- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Barry_C
- Dec 19, 2007, 07:40 PMQuoteFurther posts to this message thread should substantially address the topics raised by the originator thereof.
Followed by ...
QuoteSir,
In some workplaces, ie: polygrapf examiners office suites; they even have specially designated masturbation cubicles. Usually big enough for two persons.
Respectfully,
JP
How does this substantially address the topic?
Posted by Administrator
- Nov 30, 2007, 10:33 AMFurther posts to this message thread should substantially address the topics raised by the originator thereof.
Posted by EJohnson
- Nov 30, 2007, 10:26 AMback atcha C.
Posted by 1904
- Nov 30, 2007, 08:32 AMChristians threw a lot of good (innocent) people into the Lions den.
I suppose in those days, there were the pro and anti "lion treatment' groups.
The 'pro' camp undoubtedly said, " It works well. It's all we've got right now and anyway we know that at least half those bastards we tossed in last week were anti-christ. We know that for sure because
when we read their entrails, it was there for all to see, written in the entrails."
I suppose in those days, there were the pro and anti "lion treatment' groups.
The 'pro' camp undoubtedly said, " It works well. It's all we've got right now and anyway we know that at least half those bastards we tossed in last week were anti-christ. We know that for sure because
when we read their entrails, it was there for all to see, written in the entrails."
Posted by EJohnson
- Nov 27, 2007, 10:27 PMReligious people are annoying, spiritual people are invigorating.
Posted by nomegusto
- Nov 27, 2007, 10:46 AMPainful, Painful
You want me to go over written analysis? It's kind of an interesting subject. I use it as a tool for interview's, and law enforcement questioning. Some people use the Polygraph, some use VSA's, I enjoy reading words. But like anything else, it's a tool to see if there are irregularities. It's the same with an interview. I look for changes, wording, the number of lines in a statement. I color code etc etc. It's basic, yet there can be a lot of thought process behind it. Some words in a statement can lead a LEO to think a crime has been committed, and therefore will work on a specific sentence, or reevaluate how to conduct the questioning.
You used
I have not
I never have
then you wrote
I haven't
It's been proven that when a suspect of a crime, or someone suspected of deceipt will draw out there answers, then someone who is innocent. It's the way we think.
For example:
Someone suspected of murder who could be innocent when asked if he/she killed some one might say.
I didn't do it, or it wasn't me
Someone who could be guilty would say
I did not do it, or it was not me.
There are other factors to determine in a statement, like grammar, punctuation, and spelling (I'm not saying I'm perfect in this area, since I'm far from it), but it does help us out in the long run. Remember, I'm not a fan of pre screening Poly's. But like other tool's it's awesome for criminal investigations.
after reading your initial post. I'd be wary of anyone who writes, or tells me he is a good (strong)Christian, or extremly religous. For me, it's like your trying to convince me quickly that your a good person. Most investigators just want to know what has happened, and need facts, not opinions. It could also cause a skeptic to dig digger, and use their expierence with the matter for a more negative result. Hate to say it this way, but President's, Dictators, and a lot of negative individuals themselves use the religious game... 8-)
You want me to go over written analysis? It's kind of an interesting subject. I use it as a tool for interview's, and law enforcement questioning. Some people use the Polygraph, some use VSA's, I enjoy reading words. But like anything else, it's a tool to see if there are irregularities. It's the same with an interview. I look for changes, wording, the number of lines in a statement. I color code etc etc. It's basic, yet there can be a lot of thought process behind it. Some words in a statement can lead a LEO to think a crime has been committed, and therefore will work on a specific sentence, or reevaluate how to conduct the questioning.
You used
I have not
I never have
then you wrote
I haven't
It's been proven that when a suspect of a crime, or someone suspected of deceipt will draw out there answers, then someone who is innocent. It's the way we think.
For example:
Someone suspected of murder who could be innocent when asked if he/she killed some one might say.
I didn't do it, or it wasn't me
Someone who could be guilty would say
I did not do it, or it was not me.
