- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Kona
- Jan 05, 2004, 10:53 PMmkyadidas,
The fact that you "quit" smoking dope a month ago isn't going to bode well with any police department that I know of in the USA. Nothing personal, but I would venture to say that your chances of being hired are located somewhere between slim and none. You might want to expand your job search to include other professions that are more lenient with regard to your recent drug use.
Kona
The fact that you "quit" smoking dope a month ago isn't going to bode well with any police department that I know of in the USA. Nothing personal, but I would venture to say that your chances of being hired are located somewhere between slim and none. You might want to expand your job search to include other professions that are more lenient with regard to your recent drug use.
Kona
Posted by mkyadidas
- Jan 05, 2004, 10:16 PMi have a similar problem to Ryan's. I'm applying for a job as a police dispatcher.... i have had some drug use in the past, mostly marijuana, and just recently quit (about a month ago).... i don't know wether that is going to disqualify me or since i have been quiting, it'll be okay....
i've seen a lot of different opinions on the board.... and personally i don't know whether polygraphs tests work or not... this is my first one... so i wouldn't know how to cheat it.... i'm mostly an honest person and a bad liar so i don't think that's a good idea for me...
but is the fact that i recently quit grounds of disqualification?
i've seen a lot of different opinions on the board.... and personally i don't know whether polygraphs tests work or not... this is my first one... so i wouldn't know how to cheat it.... i'm mostly an honest person and a bad liar so i don't think that's a good idea for me...
but is the fact that i recently quit grounds of disqualification?
Posted by Kona
- Dec 29, 2003, 04:54 AMQuote from: Torpedo on Dec 25, 2003, 01:19 PMKona, my friend, you really lack a lot of knowledge about polygraph...and that concerns me because aren't you one of the folks who are freely passing information to others about the polygraph, what to do, etc..
Torpedo,
The information I pass on these boards is based on my personal experience with the polygraph. I am not making anything up, or embellishing any stories. I have never professed to be a polygraph expert, rather I opine on the subject based on how the polygraph experience has affected my quest for a job in Law Enforcement. The people here can either take my advise, or leave it......it's totally up to them.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 25, 2003, 01:19 PMYes,even police departments employ examiners where there are no laws and their training may be less than desireable.
Excuse me, are you insinuating that the 3 different polygraph examiners that conducted my examinations weren't quite up to snuff? Very interesting. All three exams were very similar, and all three examiners acted professionally. These guys were all experienced Detectives with over 20 years on the force, and several years experience in their respective polygraph departments. In fact, their exams were amazingly similar to the trip reports I've read here on this website. You could have substituted a LAPD or a FBI polygraph session with mine. They all use the same techniques, and follow the same basic pattern.
Quote from: Torpedo on Dec 25, 2003, 01:19 PMI wish there was something PERFECT to do these jobs of screening,but right now, it would seem that polygraph performs that mission...
I've got news for you......there is never going to be anything that is perfect for screening police recruit applicants. Your assertion that the polygraph seems to be performing that mission now is highly debatable. We have a fundamental difference of opinion concerning the accuracy of the polygraph, and whether countermeasures can be detected. Again I can only speak from my personal experience that my polygraph examinations were as accurate as flipping a coin when no countermeasures were used, and I told the truth. Also, the one and only time I used countermeasures and told the truth, worked like a champ for me......I passed with no problem.
Good luck convincing the masses out there that you can catch a majority of people that utilize countermeasures. I'll believe it when I see you prove it on the countermeasure challenge.
Regards,
Kona
Posted by Marty
- Dec 29, 2003, 02:49 AMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Dec 29, 2003, 02:28 AMTorpedo,Drew,
...let me clearly state that (1) it is my intention to, once the terms of the stated challenge have been accepted, to honor my offer of participation and (2) I still have no doubt whatsoever that my original assertion, i.e., that the polygraph community can not reliably detect CQT polygraph exam countermeasures, will be clearly shown to be correct as evidenced through the exercise.
Perhaps I misread you earlier. Do you believe that all types of countermeasures are not detectable in a CQT - or only those you intend to utilize?
QuoteI thought the purpose of the "stim" tests was psychologically conditioning the examinee to be less sensitive to the relevant (assuming "No" is truthful) and vice versa. How often (or if) that works is an open question. I'm curious about whether informed examinees who had decided not to use CM's would be disadvantaged by acquaintance tests.
With regard to your latest post, my concern with numbers/stim/acquaintance tests is that it/they really have nothing at all to do with lie tests. In reality these are nothing more than concealed information tests with an examinee merely responding to an act of significance (picking a number when instructed to do so) to him and one not requiring that any lie be told, i.e., a silent test will work just as well as one in which the examinee is told to answer "no" to each question. Neither success nor failure on the part of the examiner in picking the number (blind stim) or demonstrating appropriately produced response(s) (open stim) has any bearing on the validity of the lie test to follow. This of course, is quite apart from and in addition to any fraud, which might be involved in the execution of the stim test. Regards, Drew Richardson
-Marty
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Dec 29, 2003, 02:28 AMTorpedo,
Because there are others quite well qualified to offer running commentary regarding the nature of, reasons for, and the passage of time that "the challenge" has gone unanswered, my ongoing participation in the matter is rendered largely unnecessary. That having been said, lest you think that my lack of daily commentary would indicate some disinterest on my part, let me clearly state that (1) it is my intention to, once the terms of the stated challenge have been accepted, to honor my offer of participation and (2) I still have no doubt whatsoever that my original assertion, i.e., that the polygraph community can not reliably detect CQT polygraph exam countermeasures, will be clearly shown to be correct as evidenced through the exercise.
