- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Mar 22, 2009, 08:15 PMQuote from: pailryder on Mar 22, 2009, 02:26 PMSergeant 1107I believe I can understand the rationale behind your advice, and in fact that is exactly what I did when I was applying for a police job. I didn't know that countermeasures existed, so I really didn't have a choice other than to keep plugging away.
When a person has told the truth and been wrongly classified on a previous polygraph, they should have a frank, open discussion with their next examiner about their legimate concerns. Then continue to tell the truth, continue to hold their head high, and keep plugging away. As unsatisifying as that course may be, at least they would have no trouble sleeping at night.
However, I certainly did not sleep well at night. I was utterly baffled and frustrated by my inability to pass the polygraph despite telling the truth. I couldn't figure out how I could keep failing, each time for a different reason.
If I had felt that utilizing countermeasures while answering all the questions truthfully would have helped me pass I certainly would have at least considered such a course of action. It is difficult to believe such a course of action is unethical when simply telling the truth resulted in three out of four failures.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 22, 2009, 05:51 PMQuoteWhen a person has told the truth and been wrongly classified on a previous polygraph, they should have a frank, open discussion with their next examiner about their legimate concerns. Then continue to tell the truth, continue to hold their head high, and keep plugging away. As unsatisifying as that course may be, at least they would have no trouble sleeping at night.
Do you recommend a person terminate the polygraph if the examiner becomes "aggressive" or "accusatory"?
Do you recommend a person REFUSE to submit to a post test interview/interrogation?
This is what Mr. "ed earl/sancho panza" VanArsdale recommends to attorneys on HIS website.
What would you tell your client (say a woman accusing her husband of child abuse/or cheating) if the husband stood up and told you "Look your getting too aggressive and making accusations! Bye!!" Or if after you informed him you've collected your polygraphic data, he just walked out and refused to talk further with you? Would your report to the wife be favorable?
TC
Posted by pailryder
- Mar 22, 2009, 02:26 PMSergeant 1107
When a person has told the truth and been wrongly classified on a previous polygraph, they should have a frank, open discussion with their next examiner about their legimate concerns. Then continue to tell the truth, continue to hold their head high, and keep plugging away. As unsatisifying as that course may be, at least they would have no trouble sleeping at night.
When a person has told the truth and been wrongly classified on a previous polygraph, they should have a frank, open discussion with their next examiner about their legimate concerns. Then continue to tell the truth, continue to hold their head high, and keep plugging away. As unsatisifying as that course may be, at least they would have no trouble sleeping at night.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 21, 2009, 03:18 PMQuoteWhat exactly would you call it when George, Gino or Drew assert that trained polygraph examiners lack sufficient expertise to adequately explain or understand psychological and physiological aspects of polygraph or accuse all Polygraphers of lying?
The truth for the first part. Mostly true on the later.
As for ad hominy attacks, here is a good one by a well know polygraphic interrogator. GM must have really struck a nerve with this guy for him to make up such lies. And to an applicant DURING A POLYGRAPH TEST!!
Note the pompous and arrogant tone, while saying things he knows is not true! One might well ask, if the info on this website is so bogus, why does he find it necessary make up such outrageous lies? Looks like grade A "damage control" to this old sailor!
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-052.shtml
Posted by Ed Earl
- Mar 21, 2009, 02:51 PMSergeant, What exactly would you call it when George, Gino or Drew assert that trained polygraph examiners lack sufficient expertise to adequately explain or understand psychological and physiological aspects of polygraph or accuse all Polygraphers of lying?
Why don't you go gripe at them about their ad hominum attacks. Oh wait, you agree with them so anything they assert is OK with you isn't it? It appears you may be here as a bodyguard rather than a lifeguard.
But I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will. I intend to conduct myself with as much civility as you (and I mean that collectively not specifically) will permit.
Pointing out that someone does not have a requisite foundation to knowledgeably support their position is not ad hominum attack.
I am certainly no Master Debater, but I remember from high school that when someone asserts an epistemic argument from implied authority, (Like George and Gino) then the source of that authority is a fair subject for scrutiny. In other words when someone implies or asserts special knowledge or expertise they voluntarily open their qualifications and the source of their special knowledge or expertise to questions, debate, acceptance, or rejection.
Rejection for lack of qualification is why you don't routinely see research by plumbers, letter carriers or even linguists in JAMA.
If a Prospective examinee seeks your advice really they have only 3 choices. 1 Be absolutely honest and truthful and don't try to cheat on the test, 2, Cheat on the test by attempting countermeasures, or 3 Refuse the examination.
These possibilities are mutually exclusive. What would your advice to them be?
The reason I am here is that I intend to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.
Why don't you go gripe at them about their ad hominum attacks. Oh wait, you agree with them so anything they assert is OK with you isn't it? It appears you may be here as a bodyguard rather than a lifeguard.
