keeping with the antipolygraph.org philosophy that polygraph is balogna and the examiner is dumb and incurious as to the individual's sensebilities.
Interesting how clumsy the countermeasure advice is around here, but when the issue of just what manner in which the cheater is to cheat----"do it with dignity." Please. Ya can't have it both ways.
Posted by sackett
- Feb 28, 2008, 04:17 PMAll,
I agree!
Getting confrontational with the person who stands between you and "your job" is not wise. If your testing results are problematic, work through it with your examiner. There is usually a reason for it.
Any delay or attitude will likely result in continued unemployment on your behalf.
Sackett
I agree!
Getting confrontational with the person who stands between you and "your job" is not wise. If your testing results are problematic, work through it with your examiner. There is usually a reason for it.
Any delay or attitude will likely result in continued unemployment on your behalf.
Sackett
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 28, 2008, 03:53 PMLarry,
You'll note that while Eric Johnson saw fit to rant, he didn't see fit to post a substantive response to your recommendation that examinees not be confrontational with their polygraph examiners.
Of course your right: examinees typically have little if anything to gain from being confrontational, and potentially much to lose. Polygraphers understandably don't like to be told that what they do for a living is a pseudoscientific fraud. It would be imprudent for an examinee to lose his civility in the polygraph suite, even if the polygrapher does.
And on that note, let's all do our best keep it civil on this forum, too.
You'll note that while Eric Johnson saw fit to rant, he didn't see fit to post a substantive response to your recommendation that examinees not be confrontational with their polygraph examiners.
Of course your right: examinees typically have little if anything to gain from being confrontational, and potentially much to lose. Polygraphers understandably don't like to be told that what they do for a living is a pseudoscientific fraud. It would be imprudent for an examinee to lose his civility in the polygraph suite, even if the polygrapher does.
And on that note, let's all do our best keep it civil on this forum, too.
Posted by TheNoLieGuy4U
- Feb 28, 2008, 03:52 PMHi Larry, I hope you had a good night's sleep. In reading the below post you placed I think I now understand you.
"When they go into their "you're reacting to this question, anything you want to tell me" routine do something like this. Scratch your head, make it look like you're "thinking" about what it might be. But CALMLY tell them you just can't think of anything. Maintain this posture throughout the process!"
So Larry, in political prose you are not telling your like minded bretheren here to LIE !! Okay, fine; but when you / they do so, do NOT be surprised that you DID NOT move forward in the system as you have not. As previously stated, somebody got the job !! The world kept on spinning on its axis. Your writings here would lead us to a conclusion that somehow the agency is "Less" without YOU. Bull !!!, as it IS composed of those who are as good, if not in fact ALL AROUND better than you, or easier to have hired to find that out early in their careers. You applied, you were owed nothing, they spent money on you, and found that you were NOT the best fit for THEM. You now know, from my prior postings, that a tenative offer is NOT the same as a bona fide offer with a starting date. You simply got "Cocky" and counted your chickens before they were hatched.
Your advice to be passively cooperative is cute, but did you think it was your Examiner's first day on the job or something ? They have seen that before. The burden is not on them to ask you ten thousand questions to resolve an issue, but rather YOUR burden to resolve it for them. Also, there is a time limit as to how much time they will put into your candidacy as they have other appointments / applicants too you know.
"When they go into their "you're reacting to this question, anything you want to tell me" routine do something like this. Scratch your head, make it look like you're "thinking" about what it might be. But CALMLY tell them you just can't think of anything. Maintain this posture throughout the process!"
So Larry, in political prose you are not telling your like minded bretheren here to LIE !! Okay, fine; but when you / they do so, do NOT be surprised that you DID NOT move forward in the system as you have not. As previously stated, somebody got the job !! The world kept on spinning on its axis. Your writings here would lead us to a conclusion that somehow the agency is "Less" without YOU. Bull !!!, as it IS composed of those who are as good, if not in fact ALL AROUND better than you, or easier to have hired to find that out early in their careers. You applied, you were owed nothing, they spent money on you, and found that you were NOT the best fit for THEM. You now know, from my prior postings, that a tenative offer is NOT the same as a bona fide offer with a starting date. You simply got "Cocky" and counted your chickens before they were hatched.
Your advice to be passively cooperative is cute, but did you think it was your Examiner's first day on the job or something ? They have seen that before. The burden is not on them to ask you ten thousand questions to resolve an issue, but rather YOUR burden to resolve it for them. Also, there is a time limit as to how much time they will put into your candidacy as they have other appointments / applicants too you know.
