- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by sackett
- Feb 18, 2008, 11:06 AMQuote from: sackett on Feb 17, 2008, 03:24 AMSackett,
Well, I think you reported four polygraphs before having problems. Now I can't speak for your examination, but I think your hypothesis of naivete is a little off.
They said I was having trouble with one of the questions right from the start (after the first chart). I had lunch with 3 other candidates tested that day and they all reported the same thing. They probably tell everyone they're having problem in an effort to get them to "open up".
I can not speak of a particular test of which I was not involved.
So in your expert opinion, is being untruthful or withholding information the only possible reason for a ANS "reaction"? Rather than anger, fear, frustration for being called a liar even though you're telling the truth....etc.
No. I suppose a diagnosable mental disorder could also explain it...
You kind of glossed over that one.
No, I didn't give the answer you were looking for.
Maybe Ejohnson has an answer for that.
Sackett
Posted by EJohnson
- Feb 17, 2008, 08:14 AMHere is my answer Al;
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3832.msg28399#msg28399
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3832.msg28399#msg28399
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 17, 2008, 03:24 AMSackett,
Well, I think you reported four polygraphs before having problems. Now I can't speak for your examination, but I think your hypothesis of naivete is a little off.
They said I was having trouble with one of the questions right from the start (after the first chart). I had lunch with 3 other candidates tested that day and they all reported the same thing. They probably tell everyone they're having problem in an effort to get them to "open up".
So in your expert opinion, is being untruthful or withholding information the only possible reason for a ANS "reaction"? Rather than anger, fear, frustration for being called a liar even though you're telling the truth....etc.
You kind of glossed over that one.
Maybe Ejohnson has an answer for that.
Well, I think you reported four polygraphs before having problems. Now I can't speak for your examination, but I think your hypothesis of naivete is a little off.
They said I was having trouble with one of the questions right from the start (after the first chart). I had lunch with 3 other candidates tested that day and they all reported the same thing. They probably tell everyone they're having problem in an effort to get them to "open up".
So in your expert opinion, is being untruthful or withholding information the only possible reason for a ANS "reaction"? Rather than anger, fear, frustration for being called a liar even though you're telling the truth....etc.
You kind of glossed over that one.
Maybe Ejohnson has an answer for that.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 17, 2008, 03:14 AMEjohnson,
Let me guess. You're a polygrapher.
Al, you really need some help formulating thought without the pseudo bluster.
Like your post above?
"Federal government type"? I'm a military retiree, and have been running my own business (real estate) for the last 10 years.
Sorry for the duplicate post, hit the wrong button.
Al
Let me guess. You're a polygrapher.
Al, you really need some help formulating thought without the pseudo bluster.
Like your post above?
"Federal government type"? I'm a military retiree, and have been running my own business (real estate) for the last 10 years.
Sorry for the duplicate post, hit the wrong button.
Al
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 17, 2008, 03:09 AMEjohnson,
Let me guess. You're a polygrapher.
Al, you really need some help formulating thought without the pseudo bluster.
Like your post above?
Al
Let me guess. You're a polygrapher.
Al, you really need some help formulating thought without the pseudo bluster.
Like your post above?
Al
Posted by EJohnson
- Feb 17, 2008, 12:03 AMQuoteMy fingers are too tired to continue this!
Great! Because you have deposited more methane gas than a herd of long horns.
Al, you really need some help formulating thought without the pseudo bluster.
Al: I am king s____ and I deserve the jobs and all of the clams, and I only did some unauthorized translating for a foreign national behind the backs of the most paranoid, strict, national security agency on planet earth.....and WAH WAH WAH! They (sob) moved their chair close to me and started to yell at me. I almost had an asthma attack, had I not had the inhaler (you get the picture).
Sackett; Yeah, polygraph works very well and..
Al; It's all an interrogation! I started to doubt my own truthfulness after so much questioning. You'd think I was working for an organization of buttoned-up, hard-on government paranoid types...er...say...I was working for those types of people. Come to think about it, those people were aweful serious bout stuff.
EJ; Hey Aldrich, wake up and smell the glue. Get a job working with people who don't care if you do some side work and who don't polygraph their staff. Life is too short to be such a whiney, sourpuss. Why are you federal government types so gaddamn self-deserving of jobs? I know a postal worker who thinks he deserves to be postmaster general because he has never been late for work. Woopty do. In the real world, you get no assurances just because "it's your specialty" or "I worked so doggone hard."
Jesus, I have spoken to Holocaust survivors with far less righteous indignation. Move on brother.
