- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty
- Sep 11, 2003, 12:17 AMQuote from: Skeptic on Sep 10, 2003, 10:33 PMTo clarify the above and to forestall the inevitable polygraph trolling, knowing about the polygraph's flaws before I took one is not something I can "blame" on Antipolygraph.org, since I'd learned about the shortcomings in my Psychology undergrad days.
Skeptic
Skeptic,
As you say, Antipolygraph.org isn't the only place (though it is the most accurate one on the web AFAIK) that polygraph information can be had. There are also trade texts available which people can use to verify methodology though they obviously have a different view as to the utility.
In a way it's sad that, like some other psych tests, knowledge of the test is considered to degrade it's utility. The Rorschach test is one such once widely considered outstanding that is now very much in dispute.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 10, 2003, 10:33 PMTo clarify the above and to forestall the inevitable polygraph trolling, knowing about the polygraph's flaws before I took one is not something I can "blame" on Antipolygraph.org, since I'd learned about the shortcomings in my Psychology undergrad days.
Skeptic
Skeptic
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 10, 2003, 05:34 PMQuote from: Marty on Sep 10, 2003, 04:30 PM
I think such dissonance induced nervousness is most likely when a poly knowledgable person is polygraphed since they are fully aware of the "science" behind the polygraph.
Facing a poly with significant false positive probability during an initial interview would be a deterent, but not an absolute one, in the decision to pursue a career requiring one. Facing a poly every 5 years would likley keep me from applying for such a job at all. I would be unwilling to embark on a career with significant probability for arbitrary termination.
-Marty
Marty,
You've nailed on the head the primary reason I withdrew my candidacy for the NSA position.
Skeptic
Posted by Marty
- Sep 10, 2003, 04:30 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Sep 10, 2003, 03:58 PM
I can't speak for Retest, but when I took my polygraphs, I was quite nervous through the whole sessions (all three of them). It had very little to do with "concerns about the relevant issues" and a lot to do with fear that I was going to be rejected from job candidacy, or worse, seen as a criminal.
I think such dissonance induced nervousness is most likely when a poly knowledgable person is polygraphed since they are fully aware of the "science" behind the polygraph.
Facing a poly with significant false positive probability during an initial interview would be a deterent, but not an absolute one, in the decision to pursue a career requiring one. Facing a poly every 5 years would likley keep me from applying for such a job at all. I would be unwilling to embark on a career with significant probability for arbitrary termination.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 10, 2003, 03:58 PMQuote from: Neo on Sep 10, 2003, 12:22 PM
What caused you to be nervous? Are there any concerns that were directly related to the relevant issues?
Neo
I can't speak for Retest, but when I took my polygraphs, I was quite nervous through the whole sessions (all three of them). It had very little to do with "concerns about the relevant issues" and a lot to do with fear that I was going to be rejected from job candidacy, or worse, seen as a criminal. The nervousness especially manifested itself on questions regarding serious crimes.
Perhaps this is something some of those in authority are blind to, but when an authority figure starts questioning you, it can be a tad nervewracking, regardless of whether you've done anything wrong. I was brought up to respect authority figures, and I don't want them thinking bad things about me (perhaps irrational, but even so).
As I see it, this is one of the fundamental flaws in the polygraph -- especially as it seems to be used right now by certain agencies (Relevant/Irrelevant format).
Skeptic
Posted by Neo
- Sep 10, 2003, 12:22 PMQuote from: retest on Sep 06, 2003, 02:02 AM. . . Did alright except a few questions made me very nervous regarding computer use. I could feel my heart pounding in my chest.
What caused you to be nervous? Are there any concerns that were directly related to the relevant issues?
Neo
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Sep 09, 2003, 05:58 AMI don't know of any way to suppress an increase in heart rate except, perhaps, by taking a sedative. Remember, though, that the test is scored by comparing reactions to relevant versus "control" questions, and the key to "passing" is to produce stronger reactions to the latter.
Posted by retest
- Sep 09, 2003, 12:34 AMis there a chance they did a retest because it was late in the day? It was already 5:40 pm when they sent me home, maybe they just wanted to split?
Anyway I can counter a fast beating heart? One thing I recognized for certain is that everything that came out of his mouth was total bullshit, I could see right through it, textbook
Anyway I can counter a fast beating heart? One thing I recognized for certain is that everything that came out of his mouth was total bullshit, I could see right through it, textbook
Posted by orolan
- Sep 08, 2003, 11:48 PMSaidme,
Yes, I am part of that crowd that insists CM's can't be detected. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that you insist they are. So, when you "detect" them, do you offer a retest?
If the examiner in this case "detected" CM's, why waste time on another test? Why wasn't he disqualified on the spot?
Yes, I am part of that crowd that insists CM's can't be detected. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that you insist they are. So, when you "detect" them, do you offer a retest?
If the examiner in this case "detected" CM's, why waste time on another test? Why wasn't he disqualified on the spot?
Posted by Skeptic
- Sep 08, 2003, 11:44 PMQuote from: Saidme on Sep 08, 2003, 10:26 PMSaidwho (me)
Yeah, confess.
Which, of course, would hardly be necessary if the polygraph were reliable.
Confessions are everything. Without them, the polygraph is worthless.
I guarantee you, Saidwho, that your heart will be beating a lot faster once you realize you've been duped into confessing to something...
Skeptic
Posted by saidwho
- Sep 08, 2003, 10:53 PMso you are claiming that a rapidly beating heart is a CM then? Geez, you polygraphers really DON'T know how to detect CM's....you're looking for the wrong thing!
Posted by Saidme
- Sep 08, 2003, 10:26 PMSaidwho (me )
Yeah, confess.
Orolan, Probably setting him up for a nice post-test interview. Aren't you part of the crowd that is convinced CM's aren't detectable?
)Yeah, confess.
Orolan, Probably setting him up for a nice post-test interview. Aren't you part of the crowd that is convinced CM's aren't detectable?
Posted by orolan
- Sep 08, 2003, 07:44 PMSaidme,
Are you saying now that if an examiner detects CM's a retest will be offered? How nice of you.
Sounds more like an "inconclusive" to me.
Are you saying now that if an examiner detects CM's a retest will be offered? How nice of you.
Sounds more like an "inconclusive" to me.
Posted by saidwho?
- Sep 08, 2003, 01:56 PMHe did not say his cm's were detected, he said his heart was pounding, that is not a cm. BTW, is there anything you can do when your pounding heart gives you away?
Posted by Saidme
- Sep 08, 2003, 01:48 PMI smell failure.
George, I didn't think CM's were detectable?
George, I didn't think CM's were detectable?