There are other factors to determine in a statement, like grammar, punctuation, and spelling (I'm not saying I'm perfect in this area, since I'm far from it), but it does help us out in the long run. Remember, I'm not a fan of pre screening Poly's. But like other tool's it's awesome for criminal investigations.
after reading your initial post. I'd be wary of anyone who writes, or tells me he is a good (strong)Christian, or extremly religous. For me, it's like your trying to convince me quickly that your a good person. Most investigators just want to know what has happened, and need facts, not opinions. It could also cause a skeptic to dig digger, and use their expierence with the matter for a more negative result. Hate to say it this way, but President's, Dictators, and a lot of negative individuals themselves use the religious game... 8-)
Posted by PainfulDay
- Nov 27, 2007, 09:41 AMOkay EJohnson,
Now you've got me interested. What are you seeing in my posts? I'm a curious sort of guy so your statements really intrigue me. I'm very interested in messages (intentional or not) that are sent through verbal or written media.
What can you tell me? :-?
Now you've got me interested. What are you seeing in my posts? I'm a curious sort of guy so your statements really intrigue me. I'm very interested in messages (intentional or not) that are sent through verbal or written media.
What can you tell me? :-?
Posted by nomegusto
- Nov 26, 2007, 08:20 PMHonestly, you don't have to keep telling me you told the truth. I'm not a polygrapher, nor am I gonna judge you. I was trying to explain how you wrote a post, which would lead some investigators (whether they use or rely on a polygraph or not to believe your accounts on how you wrote your statement).
If you didn't cheat, or ever used a drug thats cool. I've got no issues in that. It's how your writing your posts that get me think more about your situation. I enjoy analyzing statements. I wish I could help more, but I can't... Again, good luck....
EJohnson... Thankyou!!!
If you didn't cheat, or ever used a drug thats cool. I've got no issues in that. It's how your writing your posts that get me think more about your situation. I enjoy analyzing statements. I wish I could help more, but I can't... Again, good luck....
EJohnson... Thankyou!!!
Posted by PainfulDay
- Nov 26, 2007, 08:11 PMI know you have a hard time believing that I never experimented with drugs or cheated on tests. (By the way, no traffic citations since 1971, not 1981. But its all true. I'm just one of those good guys who can't believe there would ever be a need to doubt the intentions of a potential employer.
The one mistake I really made was one of trust. I did not research polygraph before the test. That was a collossal error. I didn't think I needed to do such research. Another error. With that in mind, I probably got what was coming to me.
I'm just surprised that a potential employer would treat recruits that way. It absolutely floored me. Never again... NEVER again will I take a polygraph without being prepared.
But its all true. I'm just one of those good guys who can't believe there would ever be a need to doubt the intentions of a potential employer.The one mistake I really made was one of trust. I did not research polygraph before the test. That was a collossal error. I didn't think I needed to do such research. Another error. With that in mind, I probably got what was coming to me.
I'm just surprised that a potential employer would treat recruits that way. It absolutely floored me. Never again... NEVER again will I take a polygraph without being prepared.
Posted by EJohnson
- Nov 26, 2007, 07:11 PMNice comments nomegusto.
Posted by nomegusto
- Nov 26, 2007, 06:59 PM"Quote"
They clearly did not believe that I had never tried illegal drugs. (I never have.) They did not believe that I had not cheated on a school test since grade school. (I have not.) They did not believe that I have never been reprimanded at work. (I never have.) They did not believe that I have not had a traffic citation since 1971. (I haven't.) And they clearly don't believe that a "man" should have any emotion. I'm an INFP, less than 2% of the male population. The polygrapher was obviously an ISTJ, probably 80% of the law enforcement/military population. Big big difference in approach to life.
"End Quote"
I don't like the polygraph, especially for pre-screen. However, if I want a job, or someone else desires a particular position, while it is part of the hiring process, then you have to deal with it. I've had good expierences, and not so great expierences with the machine. I've learned that not being prepared is an added stress.
When I was not prepared, it was a nightmare, but it was I who was at fault, not the polygrapher. But this is about your last statement, I'm a firm believer in a person's action including words, but since I can not read your NVI's, I won't assume truth or deception. But you stated I never have for drug usage, and you have not ever cheated on a test. :-/ But you stated you haven't had a traffic citation since 1981
. Reading this over and over (once or twice), and attempting to do a written analysis, would leave to believe you haven't had a traffic citation, but I'm doubting the other denials.
A polygraph is a test, like it or not. You can be prepared knowing what is going to happen. When I went through the polygraph after gaining knowledge about the procedures it was a breeze. No surprises. I was more relaxed, and had a great conversation with the polygrapher, who was even good enough to explain the charts to me. We swapped stories afterwards, and received the official notice to move on to the next stage in the hiring process. I didn't use countermeasures, nor was I in the mood to try. I wanted it over and done with. But, was relaxed enough to take it (after a few cups of joe). Remember the Polygraph is an awesome tool for criminal investigations. I don't like to be polygraphed, but honestly who does???
