Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Lethe
 - Apr 21, 2008, 04:32 PM
Quote from: PhilGainey on Apr 04, 2008, 01:07 PM
Polygraphplace.com was established to present a site with positive and honest feedback for people with an interest or question concerning the science/art of polygraph.  

Polygraphplace.com is NOT a site for argumentative presentation of misguided souls who have a "case of the ass" at some examiner from their past.  That is what this board is all about (apparently).

In other words, Polygraphplace.com is to the polygraph what Answers in Genesis is to creationism.  

As I've pointed out before, the polygraph guild acts towards the legitimate scientific community only marginally better than do the people who think the planet is only 6000 years old (note to polygraphers: they're off by a factor of about a million)  The creationists hate the NAS only slightly more than the polygraphers do.  Both sets of folks are expert at misinformation, half truths, and outright lies.  Both consider themselves in possession of the truth and think that thinking for yourself is bad.

Don't believe me?  Ask a polygrapher why they use deception if it isn't necessary, as they claim.  They'll never answer that.  They'll use ad hominem attacks (known as "ad hominid attacks" by skipp.webb), feign ignorance of what you're asking ("Deception?  What's that?"), use condescension ("That's a good question.  Why don't you read the research which we won't tell you how to find and which doesn't actually answer that question anyway?"), and good old fashioned bullshit.

Anyway, as for your question, "How do they get away with this?" read Thucydides.  The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must.

Thinking is good.  Just do it!
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Apr 04, 2008, 05:40 PM
The mantra on the PGP board goes something like this:

A newbie goes to the board looking for answers, having just come up "false positive" on a test.

The polygraphers tell them that they're only having trouble becuase they "haven't told the examiner everything"!  "Stop holding back, there must be something in the back of your mind making you have trouble with the question."

It just confirms my suspicion that the test is simply about getting the test subject to blab their mouths off to see if they will say something the test examiner can use against them.

Of course, we know here that "trouble" doesn't necessarily mean "deception".

So the key is to 1) keep the focus of the test on the "control" questions and 2) Don't make admissions concerning the relevant questions, no matter how insignificant you think it may be.

TC
Posted by notguilty1
 - Apr 04, 2008, 05:08 PM
Quote from: PhilGainey on Apr 04, 2008, 01:07 PMMr Cullen,

Polygraphplace.com was established to present a site with positive and honest feedback for people with an interest or question concerning the science/art of polygraph.  

Polygraphplace.com is NOT a site for argumentative presentation of misguided souls who have a "case of the ass" at some examiner from their past.  That is what this board is all about (apparently).

Don't like it? Have George ban all of us examiners here, so that you may continue to have your pity party without interruption or distractions...
Sackett

GM does not have to ban you guys here he is fully aware that allowing you nuts on here to post a especially you have Sackett only futhers the casue he set out for by starting this site.
As for a pitty party you can continue to make remarks as you wish since this site allows the sharing of views. Truth is and yu Sackett know it is that this site is a truthfull thorn in your and other examiners assses.
Why? becasue it sheds light on your so called "science/art" and that is a threat to your industry. Why else would you spend so much time here with a bunch of pitty starved liers cheats and whiners? ;)
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Apr 04, 2008, 01:54 PM
QuotePolygraphplace.com was established to present a site with positive and honest feedback for people with an interest or question concerning the science/art of polygraph.  

Then why are you so afraid of allowing an "opposing" view.  Lord knows, GM allows it here.

For example, in the thread I referrred to, an outsiders asked about the accuracy of polygraph.  A responding pro-polygrapher claimed there was a mountain of scientific evidence to back the test's accuracy, though gave absolutely NO citations.

At that point, I would have simply pointed to the NAS report as an opposing counterpoint.

OTOH, I realize PGP is an Pro-industry site, and not a "debate" site.  I can see where you wouldn't want people going there to tear down your industry.

TC
Posted by sackett
 - Apr 04, 2008, 01:07 PM
Mr Cullen,

Polygraphplace.com was established to present a site with positive and honest feedback for people with an interest or question concerning the science/art of polygraph.  

Polygraphplace.com is NOT a site for argumentative presentation of misguided souls who have a "case of the ass" at some examiner from their past.  That is what this board is all about (apparently).

Don't like it?  Have George ban all of us examiners here, so that you may continue to have your pity party without interruption or distractions...

Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Apr 04, 2008, 04:36 AM
QuoteAt PolygraphPlace.com, they get away with such false and misleading claims as Lou Rovner made by forbidding polygraph critics from posting on their message board.

Well, well, well.

How conveeeeeenient!

We'll just have to find a way to luuuuure their lurkers over here, won't we?    ;)

Church Lady
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Apr 04, 2008, 02:36 AM
T.C.,

When quoting something, whether a message board post or a news article, please include a link to the source. The message you cited is to be found on PolygraphPlace.com:

http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum6/HTML/000078.html

At PolygraphPlace.com, they get away with such false and misleading claims as Lou Rovner made by forbidding polygraph critics from posting on their message board.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Apr 03, 2008, 07:54 PM
Whoops, answered my own question.

I delved a little deeper, and yes, they refer to a "study" done by a practicing polygrapher, allegedly a PhD.

So that's their "scientific research"?

TC
Posted by T.M. Cullen
 - Apr 03, 2008, 07:46 PM
From a pro-polygraph board:

QuoteUnfortunately, many people are not aware of the huge amount of scientific research that shows the high accuracy of a well-conducted polygraph test. They are similarly not aware of several surveys demonstrating that the scientific community supports the use of polygraph testing.

Of course, no citations are provided.  Probably referring to so-called "studies" conducted within the industry.

I suppose if I replied and pointed out the NAS report, it would be deleted.

TC