- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by TheNoLieGuy4U
- Mar 27, 2008, 04:40 PM NoPolyCop,
You Said: The polygraphers make you sign a hold harmless agreement, (you voluntarily giving away your right to sue for malpractice). This is a requirement by the insurance companies which insure polygraphers against malpractice. If you won't sign the form, they won't poly you. Of course, in a pre-hiring context, that means you don't get the job either, so they have you by the nutsack.
You got it half right !!! An Examiner testing an applicant for example for a government job / tax payer supported job, is exempt from EPPA. They, as does your local hospital and other professionals, have you sign such a release form to participate in competing for that job. The government entity can REQUIRE the test as a means of gettin the job, and historically the Dept. of Labor at the Federal level and most States have held that Chief's of Police, and other heads of government have this dominion right to put this in place as a barrier in the interest of public good.
However, Under EPPA, the test is voluntary as an expedited means of hiring wherein both parties want the job filled ASAP. Should the applicant not volunteer, they may be hired by alternative means such as a background check. They do however if choosing the latter know that they may not be as competative as quickly as other applicants. The Employer is well within their rights to pick the best applicant they can get in the shortest time frame, which is not discriminatory to those who refuse such a test, as they enter successfully into a hiring pool.
Examiners I'm sure have no desire to "Have You By the Nutsack", but rather to get their client's needs met in short order. The perspective Employer and the Polygraph Examiner are BOTH in a business and act accordingly. You get due process and get to keep your nutsack too.
I see so many people here who are ONLY applying for the job, and assume so much about the employer and their inflated self worth as the best qualified, when in reality have no way of knowing that. Why is this ? It is inflated ego, or just a generational thing ?
You Said: The polygraphers make you sign a hold harmless agreement, (you voluntarily giving away your right to sue for malpractice). This is a requirement by the insurance companies which insure polygraphers against malpractice. If you won't sign the form, they won't poly you. Of course, in a pre-hiring context, that means you don't get the job either, so they have you by the nutsack.
You got it half right !!! An Examiner testing an applicant for example for a government job / tax payer supported job, is exempt from EPPA. They, as does your local hospital and other professionals, have you sign such a release form to participate in competing for that job. The government entity can REQUIRE the test as a means of gettin the job, and historically the Dept. of Labor at the Federal level and most States have held that Chief's of Police, and other heads of government have this dominion right to put this in place as a barrier in the interest of public good.
However, Under EPPA, the test is voluntary as an expedited means of hiring wherein both parties want the job filled ASAP. Should the applicant not volunteer, they may be hired by alternative means such as a background check. They do however if choosing the latter know that they may not be as competative as quickly as other applicants. The Employer is well within their rights to pick the best applicant they can get in the shortest time frame, which is not discriminatory to those who refuse such a test, as they enter successfully into a hiring pool.
Examiners I'm sure have no desire to "Have You By the Nutsack", but rather to get their client's needs met in short order. The perspective Employer and the Polygraph Examiner are BOTH in a business and act accordingly. You get due process and get to keep your nutsack too.
I see so many people here who are ONLY applying for the job, and assume so much about the employer and their inflated self worth as the best qualified, when in reality have no way of knowing that. Why is this ? It is inflated ego, or just a generational thing ?
Posted by TheNoLieGuy4U
- Mar 27, 2008, 04:24 PMHey your questioning my intelligence is "the mantra"
A Mantra is defined as : man·tra /ˈmæntrə, ˈmɑn-, ˈmʌn-/ [man-truh, mahn-, muhn-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Hinduism. a word or formula, as from the Veda, chanted or sung as an incantation or prayer.
Your repeatative childish references of simply saying "I/We don't Believe in it" or "We don't like it" is like hearing a child. Your claim of intelligence packaged with your negativity may be best put to use somewhere else in life. I don't know what you do for a living, but if I had to come to work everyday with somebody as negative as you, I would either find another employer or get our employer to see you for your negative effects on the rest of the company. Few people in life succeed who are simply obsessed being Anti-Anything. They are just NOT team players or dynamic individuals, despite their own high opinion of their own intelligence.
You know damed well that Poliygraphs do NOT detect lies and there is ample evidence to show that. So much so that THEY ARE STILL NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT because they are deemd unreliable by experts and the court system.
