- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by polytechnic
- Jul 15, 2008, 10:06 AMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Jun 02, 2008, 08:19 PM
"... I once sought employment with the FBI, but was "not within acceptable parameters." So what! I moved on and .......and ultimately became a polygraph examiner
I understand why you could be so bitter. Thats quite a 'come-down'.
You should rather have tried applying for a burger flipping job. It comes with tips and smiling, grateful clients.
Blessings....
Posted by polytechnic
- Jul 15, 2008, 09:59 AMHi TC,
Whats your point here ?
Whats your point here ?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jun 08, 2008, 03:47 PMQuoteLangan notes that "if a medical test had a similar sensitivity and specificity to that of the polygraph examination it would simply not be used in the field of medicine." And Zelicoff has elsewhere observed, "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."
What does Langan know! Did he attend the 14 week polygraph course? Does he have any experience in the industry? Has he ever been a practicing polygrapher?
I didn't think so!
Frankly, I am highly suspect of any so-called "study" coming from outside polygraphic circles. It lacks credibility!
For example. Would you put much faith in a medical study done by someone other than a medical professional? I think not!
TC
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 02, 2008, 11:42 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Jun 02, 2008, 08:19 PMOr, you "could" have been a false positive. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
The best field studies of polygraphy suggest that a truthful person may have roughly a 50-50 chance of passing a polygraph "test." See Dr. Alan Zelicoff's "Positive and Negative Predictive Values of Polygraphs: Results from published 'field' studies":
https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-051.pdf
and also Dr. Michael Langan's "The Art of Deception: Polygraph Lie Detection":
https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-053.shtml
Langan notes that "if a medical test had a similar sensitivity and specificity to that of the polygraph examination it would simply not be used in the field of medicine." And Zelicoff has elsewhere observed, "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."
Posted by yankeedog
- Jun 02, 2008, 08:19 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Jun 02, 2008, 07:09 PMNo explaination from the nazis here but to say I must have been withholding something or a variable must have been off or simply I was infact lying.
Or, you "could" have been a false positive. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. Just like there are occasions when innocent people are convicted of a crime and sent to prison. But we don't just scrap the whole judicial process, although I think it needs a great deal of overhauling. I once sought employment with the FBI, but was "not within acceptable parameters." So what! I moved on and finished a career with the federal government and then went elsewhere to work. Looking back, I'm content I was not accepted by the FBI as I am not overly impressed with their charter.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Jun 02, 2008, 08:04 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Jun 01, 2008, 03:01 PMI have a relative who works for the NSA. He told me has to pass a polygraph every 5 years. He says that you can't use any tricks to fool the poly. They'll figure it out. Just act like you would every day and be honest. Tell them every dirty little secret you have stored up in your head so you can make it less unnerving. For example, if they ask you about whether you ever robbed a bank, you might think of the dollar you stole from your mom's purse as a kid. You'll feel bad about the dollar and it will show up on the polygraph. So, you have to tell them about it to get it off your chest so they can ask you a question like "Besides that dollar, have you ever stolen..." The main reason people don't pass is because they don't open up to small things like that. He says that nobody's a saint in the NSA and they have all done something they aren't proud of. They don't care about those small things. They want to catch the real bad guys. As long as you haven't done anything bad while you were drunk before to get you into trouble, blown up a plane, killed somebody, or robbed a bank, you will be just fine telling them what is bothering you. The main point: Don't do anything seriously bad that you will feel guilty about or don't even try to take the polygraph.
If that is all that is necessary to pass I would have passed all four of my polygraphs.
Instead, even though I told the truth and "got everything off my chest", I failed the first three and passed the fourth.
Posted by notguilty1
- Jun 02, 2008, 07:09 PMAll I know is when I failed mine. I was truthfull though I did feel my reaction to the relevant questions. I can only assume that it was becasue I knew that those testing me felt I was guilty. I don't know that this is the reason for sure but I do know that I was compltetly truthfull in my answers and failed.
