- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by gr8dad
- Jan 25, 2007, 06:50 PMGreat observation Fender! What else would you expect a test to be when it is operated and advocated by such shallow individuals? Haven't you noticed the game of dodgeball they play when it comes to actually providing any REAL proof that the thing even remotely works the way they so eagerly proclaim that it does? Things that make you go HMMMMM!
Posted by gr8dad
- Jan 25, 2007, 06:35 PMLBCB, above you stated that "the examiner will either help you save yourself or hang yourself, whatever you truly deserve". So, you yourself just admitted that the examiner can make that choice for the machine. Why would they need to do that if the machine is capable of doing it no matter what? There you have it folks! Just another polygrapher talking out of both sides of their mouth!
Posted by gr8dad
- Jan 25, 2007, 06:30 PMOne more thing LBCB. I have set and read all of your propaganda about how wonderful your little machine is, but you are yet to provide any HARD scientific or pyschological evidence that shows without a doubt that it does what you say it does with even a stitch of accuracy. This is true of all of your colleges as well. Those that oppose the polygraph have put forth thousands of pages of hundreds of UNBIASED scientific and psychological research data. All you have to support your claims is that you have "experience" operating the machine. Well, a bulldozer operator has experience operating that too, so if he tells me it can read my mind and tell him I am lying should I believe him too. Either put up or just shut up!
Posted by gr8dad
- Jan 25, 2007, 06:23 PMLBCB, I noticed something you said a few entry's ago. You said that you know the IN's and the OUT's of the polygraph. That is the problem! If this machine is so accurate as you and your idiot colleges claim it to be than there should be no IN's and OUT's to it. It should just do what it is suppose to do. Determine between TRUTH and LIES! Why is there IN's and OUT's? There are no variables to lying or telling the truth! Either you lied or you told the truth. Your arguments are nonsense and absolutely with no theoretical or scientific base!
Posted by polysuck
- Dec 18, 2006, 09:14 PMLieBaby, are you sure you're not the polygrapher who performed my test??? Or do they give you guys a book to quote?? LOL....seems i've heard some of this before...especially the priest line.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 18, 2006, 07:21 PMWhat part of "everyone lies" don't you understand, Polyfool? Some people may be more honest than others, but I maintain that no one is "completely honest." If a person is "completely honest," then perhaps he or she should be that priest rather than that cop. We of course claim that we want "completely honest" people for the job, but that is an ideal, not a reality. And remember--admitting to every little lie in the interview process does not make a person appear to be honest. Not in the polygrapher's mind, and not in their own mind. It simply makes them appear afraid now that they have to "face the music."
Posted by polyfool
- Dec 18, 2006, 07:15 PMLieBaby,
So what if the subject cares more about his/her own integrity and being completely honest as he/she has been instructed to do and is less concerned about fitting into a particular mold just to land the job?
So what if the subject cares more about his/her own integrity and being completely honest as he/she has been instructed to do and is less concerned about fitting into a particular mold just to land the job?
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 18, 2006, 06:05 PMYou know the answer to your own question, and you attempt to bait me. Well, I don't care, Polyfool. I will respond to the question because I don't feel that my response will in any way negatively affect potential polygraph subjects. I know all of the "ins and outs" of the polygraph, and I have been tested repeatedly. A properly conducted polygraph works almost every time on me or any other basically honest person.
A polygraph depends on questions being significant to the subject. Most people have not engaged in serious criminal activity, or at least I am optimistic enough to believe that to be the case. But everyone--and I mean everyone--has lied and does lie on a consistent basis, whether that be daily, weekly, or even just monthly. Obviously some people are more honest than others. My brother, for example, is very religious, and he almost won't lie about anything, yet he feels the need to go to weekly confessional. So obviously, at least in his own mind, he feels the need to confess his "sins," and he feels that he "sins" on a regular basis. My cousin, on the other hand, lies about everything, and seems to feel no remorse for doing so. If I were testing these two individuals, I would use "universal" lie questions that would apply to both of them. Even though my cousin seems to feel no remorse for his lies, it doesn't really matter because the polygraph does not depend on a guilty conscience as many people believe. It depends on questions being significant to the subject. It operates on recognition, whether it's a "stim test" or a CQT test.