You are NOT completely right on that grasshopper, snatch the wisdom from my mind now if you can. When you can, it will be time for you to leave and face the real world. 1. Federal rules of evidence 701 & 702 provide for the introduction of computer polygraph evidence. Further, the Daubert case surpassed the Frye standard, and with it polygraph met the general acceptance standing. In the State Superior courts you refer to, about a third of the States deny acceptance at this time, another third or less have acceptance (Example = New Mexico), and many other States have partial acceptance with prior stipulation. Thanks to the input of the lowest common denominators like you and this site, polygraph has never enjoyed such advances in funding and technological improvements working it's way toward the day ever greater acceptance, and for an ever greater marketplace. Did you catch the recent Wall Street Journal article which stated in part "Yet polygraph use is at the highest level in two decades. Government agencies from local police departments to the CIA are increasingly using the technology for job interviews. In U.S. courts lately, judges have expanded the instances in which polygraph testing is mandated or admitted as evidence."
You guys still have to apparantly waste your time to defend your "science" against, in your words "slow minded folks" like myself and TM Cullen Oh It was YOU who introduced the concept of slow minded folks, and the Apple (Thought) does NOT fall far from the tree (Brain). and I guess George would qualify as one of us to in your book. George is in his own unique and special legal, moral, and ethical catagory as a former Intelligence Officer as clearly and previously pointed out !
Your defense of Sackett's comparing the Polygraph industry and the Medical industry is continuing to show the pompous attitude that examiners have. I wonder how many such professionals you really know ! Less than a handfull at best I'm sure, and maybe even ONE ? Didn't you know that the polygraph has it's origins in medicine via a cardiologist and later with an ivy league engineer. Your so hell bent on negativity you own only a tunnel vision view of the small reality you so called intelligence lets you see. You still can not account for two things / variables. 1. As previously stated, why ALL of the alphabet soup three letter (and others) federal organizations successfully use the polygraph with verifiable results to their internal satisfaction. and 2. All of the confirmed charts (both manually and via algorithm) which other evidence later showed as correct (ie; Susan Smith case, O.J., + exhaustive endless list). So in reality grasshopper, if your intelligence will allow for it, you can grow in knowledge today, and widen your horizons a bit. The truth in this case is somewhere in the middle, and to the slight right in favor of polygraph, for if it was as you say it would have been abandoned long ago. This is NOT an ancient Chinese secret, but rather common sense which exceeds the apparent level of your claim of intelligence. Now review once again, and get back to me !!!
BTW I don't care who uses Polygraph's and for what reason they are "unreliable" in ALL those applications in detecting lies and only used to force a confession in those that take the snake oil. Grasshopper, Did you think this was only about YOU !!! Clearly even your claim of intelligence allows for the probabiligy that such agencies have hired other MORE qualified than YOU to have made such decisions. YOU did not stick out so far in the applicant pool as Einstein-esque as to have any of them follow a new model or methodology from your wonderful claim of intelligence. So such agencies are then clearly pragmatic and follow what is tried and true that has worked for them, and get the job done. Why not put that wonderful intelligent brain of yours to work and devise something else rather than simply be an Anti-Little Bitch tearing down somebody else's time honored validated work. I'm sure the physicists and computer programmer people at the Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory have been just waiting for a guy like YOU !!! NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!
Now Grasshopper read carefully: The Truth is ALWAYS Simple, it is Lies which are Complex. Honesty / Truth is the best policy. Now grow up, stop your bitching, tell the truth, and maybe somebody will invest in you (Applicants) if they can validate who you really are !! Countermeasures are a form of Deception unto themselves, and are Counterproductive for all. It is only the corrupted mind of the deceiver who brings them into the room / equation.
A Mantra is defined as : man·tra /ˈmæntrə, ˈmɑn-, ˈmʌn-/ [man-truh, mahn-, muhn-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Hinduism. a word or formula, as from the Veda, chanted or sung as an incantation or prayer.
Your repeatative childish references of simply saying "I/We don't Believe in it" or "We don't like it" is like hearing a child. Your claim of intelligence packaged with your negativity may be best put to use somewhere else in life. I don't know what you do for a living, but if I had to come to work everyday with somebody as negative as you, I would either find another employer or get our employer to see you for your negative effects on the rest of the company. Few people in life succeed who are simply obsessed being Anti-Anything. They are just NOT team players or dynamic individuals, despite their own high opinion of their own intelligence.
You know damed well that Poliygraphs do NOT detect lies and there is ample evidence to show that. So much so that THEY ARE STILL NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT because they are deemd unreliable by experts and the court system.