But I am not here to impugn anyone's integrity and I am still willing to let that issue lay if you will. I intend to conduct myself with as much civility as you (and I mean that collectively not specifically) will permit.
Pointing out that someone does not have a requisite foundation to knowledgeably support their position is not ad hominum attack.
I am certainly no Master Debater, but I remember from high school that when someone asserts an epistemic argument from implied authority, (Like George and Gino) then the source of that authority is a fair subject for scrutiny. In other words when someone implies or asserts special knowledge or expertise they voluntarily open their qualifications and the source of their special knowledge or expertise to questions, debate, acceptance, or rejection.
Rejection for lack of qualification is why you don't routinely see research by plumbers, letter carriers or even linguists in JAMA.
If a Prospective examinee seeks your advice really they have only 3 choices. 1 Be absolutely honest and truthful and don't try to cheat on the test, 2, Cheat on the test by attempting countermeasures, or 3 Refuse the examination.
These possibilities are mutually exclusive. What would your advice to them be?
The reason I am here is that I intend to provide an alternative point of view from some of the posters here who try to convince those people they are better off lying and cheating than they are telling the truth. I don't really understand why encouraging people to be honest, honorable and truthful meets with such resistance.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Mar 21, 2009, 12:10 PMQuote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 21, 2009, 10:23 AMI'm betting you wouldn't place in very high regard the "expert" opinion of someone regarding accident investigation if their only training and experience consisted of being in a fender bender and watching NASCAR on the weekends.Please look up the term "ad hominem" attack.
When you refute George and Gino's opinion simply by claiming that they do not possess what you consider to be sufficient expertise it is not a compelling argument. In debating circles an ad hominem attack is considered a sign that you have nothing intelligent with which to argue your own point.
Some time ago a number of polygraph operators staged a coordinated attack on Dr. Richardson's credentials in an effort to show that his opinion on the polygraph was wrong. I thought they did nothing but present themselves as fools who were forced to resort to character assassination instead of well-reasoned arguments.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Mar 21, 2009, 12:05 PMQuote from: pailryder on Mar 21, 2009, 08:41 AMSergeant1107I feel much the same way.
I cannot speak for others, but I can tell you why I visit and post here. I enjoy conversing with and learning from those who hold views different from my own, especially posters like you who can advocate and discuss without attacking the motives of the other side.
That said, I do not believe a truthful person can protect themselves by applying cm. Playing games, while pretending to cooperate, is, most likely, a receipe for failure.
What course of action do you feel is appropriate for a person who has told the truth on previous polygraphs and failed? Would you counsel them to just keep plugging away or should they consider using countermeasures at that point?
It is unsatisfying at best when a truthful person's options are to tell the truth and maybe you'll pass, tell the truth and maybe you'll fail, or tell the truth and try countermeasures (and again maybe you'll pass and maybe you'll fail.) It would be so much easier to take if a person knew that by telling the truth they absolutely would pass their polygraph.
Posted by Ed Earl
- Mar 21, 2009, 10:23 AMSergeant Quote:
You continually denigrate George and Gino for authoring a book in which they, in your words, encourage people to lie
No its not in my words, it is in their words where they encourage people to lie and try to teach them how. Read chapter 4.
Police officers and concerned citizens take steps every day to keep honest people from being defrauded by con-men. Just because George and Gino's fraudulent unsupported claims about someone being able to use their book to help them pass a polygraph test are protected by the first amendment makes them no less fraudulent.
People can pay attention to my alternative point of view or ignore it. They can listen to the warnings or ignore them. If they choose to ignore the warnings and try to lie or cheat or use countermeasures then they can live with the consequences. There is nothing contradictory in my position, You just don't agree with it and feel somehow obligated to oppose it.
George and Gino peddle their book insinuating that it will make a person more or less "polygraph proof". Would you buy a ballistic vest if the exact same make and model had not been tested to make sure that its design conformed in all aspects to the minimum requirements of NIJ 101.06?
If you knew that it had never been tested and proven to work would you or would you not warn your brother officers who were stupid enough or gullible enough to fall for the advertising and buy one based on two pseudo-experts with no training or credentials in ballistics, engineering or the chemical structure of bullet resistant materials? Or perhaps would you encourage them to buy one and let an expert marksman shoot them while wearing it to see if it worked? If you knew that they didn't work you might offer no objection to them being bought by drug dealers, gangsters and other crooks.
I'm betting you wouldn't place in very high regard the "expert" opinion of someone regarding accident investigation if their only training and experience consisted of being in a fender bender and watching NASCAR on the weekends.
