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:
Type the last letter of the word, "America.":
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Jeffery
 - Nov 21, 2004, 04:48 PM
Since the polygraph procedure has little verifiable validity to begin with, I can place little validity in the examiners 'conclusions'.  That being said, the examiner may indeed believe he has correctly intrepreted the charts to indicate deception.  But I agree they could just be playing mind games.  

Hopefully whatever process you are in will  be timely with communicating your status to you either way.
Posted by yatittle
 - Nov 21, 2004, 02:24 AM
Anybody have an opinion on the validity of the polygraphers conclusion? I have been told I failed after the session ended, and want to know if there is any hope. I know sometimes they tell you that you pass when you really failed, and that you failed when you really passed. I guess it's just those mind games. Hmph :-/

-Randy
Posted by yatittle
 - Nov 16, 2004, 07:48 PM
Do you think if the fbi or some other government agencies which rely on polygraphs tell you that you passed, that you really did pass? If they tell you that you failed, did you really fail, or does the actual decision take place later.
Posted by Jeffery
 - Nov 16, 2004, 01:58 AM
(I'm sure the citations for what I reference are elsewhere on this site).

The government is on record as saying that polygraphs are useless (the case was a serviceman who had a polygraph that was favorable to his side, exonerating him, but the government didn't want to let him enter it as evidence).

That is an example where a "passed" polygraph wasn't that impressive to the government.  So in that case, I'd have to say that a passed polygraph doesn't mean much.

It is also statistically proven that "failed" polygraphs happen too frequently through abuse and "false positive" situations.

A failed polygraph is more indicative of somebody who was either gullible, naive or a sucker who was likely conned in to admitting to something that the examiner didn't like.  Skill and cunning on the part of the examiner can cause lines on the chart that would cause a failure or inconcliusive result when interrogating most normal, uninformed subjects.

So, I'd have to say that you are damned if you do, and less damned if you don't.  

A passed polygraph isn't impressive to those already in the system, as they know the polygraph can be beaten and is bogus etc.  A failed polygarph can and will be used against you (not in court; where at least you'd have an appeal).
Posted by yatittle
 - Nov 16, 2004, 12:43 AM
What matters more?

That you passed?
Or
That you failed?

Which one holds more weight to those who look at results of a polygraph to make a decision?

Randy