- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by rice80
- Oct 09, 2007, 12:41 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 05, 2007, 07:58 AMPolygraph is an instrument---an instrument measures and a "machine" moves/works things. You wouldn"t (or maybe you would) call a thermometer a temperature machine. Go back to school rice80.
ok instument/machine whatever.
Posted by 1904
- Oct 08, 2007, 07:09 AMQuote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 05, 2007, 12:29 AM
First of all, the polygraph does not "monitor vital signs".
MM
For someone who is blind and apparently quite stupid, you type rather well.
Posted by Paradiddle
- Oct 05, 2007, 07:58 AMPolygraph is an instrument---an instrument measures and a "machine" moves/works things. You wouldn"t (or maybe you would) call a thermometer a temperature machine. Go back to school rice80.
Posted by rice80
- Oct 05, 2007, 12:46 AMQuote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 05, 2007, 12:29 AMrice80
I don't know about your educational background either but it sure as hell does not include any education in polygraph! First of all, the polygraph is not a machine and it does not "monitor vital signs".
Based on your last post, I think your knowledge about polygraph rates right up there with Brittany Spear's parenting skills! Have another shot and go back to bed! Why are you here tonight? Was the NAMBL web site down?
MM
MM,
Doesn't monitor vital signs you say? So what are ,blood pressure, breathing rate, and sweat activity? You might want to educate yourself before you answer becuase I was a medic before becoming a cop. You also say its not a machine? then what would you call it? Please enlighten me? O wait I know A 'crude reaction recorder". You sir should go back to bed and also seems your polygraph knowledge isn't very good either!
Posted by Mysterymeat
- Oct 05, 2007, 12:29 AMrice80
I don't know about your educational background either but it sure as hell does not include any education in polygraph! First of all, the polygraph is not a machine and it does not "monitor vital signs".
Based on your last post, I think your knowledge about polygraph rates right up there with Brittany Spear's parenting skills! Have another shot and go back to bed! Why are you here tonight? Was the NAMBL web site down?
MM
I don't know about your educational background either but it sure as hell does not include any education in polygraph! First of all, the polygraph is not a machine and it does not "monitor vital signs".
Based on your last post, I think your knowledge about polygraph rates right up there with Brittany Spear's parenting skills! Have another shot and go back to bed! Why are you here tonight? Was the NAMBL web site down?
MM
Posted by rice80
- Oct 05, 2007, 12:27 AMO I amost forgot, Paradiddle since your so smarter then everyone, show me in Sarge's above comment where there is a question?? :-? All I see is statements. Now who is "disengenuious"? :-/
Posted by rice80
- Oct 05, 2007, 12:15 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 10:45 PMQuote from: rice80 on Oct 04, 2007, 08:53 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 04, 2007, 09:40 AMQuote from: pailryder on Oct 04, 2007, 07:42 AMSarge 1107I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.
My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test. I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart. After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know. If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson? Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:
A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again. Alexander Pope (1711)
In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth. If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them. I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will. I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth. It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.
I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.
I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening. All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.
I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing. But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.
If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen. And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies. Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.
Sergeant1107,
I agree. All of my tests were pre-employment as well. Each one with different outcomes.
Classic antipolygraph thread. An examiner attempts some thoughtful discourse---a little food for thought. Than an anti guy writes that he agrees in part, but continues to wash his hands of the fact that this site advocates cheating on tests that it feels are unwarranted and invalid. Then the poster goes on to ask some repeated and previously addressed questions---several questions mind you. Then rice80 comes along and says "I agree." Agree with what....Serge's questions? How do you agree with questions rice? My theory is that you weren't really paying attention and that you were merely clapping your hands out of deferrance----only I must inquire Why? Why would a person post such a rediculous thread----you have already told your oddly suspicious war story (study statement analysis---and yes, it works on the internet boards too Serge.) Have you been instructed to do so in an effort to bury pro-polygraph discourse? Pardon my inquirey, but you Rice80, seem quite disengenuious.