George and Gino's program has not been tested and they have no proof that it will make anyone "polygraph proof" That would require a scientific study establishing that someone could take their book and by following their instructions pass polygraph tests in field situations. They know they are stuck with an unprovable premise because in order to prove it they will require the cooperation of liars and criminals. Two groups who are unlikely to cooperate and whose cooperation could NOT be trusted because they are liars and criminals.
Since they know that they cannot now nor ever will be able to prove they are right, they constantly try to shift focus away from that fact by claiming people who oppose them are wrong? If they want to settle the issue, they should just do the research and submit it for peer review and publication. If someone else does the research and proves them wrong, which they have, George and Gino just criticize the methodology even though it passed peer review and publication standards sufficiently well for NAS inclusion. Of course, George and Gino are first going to have to find a scientist to do the work for them because they lack the credentials to get past the first level of peer review for any scholarly journal dealing with psychology or physiology.
You have seen George and Gino constantly raise issue with the qualifications of trained polygraph examiners to explain the psychological and physiological aspects of polygraph. Yet their own qualifications regarding polygraph, psychology, or physiology fall somewhere SOUTH of the claim that they "Stayed at a Holiday Inn Express Last Night"
If a person passes a polygraph while answering questions truthfully while attempting countermeasures it is a factual impossibility to determine whether or not the countermeasures were effective. If he answers the questions truthfully and gets caught using countermeasures he will fail the test, based on the logical premise that cheaters have something to hide. Therefore, using countermeasures adds at least one additional possibility to fail a polygraph without a single shred of scientific proof that if offers any additional possibility to pass.
Why are you here?
If a Prospective examinee seeks your advice really they have only 3 choices. Be absolutely honest and truthful and don't try to cheat on the test, Cheat on the test by attempting countermeasures, or Refuse the examination. These possibilities are mutually exclusive. What would your advice to them be? If your answer is anything, but "Cheat on the test by attempting Countermeasures" we agree on 2/3 of those possible responses and the only two which in my opinion represent an honorable path.
What I am saying here is if you are basically an honest and truthful person, DON'T BUY INTO GEORGE AND GINO's ANTIPOLYGRAPH RHETORIC. YOU DON'T NEED IT AND IT WILL LIKELY HURT YOU.
What I am saying to Liars, thieves, child molesters and terrorists is:
Hurry, Hurry, Hurry, Step right up and get your very own copy of the one. the only, the Amazing and World renowned, Dr. George Maschke's Polygraph Passin Book. Surprise your friends, cheat and deceive the police and prospective employers.
Yes friends this secret formula handed down through untold generations by uncles to their second nephews in the ancient and mysterious Scalabrini tribe now rests in the care and custody of their last remaining direct descendant, my most loyal minion here Gino. You have my personal promise that it works and I guarantee you that if it doesn't I won't care and you can't make me care because by that time I will be far far away and by virtue of the First Amendment to the actual Constitution of these United States of America which saw fit to bestow its personal guarantee of protection upon me. Yes Me, the one, the only, the Amazing and World renowned, Dr. George Maschke.
While millions have paid thousands for this valuable information, I come here today to offer you this wonderful and mysterious cure for your fear of telling the truth. Not for the very low price of $1.00 dollar. Not even for the ridiculously low price of 50 cents. No friends an neighbors I am not asking for a quarter, not 1 thin dime, not even a buffalo nickel.
Yes Friends, liars, neighbors, child molesters, thieves and terrorists, your background is not my concern. You can have this priceless knowledge today right here, right now absolutely free and I absolutely positively give you the personal guarantee of the amazing, astounding, world renowned Dr George Mashke himself that it is worth every penny.
Hurry Hurry Hurry Step right up Gettem while they're hot.
© 2009 Ed Earl
I hope they try it, Polygraphers aren't scared of them.
I think that there is a very logical reason why he gives the book away rather than charging for it that has nothing at all to do with altruism.
You continually denigrate George and Gino for authoring a book in which they, in your words, encourage people to lie
No its not in my words, it is in their words where they encourage people to lie and try to teach them how. Read chapter 4.
Police officers and concerned citizens take steps every day to keep honest people from being defrauded by con-men. Just because George and Gino's fraudulent unsupported claims about someone being able to use their book to help them pass a polygraph test are protected by the first amendment makes them no less fraudulent.
People can pay attention to my alternative point of view or ignore it. They can listen to the warnings or ignore them. If they choose to ignore the warnings and try to lie or cheat or use countermeasures then they can live with the consequences. There is nothing contradictory in my position, You just don't agree with it and feel somehow obligated to oppose it.
George and Gino peddle their book insinuating that it will make a person more or less "polygraph proof". Would you buy a ballistic vest if the exact same make and model had not been tested to make sure that its design conformed in all aspects to the minimum requirements of NIJ 101.06?
