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 name of the first U.S. president?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Smokey
 - Oct 02, 2005, 05:58 AM
Even the most innocent people get false positives.  Reject someone from employment because they are simply nervous and their vital signs show it, and that is supposed to be the basis for determining if someone is lying?  Polygraphy is a joke.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Oct 02, 2005, 03:50 AM
Quote from: Eastwood on Oct 01, 2005, 09:16 PMSome use CM's because they are so wound up listening to malcontents that they don't feel they can pass simply by cooperating and being truthful.  Others have minor things they're worried about, that the hiring agency couldn't care less about.  In either case, you guys are poisoning the minds of applicants who would otherwise do well simply by telling the truth.  Get a life dudes.

Eastwood,

As the experience of many has shown, "simply cooperating and being truthful" provides no assurance that one will pass a polygraph examination.

If you are truly concerned about hurting innocent people, then you should immediately cease and desist from the administration of polygraph examinations. Polygraphy is completely without scientific basis, and by continuing to practice this pseudoscientific procedure, it is an actuarial certainty that you are hurting innocent people.
Posted by kane
 - Oct 02, 2005, 02:40 AM
Eastwood, if you believe that I have some swampland in Kansas for sale, cheap.
Posted by Bill Crider
 - Oct 02, 2005, 01:35 AM
Eastwood, I failed 4 polys and didnt use CMs despite having been at this site before the last 3. They called me a drug dealer for god's sake. Don't come in here with your weak-@ss assumptions.
Posted by polyscam
 - Oct 02, 2005, 12:25 AM
Eastwood, my friend, I would not have found this site much less researched polygraph testing if not for the mistreatment I received in an employment screening exam which ultimately led to a false positive which led to a rejection letter.  This is a position which I am more than minimally qualified that slipped away because of reliance on a test whose foundation is built upon sand.  Did that make me angry, hell yes it did.  You mention cooperating and being truthful which is great advice.  It didn't work for me in the aforementioned exam.  So much as you feel the information here is garbage by that standard your advice is garbage as well.  The polygraph unfortunately has cause the applicant pool to become very shallow in many areas.  People who are qualified in every way (experience, lifestyle, criminal history, etc.) are being turned away from employment for one reason - polygraph testing.  Maybe you would be a bit more comfortable at the polygraphplace board where your anti-antipolygraph pep-rally would be readily accepted.  Your "get a life dudes" attitude speaks volumes of your 2 dimensional character.
Posted by Eastwood
 - Oct 01, 2005, 09:16 PM
Some use CM's because they are so wound up listening to malcontents that they don't feel they can pass simply by cooperating and being truthful.  Others have minor things they're worried about, that the hiring agency couldn't care less about.  In either case, you guys are poisoning the minds of applicants who would otherwise do well simply by telling the truth.  Get a life dudes.