You are NOT completely right on that grasshopper, snatch the wisdom from my mind now if you can. When you can, it will be time for you to leave and face the real world. 1. Federal rules of evidence 701 & 702 provide for the introduction of computer polygraph evidence. Further, the Daubert case surpassed the Frye standard, and with it polygraph met the general acceptance standing. In the State Superior courts you refer to, about a third of the States deny acceptance at this time, another third or less have acceptance (Example = New Mexico), and many other States have partial acceptance with prior stipulation. Thanks to the input of the lowest common denominators like you and this site, polygraph has never enjoyed such advances in funding and technological improvements working it's way toward the day ever greater acceptance, and for an ever greater marketplace. Did you catch the recent Wall Street Journal article which stated in part "Yet polygraph use is at the highest level in two decades. Government agencies from local police departments to the CIA are increasingly using the technology for job interviews. In U.S. courts lately, judges have expanded the instances in which polygraph testing is mandated or admitted as evidence."
You guys still have to apparantly waste your time to defend your "science" against, in your words "slow minded folks" like myself and TM Cullen Oh It was YOU who introduced the concept of slow minded folks, and the Apple (Thought) does NOT fall far from the tree (Brain). and I guess George would qualify as one of us to in your book. George is in his own unique and special legal, moral, and ethical catagory as a former Intelligence Officer as clearly and previously pointed out !
Your defense of Sackett's comparing the Polygraph industry and the Medical industry is continuing to show the pompous attitude that examiners have. I wonder how many such professionals you really know ! Less than a handfull at best I'm sure, and maybe even ONE ? Didn't you know that the polygraph has it's origins in medicine via a cardiologist and later with an ivy league engineer. Your so hell bent on negativity you own only a tunnel vision view of the small reality you so called intelligence lets you see. You still can not account for two things / variables. 1. As previously stated, why ALL of the alphabet soup three letter (and others) federal organizations successfully use the polygraph with verifiable results to their internal satisfaction. and 2. All of the confirmed charts (both manually and via algorithm) which other evidence later showed as correct (ie; Susan Smith case, O.J., + exhaustive endless list). So in reality grasshopper, if your intelligence will allow for it, you can grow in knowledge today, and widen your horizons a bit. The truth in this case is somewhere in the middle, and to the slight right in favor of polygraph, for if it was as you say it would have been abandoned long ago. This is NOT an ancient Chinese secret, but rather common sense which exceeds the apparent level of your claim of intelligence. Now review once again, and get back to me !!!
BTW I don't care who uses Polygraph's and for what reason they are "unreliable" in ALL those applications in detecting lies and only used to force a confession in those that take the snake oil. Grasshopper, Did you think this was only about YOU !!! Clearly even your claim of intelligence allows for the probabiligy that such agencies have hired other MORE qualified than YOU to have made such decisions. YOU did not stick out so far in the applicant pool as Einstein-esque as to have any of them follow a new model or methodology from your wonderful claim of intelligence. So such agencies are then clearly pragmatic and follow what is tried and true that has worked for them, and get the job done. Why not put that wonderful intelligent brain of yours to work and devise something else rather than simply be an Anti-Little Bitch tearing down somebody else's time honored validated work. I'm sure the physicists and computer programmer people at the Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory have been just waiting for a guy like YOU !!! NOT !!!!!!!!!!!!
Now Grasshopper read carefully: The Truth is ALWAYS Simple, it is Lies which are Complex. Honesty / Truth is the best policy. Now grow up, stop your bitching, tell the truth, and maybe somebody will invest in you (Applicants) if they can validate who you really are !! Countermeasures are a form of Deception unto themselves, and are Counterproductive for all. It is only the corrupted mind of the deceiver who brings them into the room / equation.
Posted by nopolycop
- Mar 27, 2008, 03:32 PMThe polygraphers make you sign a hold harmless agreement, (you voluntarily giving away your right to sue for malpractice). This is a requirement by the insurance companies which insure polygraphers against malpractice.
If you won't sign the form, they won't poly you. Of course, in a pre-hiring context, that means you don't get the job either, so they have you by the nutsack.
If you won't sign the form, they won't poly you. Of course, in a pre-hiring context, that means you don't get the job either, so they have you by the nutsack.
Posted by notguilty1
- Mar 27, 2008, 11:36 AMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 22, 2008, 10:13 AMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 22, 2008, 09:46 AMThe penalty should be the same as when a polygrapher renders a wrong opinion.
