- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 18, 2009, 11:06 PMWhat does it sound like it means Dr. Lecter?
TC
TC
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 18, 2009, 10:55 PMQuoteI disagree. An applicant is not pretending to comly with a test that purportedly detects deception if he answers all the questions truthfully and does not withhold any information. He is doing his part.
An applicant doesn't even have to do that. Just DON'T believe the polygraph operator when they say that the machine is indicating "You are holding back", or "you are being deceptive", or "something is bothering you about that question"!
The applicant is under NO OBLIGATION to tell the examiner he thinks the test is bullshit! It is to his advantage NOT too, as we've all seen what thin skin polygrapher have when it comes to questioning their "magic box".
It's a con game. Nothing wrong with scratching your head, shaking your head..etc. and saying "Gee, that's strange. I don't know how the machine could be indicating that. I answered truthfully. Nah, just can't think of nothin Mr. Polymaster." And the above statement is actually true (unlike statements routinely made by polygraphers to applicants). If you are informed about the polygraph then you truly WOULDN"T know how the machine could be indicating what the examiner claims.
First and foremost, people need to know in no uncertain terms that consistent reactions DO NOT necessarily equate to DECEPTION. If you are answering truthfully, believe YOURSELF, not the MACHINE/POLYGRAPHER!
Forget all the old "Dragnet" TV episodes you watched as a kid. Don't sit there thinking of the examiner is some kind of SGT Friday. They are there to trip you up in anyway they can. YES! Tell the truth, but don't be a naive dunce either! If they make a claim (this machine is 98% accurate in detecting deception) know that they are lying, but don't be a belligerent jerk either. Just nod, and say "hmmm, wow, that's pretty accurate" (even though your actually thinking "Yeah, pretty accurate if it were ACTUALLY TRUE!").
It amazing to me how polygraphers can wax indignant and talk of ethics when most lie everyday as part of their job description. And what kills me is that if an applicant came totally clean and told them in no uncertain terms what they thought about the "validity" of the test, brought up the NAS report...etc. they'd try to screw them for that!
TC
Posted by BBuxton
- Feb 18, 2009, 09:09 PMTMC what do you mean by the following?
What you guys really want is a gullible, naive, uninformed stooge to just "go along" with your little charade. Which is why you hate people coming to this site and learning about the process.
What you guys really want is a gullible, naive, uninformed stooge to just "go along" with your little charade. Which is why you hate people coming to this site and learning about the process.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Feb 18, 2009, 08:17 PMQuote from: pailryder on Feb 18, 2009, 08:14 AMSergeant1107So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that an applicant who answers all questions truthfully and does not withhold any information is merely "pretending to comply" unless he thinks about what the examiner wants him to think about during specific portions of the test?
An applicant can fully protect against a false positive by making application at a department where polygraph is not part of the process. If one freely chooses to apply with knowledge that polygraph is a legal, lawful requirement at that department, they must accept the risk and should fully comply with that department's screening proceedures. To pretend to comply cheats the other applicants.
I disagree. An applicant is not pretending to comly with a test that purportedly detects deception if he answers all the questions truthfully and does not withhold any information. He is doing his part.
How exactly can you justify your expectation that an examinee must think about what the examiner wants him to think about or he is essentially "pretending to comply" with the test?
When the applicant fills out the background packet is he "pretending to comply" if he answers all questions truthfully and does not withhold any information, but he also hums to himself or thinks about a TV show he saw the night before?
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 18, 2009, 01:28 PMQuote"I try asking you. If an applicant fills out ALL relevant information on their application truthfully and fully, and RUTHFULLY answers all relevant questions on the polygraph, is that "cheating"? "
answer Your question seems to say that some of the questions on a lie detector test don't have any bearing on the process. Why ask them if they don't do anything? I thought all the questions were part of the test or relevant and if an examinee answers all questions truthfully to the best of his ability, and follows instructions, and doesn't try to alter the results by countermeasuring, he would not be cheating
If there are "control questions" isn't the applicant expected to "lie" when answering those? But wouldn't that be unethical? Some polygraph operators get angry and irritated when applicants continue to answer control questions truthfully. So you have an applicant, wanting to cooperate in every way, answering ALL questions (relevant, control and filler) TRUTHFULLY, yet not seen as "cooperating" and it just earns them the angst of the examiner. Applicants are often bewildered when this happens. "I'm being truthful, why is this asshole get so angry!"
OTOH, if the applicant is informed about the polygraph, they'd know that what you are actually doing is try to get a lie on a control to gauge whether reactions when answering those are greater or lower than reactions to "relevant" questions. Isn't that right? Consistently greater reactions to relevants versus controls results in a "fail". Right again?
But that is junk science and not a valid measure of truthfulness!
And if an applicant were to come clean and explain that they know all this process, have read the NAS report...etc. and said something like "Hey, Mr. Polygrapher, isn't that a control question? Aren't I expected to lie on that one?" That too would piss off the examiner. Pissing off the examiner for telling the truth about what they know.
