Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is the last month of the year?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Guest
 - Oct 25, 2003, 01:56 AM
According to the one guy who said the more you know about the poly the worst you will do. Just imagine if they had to poly one of their own, he would flunk 100%!
Posted by Marty
 - Oct 24, 2003, 05:31 PM
George,

I wasn't suggesting any rationale for their censorship. Rather, that the thread in question seemed to present two, inconsistent, POVs, both of which "passed" the censorship criteria.  I'm just curious as to whether a post consistent with one of those POVs (that examinees are encouraged to be informed) is truth or a ruse. The best way I can think to test that is whether posts refering to their own manuals would survive on that board.

-MArty
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Oct 24, 2003, 05:20 PM
Marty,

I don't think that either of the rationales you've proposed justify the censorship that goes on at 911jobforums.com. Bob Amaral, who operates the site, would be in a better position to explain the rational for, and parameters of, his censorship policy. You should be able to reach him by e-mail to contact@911hotjobs.com.
Posted by Marty
 - Oct 24, 2003, 04:44 PM
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 24, 2003, 05:15 AMTravis,
As you review the discussions of polygraphy on 911jobforums.com, you should bear in mind that discussions of polygraphy are heavily censored. Posts that explain how the "test" actually works, or that include links to relevant literature, are routinely deleted.
George,
Do you know whether they delete posts with links to training and technical literature produced by and utlized within the polygraph community? There seem to be two trains of thought there.

1. Becoming informed about the polygraph increases the liklihood of a false positive. [I think that there are reasons to believe this may occur - absent use of CM's]

2. Examinees are encouraged to educate themselves but learning about the polygraph is dangerous since the sources on the internet have specific, anti-polygraph agendas. The obvious suggestion is that such information is then suspect.

To some degree these two are in conflict though I think the first item is more "honest." The first item will resonate with an examinee that does investigate sites like antipolygraph.org. The second is an effort to obfuscate polygraph understanding while appearing to endorse "informed examinees."

It would be interesting to see how they handled a neutral, non judgemental,  reference to their own literature/manuals. After all, they just want the TRUTH, right? ;)

-Marty
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Oct 24, 2003, 05:15 AM
Travis,

As you review the discussions of polygraphy on 911jobforums.com, you should bear in mind that discussions of polygraphy are heavily censored. Posts that explain how the "test" actually works, or that include links to relevant literature, are routinely deleted.

The argument that one should not educate oneself about polygraphy is simply stupid. As the National Academy of Sciences has confirmed, polygraph screening is completely invalid. It is very much in the interest of anyone facing a polygraph interrogation  to educate him/herself about this quackery in advance.
Posted by travis
 - Oct 24, 2003, 04:58 AM
http://www.911jobforums.com/vB/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=21640&highlight=USPIS


Apparently, for the UPSIS (United States Postal Inspection Service), everyone is arguing to NOT EDUCATE yourself. Now I am confused whether I should pucker for this Poly or what ##($*%&!!!

After searching this 911jobforum board, I haven't yet found a single post about someone failing their Poly (although there are not too many posts on the subject of USPIS poly anyway)

George, can you give me opinion of all of replies in this link?