Shall we also enact legislation, in that any doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist also be penalized when rendering an innacurate diagnosis? BTW, I read a research report about 5-6 years ago that overall, polygraph was more accurate than any of the above (read it, can't quote the citation). How do we handle that? And we're all a bunch of uneducated bumpkins...
Sackett
BTW, there is it's called MALPRACTICE
On the other hand... when a Poligaphers are wrong ( as they often are) do they suffer any consequeses?? No even though their "test" can and will alter a persons life.
I bet that if we did make legislation that would hold Poligraphers responsible for false negatives they industry would go away.
Thanks Sackett for making the point!!
Posted by notguilty1
- Mar 27, 2008, 11:31 AMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 26, 2008, 07:38 PM Hello NotGuilty1,
WOW you really do compare yourself to accual medical professionals.
Let me SLOWLY explain the difference Your slow answer would appear to be a reflection on how YOUR brain works, and not an evaluation of Sackett's
1) When a Doctor sees a patient there are usually signs and symptoms.
With Polys ...... NOT Wrong Grasshopper, When a Polygraph Examiner sees a test subject there are good and valid reasons for which they are either a suspect (criminal case) or wherein the respective government employer(s) are making an investment in the applicant. The "Signs" or "Concerns" are universal in catagories that Dept. of Labor states may be covered. Got It ? Let's move on !!
2) The doctor follows up with a diagnosis and possible tests to confirm the suspected problem. These tests ARE scientifically proven i.e. blood tests for diabetes or MRI's for tumors.
With polys' ....... NOT Grasshopper, now snatch this information from my writing !!! The Examiner follows up after a review of the chart to consistentcy of reaction. The test was done in an environment free of artificial stimuli, therefore the reason for the reaction is based on the internal processing of the subject's (sometimes slow like yours) brain. There are hundreds of thousands of confirmed charts from which the examiners training is derived. Further, the computer scoring algorithms mathamatically rate the test in regard to the mean, median, and mode averages (scientific enough for you ?) in interpreting the data from which an evaluation is made. The truth or deception is clearly present in the mind of the examinee prior to the first chart ever being run as all questions are reviewed.
3) The doctor will prescribe a treatment that may include surgery and or medication. This ususally will lead to a resolution to the problem if not there usually is a good reason it wasen't resolved i.e. cancer treatment that can only prolong a patients life or the patient not following through with doctors orders.
With Poly's ......... NOT
The Examiner, after making a determination of No Deception Indicated thanks the Examinee for their participation which are the majority of cases. If there is a finding of Deception Indicated then the examinee is confronted and this will usually lead to the WHY which validates the chart event reactions aka the known deception. Sometimes, as in posters I read here, the childlike stance of standing by the lie is maintained and the examinee is frozen in the process while better, more cooperative, and Truthful applicants move forward. End result ? The job gets filled and the employer's needs met------------ as it is NOT only about YOU.
Your claims of accuacy is a joke since I know you can't ( unless there is other supporting evidence) know if a positive test or a negative test is accurate. Your "industry" simply relies on the test results to make those claims. Isn't that true Sackett?
What would appear to be the joke is the relativism being spouted about here on this site. You believe that if you repeat your mantras long enough, loud enough, and strong enough; that you can create a new reality. You have still NOT accounted for the hundreds of thousands of charts which were mathamatically scored as Truthful or Deceptive in where later other evidence clearly showed the same thing---------- are they all just an accident ? Are we really to believe that the FBI,CIA,NSA, DoD, and a list of other alphabet soup organizations ALL got it wrong, and that only YOU the disgruntled have it right. That would really be evidence of a slow brain !!
Your comparisson between a proven profession that can be always documented as realiable and the level of education that those providers need to do what they do and YOU and the poigraph industry is laughable at best.
Your argument is an apples and oranges one !!! Even Forest Gump (Slow Brain) could see through that !!! Besides, even medicine or aviation offer no guarantees of being proven each and every time, or you would not have so many lawyers taking them to task. Did you know that polygraph insurance is much cheaper than their insurance ? Shoud we derive from that that we do it better and are rated as a lower risk ? No, rather that there are few lawsuits filed as there are standards which are followed and little grounds from which a suit could be successful.