What you guys really want is a gullible, naive, uninformed stooge to just "go along" with your little charade. Which is why you hate people coming to this site and learning about the process.
This is another example of the absurdity of comparing the polygraph to a bar exam, FAA licensing...etc. Examiner of those test WANT EXAMINEES TO COME IN INFORMED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE!!
TC
Posted by Lethe
- Feb 18, 2009, 12:34 PMPlease note that polygraphers, including pailryder himself, admit that there is no evidence at all that polygraph pre-employment screening exams do anything to improve the quality of the workforces of the agencies which use them. Not one shred of evidence, as they admit.
Note that this has nothing to do with the accuracy rate or the polygraph or how easy it is to defeat via countermeasures. It is a plain, simple empirical fact: there is no reason to believe that police departments are better off for polygraphing all of their employees or potential employees.
This is not an argument, simply a statement of fact that one might want to consider in constructing an argument.
Note that this has nothing to do with the accuracy rate or the polygraph or how easy it is to defeat via countermeasures. It is a plain, simple empirical fact: there is no reason to believe that police departments are better off for polygraphing all of their employees or potential employees.
This is not an argument, simply a statement of fact that one might want to consider in constructing an argument.
Posted by pailryder
- Feb 18, 2009, 08:14 AMSergeant1107
An applicant can fully protect against a false positive by making application at a department where polygraph is not part of the process. If one freely chooses to apply with knowledge that polygraph is a legal, lawful requirement at that department, they must accept the risk and should fully comply with that department's screening proceedures. To pretend to comply cheats the other applicants.
An applicant can fully protect against a false positive by making application at a department where polygraph is not part of the process. If one freely chooses to apply with knowledge that polygraph is a legal, lawful requirement at that department, they must accept the risk and should fully comply with that department's screening proceedures. To pretend to comply cheats the other applicants.
Posted by BBuxton
- Feb 18, 2009, 06:15 AMTMC OK youre right fair is fair. I'll try to answer some of them as best I can.
"I try asking you. If an applicant fills out ALL relevant information on their application truthfully and fully, and RUTHFULLY answers all relevant questions on the polygraph, is that "cheating"? "
answer Your question seems to say that some of the questions on a lie detector test don't have any bearing on the process. Why ask them if they don't do anything? I thought all the questions were part of the test or relevant and if an examinee answers all questions truthfully to the best of his ability, and follows instructions, and doesn't try to alter the results by countermeasuring, he would not be cheating
"Is it honest for a polygraph operator to repeatedly tell the applicant that the polygraph machine "detects decpetion", when is doesn't?"
answer If the polygraph machine does not detect deception, then it would not be honest for a polygraph operator to say that it does.
"Is it ethical to maintain that the polygraph can detect lies, and is scientifically valid, when it is not, moral and ethical?"
answer If the polygraph cannot detect lies and isn't scientifically valid then I don't think it would be be moral and ethical to maintain that it does.
"Is it ethical for a polygraph operator to tell an examinee that George is working for Iran with no evidence, during a polygraph pretest interview? "
answer While I think people are entitled to their beliefs and are entitled to share them with whoever they wish, I think it would be innapropriate for an operator to tell someone that if they didn't have some reason to believe it.
I tried to answer your questions. The reason I didn't answer them before is that they seemed to depend on me agreeing that polygraph don't detect deception, aren't scientific and that the examinner didn't have any evidence about Iran am I'm not ready to do that yet.
Is there some problem about the way I worded my question about fudging on a job application?
PS I think Brian Cox made the best Dr Lektor
"I try asking you. If an applicant fills out ALL relevant information on their application truthfully and fully, and RUTHFULLY answers all relevant questions on the polygraph, is that "cheating"? "
answer Your question seems to say that some of the questions on a lie detector test don't have any bearing on the process. Why ask them if they don't do anything? I thought all the questions were part of the test or relevant and if an examinee answers all questions truthfully to the best of his ability, and follows instructions, and doesn't try to alter the results by countermeasuring, he would not be cheating
"Is it honest for a polygraph operator to repeatedly tell the applicant that the polygraph machine "detects decpetion", when is doesn't?"
answer If the polygraph machine does not detect deception, then it would not be honest for a polygraph operator to say that it does.
"Is it ethical to maintain that the polygraph can detect lies, and is scientifically valid, when it is not, moral and ethical?"
answer If the polygraph cannot detect lies and isn't scientifically valid then I don't think it would be be moral and ethical to maintain that it does.
"Is it ethical for a polygraph operator to tell an examinee that George is working for Iran with no evidence, during a polygraph pretest interview? "
answer While I think people are entitled to their beliefs and are entitled to share them with whoever they wish, I think it would be innapropriate for an operator to tell someone that if they didn't have some reason to believe it.
I tried to answer your questions. The reason I didn't answer them before is that they seemed to depend on me agreeing that polygraph don't detect deception, aren't scientific and that the examinner didn't have any evidence about Iran am I'm not ready to do that yet.