I'm sorry you suffered so much during your polygraph. It's good to be honest, but remember before entering your polygraph your waiving your 5th ammendment rights. Good to be truthful, better to be careful.
Good luck in the future...
They clearly did not believe that I had never tried illegal drugs. (I never have.) They did not believe that I had not cheated on a school test since grade school. (I have not.) They did not believe that I have never been reprimanded at work. (I never have.) They did not believe that I have not had a traffic citation since 1971. (I haven't.) And they clearly don't believe that a "man" should have any emotion. I'm an INFP, less than 2% of the male population. The polygrapher was obviously an ISTJ, probably 80% of the law enforcement/military population. Big big difference in approach to life.
"End Quote"
I don't like the polygraph, especially for pre-screen. However, if I want a job, or someone else desires a particular position, while it is part of the hiring process, then you have to deal with it. I've had good expierences, and not so great expierences with the machine. I've learned that not being prepared is an added stress.
When I was not prepared, it was a nightmare, but it was I who was at fault, not the polygrapher. But this is about your last statement, I'm a firm believer in a person's action including words, but since I can not read your NVI's, I won't assume truth or deception. But you stated I never have for drug usage, and you have not ever cheated on a test. :-/ But you stated you haven't had a traffic citation since 1981
. Reading this over and over (once or twice), and attempting to do a written analysis, would leave to believe you haven't had a traffic citation, but I'm doubting the other denials.A polygraph is a test, like it or not. You can be prepared knowing what is going to happen. When I went through the polygraph after gaining knowledge about the procedures it was a breeze. No surprises. I was more relaxed, and had a great conversation with the polygrapher, who was even good enough to explain the charts to me. We swapped stories afterwards, and received the official notice to move on to the next stage in the hiring process. I didn't use countermeasures, nor was I in the mood to try. I wanted it over and done with. But, was relaxed enough to take it (after a few cups of joe). Remember the Polygraph is an awesome tool for criminal investigations. I don't like to be polygraphed, but honestly who does???
I'm sorry you suffered so much during your polygraph. It's good to be honest, but remember before entering your polygraph your waiving your 5th ammendment rights. Good to be truthful, better to be careful.
Good luck in the future...
Posted by PainfulDay
- Nov 25, 2007, 01:53 PMWow. This thread has had some interesting responses.
To Dimitri:
"Poor little full-of-himself baby.
I am sorry but you just don't fit in the police force. And I hope you stop your rants and think think for a while why."
Thanks for being so quick to judge someone you don't even know. It must be nice to be able to pronounce someone fit or unfit for law enforcement. Clearly, yours is a black and white world. That makes life very simple, but not very accurate or interesting.
How do you know that I'm full of myself? Accomplishment brings the right to be self-assured. Full of myself? Hardly. I will wager that I have nearly twice as many years on this planet as you and I'm certain that I have many more years of academic accomplishment. And yes, I'm proud of what I've accomplished. So shoot me.
To AREYOUKIDDING: Are you kidding? A profession is as honorable as those who are in it. Law enforcement is no more or less honorable than any other.
To George W. Maschke: Thank you for your helpful and understanding response. I was told going into the "test" that if I was honest I had nothing to worry about. So I was completely honest. I answered every question. I volunteered information. I did everything that was asked of me.
What I have learned is that the polygrapher EXPECTS people to lie or be dishonest. When I answered questions that were personal or invasive I answered honestly. But the truth hurts sometimes so I'm sure it looked like I was a liar. I now believe that the polygraphers have no idea what to do with people who answer every question honestly.
They clearly did not believe that I had never tried illegal drugs. (I never have.) They did not believe that I had not cheated on a school test since grade school. (I have not.) They did not believe that I have never been reprimanded at work. (I never have.) They did not believe that I have not had a traffic citation since 1971. (I haven't.) And they clearly don't believe that a "man" should have any emotion. I'm an INFP, less than 2% of the male population. The polygrapher was obviously an ISTJ, probably 80% of the law enforcement/military population. Big big difference in approach to life.
My prospective supervisor wanted to bring into the department someone with a "new set of eyes." Well, the process guarantees that people who see the world differently than the typical police officer will very rarely make it through the selection process.