When a subject admits, admits, admits in the interview, the examiner has not done his or her job correctly. A good examiner will make honesty seem so necessary to get the job, and convince the subject that anyone who doesn't measure up to those standards isn't what the department or agency is looking for, that the subject will feel that there is no alternative other than claiming to be an honest person and the kind of person fit for the job. Then the examiner will ask the subject if he or she is honest, or if he or she is a liar. Any normal person will say that he or she is honest. The examiner will praise the subject for his or her honesty. After all of this, almost no subject is then going to turn around and admit to being a big liar.
So you see, in a properly conducted polygraph exam, it is highly unusual for a subject to admit, admit, admit, thereby making himself or herself out to be a big liar even before the test begins. Admission to many lies during the interview stage does not make a person appear to be an honest individual, but rather a scared individual--someone who has a lying past but who is now scared when faced with the polygraph. If a person does admit, admit, admit, it is the polygrapher's job to make the person feel bad about his or her admittedly lying past. When done properly, the polygraph works almost all the time, whether or not a person admits to anything. But there is no polygrapher who wants to have a subject to whom none of the questions have any significance, and there is no polygrapher who wants to sit there and be a priest to someone's every transgression, so excessive admissions are discouraged.
A polygraph depends on questions being significant to the subject. Most people have not engaged in serious criminal activity, or at least I am optimistic enough to believe that to be the case. But everyone--and I mean everyone--has lied and does lie on a consistent basis, whether that be daily, weekly, or even just monthly. Obviously some people are more honest than others. My brother, for example, is very religious, and he almost won't lie about anything, yet he feels the need to go to weekly confessional. So obviously, at least in his own mind, he feels the need to confess his "sins," and he feels that he "sins" on a regular basis. My cousin, on the other hand, lies about everything, and seems to feel no remorse for doing so. If I were testing these two individuals, I would use "universal" lie questions that would apply to both of them. Even though my cousin seems to feel no remorse for his lies, it doesn't really matter because the polygraph does not depend on a guilty conscience as many people believe. It depends on questions being significant to the subject. It operates on recognition, whether it's a "stim test" or a CQT test.
When a subject admits, admits, admits in the interview, the examiner has not done his or her job correctly. A good examiner will make honesty seem so necessary to get the job, and convince the subject that anyone who doesn't measure up to those standards isn't what the department or agency is looking for, that the subject will feel that there is no alternative other than claiming to be an honest person and the kind of person fit for the job. Then the examiner will ask the subject if he or she is honest, or if he or she is a liar. Any normal person will say that he or she is honest. The examiner will praise the subject for his or her honesty. After all of this, almost no subject is then going to turn around and admit to being a big liar.
So you see, in a properly conducted polygraph exam, it is highly unusual for a subject to admit, admit, admit, thereby making himself or herself out to be a big liar even before the test begins. Admission to many lies during the interview stage does not make a person appear to be an honest individual, but rather a scared individual--someone who has a lying past but who is now scared when faced with the polygraph. If a person does admit, admit, admit, it is the polygrapher's job to make the person feel bad about his or her admittedly lying past. When done properly, the polygraph works almost all the time, whether or not a person admits to anything. But there is no polygrapher who wants to have a subject to whom none of the questions have any significance, and there is no polygrapher who wants to sit there and be a priest to someone's every transgression, so excessive admissions are discouraged.
Posted by polyfool
- Dec 18, 2006, 02:03 PMLieBabyCryBaby,
How do you handle it when a subject admits, admits, admits before the exam because you've warned him or her about the severe consequences of holding back information?
How do you handle it when a subject admits, admits, admits before the exam because you've warned him or her about the severe consequences of holding back information?