Posted by sackett
- Feb 17, 2008, 12:02 AMQuote from: sackett on Feb 16, 2008, 11:27 PMSometimes it is not a confirmable or refutable issue. Are you suggesting that, for example, you report on an application you never smoked marijuana. You take the examination and fail, specifically to marijuana use.
Just because I fail the pot portion of the test doesn't mean I was lying. You can tell the truth and STILL FAIL. All you can say is that my ANS "reacted".
I have already addressed this. It is up to the readers to decide.
That is exactly why polygraph is used. There are many things in a person's life that can be corroborated through a background; however, there are many more that can not. Hense the applicability of polygraph...
You are talking in circles. You said the polygraph can't tell for sure whether one is telling the truth.
No, don't think so. I never said polygraph was a lie detector...
So, there are many things in one's background that can't be corraborated, so we need the polygraph, which can't really show for sure (by your own admission) that the subject is telling the truth?
Maybe we need to bring Edgar Cayce back from the dead.
FYI, I have undergone two comprehensive backgrounds and pre-employment polygraph examinations. Yes, I was scared. Yes, I was nervous. Yes, I was (completely) honest and yes, I was hired.
FYI, I passed a SBI when I entered the service, held a TS SCI for 20 years, passed 4 periodics BI updates, passed a polygraph at NSA after retiring (told the truth), failed a polygraph at NSA five years later (was telling the truth). So what does that prove:
You can PASS the test when telling the truth.
You can FAIL the test while telling the truth.
But not when withholding information.
No valid examination process has interrogations between charts. Ever!
First they they went over my application, then explained what the CI questions mean, hooked me up, turned on the voodoo box and conducted the 1st test. Stopped and looked at the chart, said I was having trouble with the "foreign contacts" question. Tried to get me to explain why I would have trouble with it. Turned the player piano on again and did it again. Stopped, said I was still having trouble....ad naseam for two freaking days! Each time trying to get more info.
Like an idiot, even though I knew I had had no elicit foreign contact (and they explained what that meant in great detail), and after two grueling days, they were able to get me to question my own veracity. IOW, got me to think, even though in my CONSCIOUS mind, I knew I was answering truthfully, maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me.
"maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me" doesn't sound like you were completely truthful. I'm not suggesting you were lying, but if there is any chance you withheld, then you would naturally have problems on the testing.
This is VERY similar to the COERCED FALSE confessions police get people to make all the time.
I have seen the same shows, movies, etc. I will tell you for me, I have never taken a false confession, ever!
No, reaction in a significant and consistant manner indicates information that has been withheld (and/or lied to). By the time the test begins, the issue has been covered well enough not to be a threatening issue, unless of course they're withholding something.
A consistent ANS reaction still is not proof they are lying or withholding. It just means the question is consistently bothering them.
I've already discussed this.
In my case, it was because I knew it was THAT question (foriegn contacts) that they were having trouble with. Which, pissed me off, cuz I was telling the truth. And might stop me from getting the job I am extremely qualified for...etc.
What they did, was keep changing it, during the interrogations between tests you said never happen, to read: "Other than what you already told me, have you ever had an illicit contact with a foreign contact..." But these were just the 1st, 2nd, 3rd...permutations of the original question. I guess some people can DESENSITIZED that way, but I couldn't.
Further, inter-chart interviewing concerning a specific subject is inappropriate at best. But I can not speak to your experience, I wasn't there, nor was I responsible for your test.
Incidently, the "scuttlebutt" at the NSA is that if the hiring committee really want's you, whether a new applicant, or an existing employee doing a "periodic", they will test you, test you, test you, test you, test you....until you finally pass.
Nepotism, buddy considerations, friends of friends, dynastic desires, etc, that's the "scuttlebutt" at every dept.
Gee, that should make the nation feel secure!
I know many federal examiners and yes, it should make the nation feel more secure.
I specifically do not allow the examinee to tape the process because once they leave the polygraph suite, I no longer have control of it's release or dissemination.
Wouldn't want the subject to walk away with any documentation, would we?
No. Wouldn't want testing information to be misused, manipulated, falsely misrepresented, etc before the truth can come out...
I make the tapes for judicial or official use under discovery and by personnel who have some inclination to the polygraph process. I do not want any examination cut and paste by a disgruntled examinee only to be reviewed in the court of public opinion concerning a topic (i.e. polygraph) which most people don't understand (and whose understanding may extend only to to watching "The Recruit" or "Meet the Parents") and in which I have no feedback or means to explain the proceedure and protocol.
Oh please! Doesn't work the other way around, huh?.
No, it doesn't! I've explained that.
Bedsides, polygraphers have NOTHING TO HIDE, anyway.Like those taped coerced false confessions you see on TV from time to time.
Do not believe everything you see on TV, or the internet for that matter...