Keep talking though I am sure your educating lots of curious people reading your posts. You really can NOT educate a close minded slow brain like yours who is stuck in the rut of celebrating their own claimed victimization. The real education would come to you if and when you give credit where credit is due, as the polygraph community has reached out and more than met you half way in stating they are NOT perfect, but do make a valued contribution in the investigative and intelligence field. 8-)
Hey your questioning my intelligence is "the mantra"
You know damed well that Poliygraphs do NOT detect lies and there is ample evidence to show that.
So much so that THEY ARE STILL NOT ADMISSABLE IN COURT because they are deemd unreliable by experts and the court system.
You guys still have to apparantly waste your time to defend your "science" against, in your words "slow minded folks" like myself and TM Cullen Oh! and I guess George would qualify as one of us to in your book.
Your defense of Sackett's comparing the Polygraph industry and the Medical industry is continuing to show the pompous attitude that examiners have.
BTW I don't care who uses Polygraph's and for what reason they are "unreliable" in ALL those applications in detecting lies and only used to force a confession in those that take the snake oil.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 27, 2008, 12:26 AMQuoteThe Examiner follows up after a review of the chart to consistentcy of reaction
But these "reations" do not necessarily equate to "deception".
If your conscious mind has been sending the message to the SUB-conscious (which controls the FFF response) to "be on guard" for a certain question, you will CONSISTENTLY react, whether you are lying or not. That is how the mind works.
QuoteFurther, the computer scoring algorithms mathamatically rate the test in regard to the mean, median, and mode averages (scientific enough for you ?
G.I.G.O.
No matter what statistical operations you perform on a given set of poorly collected, and misinterpreted data, the conclusions will be faulty.
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Mark Twain?
Quote...based on the internal processing of the subject's (sometimes slow like yours) brain.
It tests the FFF response which indicates "fear", "irritation", "frustration", "defensiveness"...etc., but not necessarily "decepton" lying. Can a person possibly CONSISTENTLY consider a question a "threat" short of lying?
For example, you've been told for the first time during the test that you are "reacting" to a certain question. You know you are telling the truth, but this guy is insinuating that you're being deceptive. You really want the job. And this question, which you are answering truthfully, is standing in the way.
So, chart number two begins. The questions start, the examiner gets to the "loaded" question: "Have you ever maintain an unauthorized relationship with...." Halfway through the question your subconscious recongizes it as "THAT QUESTION" and starts the FFF ("Put up yer dukes!" response.
You end up going through 5 charts over two days. After each chart, the examiner gets more and more insulting . The more they claim you are showing deception and not coorperating, the more your SUB-conscious gets programed to react to that question (typical with a high strung test subject like me).
What a joke! Wolf even admitted that the machine doesn't detect lying and deception.
TC
Posted by TheNoLieGuy4U
- Mar 26, 2008, 07:38 PM Hello NotGuilty1,
WOW you really do compare yourself to accual medical professionals.
Let me SLOWLY explain the difference Your slow answer would appear to be a reflection on how YOUR brain works, and not an evaluation of Sackett's
1) When a Doctor sees a patient there are usually signs and symptoms.
With Polys ...... NOT Wrong Grasshopper, When a Polygraph Examiner sees a test subject there are good and valid reasons for which they are either a suspect (criminal case) or wherein the respective government employer(s) are making an investment in the applicant. The "Signs" or "Concerns" are universal in catagories that Dept. of Labor states may be covered. Got It ? Let's move on !!
2) The doctor follows up with a diagnosis and possible tests to confirm the suspected problem. These tests ARE scientifically proven i.e. blood tests for diabetes or MRI's for tumors.
With polys' ....... NOT Grasshopper, now snatch this information from my writing !!! The Examiner follows up after a review of the chart to consistentcy of reaction. The test was done in an environment free of artificial stimuli, therefore the reason for the reaction is based on the internal processing of the subject's (sometimes slow like yours) brain. There are hundreds of thousands of confirmed charts from which the examiners training is derived. Further, the computer scoring algorithms mathamatically rate the test in regard to the mean, median, and mode averages (scientific enough for you ?) in interpreting the data from which an evaluation is made. The truth or deception is clearly present in the mind of the examinee prior to the first chart ever being run as all questions are reviewed.
3) The doctor will prescribe a treatment that may include surgery and or medication. This ususally will lead to a resolution to the problem if not there usually is a good reason it wasen't resolved i.e. cancer treatment that can only prolong a patients life or the patient not following through with doctors orders.