Well it seems you, Paradiddle, aren't that smart either. My comment was for Sarge. At no time did it say "Hey Paradiddle, please feel free to interject with your non-sense comments and self suspect theories!"
I wonder why a person like you who "swears" by the polygraph would be on a "anti" polygraph site trying to defend its vaildity. Maybe it's because you feel the need to sway the newcomers into thinking that it really and truely does detects lies. Well guess what? I'm one up on ya, I know better
You don't know me or my educational background. All you see is "Oh shit another one who is against the polygraph. I better attack him cuz our numbers are few and I need to make a statement!" Well, you need not make a statement to me or even try for that matter. I know what this "so-called" machine is all about and it really doesn't detect shit. It only monitors and records the body's vital signs. I have seen first hand how "valid" it is. It's good for interrogations and making the guilty criminal think he has been caught in a lie. That's it. As for anything else, its just a bunch of squigly lines on chart paper. Posted by Paradiddle
- Oct 04, 2007, 10:45 PMQuote from: rice80 on Oct 04, 2007, 08:53 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 04, 2007, 09:40 AMQuote from: pailryder on Oct 04, 2007, 07:42 AMSarge 1107I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.
My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test. I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart. After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know. If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson? Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:
A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again. Alexander Pope (1711)
In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth. If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them. I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will. I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth. It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.
I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.
I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening. All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.
I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing. But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.
If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen. And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies. Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.
Sergeant1107,
I agree. All of my tests were pre-employment as well. Each one with different outcomes.
Classic antipolygraph thread. An examiner attempts some thoughtful discourse---a little food for thought. Than an anti guy writes that he agrees in part, but continues to wash his hands of the fact that this site advocates cheating on tests that it feels are unwarranted and invalid. Then the poster goes on to ask some repeated and previously addressed questions---several questions mind you. Then rice80 comes along and says "I agree." Agree with what....Serge's questions? How do you agree with questions rice? My theory is that you weren't really paying attention and that you were merely clapping your hands out of deferrance----only I must inquire Why? Why would a person post such a rediculous thread----you have already told your oddly suspicious war story (study statement analysis---and yes, it works on the internet boards too Serge.) Have you been instructed to do so in an effort to bury pro-polygraph discourse? Pardon my inquirey, but you Rice80, seem quite disengenuious.
Posted by rice80
- Oct 04, 2007, 08:53 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 04, 2007, 09:40 AMQuote from: pailryder on Oct 04, 2007, 07:42 AMSarge 1107I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.
My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test. I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart. After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know. If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson? Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:
A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again. Alexander Pope (1711)
In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth. If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them. I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will. I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth. It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.
I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.
I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening. All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.
I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing. But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.
If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen. And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies. Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.
Sergeant1107,
I agree. All of my tests were pre-employment as well. Each one with different outcomes.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Oct 04, 2007, 09:40 AMQuote from: pailryder on Oct 04, 2007, 07:42 AMSarge 1107I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.
My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test. I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart. After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know. If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson? Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:
A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again. Alexander Pope (1711)
In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth. If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them. I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will. I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth. It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.
I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.
I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening. All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.
I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing. But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.
If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen. And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies. Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.
Posted by pailryder
- Oct 04, 2007, 07:42 AMSarge 1107
My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test. I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart. After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know. If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson? Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:
A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again. Alexander Pope (1711)
My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test. I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart. After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know. If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson? Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:
A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again. Alexander Pope (1711)
Posted by Ludovico
- Sep 30, 2007, 10:55 AMQuoteIf you are using a test to monitor the behavior of sex offenders and to prevent "undesirables" from getting hired, and that test can be beaten, defeated, or confounded by someone with access to the Internet, how valid can that test possibly be?
You wear a bullet-proof vest Serge? Why bother; they are easily defeated, by more powerful weapons, and by not aiming for the vest.