The point I am trying to make to people is that a polygraph is an INTERROGATION. The polygraph machine is just a prop used to intimidate. If you go in naive, like I did, believing "just tell the truth, and the machine will show you are being truthful. Ya got nothing to hide of fear": You can GET SCREWED!
Well, I think you reported four polygraphs before having problems. Now I can't speak for your examination, but I think your hypothesis of naivete is a little off.
Better to go in with the attitide, that machine can't tell if I am being truthful. TELL THE TRUTH, and DON'T LET THEM TELL YOU YOU ARE LYING WHEN YOU AIN'T!
My fingers are too tired to continue this!
me too, have a nice night...
Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 16, 2008, 11:44 PMOK, you believe what you will. But, for anyone to think that we examiners have nothing better to do than purposefully cause people to fail exams and interrogate them for our own sadistic entertainment... well,
What I am suggesting, is that a polygrapher does NOT WANT a "reaction" on the chart, without an admission from the subject he/she can use to account for that "reaction" to justify a "failure". So they try to con the subject into believing there is just no way you can lie without the machine picking up on it. So they keep hammering the subject until he tells them something that might explain why he's reacting (if it's bad enough, you fail, if not you get through), OR they get desensitized and stop reacting.
It's "bogus" anyway, because a "reaction" IS NOT EQUAL to a lie.
The whole thing is a pathetic game!
Lingenfelter (my tester) went as far as to draw a pie chart. He marked a small part of the chart representing 1%. He said: "See that 1%? That's the percent chance you have of the machine not registering a LIE!"
Yeah buddy, only at the INSTITUTE of BIZARRE STUDIES!
No you wouldn't and for you to suggest it is an example of your lack of understanding of polygraph process as a whole; a common problem on this board.
Only lack of understanding I have is why I failed my test when I was telling the truth.
This is a one sided opinion board, not a neutral academic source..
Shit son! We put forth the findings of the NAS, but you didn't like the source.
Otay, so show us a valid ACADEMIC study concluding that polygraphs are reliable. And not something published by a phoney Ph"d working in the industry!
Explain to us why polygraphs ARE NOT GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE IN COURTS.
What I am suggesting, is that a polygrapher does NOT WANT a "reaction" on the chart, without an admission from the subject he/she can use to account for that "reaction" to justify a "failure". So they try to con the subject into believing there is just no way you can lie without the machine picking up on it. So they keep hammering the subject until he tells them something that might explain why he's reacting (if it's bad enough, you fail, if not you get through), OR they get desensitized and stop reacting.
It's "bogus" anyway, because a "reaction" IS NOT EQUAL to a lie.
The whole thing is a pathetic game!
Lingenfelter (my tester) went as far as to draw a pie chart. He marked a small part of the chart representing 1%. He said: "See that 1%? That's the percent chance you have of the machine not registering a LIE!"
Yeah buddy, only at the INSTITUTE of BIZARRE STUDIES!
No you wouldn't and for you to suggest it is an example of your lack of understanding of polygraph process as a whole; a common problem on this board.
Only lack of understanding I have is why I failed my test when I was telling the truth.
This is a one sided opinion board, not a neutral academic source..
Shit son! We put forth the findings of the NAS, but you didn't like the source.
Otay, so show us a valid ACADEMIC study concluding that polygraphs are reliable. And not something published by a phoney Ph"d working in the industry!
Explain to us why polygraphs ARE NOT GENERALLY ADMISSIBLE IN COURTS.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 16, 2008, 11:27 PMSometimes it is not a confirmable or refutable issue. Are you suggesting that, for example, you report on an application you never smoked marijuana. You take the examination and fail, specifically to marijuana use.
Just because I fail the pot portion of the test doesn't mean I was lying. You can tell the truth and STILL FAIL. All you can say is that my ANS "reacted".
That is exactly why polygraph is used. There are many things in a person's life that can be corroborated through a background; however, there are many more that can not. Hense the applicability of polygraph...
You are talking in circles. You said the polygraph can't tell for sure whether one is telling the truth.
So, there are many things in one's background that can't be corraborated, so we need the polygraph, which can't really show for sure (by your own admission) that the subject is telling the truth?
Maybe we need to bring Edgar Cayce back from the dead.
FYI, I have undergone two comprehensive backgrounds and pre-employment polygraph examinations. Yes, I was scared. Yes, I was nervous. Yes, I was (completely) honest and yes, I was hired.
FYI, I passed a SBI when I entered the service, held a TS SCI for 20 years, passed 4 periodics BI updates, passed a polygraph at NSA after retiring (told the truth), failed a polygraph at NSA five years later (was telling the truth). So what does that prove:
You can PASS the test when telling the truth.