My polygrapher probably smiled because, as the guardian of the realm, he kept out someone who does not fit in. George, it's too bad that if I am selected for another law enforcement position I will have to take the advice found in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. In order to appear to be honest, I'll have to actually be dishonest. VERY interesting.
I can't believe that the law enforcement community is this arrogant. I can't believe that so many polygraphers have bought into this lie. I guess it's all a part of the job.
To Dimitri:
"Poor little full-of-himself baby.
I am sorry but you just don't fit in the police force. And I hope you stop your rants and think think for a while why."
Thanks for being so quick to judge someone you don't even know. It must be nice to be able to pronounce someone fit or unfit for law enforcement. Clearly, yours is a black and white world. That makes life very simple, but not very accurate or interesting.
How do you know that I'm full of myself? Accomplishment brings the right to be self-assured. Full of myself? Hardly. I will wager that I have nearly twice as many years on this planet as you and I'm certain that I have many more years of academic accomplishment. And yes, I'm proud of what I've accomplished. So shoot me.
To AREYOUKIDDING: Are you kidding? A profession is as honorable as those who are in it. Law enforcement is no more or less honorable than any other.
To George W. Maschke: Thank you for your helpful and understanding response. I was told going into the "test" that if I was honest I had nothing to worry about. So I was completely honest. I answered every question. I volunteered information. I did everything that was asked of me.
What I have learned is that the polygrapher EXPECTS people to lie or be dishonest. When I answered questions that were personal or invasive I answered honestly. But the truth hurts sometimes so I'm sure it looked like I was a liar. I now believe that the polygraphers have no idea what to do with people who answer every question honestly.
They clearly did not believe that I had never tried illegal drugs. (I never have.) They did not believe that I had not cheated on a school test since grade school. (I have not.) They did not believe that I have never been reprimanded at work. (I never have.) They did not believe that I have not had a traffic citation since 1971. (I haven't.) And they clearly don't believe that a "man" should have any emotion. I'm an INFP, less than 2% of the male population. The polygrapher was obviously an ISTJ, probably 80% of the law enforcement/military population. Big big difference in approach to life.
My prospective supervisor wanted to bring into the department someone with a "new set of eyes." Well, the process guarantees that people who see the world differently than the typical police officer will very rarely make it through the selection process.
My polygrapher probably smiled because, as the guardian of the realm, he kept out someone who does not fit in. George, it's too bad that if I am selected for another law enforcement position I will have to take the advice found in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. In order to appear to be honest, I'll have to actually be dishonest. VERY interesting.
I can't believe that the law enforcement community is this arrogant. I can't believe that so many polygraphers have bought into this lie. I guess it's all a part of the job.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 25, 2007, 03:37 AMPainfulDay,
Thank you for sharing your polygraph experience in such detail. Apart from having no scientific basis to begin with, polygraphy is also inherently biased against the truthful, as your experience illustrates.
The "test" is scored by comparing reactions to relevant questions to reactions to so-called "control" questions. In the case of law enforcement pre-employment polygraph screening, the relevant questions usually concern such issues as illegal drug use, undetected major crimes, and the truthfulness of the information provided in one's application. The "control" questions, by contrast, are supposed to seem relevant, but it is secretly expected that everyone -- even people whom the agency would want to hire -- will be less than honest when answering them. An example of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever steal anything from an employer?" Polygraphers assume that everyone has taken something from an employer, but they attempt to steer the examinee into a denial by suggesting that anyone who has stolen from an employer would be unsuitable for hire.
Reactions to relevant questions are compared to reactions to the probable-lie "control" questions. If reactions to the relevant questions are greater, the examinee fails. If reactions to the "control" questions are greater, the examinee passes. Perversely, the more candidly one answers to the so-called "control" questions, and as a result feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly "fail" this simplistic test.
For a fuller explanation (and a thorough de-bunking) of polygraphy, see The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF):
https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf
Thank you for sharing your polygraph experience in such detail. Apart from having no scientific basis to begin with, polygraphy is also inherently biased against the truthful, as your experience illustrates.
The "test" is scored by comparing reactions to relevant questions to reactions to so-called "control" questions. In the case of law enforcement pre-employment polygraph screening, the relevant questions usually concern such issues as illegal drug use, undetected major crimes, and the truthfulness of the information provided in one's application. The "control" questions, by contrast, are supposed to seem relevant, but it is secretly expected that everyone -- even people whom the agency would want to hire -- will be less than honest when answering them. An example of a commonly used control question is, "Did you ever steal anything from an employer?" Polygraphers assume that everyone has taken something from an employer, but they attempt to steer the examinee into a denial by suggesting that anyone who has stolen from an employer would be unsuitable for hire.