If you are really going to have an intellectual conversation, it would help to have a less black-and-white understanding of the concept of validity. It would also help to refrain from drawing global conclusions from personal or annecdotal experience. That just ain't science, boss.
By your logic, one could argue that the use of bullet proof vests is invalid, as a measure of police safety and protection - else why would cops still get killed by gunfire in the line of duty. (I apologize for this example. I do not mean to trivialize people who are harmed while doing good work - I simply couldn't find a more powerful metaphor at the moment.)
Posted by pailryder
- Sep 30, 2007, 10:40 AMSarge, I think your experience with polygraph reflects the opinion many in LEAs have formed after exposure to a preemployment screening poly. I agree with you that no employment related decesion, whether in the public or private workplace should ever rest soley on the opinion of a polyex. That is why EPPA, a law designed to end private poly testing actually worked to improve the private end of our profession. But lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
If you take recruits to the range, and provide a good lecture on safety, sight alignment, and trigger control, can most of those trainees be expected to hit a single target? Could most hit seven seperate targets in the same string? Or would that be seven times harder? And would they always know which shots were misses and which were hits?
The single issue specific exam is essentially different from the multiple issue screening exam. The undeniable fact that many LEAs use poly screening simply as an interrogration prop, is regretable but, does not, in and of itself, invalidate other uses of the techniques.
Thank you for your service to community.
If you take recruits to the range, and provide a good lecture on safety, sight alignment, and trigger control, can most of those trainees be expected to hit a single target? Could most hit seven seperate targets in the same string? Or would that be seven times harder? And would they always know which shots were misses and which were hits?
The single issue specific exam is essentially different from the multiple issue screening exam. The undeniable fact that many LEAs use poly screening simply as an interrogration prop, is regretable but, does not, in and of itself, invalidate other uses of the techniques.
Thank you for your service to community.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Sep 30, 2007, 05:31 AMQuote from: Ludovico on Sep 29, 2007, 08:41 PMI'll ask this again, since no one seems to have a valid answer for it...QuoteWhat is my negative purpose for coming to this web site? I am not aware of any, so if you would be so kind as to let me know, I'd appreciate it.
Do you really think you are supporting good police work and community safety, by ancouraging a bunch of sex offenders to try and defeat their monitoring exams, or by helping a bunch of undesirables to try to get hired? Do you really think its working?
Is this the best form of community activism that you can think of?
If you are using a test to monitor the behavior of sex offenders and to prevent "undesirables" from getting hired, and that test can be beaten, defeated, or confounded by someone with access to the Internet, how valid can that test possibly be?
I had three different polygraph examiners tell me they knew I was lying when I knew I was telling the truth. How can any reasonable person go through that experience and not be open to the possibility that sex offenders can rape a child on Monday and pass their polygraph exam on Tuesday? Or that a police applicant with a history of carjacking, sexual assault, and ecstasy use can lie about all of that on their pre-employment polygraph and pass anyway?
In my personal experience the polygraph is not accurate. I don't think it should be used for anything of importance. As an interrogation intimidator it is certainly useful, but only if the subject believes it is capable of detecting deception.
If you are an examiner and you believe the test can be beaten by someone after surfing the web for a weekend, how exactly are you supporting community safety? Shouldn't you stop conducting pointless tests and bring it to someone's attention that the polygraph is not a valid form of monitoring sex offenders and screening applicants because it can be defeated by anyone with a computer and a modem?
Posted by Ludovico
- Sep 29, 2007, 08:41 PMQuoteWhat is my negative purpose for coming to this web site? I am not aware of any, so if you would be so kind as to let me know, I'd appreciate it.
Do you really think you are supporting good police work and community safety, by ancouraging a bunch of sex offenders to try and defeat their monitoring exams, or by helping a bunch of undesirables to try to get hired? Do you really think its working?
Is this the best form of community activism that you can think of?