You can FAIL the test while telling the truth.
No valid examination process has interrogations between charts. Ever!
First they they went over my application, then explained what the CI questions mean, hooked me up, turned on the voodoo box and conducted the 1st test. Stopped and looked at the chart, said I was having trouble with the "foreign contacts" question. Tried to get me to explain why I would have trouble with it. Turned the player piano on again and did it again. Stopped, said I was still having trouble....ad naseam for two freaking days! Each time trying to get more info.
Like an idiot, even though I knew I had had no elicit foreign contact (and they explained what that meant in great detail), and after two grueling days, they were able to get me to question my own veracity. IOW, got me to think, even though in my CONSCIOUS mind, I knew I was answering truthfully, maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me.
This is VERY similar to the COERCED FALSE confessions police get people to make all the time.
No, reaction in a significant and consistant manner indicates information that has been withheld (and/or lied to). By the time the test begins, the issue has been covered well enough not to be a threatening issue, unless of course they're withholding something.
A consistent ANS reaction still is not proof they are lying or withholding. It just means the question is consistently bothering them.
In my case, it was because I knew it was THAT question (foriegn contacts) that they were having trouble with. Which, pissed me off, cuz I was telling the truth. And might stop me from getting the job I am extremely qualified for...etc.
What they did, was keep changing it, during the interrogations between tests you said never happen, to read: "Other than what you already told me, have you ever had an illicit contact with a foreign contact..." But these were just the 1st, 2nd, 3rd...permutations of the original question. I guess some people can DESENSITIZED that way, but I couldn't.
Incidently, the "scuttlebutt" at the NSA is that if the hiring committee really want's you, whether a new applicant, or an existing employee doing a "periodic", they will test you, test you, test you, test you, test you....until you finally pass.
Gee, that should make the nation feel secure!
I specifically do not allow the examinee to tape the process because once they leave the polygraph suite, I no longer have control of it's release or dissemination.
Wouldn't want the subject to walk away with any documentation, would we?
I make the tapes for judicial or official use under discovery and by personnel who have some inclination to the polygraph process. I do not want any examination cut and paste by a disgruntled examinee only to be reviewed in the court of public opinion concerning a topic (i.e. polygraph) which most people don't understand (and whose understanding may extend only to to watching "The Recruit" or "Meet the Parents") and in which I have no feedback or means to explain the proceedure and protocol.
Oh please! Doesn't work the other way around, huh?. Bedsides, polygraphers have NOTHING TO HIDE, anyway. Like those taped coerced false confessions you see on TV from time to time.
The point I am trying to make to people is that a polygraph is an INTERROGATION. The polygraph machine is just a prop used to intimidate. If you go in naive, like I did, believing "just tell the truth, and the machine will show you are being truthful. Ya got nothing to hide of fear": You can GET SCREWED!
Better to go in with the attitide, that machine can't tell if I am being truthful. TELL THE TRUTH, and DON'T LET THEM TELL YOU YOU ARE LYING WHEN YOU AIN'T!
My fingers are too tired to continue this!
Just because I fail the pot portion of the test doesn't mean I was lying. You can tell the truth and STILL FAIL. All you can say is that my ANS "reacted".
That is exactly why polygraph is used. There are many things in a person's life that can be corroborated through a background; however, there are many more that can not. Hense the applicability of polygraph...
You are talking in circles. You said the polygraph can't tell for sure whether one is telling the truth.
So, there are many things in one's background that can't be corraborated, so we need the polygraph, which can't really show for sure (by your own admission) that the subject is telling the truth?
Maybe we need to bring Edgar Cayce back from the dead.
FYI, I have undergone two comprehensive backgrounds and pre-employment polygraph examinations. Yes, I was scared. Yes, I was nervous. Yes, I was (completely) honest and yes, I was hired.
FYI, I passed a SBI when I entered the service, held a TS SCI for 20 years, passed 4 periodics BI updates, passed a polygraph at NSA after retiring (told the truth), failed a polygraph at NSA five years later (was telling the truth). So what does that prove:
You can PASS the test when telling the truth.
You can FAIL the test while telling the truth.
No valid examination process has interrogations between charts. Ever!
First they they went over my application, then explained what the CI questions mean, hooked me up, turned on the voodoo box and conducted the 1st test. Stopped and looked at the chart, said I was having trouble with the "foreign contacts" question. Tried to get me to explain why I would have trouble with it. Turned the player piano on again and did it again. Stopped, said I was still having trouble....ad naseam for two freaking days! Each time trying to get more info.