With regard to your latest post, my concern with numbers/stim/acquaintance tests is that it/they really have nothing at all to do with lie tests. In reality these are nothing more than concealed information tests with an examinee merely responding to an act of significance (picking a number when instructed to do so) to him and one not requiring that any lie be told, i.e., a silent test will work just as well as one in which the examinee is told to answer "no" to each question. Neither success nor failure on the part of the examiner in picking the number (blind stim) or demonstrating appropriately produced response(s) (open stim) has any bearing on the validity of the lie test to follow. This of course, is quite apart from and in addition to any fraud, which might be involved in the execution of the stim test. Regards, Drew Richardson
Because there are others quite well qualified to offer running commentary regarding the nature of, reasons for, and the passage of time that "the challenge" has gone unanswered, my ongoing participation in the matter is rendered largely unnecessary. That having been said, lest you think that my lack of daily commentary would indicate some disinterest on my part, let me clearly state that (1) it is my intention to, once the terms of the stated challenge have been accepted, to honor my offer of participation and (2) I still have no doubt whatsoever that my original assertion, i.e., that the polygraph community can not reliably detect CQT polygraph exam countermeasures, will be clearly shown to be correct as evidenced through the exercise.
With regard to your latest post, my concern with numbers/stim/acquaintance tests is that it/they really have nothing at all to do with lie tests. In reality these are nothing more than concealed information tests with an examinee merely responding to an act of significance (picking a number when instructed to do so) to him and one not requiring that any lie be told, i.e., a silent test will work just as well as one in which the examinee is told to answer "no" to each question. Neither success nor failure on the part of the examiner in picking the number (blind stim) or demonstrating appropriately produced response(s) (open stim) has any bearing on the validity of the lie test to follow. This of course, is quite apart from and in addition to any fraud, which might be involved in the execution of the stim test. Regards, Drew Richardson
Posted by Torpedo
- Dec 29, 2003, 02:10 AMProbably not. The rationale behind the "stim" test (most examiners do not like that moniker) is that it is INTENDED to demonstrate to the examinee how the test works, truth be told, for the skeptical examinee that the test in fact works. I am not "giving anything away" (this description is readily available) In explaining the test, I will tell you that I want you to answer no to all questions about the numbers, including the one which you picked/wrote. If you "refused" to answer as I directed, I do not care...I simply would not administer that particular test to you. The idea isn't to trick (as some would have you believe) it is used to provide an opportunity for the examinee to have some idea of the process. It may come as a surprise to some of the anti folks, but a distinct advantage of the test is for innocent examinees when they are able to see that the test does work and that will be vindicated. I think the idea of the whole process being equated to a palor game , at least inpart, comes from the manner in which SOME examiners use a deck of playing cards to perform this test. This manner is not exactly embraced by all for obvious reasons.
Posted by Twoblock
- Dec 29, 2003, 01:01 AMTorpedo
I am still in the learning process so here's another question for you.
Let's say you are giving me a poly. In the numbers stim test, I pick the number 5. When you ask "did you pick the number 5". I refused to lie and said yes. Would you fail me for being uncooperative for refusing to lie as you directed? Remember, you want me to be truthful and all I want to do is tell the total truth.
I am still in the learning process so here's another question for you.
Let's say you are giving me a poly. In the numbers stim test, I pick the number 5. When you ask "did you pick the number 5". I refused to lie and said yes. Would you fail me for being uncooperative for refusing to lie as you directed? Remember, you want me to be truthful and all I want to do is tell the total truth.
Posted by Torpedo
- Dec 28, 2003, 11:20 PMSkeptic, I took the time to look it up and it is identified as "circular reasoning"....not a circular argument. (as I called it)...not sure if there is a difference, but your inference of being dogmatic is correct....at least the way that I see it. 
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 28, 2003, 10:41 PMQuote from: Torpedo on Dec 28, 2003, 07:53 PMGeorge, perhaps I am incorrect and you will no doubt enlighten me. When I spoke of a circular argument, my intetion was to point out that you have your position and I have mione...and apparently neither of us CHOOSE to change or modify our position. My understanding of a circular argument is:
A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument
Forgive me for being less than intelligent (in your eyes), butit would seem to me that I am making a conclusion and you are making a conclusion, both of which are assumed in our respective arguments for and against polygraph therefore we must BOTH be engaing in separate circular arguments
Torpedo,
Another term for a circular argument is begging the question. I think what you're referring to is a couple of people holding on to positions dogmatically.