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 18, 2006, 01:08 PMOk, once a person makes the statement, during the interview stage before the test, that he or she doesn't lie, the person is much less likely to then turn around and admit to a lying past. Polygraphers don't want someone to admit, admit, admit before taking the test, unless of course they are admitting to criminal behavior. Otherwise, we want people to shut up, hold those lies inside, and as a result completely ace the test or fail miserably. We want one or the other. We don't like an inconclusive result, which is somewhat more likely if the person has both nothing to hide on the relevant issues and is hiding nothing on the other questions as well. In other words, if none of the questions are meaningful to the subject, the test won't mean as much. This generally won't happen if a person has a criminal past and is lying to the relevant issues, but it can happen if the person truly has no criminal past and is hiding absolutely nothing on any of the other questions as well. As I said, I'm sure one of the anti- guys will be happy to explain this in greater detail, with a conspiratorial, evil slant to it, but the fact is that the examiner wants you to either ace the test or fail miserably, nothing in between, and he or she will try to help you either save or hang yourself, according to what you truly deserve.
See, anti-polygraphites: Some polygraph examiners aren't afraid to speak frankly.
See, anti-polygraphites: Some polygraph examiners aren't afraid to speak frankly.
Posted by polysuck
- Dec 17, 2006, 08:22 PMHell, i'd rather have you tell me....I had to rack my brains to think of little stupid BS lies...yes, we all lie...and that's what i told him. But, "do i have any huge lies that are popping out at me? No, i don't"
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 17, 2006, 07:08 PMActually, we polygraphers just love people like you who say they don't lie. It makes our job easier, as I'm sure one of the anti-polygraph guys will be happy to explain.
Posted by polysuck
- Dec 17, 2006, 01:08 AMTrue, true...he essentially "beat me up" about trying to beat the polygraph...which, IMHO, isn't possible and will just screw things up even more...and sine i want it so bad, in 3-6 months, i'll start the whole process over and 1) breathe however my body wants to 2) hope i get a different polygrapher 3) think of more lies i've told, so i can divulge them to the polygrapher...he didn't seem to like me saying "I don't lie" during the interview portion, prior to actually administering the exam.
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 17, 2006, 12:13 AMActually, no, that's not common sense. That is a trained ability. Athletes learn it. Soldiers learn it. Cops learn it. There are countless self-help tapes and CDs about relaxation, and all of them focus on breathing. Good meditation requires good breathing. And it's understandable that you would attempt to control your breathing during a polygraph exam, which is undeniably a stressful situation.
Maybe the examiner totally screwed up, but if he saw your breathing was abnormal during the exam--or at least abnormal in his opinion--the normal thing would be to point that out, without dwelling on it too much, that he wanted you to breathe normally.
If you weren't breathing in one of the patterns that we polygraphers know to be indicative of countermeasures--if all you were doing was breathing slowly and trying to relax--then the polygrapher should have recognized that and not waited until after the exam to point that out. In other words, if he wasn't getting good data, he had his opportunity to point that out DURING the exam.
Maybe the examiner totally screwed up, but if he saw your breathing was abnormal during the exam--or at least abnormal in his opinion--the normal thing would be to point that out, without dwelling on it too much, that he wanted you to breathe normally.
If you weren't breathing in one of the patterns that we polygraphers know to be indicative of countermeasures--if all you were doing was breathing slowly and trying to relax--then the polygrapher should have recognized that and not waited until after the exam to point that out. In other words, if he wasn't getting good data, he had his opportunity to point that out DURING the exam.
Posted by polysuck
- Dec 17, 2006, 12:07 AMAhhhh yes, but no one has yet to ask, "Did he tell you not to do such and such?"
NEVER did he say, "don't relax" or "let your heart beat out of your chest"
Sorry, but maybe you've never been in a situation where you've had a TRUE adrenaline rush...but i have...and have a LOT of experience dealing with those that have....
YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT COMMON SENSE??? First thing you do, slow their breathing down!!! Now THAT is common sense.
NEVER did he say, "don't relax" or "let your heart beat out of your chest"
Sorry, but maybe you've never been in a situation where you've had a TRUE adrenaline rush...but i have...and have a LOT of experience dealing with those that have....
YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT COMMON SENSE??? First thing you do, slow their breathing down!!! Now THAT is common sense.