Like an idiot, even though I knew I had had no elicit foreign contact (and they explained what that meant in great detail), and after two grueling days, they were able to get me to question my own veracity. IOW, got me to think, even though in my CONSCIOUS mind, I knew I was answering truthfully, maybe deep in the recesses of my mind there was something that is bothering me.
This is VERY similar to the COERCED FALSE confessions police get people to make all the time.
No, reaction in a significant and consistant manner indicates information that has been withheld (and/or lied to). By the time the test begins, the issue has been covered well enough not to be a threatening issue, unless of course they're withholding something.
A consistent ANS reaction still is not proof they are lying or withholding. It just means the question is consistently bothering them.
In my case, it was because I knew it was THAT question (foriegn contacts) that they were having trouble with. Which, pissed me off, cuz I was telling the truth. And might stop me from getting the job I am extremely qualified for...etc.
What they did, was keep changing it, during the interrogations between tests you said never happen, to read: "Other than what you already told me, have you ever had an illicit contact with a foreign contact..." But these were just the 1st, 2nd, 3rd...permutations of the original question. I guess some people can DESENSITIZED that way, but I couldn't.
Incidently, the "scuttlebutt" at the NSA is that if the hiring committee really want's you, whether a new applicant, or an existing employee doing a "periodic", they will test you, test you, test you, test you, test you....until you finally pass.
Gee, that should make the nation feel secure!
I specifically do not allow the examinee to tape the process because once they leave the polygraph suite, I no longer have control of it's release or dissemination.
Wouldn't want the subject to walk away with any documentation, would we?
I make the tapes for judicial or official use under discovery and by personnel who have some inclination to the polygraph process. I do not want any examination cut and paste by a disgruntled examinee only to be reviewed in the court of public opinion concerning a topic (i.e. polygraph) which most people don't understand (and whose understanding may extend only to to watching "The Recruit" or "Meet the Parents") and in which I have no feedback or means to explain the proceedure and protocol.
Oh please! Doesn't work the other way around, huh?. Bedsides, polygraphers have NOTHING TO HIDE, anyway.
Like those taped coerced false confessions you see on TV from time to time. The point I am trying to make to people is that a polygraph is an INTERROGATION. The polygraph machine is just a prop used to intimidate. If you go in naive, like I did, believing "just tell the truth, and the machine will show you are being truthful. Ya got nothing to hide of fear": You can GET SCREWED!
Better to go in with the attitide, that machine can't tell if I am being truthful. TELL THE TRUTH, and DON'T LET THEM TELL YOU YOU ARE LYING WHEN YOU AIN'T!
My fingers are too tired to continue this!
Posted by sackett
- Feb 16, 2008, 10:36 PMTwoblock,
no pissing contest here!
However, it IS fair for me to suggest that a proposition of impropriety is the same as a charge equal to an accusation. Regardless of how you twist the English language, this is an adversarial board. When you make veiled allegations in support of your assumptions, I do not think it is written in the sense of balance or simple inquisition. You had an agenda to (try and) present.
It would be like me letting you work at my store, but to ask you what would keep "the likes" of you from stealing from me? If you don't see that as an accusation, then, Okedokey!
BTW, you further accused me (maybe it was not an accusation but an allegation, I guess) of not answering "intelligent questions?" I have answered almost every question presented here. I believe it is fair to those who read this board (not just post their opinions on it) to understand there is another side of polygraph.
I previously stated that I reserved the right not to answer some questions, so this is not a matter of deceipt as I have been forthright and honest. Maybe that concept coming from a simple and silly polygraph examiner is difficult for you to grasp, but I do understand...
Sackett
P.S. There has been no time in which I have demanded anyone "back up or prove" what they post, though it has been demanded of me. This is a one sided opinion board, not a neutral academic source.. I''m just trying to round off the edges a little bit with the truth from the "other side."
Like I have said, you have yours and I have mine.
no pissing contest here!
However, it IS fair for me to suggest that a proposition of impropriety is the same as a charge equal to an accusation. Regardless of how you twist the English language, this is an adversarial board. When you make veiled allegations in support of your assumptions, I do not think it is written in the sense of balance or simple inquisition. You had an agenda to (try and) present.
It would be like me letting you work at my store, but to ask you what would keep "the likes" of you from stealing from me? If you don't see that as an accusation, then, Okedokey!
BTW, you further accused me (maybe it was not an accusation but an allegation, I guess) of not answering "intelligent questions?" I have answered almost every question presented here. I believe it is fair to those who read this board (not just post their opinions on it) to understand there is another side of polygraph.
I previously stated that I reserved the right not to answer some questions, so this is not a matter of deceipt as I have been forthright and honest. Maybe that concept coming from a simple and silly polygraph examiner is difficult for you to grasp, but I do understand...