Reactions to relevant questions are compared to reactions to the probable-lie "control" questions. If reactions to the relevant questions are greater, the examinee fails. If reactions to the "control" questions are greater, the examinee passes. Perversely, the more candidly one answers to the so-called "control" questions, and as a result feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely one is to wrongly "fail" this simplistic test.
For a fuller explanation (and a thorough de-bunking) of polygraphy, see The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (1 mb PDF):
https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf
Posted by AREYOUKDDING
- Nov 24, 2007, 11:50 PMI don't know where you get that 70% statistic. I guess there are tons of unprofessional jobs that provide people the ability to masterbate at work... However, you are applying for an honorable profession... You gave the interview a long list of dirty laundry...
Posted by dtr
- Nov 24, 2007, 10:41 PMMan I'm sorry for your story.
But you know why I think you didn't get the job. Because all in all, you behaved like a sissy, and they just don't need sissies at that place.
You want to work at the sheriff department? Believe me my friend, there's going to be A LOT of very ugly situations you will get yourself into. Consider what happened to you with the polygraph, as a test to how you would react in a tough/unpleasant situation. They asked you a bunch of incredibly unpleasant and humiliating questions and forced you to answer them. You did not pass, because you started to get all shaky, and nervous, and etc.
The police has to deal with a lot of very very serious situations, most of which are very very difficult for it's agents. And essentially the difficulty comes from having to make a yes/no decision over some very very grey data. A simple example: Do I prosecute this kid for having 2grms of pot?
* Yes, it's the law and marijuana is wrong!
* No, I will be ruining his life: jail, trauma, no decent job, no credit, etc
* Yes, God told me pot is bad in church Sunday and God only speaks the truth
* But God also says to help out and have mercy.
So what do you do? How to answer? What does your moral says? What does Jesus says?
And now imagine this is a life/death situation and you have to make a decision in 2secs. You can't start to get sweaty and nervous... you can't start acting like you did on the polygraph.
Also, don't think that by having a job as a IT supervisor you will have an easier time. You will also have to deal with such situations. They'll be different than for a policeman but they will be of similarly unpleasing. And especially as a manager.
"Susceptable to guilt."
"lost a very good, moral, honest, and intelligent employee."
"I won't get over the emotional trauma any time soon. It hurts me to my core."
Poor little full-of-himself baby.
I am sorry but you just don't fit in the police force. And I hope you stop your rants and think think for a while why.
Best to you and good luck with the job finding process. It's tough.
Regards,
Dimitri
But you know why I think you didn't get the job. Because all in all, you behaved like a sissy, and they just don't need sissies at that place.
You want to work at the sheriff department? Believe me my friend, there's going to be A LOT of very ugly situations you will get yourself into. Consider what happened to you with the polygraph, as a test to how you would react in a tough/unpleasant situation. They asked you a bunch of incredibly unpleasant and humiliating questions and forced you to answer them. You did not pass, because you started to get all shaky, and nervous, and etc.
The police has to deal with a lot of very very serious situations, most of which are very very difficult for it's agents. And essentially the difficulty comes from having to make a yes/no decision over some very very grey data. A simple example: Do I prosecute this kid for having 2grms of pot?
* Yes, it's the law and marijuana is wrong!
* No, I will be ruining his life: jail, trauma, no decent job, no credit, etc
* Yes, God told me pot is bad in church Sunday and God only speaks the truth
* But God also says to help out and have mercy.
So what do you do? How to answer? What does your moral says? What does Jesus says?
And now imagine this is a life/death situation and you have to make a decision in 2secs. You can't start to get sweaty and nervous... you can't start acting like you did on the polygraph.
Also, don't think that by having a job as a IT supervisor you will have an easier time. You will also have to deal with such situations. They'll be different than for a policeman but they will be of similarly unpleasing. And especially as a manager.
"Susceptable to guilt."
"lost a very good, moral, honest, and intelligent employee."
"I won't get over the emotional trauma any time soon. It hurts me to my core."
Poor little full-of-himself baby.
I am sorry but you just don't fit in the police force. And I hope you stop your rants and think think for a while why.
Best to you and good luck with the job finding process. It's tough.
Regards,
Dimitri