- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by 1904
- Jun 04, 2007, 08:56 AMQuote from: Fair Chance on Jun 01, 2007, 04:34 PMHonesty?
Honesty?
The whole idea of "being able to detect deception" is dishonest in itself. Facts, not hunches, not heartbeats, not sweat, not "gut instincts" should determine honesty.
I could not have said that any better.
So, CONSTANZA, put that in your BP cuff and smoke it.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Jun 01, 2007, 04:34 PMHonesty?
Honesty?
The whole idea of "being able to detect deception" is dishonest in itself. Facts, not hunches, not heartbeats, not sweat, not "gut instincts" should determine honesty. Past life experience, testimonials, from observations from family, friends, and former supervisors should be given much more weight than any polygraph analysis or "examination".
The tail is wagging the dog.
A two or four hour examination is insignificant against a quality back ground check that depends on documented facts.
The polygraph is a bureaucratic excuse for not putting out the money for a background check. It allows agency heads to wash their hands of security concerns and responsiblity.
No one is held accountable for failures, they just pass the buck and the polygraph is convenient for doing so.
That is honesty. The emporer has no clothes and no one in power wants to be the one to tell him.
Honesty?
The whole idea of "being able to detect deception" is dishonest in itself. Facts, not hunches, not heartbeats, not sweat, not "gut instincts" should determine honesty. Past life experience, testimonials, from observations from family, friends, and former supervisors should be given much more weight than any polygraph analysis or "examination".
The tail is wagging the dog.
A two or four hour examination is insignificant against a quality back ground check that depends on documented facts.
The polygraph is a bureaucratic excuse for not putting out the money for a background check. It allows agency heads to wash their hands of security concerns and responsiblity.
No one is held accountable for failures, they just pass the buck and the polygraph is convenient for doing so.
That is honesty. The emporer has no clothes and no one in power wants to be the one to tell him.
Posted by 1904
- Jun 01, 2007, 10:35 AMQuote from: Costanza on Jun 01, 2007, 10:15 AMHow many posters who failed their tests were actually lying about one or more of the issues? Better yet, how many had things on their minds that were causing them stress that they directly related to one or more of the issues? Let's hear some honesty here.
Or better still........ how many tests have you cocked up and then bluffed your way through to the end?
How many Inc's have you had and then tried to BS a confession out of the subject........?
How many times have you relied on polscore or other BS scoring software to do your job for you
- causing you to wrongfully accuse a subject of lying and/or practising CM's......
Come On -- lets see some honesty here and now !!!!!
Posted by Costanza
- Jun 01, 2007, 10:15 AMHow many posters who failed their tests were actually lying about one or more of the issues? Better yet, how many had things on their minds that were causing them stress that they directly related to one or more of the issues? Let's hear some honesty here.