Skeptic
Posted by Torpedo
- Dec 28, 2003, 07:53 PMGeorge, perhaps I am incorrect and you will no doubt enlighten me. When I spoke of a circular argument, my intetion was to point out that you have your position and I have mione...and apparently neither of us CHOOSE to change or modify our position. My understanding of a circular argument is:
A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument
Forgive me for being less than intelligent (in your eyes), butit would seem to me that I am making a conclusion and you are making a conclusion, both of which are assumed in our respective arguments for and against polygraph therefore we must BOTH be engaing in separate circular arguments
A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument
Forgive me for being less than intelligent (in your eyes), butit would seem to me that I am making a conclusion and you are making a conclusion, both of which are assumed in our respective arguments for and against polygraph therefore we must BOTH be engaing in separate circular arguments
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 28, 2003, 03:33 PMQuote from: Marty on Dec 28, 2003, 02:23 AMSkeptic,
Any idea how much of a grant would be required to do a quality study? I'm not an academic, I went into the private sector (not gov related) so while I've very much enjoyed spending time at Millikan and UCSD's tech library as part of the R&D I've done, I'm clueless as to the practices in the credentialed, non-profit world.
TIA
-Marty
That, I would not know, as I've never done grantwriting. I do recall, during my Psychology undergrad days, that undergrad Psych majors were required, as part of "intro to Psychology 101", to participate in ongoing Psychology studies. This was a relatively small Psychology department, yet it had multiple studies going on the scale you seem to envision. So I would imagine we're talking $50,000 or perhaps considerably less, mostly to fund research assistants for a year or two. If the department wanted to set up a permanent polygraph research lab, it might cost more (for equipment and space, etc.). An informal study with all volunteers, of course, could be done for the price of the equipment.
Of greater consideration would be the design of the study, to avoid confounds that the polygraph community would claim regarding the "reality" of the study conditions. Since most of us seem to agree that "fear of consequences" is the main factor in the functioning of the polygraph, one would need to set up a situation in which the subjects felt concern that the detection of countermeasures would have real consequences for them. At the same time, you'd need to tread an ethical line regarding deception of the subjects.
On the other hand, it might be interesting to compare such results with those from subjects who felt they had nothing to lose. This second part could be considered a "baseline" for the detection of countermeasures.
You'd also need to lay out beforehand that the polygraph examiner was only allowed to judge the presence of countermeasures based upon chart recordings, not upon beating a confession out of an examinee. No interrogations allowed -- we're looking for the actual performance of the device, after all, not for how often an examinee can be made to confess...
Skeptic
Posted by Marty
- Dec 28, 2003, 02:23 AMSkeptic,
Any idea how much of a grant would be required to do a quality study? I'm not an academic, I went into the private sector (not gov related) so while I've very much enjoyed spending time at Millikan and UCSD's tech library as part of the R&D I've done, I'm clueless as to the practices in the credentialed, non-profit world.
TIA
-Marty
Any idea how much of a grant would be required to do a quality study? I'm not an academic, I went into the private sector (not gov related) so while I've very much enjoyed spending time at Millikan and UCSD's tech library as part of the R&D I've done, I'm clueless as to the practices in the credentialed, non-profit world.
TIA
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 28, 2003, 12:33 AMQuote from: Marty on Dec 27, 2003, 11:50 PMSkeptic,
Any ideas what size grant it would take to put Drew's challenge into a publishable work? What institutions to funnel it through? A properly funded, peer reviewed, scientific study would really be ideal.
-Marty
Actually, I would think most psychology departments at major universities would be more than capable of setting up and carrying through such a study. The major issues would be the study design, which would likely be rather standard psychology fare (double-blind, etc.).
Getting the results into a reputable journal would be more a matter of time than anything (assuming it's well done).
Skeptic
Posted by Marty
- Dec 27, 2003, 11:50 PMSkeptic,
Any ideas what size grant it would take to put Drew's challenge into a publishable work? What institutions to funnel it through? A properly funded, peer reviewed, scientific study would really be ideal.
-Marty
Any ideas what size grant it would take to put Drew's challenge into a publishable work? What institutions to funnel it through? A properly funded, peer reviewed, scientific study would really be ideal.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 27, 2003, 06:51 PMQuote from: Marty on Dec 27, 2003, 03:38 PM
Skeptic,
"Fun?" well it would be for the observers. "Easy and simple?" I don't think so. Drew's challenge, far from being the childish taunt some polygraphers have stated, is not simple and requires serious work to set up protocols that each side can agree on as providing statistically significant results - a non-trivial task. Drew's challenge would require significant resources (mostly time and thoughtful preparation) to execute. It would be much more elucidating if funding could be arranged and experienced polygraphers recruited.
Marty,
I stand corrected, although I hope my light-hearted tone was taken for what it was, and not as an attempt to belittle the challenge. Nontheless, the fact that polygraphers en masse have utterly refused to even discuss taking up a challenge that could put the issue to rest and provide a solid boost to their profession (provided detection were as easy as they claim) should be taken as speaking volumes regarding the accuracy of their boasts -- or at least, their confidence in said boasts.
Skeptic