With Poly's ......... NOT
The Examiner, after making a determination of No Deception Indicated thanks the Examinee for their participation which are the majority of cases. If there is a finding of Deception Indicated then the examinee is confronted and this will usually lead to the WHY which validates the chart event reactions aka the known deception. Sometimes, as in posters I read here, the childlike stance of standing by the lie is maintained and the examinee is frozen in the process while better, more cooperative, and Truthful applicants move forward. End result ? The job gets filled and the employer's needs met------------ as it is NOT only about YOU.
Your claims of accuacy is a joke since I know you can't ( unless there is other supporting evidence) know if a positive test or a negative test is accurate. Your "industry" simply relies on the test results to make those claims. Isn't that true Sackett?
What would appear to be the joke is the relativism being spouted about here on this site. You believe that if you repeat your mantras long enough, loud enough, and strong enough; that you can create a new reality. You have still NOT accounted for the hundreds of thousands of charts which were mathamatically scored as Truthful or Deceptive in where later other evidence clearly showed the same thing---------- are they all just an accident ? Are we really to believe that the FBI,CIA,NSA, DoD, and a list of other alphabet soup organizations ALL got it wrong, and that only YOU the disgruntled have it right. That would really be evidence of a slow brain !!
Your comparisson between a proven profession that can be always documented as realiable and the level of education that those providers need to do what they do and YOU and the poigraph industry is laughable at best.
Your argument is an apples and oranges one !!! Even Forest Gump (Slow Brain) could see through that !!! Besides, even medicine or aviation offer no guarantees of being proven each and every time, or you would not have so many lawyers taking them to task. Did you know that polygraph insurance is much cheaper than their insurance ? Shoud we derive from that that we do it better and are rated as a lower risk ? No, rather that there are few lawsuits filed as there are standards which are followed and little grounds from which a suit could be successful.
Keep talking though I am sure your educating lots of curious people reading your posts. You really can NOT educate a close minded slow brain like yours who is stuck in the rut of celebrating their own claimed victimization. The real education would come to you if and when you give credit where credit is due, as the polygraph community has reached out and more than met you half way in stating they are NOT perfect, but do make a valued contribution in the investigative and intelligence field. 8-)
WOW you really do compare yourself to accual medical professionals.
Let me SLOWLY explain the difference Your slow answer would appear to be a reflection on how YOUR brain works, and not an evaluation of Sackett's
1) When a Doctor sees a patient there are usually signs and symptoms.
With Polys ...... NOT Wrong Grasshopper, When a Polygraph Examiner sees a test subject there are good and valid reasons for which they are either a suspect (criminal case) or wherein the respective government employer(s) are making an investment in the applicant. The "Signs" or "Concerns" are universal in catagories that Dept. of Labor states may be covered. Got It ? Let's move on !!
2) The doctor follows up with a diagnosis and possible tests to confirm the suspected problem. These tests ARE scientifically proven i.e. blood tests for diabetes or MRI's for tumors.
With polys' ....... NOT Grasshopper, now snatch this information from my writing !!! The Examiner follows up after a review of the chart to consistentcy of reaction. The test was done in an environment free of artificial stimuli, therefore the reason for the reaction is based on the internal processing of the subject's (sometimes slow like yours) brain. There are hundreds of thousands of confirmed charts from which the examiners training is derived. Further, the computer scoring algorithms mathamatically rate the test in regard to the mean, median, and mode averages (scientific enough for you ?) in interpreting the data from which an evaluation is made. The truth or deception is clearly present in the mind of the examinee prior to the first chart ever being run as all questions are reviewed.
3) The doctor will prescribe a treatment that may include surgery and or medication. This ususally will lead to a resolution to the problem if not there usually is a good reason it wasen't resolved i.e. cancer treatment that can only prolong a patients life or the patient not following through with doctors orders.
With Poly's ......... NOT
The Examiner, after making a determination of No Deception Indicated thanks the Examinee for their participation which are the majority of cases. If there is a finding of Deception Indicated then the examinee is confronted and this will usually lead to the WHY which validates the chart event reactions aka the known deception. Sometimes, as in posters I read here, the childlike stance of standing by the lie is maintained and the examinee is frozen in the process while better, more cooperative, and Truthful applicants move forward. End result ? The job gets filled and the employer's needs met------------ as it is NOT only about YOU.
Your claims of accuacy is a joke since I know you can't ( unless there is other supporting evidence) know if a positive test or a negative test is accurate. Your "industry" simply relies on the test results to make those claims. Isn't that true Sackett?