Is there some problem about the way I worded my question about fudging on a job application?
PS I think Brian Cox made the best Dr Lektor
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Feb 17, 2009, 11:56 PMQuote from: pailryder on Feb 17, 2009, 04:10 PMMr CullenThe problem, as I see it, is that polygraph examiners consider an examinee's thoughts to be something within their (the examiners') span of control.
When a person seeks employment with an agency that enforces our laws, that person should comply with all legal requirments for employment with the agency they have chosen. If they cannot comply they should seek another employer. You recommended countermeasures to Seahawks, and I don't have a problem with that, you have the right to help him cheat. Just be honest about it.
I have written many times on this board that I do not consider it a breach of ethics if an examinee answers all questions truthfully and then recites poetry or does math problems in his head. Other examiners have told me that they consider such behavior to be "purposeful non-cooperation" and that they would fail a candidate who behaved thusly.
A police applicant who tells the truth, does not withhold any information, and cooperates with every phase of the application process is behaving ethically. If, during the polygraph exam, he answers truthfully and then chooses not to dwell on the question because he believes that by doing so he will become the victim of a false positive, he is still doing nothing wrong. A person's thoughts are their own.
There really is no logical way to counter such a plan, so polygraph supporters claim that anything you think that might thwart their test is unethical. I think that is simply nonsense, and I think most polygraph examiners are fully aware that it is nonsense. A truthful applicant would really have no reason to dwell on each truthful answer, but ironically enough, the examiner has no way to determine if the examinee is answering truthfully and relaxing because they have nothing to hide, or is answering deceptively and then forcing himself to relax to cover his lies.
Now, if only there was some way of determining if the examinee was telling the truth or not...
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 17, 2009, 09:52 PMBBuxton,
Howse about answering some of my questions for a change.
quid pro quo Dr. lecter!
TC
Howse about answering some of my questions for a change.
quid pro quo Dr. lecter!
TC
Posted by BBuxton
- Feb 17, 2009, 09:46 PMTMC OK so you think that countermeasures is cheating, but that cheating is OK, but what about the question I asked before??
Quote from: BBuxton on Feb 16, 2009, 04:22 PMIf I fill out a police application and lie about a previous job that should have abolutely no effect on my ability to be a cop, should they be able to fire me if they find out.
Isn't fudging on your application just another countermeasure to keep the FBI from drawing a bad impression from a boss who never liked you anyway? I mean what business is it of theirs that I was fired from a job I held for 3 years because the boss found out I had slept with his wife.
What about someone who is trying to infiltrate law enforcement for criminal reasons.Do you think it is OK/Ethical for them to use these countermeasures to monkey with the lie detctor to create a false negative?
Posted by pailryder
- Feb 17, 2009, 04:10 PMMr Cullen
When a person seeks employment with an agency that enforces our laws, that person should comply with all legal requirments for employment with the agency they have chosen. If they cannot comply they should seek another employer. You recommended countermeasures to Seahawks, and I don't have a problem with that, you have the right to help him cheat. Just be honest about it.
When a person seeks employment with an agency that enforces our laws, that person should comply with all legal requirments for employment with the agency they have chosen. If they cannot comply they should seek another employer. You recommended countermeasures to Seahawks, and I don't have a problem with that, you have the right to help him cheat. Just be honest about it.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 17, 2009, 01:39 PMQuoteThere is no question but that polygraphy is a pseudoscientific fraud. And I think any objective person will readily understand that any ethical consideration of polygraph countermeasures must necessarily involve the (well-settled) question of polygraphy's (lack of) scientific underpinnings.
And comparing a polygraph to a bar exam, FAA licensing exam, or medical board exam is absurd on many levels. For one thing, those tests actually measure what they purport to measure (medical, legal and aviation knowledge). The polygraph does not actually measure deception, though it is presented in that fashion. Which does make it a fraud.
They just don't like the fact that you've exposed their fraud.
And I'd STILL like to know what they do behind those blasted one-way mirrors!
TC
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Feb 17, 2009, 01:32 PMYes. I think cheating a conman who is trying to chdat you is not unethical, but self protection.
Is it ethical to maintain that the polygraph can detect lies, and is scientifically valid, when it is not, moral and ethical?
Is it ethical for a polygraph operator to tell an examinee that George is working for Iran with no evidence, during a polygraph pretest interview? George, do you still have that tape?
Polygraphers, or anyone who perpetrates a fraud, are not in a very good position to make moral judgements of others, methinks.
TC
Is it ethical to maintain that the polygraph can detect lies, and is scientifically valid, when it is not, moral and ethical?
Is it ethical for a polygraph operator to tell an examinee that George is working for Iran with no evidence, during a polygraph pretest interview? George, do you still have that tape?
Polygraphers, or anyone who perpetrates a fraud, are not in a very good position to make moral judgements of others, methinks.
TC
Posted by Bbuxton
- Feb 17, 2009, 11:44 AMI think that based on his comment gmc's response may be more relevant than your previos views on this subject