Posted by EJohnson
- Feb 28, 2008, 03:05 PMSo do you recommend the same for say, child molesters who are required to take polygraph tests for additional supervision while on parole?
Well, I suppose that goes without saying, as you know very well that people (especially kids) are at far greater risk from criminal victimization than the peppered employment polygraph error rates which the hand full of people on this site bemoan. Heck, it's as if there are only about 5 or 10 people 'round here spouting the same sentiments.
According to the local authors, the polygraph is a disasterous instrument, making so many errors left and right, that among the 250,000 tests per year, there must be in the order of ----oh, say 80,000 falsley accused (victims) of the horrible polygraph instrument and examiner. So, les' see. 5-10 false error allegations in the last year that appear credible, versus tens of thousands------all on a website with the highest web preference from googling "polygraph" in the world.
Sometimes I think this site reminds me of a would-be web site for victims of vending machine tip-overs. Improbable, rare, tragic, but not rising to the level of bluster as to the pointless (see vindictive)coaching of criminals through interrogation-----all from a disgruntled *interrogater.
Rather than advising criminals on matters of forensic practice, why don't you write your government or do other activistic duties other than what amounts to be a cat call for pediphiles to get cocky with the law even more than their previous efforts.
Regards
* Interrogation is not torture, as the word has oft been abused by individuals who use interrogation and torture interchangeably.
Well, I suppose that goes without saying, as you know very well that people (especially kids) are at far greater risk from criminal victimization than the peppered employment polygraph error rates which the hand full of people on this site bemoan. Heck, it's as if there are only about 5 or 10 people 'round here spouting the same sentiments.
According to the local authors, the polygraph is a disasterous instrument, making so many errors left and right, that among the 250,000 tests per year, there must be in the order of ----oh, say 80,000 falsley accused (victims) of the horrible polygraph instrument and examiner. So, les' see. 5-10 false error allegations in the last year that appear credible, versus tens of thousands------all on a website with the highest web preference from googling "polygraph" in the world.
Sometimes I think this site reminds me of a would-be web site for victims of vending machine tip-overs. Improbable, rare, tragic, but not rising to the level of bluster as to the pointless (see vindictive)coaching of criminals through interrogation-----all from a disgruntled *interrogater.
Rather than advising criminals on matters of forensic practice, why don't you write your government or do other activistic duties other than what amounts to be a cat call for pediphiles to get cocky with the law even more than their previous efforts.
Regards
* Interrogation is not torture, as the word has oft been abused by individuals who use interrogation and torture interchangeably.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 28, 2008, 02:41 PMIt just occurred to me that, given the high level of confrontation on this board between those opposed to the test and polygraphers, lurkers might be under the impression that THEY should be confrontative during the polygraph test.
DON'T!! The worse thing you could do is to tell them you think the test is bogus, even though it is, and tell them you know "all about the test" from information gathered from this board.
On the contrary, try to BUILD A RAPPORT with your polygrapher (as hard as that might be). Demonstrate a FASCINATION with the process and their INTERESTING profession. Though, don't lay it on too thick. Tell them you will cooperate in every way, and that you want to make sure you meet ALL security requirements.
When they go into their "you're reacting to this question, anything you want to tell me" routine do something like this. Scratch your head, make it look like you're "thinking" about what it might be. But CALMLY tell them you just can't think of anything. Maintain this posture throughout the process!
Better to NOT volunteer info WHILE APPEARING TO COOPERATE, then to NOT volunteer info WHILE BEING CONFRONTATIVE.
I would welcome any polygrapher input regarding the above.
DON'T!! The worse thing you could do is to tell them you think the test is bogus, even though it is, and tell them you know "all about the test" from information gathered from this board.
On the contrary, try to BUILD A RAPPORT with your polygrapher (as hard as that might be). Demonstrate a FASCINATION with the process and their INTERESTING profession. Though, don't lay it on too thick. Tell them you will cooperate in every way, and that you want to make sure you meet ALL security requirements.
When they go into their "you're reacting to this question, anything you want to tell me" routine do something like this. Scratch your head, make it look like you're "thinking" about what it might be. But CALMLY tell them you just can't think of anything. Maintain this posture throughout the process!
Better to NOT volunteer info WHILE APPEARING TO COOPERATE, then to NOT volunteer info WHILE BEING CONFRONTATIVE.
I would welcome any polygrapher input regarding the above.