No explaination from the nazis here but to say I must have been withholding something or a variable must have been off or simply I was infact lying.
The fact is that you cannot con us ( those who have direct proff of the scam) and so you come here daily to "try" to discount or otherwise nulify our experinces and proof. This way if your succesful you get to continue your con job.
WHY THE HELL ELSE WOULD EXAMINERS BE ON AN ANTI WEB SITE DAILY THAT THEY CLAIM IS DOING NOTHING TO THE INDUSTRY AND IS FULL OF "MISGUIDED" IDIOTS ??
No explaination from the nazis here but to say I must have been withholding something or a variable must have been off or simply I was infact lying.
The fact is that you cannot con us ( those who have direct proff of the scam) and so you come here daily to "try" to discount or otherwise nulify our experinces and proof. This way if your succesful you get to continue your con job.
WHY THE HELL ELSE WOULD EXAMINERS BE ON AN ANTI WEB SITE DAILY THAT THEY CLAIM IS DOING NOTHING TO THE INDUSTRY AND IS FULL OF "MISGUIDED" IDIOTS ??
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Jun 01, 2008, 03:20 PMSlimShady13,
I thought the same thing prior to my polygraph at the NSA in March 2000. I failed anyway.
If the polygraph really detected deception, then a person answering the simple yes/no question truthfully would not have to "get every little thing off their chest" to stop the machine from reacting. Of course, that is exactly the purpose of the test. To TRICK the person into talking their head off. The examiners job is to see what he/she can "get out" of the person. Not to test for truthfulness. It's a pretty neat trick.
Problem is, you can "get everything off your chest" and still have a "reaction" show up on the machine. The mere fact that they are focusing in on A PARTICULAR question, and falsely claiming you are being "deceptive", is reason enough for your autonomic nervous system to react when that question is asked during the test.
And just because they precede the question with "besides what you have already told me...." will not necessarily cause your subconscious (which controls ANS reactions) to stop reacting. It knows that it is just a permutation of that same original question (the one they are falsely claiming you are lying about). That is enough to put ones ANS "on the defensive".
And if you continue to "react" they will continue to prod until you finally say something they can use to justify the chart "reaction", and then fail you. It is like any INTERROGATION. They will just try to wear you out until they get you to say something they want to hear.
TC
I thought the same thing prior to my polygraph at the NSA in March 2000. I failed anyway.
If the polygraph really detected deception, then a person answering the simple yes/no question truthfully would not have to "get every little thing off their chest" to stop the machine from reacting. Of course, that is exactly the purpose of the test. To TRICK the person into talking their head off. The examiners job is to see what he/she can "get out" of the person. Not to test for truthfulness. It's a pretty neat trick.
Problem is, you can "get everything off your chest" and still have a "reaction" show up on the machine. The mere fact that they are focusing in on A PARTICULAR question, and falsely claiming you are being "deceptive", is reason enough for your autonomic nervous system to react when that question is asked during the test.
And just because they precede the question with "besides what you have already told me...." will not necessarily cause your subconscious (which controls ANS reactions) to stop reacting. It knows that it is just a permutation of that same original question (the one they are falsely claiming you are lying about). That is enough to put ones ANS "on the defensive".
And if you continue to "react" they will continue to prod until you finally say something they can use to justify the chart "reaction", and then fail you. It is like any INTERROGATION. They will just try to wear you out until they get you to say something they want to hear.
TC
Posted by SlimShady13
- Jun 01, 2008, 03:01 PMI have a relative who works for the NSA. He told me has to pass a polygraph every 5 years. He says that you can't use any tricks to fool the poly. They'll figure it out. Just act like you would every day and be honest. Tell them every dirty little secret you have stored up in your head so you can make it less unnerving. For example, if they ask you about whether you ever robbed a bank, you might think of the dollar you stole from your mom's purse as a kid. You'll feel bad about the dollar and it will show up on the polygraph. So, you have to tell them about it to get it off your chest so they can ask you a question like "Besides that dollar, have you ever stolen..." The main reason people don't pass is because they don't open up to small things like that. He says that nobody's a saint in the NSA and they have all done something they aren't proud of. They don't care about those small things. They want to catch the real bad guys. As long as you haven't done anything bad while you were drunk before to get you into trouble, blown up a plane, killed somebody, or robbed a bank, you will be just fine telling them what is bothering you. The main point: Don't do anything seriously bad that you will feel guilty about or don't even try to take the polygraph.