Sackett
P.S. There has been no time in which I have demanded anyone "back up or prove" what they post, though it has been demanded of me. This is a one sided opinion board, not a neutral academic source.. I''m just trying to round off the edges a little bit with the truth from the "other side."
Like I have said, you have yours and I have mine.
Posted by Twoblock
- Feb 16, 2008, 09:05 PMSackett
What rediculous accusation? I made no accusations whatsoever. I asked questions and made a statement. I was not trying to bait you. But, when polygraphers like you and nonombre will not answer intelligent questions to which we all know you have the answers, makes you all look simple and silly. You guys wear your feelings on your sleeve cuffs.
As to my statement about if I was an honest polyghrpher and your answer was "No you wouldn't" -- Bud, you don't know my propensity for honesty and integrety which would preclude me from ever being a polygrapher. I, also, know more about the polygraph than you think, but I refuse to get in a pissing contest. We all have our ideas and opinions so I will leave this discussion alone except to say - don't ever get the notion that I won't/can"t back up what I say.
What rediculous accusation? I made no accusations whatsoever. I asked questions and made a statement. I was not trying to bait you. But, when polygraphers like you and nonombre will not answer intelligent questions to which we all know you have the answers, makes you all look simple and silly. You guys wear your feelings on your sleeve cuffs.
As to my statement about if I was an honest polyghrpher and your answer was "No you wouldn't" -- Bud, you don't know my propensity for honesty and integrety which would preclude me from ever being a polygrapher. I, also, know more about the polygraph than you think, but I refuse to get in a pissing contest. We all have our ideas and opinions so I will leave this discussion alone except to say - don't ever get the notion that I won't/can"t back up what I say.
Posted by sackett
- Feb 16, 2008, 08:16 PMtwoblock,
after I made my posting, I figured that someone would make some ridiculous accusation to that effect. OK, you believe what you will. But, for anyone to think that we examiners have nothing better to do than purposefully cause people to fail exams and interrogate them for our own sadistic entertainment... well, that's OK, your opinion has been expressed. BTW, how come we never talk on this board about those people that honestly passed their examinations...? Anyway,
Contrary to your's and apprently others' belief, examiners do not have a personal interest or agenda in the outcome of any examination; THE EXAMINEE DOES!. Secondly, the reputation, social and professional standing and future business of a private examiner rests in their ability and integrity. If we get a subpoena or law suit filed, the last thing we would do is risk jail or losing our business by altering evidence. Besides, no examiner with the propensity to lie, cheat and/or alter evidence of an examination would even allow recordings of their exams for the very fear of their discovery...An issue we are trying to correct within the polygraph community.
Further, you wrote:
"You're not suggesting that all polygraphers and interrogators are above lying to and deceiving subjects, are you?"
You already know that law enforcement is allowed (by law) to lie to people during investigations (there are exceptions, but this is not a law class). You are attempting to bait me on this subject by mixing apples and oranges. It makes you look simple and silly.
You wrote:
"If I was an honest polygrapher, I would encourage my subjects to both audio and video tape my tests. If he altered his tapes, then he would be required to pay the costs of detection or spend a comparable time in jail. If I altered my tapes, the same would apply to me. ."
No you wouldn't and for you to suggest it is an example of your lack of understanding of polygraph process as a whole; a common problem on this board. Besides, while your suggestion concerning punishments of unethical people is a noble one, it has little effect on the law as it currently stands. If you do not like the current law, then I suggest you run for office and get elected. I hear there could be an opening in Illinois or Arizona soon...
Sackett
after I made my posting, I figured that someone would make some ridiculous accusation to that effect. OK, you believe what you will. But, for anyone to think that we examiners have nothing better to do than purposefully cause people to fail exams and interrogate them for our own sadistic entertainment... well, that's OK, your opinion has been expressed. BTW, how come we never talk on this board about those people that honestly passed their examinations...? Anyway,
Contrary to your's and apprently others' belief, examiners do not have a personal interest or agenda in the outcome of any examination; THE EXAMINEE DOES!. Secondly, the reputation, social and professional standing and future business of a private examiner rests in their ability and integrity. If we get a subpoena or law suit filed, the last thing we would do is risk jail or losing our business by altering evidence. Besides, no examiner with the propensity to lie, cheat and/or alter evidence of an examination would even allow recordings of their exams for the very fear of their discovery...An issue we are trying to correct within the polygraph community.
Further, you wrote:
"You're not suggesting that all polygraphers and interrogators are above lying to and deceiving subjects, are you?"
You already know that law enforcement is allowed (by law) to lie to people during investigations (there are exceptions, but this is not a law class). You are attempting to bait me on this subject by mixing apples and oranges. It makes you look simple and silly.