What would appear to be the joke is the relativism being spouted about here on this site. You believe that if you repeat your mantras long enough, loud enough, and strong enough; that you can create a new reality. You have still NOT accounted for the hundreds of thousands of charts which were mathamatically scored as Truthful or Deceptive in where later other evidence clearly showed the same thing---------- are they all just an accident ? Are we really to believe that the FBI,CIA,NSA, DoD, and a list of other alphabet soup organizations ALL got it wrong, and that only YOU the disgruntled have it right. That would really be evidence of a slow brain !!
Your comparisson between a proven profession that can be always documented as realiable and the level of education that those providers need to do what they do and YOU and the poigraph industry is laughable at best.
Your argument is an apples and oranges one !!! Even Forest Gump (Slow Brain) could see through that !!! Besides, even medicine or aviation offer no guarantees of being proven each and every time, or you would not have so many lawyers taking them to task. Did you know that polygraph insurance is much cheaper than their insurance ? Shoud we derive from that that we do it better and are rated as a lower risk ? No, rather that there are few lawsuits filed as there are standards which are followed and little grounds from which a suit could be successful.
Keep talking though I am sure your educating lots of curious people reading your posts. You really can NOT educate a close minded slow brain like yours who is stuck in the rut of celebrating their own claimed victimization. The real education would come to you if and when you give credit where credit is due, as the polygraph community has reached out and more than met you half way in stating they are NOT perfect, but do make a valued contribution in the investigative and intelligence field. 8-)
Posted by notguilty1
- Mar 24, 2008, 11:25 AMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 24, 2008, 10:53 AMyou do, it's just called something different...
malpractice insurance...
Sackett
WOW you really do compare yourself to accual medical professionals.
Let me SLOWLY explain the difference ( even though you think your Polygraphs are more accurate )
1) When a Doctor sees a patient there are usually signs and symptoms.
With Polys ...... NOT
2) The doctor follows up with a diagnosis and possible tests to confirm the suspected problem. These tests ARE scientifically proven i.e. blood tests for diabetes or MRI's for tumors.
With polys' ....... NOT
3) The doctor will prescribe a treatment that may include surgery and or medication. This ususally will lead to a resolution to the problem if not there usually is a good reason it wasen't resolved i.e. cancer treatment that can only prolong a patients life or the patient not following through with doctors orders.
With Poly's ......... NOT
Your claims of accuacy is a joke since I know you can't ( unless there is other supporting evidence) know if a positive test or a negative test is accurate. Your "industry" simply relies on the test results to make those claims. Isn't that true Sackett?
Your comparisson between a proven profession that can be always documented as realiable and the level of education that those providers need to do what they do and YOU and the poigraph industry is laughable at best.
Keep talking though I am sure your educating lots of curious people reading your posts.
Posted by sackett
- Mar 24, 2008, 10:53 AMyou do, it's just called something different...
malpractice insurance...
Sackett
malpractice insurance...
Sackett
Posted by notguilty1
- Mar 23, 2008, 12:43 AMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 22, 2008, 09:18 PMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 22, 2008, 05:04 PMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 22, 2008, 10:13 AMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 22, 2008, 09:46 AMThe penalty should be the same as when a polygrapher renders a wrong opinion.
Shall we also enact legislation, in that any doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist also be penalized when rendering an innacurate diagnosis? BTW, I read a research report about 5-6 years ago that overall, polygraph was more accurate than any of the above (read it, can't quote the citation). How do we handle that? And we're all a bunch of uneducated bumpkins...
Sackett
SACKETT!!! News flash..... You are NOT a Doctor, Psycologist or a Psychiatrist your also NOT a Lawyer or Judge.
It's amazing to me how high you put yourself and your "chosen profession"
One that the legal field itself has deemed to be unreliable at best.
Come back to earth man.
You're right! I'm not a doctor, psychologist, etc. But according to the research I read (public information), I'm more accurate. That's not pompous, it's just the truth. An ellusive concept, at many levels, to many on this board...
Sackett
If your so accurate in your "profession" , then why don't I see doctors on "antidoctor" web sites desperatly trying to convince people that what they do is reliable??
ONLY YOU SACKETT!!! Wow your mommy really messed you up didn't she??
Posted by sackett
- Mar 22, 2008, 09:18 PMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 22, 2008, 05:04 PMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 22, 2008, 10:13 AMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 22, 2008, 09:46 AMThe penalty should be the same as when a polygrapher renders a wrong opinion.