Posted by Lethe
- Apr 24, 2008, 12:45 AMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Apr 23, 2008, 12:26 PM
lethe, you also said, "Think about that. They don't get paid to find out who doesn't like the polygraph; they're not hired to find out who has done research on the polygraph; they don't get paid to see who has "ever told a lie even once ever". However, they take great pride in doing all of those things. They appear much less concerned about finding out who is lying on the relevant questions, which was initially their sole purpose for existing. "
How absolutely disingenuous. I never said that but will address it. No,. I don't care if "you" like the polygraph, nor done any research on the polygraph, that is your poor interpretation, once again. It IS my job to find out what my dept wants to know about an examinee then test him on the truthfulness of their statement; nothing more.
If a person answers the relevant questions truthfully but is failed on account of his or her polygraph results then you have failed. Period.
Yet you make a joke out of it--out of other people's ruined lives. I'd be a rich man if I had a dollar for every one of you virus particles that expressed his joy--joy!--at failing people who use countermeasures when most of those people were truthful on the relevant questions and acting to preserve some chance of passing. Their failure to pass represents a failure of the polygraph system. But you count those as successes, don' t you? But, that's okay, you don't have to think about it; you're making a killing.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Apr 23, 2008, 12:26 PM
I'm defending my organization and community. Who else will protect the society, you?! I don't think so.
You're protecting yourself, nothing more. I don't want the polygraph to be used to screen for pre-employment purposes; it does far more harm than good in that capacity; society should be liberated from the likes of you.
Of course, no polygrapher is willing to have a real discussion in which the costs and benefits of the polygraph are weighed, so that's that.
Incidentally, do you purposefully keep your children stupid, Sackett, so that you can more easily detect their lies? If you are consistent (keeping members of society stupid so they can more easily be polygraphed) you should do so.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 23, 2008, 02:42 PMRelax Sackett, your job is safe, that's the main thing!
TC
TC
Posted by sackett
- Apr 23, 2008, 12:26 PMMr Cullen, et al,
it always amazes me how I can say one thing and you poor misguided souls can turn it into something else completely.
Cullen wrote: "You know as well as I do that the purpose of a preemployment/periodic polygraph is to "fluster" the testee, and see what you can get out of him."
First off, do not ever think or presume to think you know what I know. You have no clue as to who I am (other than a mean spirited examiner) or what I know. The purpose of the pre-employment is to collect the information needed for consideration for employment and test the veracity of what is reported. Nothing more.
Also, being considered "self-serving" by the likes of you is a compliment, given your propensity for the very same thing demonstrated daily on this board...
lethe said, " Sackett admits that he doesn't care if he fails people who answer the relevant questions with 100% honesty. He doesn't care if he screws up someone's life. He's already got his."
Nope! Once again, your skewed view of the polygraph world results in (probable and purposeful) misinterpretation of statements. Re-read the portion of the quote YOU saved in your posting. Sheesh, this is really getting old and repetitive...
lethe, you also said, "Think about that. They don't get paid to find out who doesn't like the polygraph; they're not hired to find out who has done research on the polygraph; they don't get paid to see who has "ever told a lie even once ever". However, they take great pride in doing all of those things. They appear much less concerned about finding out who is lying on the relevant questions, which was initially their sole purpose for existing. "
How absolutely disingenuous. I never said that but will address it. No,. I don't care if "you" like the polygraph, nor done any research on the polygraph, that is your poor interpretation, once again. It IS my job to find out what my dept wants to know about an examinee then test him on the truthfulness of their statement; nothing more.