You wrote:
"If I was an honest polygrapher, I would encourage my subjects to both audio and video tape my tests. If he altered his tapes, then he would be required to pay the costs of detection or spend a comparable time in jail. If I altered my tapes, the same would apply to me. ."
No you wouldn't and for you to suggest it is an example of your lack of understanding of polygraph process as a whole; a common problem on this board. Besides, while your suggestion concerning punishments of unethical people is a noble one, it has little effect on the law as it currently stands. If you do not like the current law, then I suggest you run for office and get elected. I hear there could be an opening in Illinois or Arizona soon...
Sackett
Posted by Twoblock
- Feb 16, 2008, 05:12 PMSackett
What's to prevent polygraphers to cut and paste their tapes? Wouldn't the fair way be for each to tape the test. Then, if the tapes don't jibe, the ruling body can determine who altered their tapes. An alteration on a tape can be detected if one is armed with that technology.
You're not suggesting that all polygraphers and interrogators are above lying to and deceiving subjects, are you?
If I was an honest polygrapher, I would encourage my subjects to both audio and video tape my tests. If he altered his tapes, then he would be required to pay the costs of detection or spend a comparable time in jail. If I altered my tapes, the same would apply to me. What's wrong with this scenario?
What's to prevent polygraphers to cut and paste their tapes? Wouldn't the fair way be for each to tape the test. Then, if the tapes don't jibe, the ruling body can determine who altered their tapes. An alteration on a tape can be detected if one is armed with that technology.
You're not suggesting that all polygraphers and interrogators are above lying to and deceiving subjects, are you?
If I was an honest polygrapher, I would encourage my subjects to both audio and video tape my tests. If he altered his tapes, then he would be required to pay the costs of detection or spend a comparable time in jail. If I altered my tapes, the same would apply to me. What's wrong with this scenario?
Posted by sackett
- Feb 16, 2008, 01:38 PMQuote from: sackett on Feb 16, 2008, 03:24 AM".....I can tell when a person is withholding information concerning a specific topic when that topic, by virtue of the pre-test interview is made significant. "
For certain? I can see where you might SUSPECT somebody is withholding info, but I don't see how you can know for sure.
that's because you do not understand the entire process. You understand the mechanics of the testing, but not all the principals. It is easy to apply a small amount of information to a process then attack what you do not understand. It's ALL about that which is withheld, not necessarily lied to.
That's what the NSA polygrapher thought I was doing, but I wasn't. They were suspicious about some translation work I did for an embassy official. He suckered me into translating a 20 page regulation from his home country for free. They just couldn't believe it. Thought I was passing secrets or something.
I can't answer for anything that is outside my control or knowledge.
Wouldn't it be better for a trained INVESTIGATOR to check something out like that, rather than screw a qualified candidate because of "hunch" you have.
Sometimes it is not a confirmable or refutable issue. Are you suggesting that, for example, you report on an application you never smoked marijuana. You take the examination and fail, specifically to marijuana use. B/I's can't find anyone in your past that can establish it one way or another, so your word alone should be the deciding factor? Sorry, I disagree. That is exactly why polygraph is used. There are many things in a person's life that can be corroborated through a background; however, there are many more that can not. Hense the applicability of polygraph...
Would you want an investigator conducting your polygraph?
No! I want an investigator conducting my background check and a polygraph examiner conducting my polygraph examination. FYI, I have undergone two comprehensive backgrounds and pre-employment polygraph examinations. Yes, I was scared. Yes, I was nervous. Yes, I was (completely) honest and yes, I was hired.
I'm glad you mentioned the "pretest". That, and the interviewing (INTERROGATING) between chart gazing, is where people screw themselves.
No valid examination process has interrogations between charts. Ever!
So what do you do if you test and test and keep getting a reaction WITHOUT A CONFESSION? My polygrapher did the following:
Let out a big sign when looking at the chart. Dramatically, got out of her chair, walked out from behind her desk, picked up a chair that was against the wall (thought she was gonna throw it at me), put the chair in front of me, sat in front of me knee2knee, then started yelling at me.
What do you do Mr. Sackett, when a guy keeps professing his innocence (you can't coerce an admission out him), yet that troublesome squiggle mark (which is outside of "acceptable parameters") keeps showing up.
I talk with them and try to figure out the problem. Almost everytime we find it, retest and they pass. It's really an amazing and accurate process, when done right.
Does a "reaction" necessarily mean he is lying. Maybe he is reacting cause that's THE QUESTION YOU KEEP SAYING HE'S HAVING TRUBS WITH EVEN THOUGH HE'S BEING HONEST. I mean, that alone is enough to get somebodies ANS to get agitated!