Shall we also enact legislation, in that any doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist also be penalized when rendering an innacurate diagnosis? BTW, I read a research report about 5-6 years ago that overall, polygraph was more accurate than any of the above (read it, can't quote the citation). How do we handle that? And we're all a bunch of uneducated bumpkins...
Sackett
SACKETT!!! News flash..... You are NOT a Doctor, Psycologist or a Psychiatrist your also NOT a Lawyer or Judge.
It's amazing to me how high you put yourself and your "chosen profession"
One that the legal field itself has deemed to be unreliable at best.
Come back to earth man.
You're right! I'm not a doctor, psychologist, etc. But according to the research I read (public information), I'm more accurate. That's not pompous, it's just the truth. An ellusive concept, at many levels, to many on this board...
Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 22, 2008, 09:04 PMQuoteSACKETT!!! News flash..... You are NOT a Doctor, Psycologist or a Psychiatrist your also NOT a Lawyer or Judge.From Webster Online dictionary:
It's amazing to me how high you put yourself and your "chosen profession"
One that the legal field itself has deemed to be unreliable at best.
Come back to earth man. Shocked
— POMPOUS - pomp·ous
Pronunciation:
\ˈpäm-pəs\
Function:
adjective
Date:
15th century
1 : excessively elevated or ornate <pompous rhetoric> 2 : having or exhibiting self-importance : arrogant <a pompous politician> 3 : relating to or suggestive of pomp : magnificent
— pomp·ous·ly adverb
— pomp·ous·ness noun
Posted by notguilty1
- Mar 22, 2008, 05:04 PMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 22, 2008, 10:13 AMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 22, 2008, 09:46 AMThe penalty should be the same as when a polygrapher renders a wrong opinion.
Shall we also enact legislation, in that any doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist also be penalized when rendering an innacurate diagnosis? BTW, I read a research report about 5-6 years ago that overall, polygraph was more accurate than any of the above (read it, can't quote the citation). How do we handle that? And we're all a bunch of uneducated bumpkins...
Sackett
SACKETT!!! News flash..... You are NOT a Doctor, Psycologist or a Psychiatrist your also NOT a Lawyer or Judge.
It's amazing to me how high you put yourself and your "chosen profession"
One that the legal field itself has deemed to be unreliable at best.
Come back to earth man.
Posted by notguilty1
- Mar 22, 2008, 05:00 PMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 22, 2008, 12:40 AM Hi All,
I'm curious !! What do the Anti-Poly folks here feel should be the proper reward for attempting countermeasures when you / others are caught doing it. Certainly you have considered this !!!! Certainly with the improvements in the systems and advanced trainging inspired by this site in the polygraph community with greater funding equates to not all such attempts getting through. So then, other than not getting the job in Pre-Employments, or in an internal affairs investigation trying to manipulate that investigation; What should the actual penalty be. Be fair with you answer rather than spewing out the same old mantras, and put your skills to the test. If you are going to risk those countermeasures in a gamble, what is the pay off for the other side when they do their job right ? I don't believe that this is a new thought for you, as their are risks and rewards in life, and you place yourself at risk with CM's. I am open to all suggestions pro or con from both sides.
I have a response to this and I do feel this is a valid question.
However, you question assumes that Poligraphs are accurate and reliable which I think most on here belive that not to be the case.
At the very least we can all agree that being truthfull does not assure one of a pass.
That being said I never advocated for someone to lie to cover anything including a pre employment screening. I can see however that one may want to consider using CM's to better assure a positive outcome ( I have not tryed this so I don't know if it works I just can understand why )
Unfortunatly, There can't be any "penalties" for "getting caught" since based on the test results you can't establish that someone is using CM's and visual observation would be the examiners opinion in most cases. As opposed to say a urine test that has been altered in some way that can be verified and even then if it's for a criminal investigation then I guess there would be some obstructing justice penalties and in employment you simply don't get the job.
Maybe Sackett and you would like a Noose so he can hang them when they are caught doing what has been done to them!!
Posted by sackett
- Mar 22, 2008, 10:13 AMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 22, 2008, 09:46 AMThe penalty should be the same as when a polygrapher renders a wrong opinion.
Shall we also enact legislation, in that any doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist also be penalized when rendering an innacurate diagnosis? BTW, I read a research report about 5-6 years ago that overall, polygraph was more accurate than any of the above (read it, can't quote the citation). How do we handle that? And we're all a bunch of uneducated bumpkins...
Sackett