Also, "Now they just exist to exist and suck money and resources out of society while defending themselves."
I'm defending my organization and community. Who else will protect the society, you?! I don't think so.
Sackett
it always amazes me how I can say one thing and you poor misguided souls can turn it into something else completely.
Cullen wrote: "You know as well as I do that the purpose of a preemployment/periodic polygraph is to "fluster" the testee, and see what you can get out of him."
First off, do not ever think or presume to think you know what I know. You have no clue as to who I am (other than a mean spirited examiner) or what I know. The purpose of the pre-employment is to collect the information needed for consideration for employment and test the veracity of what is reported. Nothing more.
Also, being considered "self-serving" by the likes of you is a compliment, given your propensity for the very same thing demonstrated daily on this board...
lethe said, " Sackett admits that he doesn't care if he fails people who answer the relevant questions with 100% honesty. He doesn't care if he screws up someone's life. He's already got his."
Nope! Once again, your skewed view of the polygraph world results in (probable and purposeful) misinterpretation of statements. Re-read the portion of the quote YOU saved in your posting. Sheesh, this is really getting old and repetitive...
lethe, you also said, "Think about that. They don't get paid to find out who doesn't like the polygraph; they're not hired to find out who has done research on the polygraph; they don't get paid to see who has "ever told a lie even once ever". However, they take great pride in doing all of those things. They appear much less concerned about finding out who is lying on the relevant questions, which was initially their sole purpose for existing. "
How absolutely disingenuous. I never said that but will address it. No,. I don't care if "you" like the polygraph, nor done any research on the polygraph, that is your poor interpretation, once again. It IS my job to find out what my dept wants to know about an examinee then test him on the truthfulness of their statement; nothing more.
Also, "Now they just exist to exist and suck money and resources out of society while defending themselves."
I'm defending my organization and community. Who else will protect the society, you?! I don't think so.
Sackett
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 23, 2008, 04:00 AMQuoteWhen I took my polygraphs I believed in their accuracy, and I told the truth, and I was judged a liar.
Sarge,
You mean you THOUGHT you told the truth.
But the machine must have proved you wrong.
TC
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Apr 23, 2008, 01:52 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on Apr 22, 2008, 12:53 PMNot dissimilar to the addage that, if you don't believe in God, you better be right...
If you don't belive in polygraph (and take one) you better be truthful, else you be judged a liar!
See! It all works out in the end...
Sackett
When I took my polygraphs I believed in their accuracy, and I told the truth, and I was judged a liar.
I don't see how that all worked out in the end...
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Apr 23, 2008, 12:40 AMSackett,
Is the info contained in the NAS report a "mantra"?
You know as well as I do that the purpose of a preemployment/periodic polygraph is to "fluster" the testee, and see what you can get out of him.
So how is volunteering information going to help?
You don't like that because it goes against YOUR mantra that the more the test subject says the better.
What garbage!
Either a person has maintained an unauthorized foreign contact, or they haven't. A consistent reaction on the machine doesn't prove otherwise, no matter what you might think.
Call it a mantra if you must. But it's a factual mantra backed by the scientific community.
But hey, like you say, you've still got yer job. Thanks for demonstrating to us all your self-serving attitude. An attitude shared by many of your cohorts, I suppose....
TC
Is the info contained in the NAS report a "mantra"?
You know as well as I do that the purpose of a preemployment/periodic polygraph is to "fluster" the testee, and see what you can get out of him.
So how is volunteering information going to help?
You don't like that because it goes against YOUR mantra that the more the test subject says the better.
What garbage!
Either a person has maintained an unauthorized foreign contact, or they haven't. A consistent reaction on the machine doesn't prove otherwise, no matter what you might think.
Call it a mantra if you must. But it's a factual mantra backed by the scientific community.
But hey, like you say, you've still got yer job. Thanks for demonstrating to us all your self-serving attitude. An attitude shared by many of your cohorts, I suppose....
TC