No, reaction in a significant and consistant manner indicates information that has been withheld (and/or lied to). By the time the test begins, the issue has been covered well enough not to be a threatening issue, unless of course they're withholding something. In that case, no amount of preparation can prepare them.
Oh, yeah, and why don't polygraphers allow the test subject to tape the test for their records. If it's all on the "up and up", that is.
I have taped every test I have conducted since 2000, for my protection and theirs. I specifically do not allow the examinee to tape the process because once they leave the polygraph suite, I no longer have control of it's release or dissemination. You've seen the press cut and paste interviews to intentionally sway the viewing audience?!
I make the tapes for judicial or official use under discovery and by personnel who have some inclination to the polygraph process. I do not want any examination cut and paste by a disgruntled examinee only to be reviewed in the court of public opinion concerning a topic (i.e. polygraph) which most people don't understand (and whose understanding may extend only to to watching "The Recruit" or "Meet the Parents") and in which I have no feedback or means to explain the proceedure and protocol.
Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 16, 2008, 03:24 AM".....I can tell when a person is withholding information concerning a specific topic when that topic, by virtue of the pre-test interview is made significant. "
For certain? I can see where you might SUSPECT somebody is withholding info, but I don't see how you can know for sure.
That's what the NSA polygrapher thought I was doing, but I wasn't. They were suspicious about some translation work I did for an embassy official. He suckered me into translating a 20 page regulation from his home country for free. They just couldn't believe it. Thought I was passing secrets or something.
Wouldn't it be better for a trained INVESTIGATOR to check something out like that, rather than screw a qualified candidate because of "hunch" you have.
Would you want an investigator conducting your polygraph?
I'm glad you mentioned the "pretest". That, and the interviewing (INTERROGATING) between chart gazing, is where people screw themselves. They want you to open up and tell them your life story. Which they will use against you later, whether you're truthful or not, if they have to (e.g. if there is an "unacceptable" squiggle mark they have to account for).
So what do you do if you test and test and keep getting a reaction WITHOUT A CONFESSION? My polygrapher did the following:
Let out a big sign when looking at the chart. Dramatically, got out of her chair, walked out from behind her desk, picked up a chair that was against the wall (thought she was gonna throw it at me), put the chair in front of me, sat in front of me knee2knee, then started yelling at me.
What do you do Mr. Sackett, when a guy keeps professing his innocence (you can't coerce an admission out him), yet that troublesome squiggle mark (which is outside of "acceptable parameters") keeps showing up.
Does a "reaction" necessarily mean he is lying. Maybe he is reacting cause that's THE QUESTION YOU KEEP SAYING HE'S HAVING TRUBS WITH EVEN THOUGH HE'S BEING HONEST. I mean, that alone is enough to get somebodies ANS to get agitated!
Oh, yeah, and why don't polygraphers allow the test subject to tape the test for their records. If it's all on the "up and up", that is.
For certain? I can see where you might SUSPECT somebody is withholding info, but I don't see how you can know for sure.
That's what the NSA polygrapher thought I was doing, but I wasn't. They were suspicious about some translation work I did for an embassy official. He suckered me into translating a 20 page regulation from his home country for free. They just couldn't believe it. Thought I was passing secrets or something.
Wouldn't it be better for a trained INVESTIGATOR to check something out like that, rather than screw a qualified candidate because of "hunch" you have.
Would you want an investigator conducting your polygraph?
I'm glad you mentioned the "pretest". That, and the interviewing (INTERROGATING) between chart gazing, is where people screw themselves. They want you to open up and tell them your life story. Which they will use against you later, whether you're truthful or not, if they have to (e.g. if there is an "unacceptable" squiggle mark they have to account for).
So what do you do if you test and test and keep getting a reaction WITHOUT A CONFESSION? My polygrapher did the following:
Let out a big sign when looking at the chart. Dramatically, got out of her chair, walked out from behind her desk, picked up a chair that was against the wall (thought she was gonna throw it at me), put the chair in front of me, sat in front of me knee2knee, then started yelling at me.
What do you do Mr. Sackett, when a guy keeps professing his innocence (you can't coerce an admission out him), yet that troublesome squiggle mark (which is outside of "acceptable parameters") keeps showing up.
Does a "reaction" necessarily mean he is lying. Maybe he is reacting cause that's THE QUESTION YOU KEEP SAYING HE'S HAVING TRUBS WITH EVEN THOUGH HE'S BEING HONEST. I mean, that alone is enough to get somebodies ANS to get agitated!
Oh, yeah, and why don't polygraphers allow the test subject to tape the test for their records. If it's all on the "up and up", that is.