If you knew that it had never been tested and proven to work would you or would you not warn your brother officers who were stupid enough or gullible enough to fall for the advertising and buy one based on two pseudo-experts with no training or credentials in ballistics, engineering or the chemical structure of bullet resistant materials? Or perhaps would you encourage them to buy one and let an expert marksman shoot them while wearing it to see if it worked? If you knew that they didn't work you might offer no objection to them being bought by drug dealers, gangsters and other crooks.
I'm betting you wouldn't place in very high regard the "expert" opinion of someone regarding accident investigation if their only training and experience consisted of being in a fender bender and watching NASCAR on the weekends.
George and Gino's program has not been tested and they have no proof that it will make anyone "polygraph proof" That would require a scientific study establishing that someone could take their book and by following their instructions pass polygraph tests in field situations. They know they are stuck with an unprovable premise because in order to prove it they will require the cooperation of liars and criminals. Two groups who are unlikely to cooperate and whose cooperation could NOT be trusted because they are liars and criminals.
Since they know that they cannot now nor ever will be able to prove they are right, they constantly try to shift focus away from that fact by claiming people who oppose them are wrong? If they want to settle the issue, they should just do the research and submit it for peer review and publication. If someone else does the research and proves them wrong, which they have, George and Gino just criticize the methodology even though it passed peer review and publication standards sufficiently well for NAS inclusion. Of course, George and Gino are first going to have to find a scientist to do the work for them because they lack the credentials to get past the first level of peer review for any scholarly journal dealing with psychology or physiology.
You have seen George and Gino constantly raise issue with the qualifications of trained polygraph examiners to explain the psychological and physiological aspects of polygraph. Yet their own qualifications regarding polygraph, psychology, or physiology fall somewhere SOUTH of the claim that they "Stayed at a Holiday Inn Express Last Night"
If a person passes a polygraph while answering questions truthfully while attempting countermeasures it is a factual impossibility to determine whether or not the countermeasures were effective. If he answers the questions truthfully and gets caught using countermeasures he will fail the test, based on the logical premise that cheaters have something to hide. Therefore, using countermeasures adds at least one additional possibility to fail a polygraph without a single shred of scientific proof that if offers any additional possibility to pass.
Why are you here?
If a Prospective examinee seeks your advice really they have only 3 choices. Be absolutely honest and truthful and don't try to cheat on the test, Cheat on the test by attempting countermeasures, or Refuse the examination. These possibilities are mutually exclusive. What would your advice to them be? If your answer is anything, but "Cheat on the test by attempting Countermeasures" we agree on 2/3 of those possible responses and the only two which in my opinion represent an honorable path.
What I am saying here is if you are basically an honest and truthful person, DON'T BUY INTO GEORGE AND GINO's ANTIPOLYGRAPH RHETORIC. YOU DON'T NEED IT AND IT WILL LIKELY HURT YOU.
What I am saying to Liars, thieves, child molesters and terrorists is:
Hurry, Hurry, Hurry, Step right up and get your very own copy of the one. the only, the Amazing and World renowned, Dr. George Maschke's Polygraph Passin Book. Surprise your friends, cheat and deceive the police and prospective employers.
Yes friends this secret formula handed down through untold generations by uncles to their second nephews in the ancient and mysterious Scalabrini tribe now rests in the care and custody of their last remaining direct descendant, my most loyal minion here Gino. You have my personal promise that it works and I guarantee you that if it doesn't I won't care and you can't make me care because by that time I will be far far away and by virtue of the First Amendment to the actual Constitution of these United States of America which saw fit to bestow its personal guarantee of protection upon me. Yes Me, the one, the only, the Amazing and World renowned, Dr. George Maschke.
While millions have paid thousands for this valuable information, I come here today to offer you this wonderful and mysterious cure for your fear of telling the truth. Not for the very low price of $1.00 dollar. Not even for the ridiculously low price of 50 cents. No friends an neighbors I am not asking for a quarter, not 1 thin dime, not even a buffalo nickel.
Yes Friends, liars, neighbors, child molesters, thieves and terrorists, your background is not my concern. You can have this priceless knowledge today right here, right now absolutely free and I absolutely positively give you the personal guarantee of the amazing, astounding, world renowned Dr George Mashke himself that it is worth every penny.
Hurry Hurry Hurry Step right up Gettem while they're hot.
© 2009 Ed Earl
I hope they try it, Polygraphers aren't scared of them.
I think that there is a very logical reason why he gives the book away rather than charging for it that has nothing at all to do with altruism.
Posted by pailryder
- Mar 21, 2009, 08:41 AMSergeant1107
I cannot speak for others, but I can tell you why I visit and post here. I enjoy conversing with and learning from those who hold views different from my own, especially posters like you who can advocate and discuss without attacking the motives of the other side.
That said, I do not believe a truthful person can protect themselves by applying cm. Playing games, while pretending to cooperate, is, most likely, a receipe for failure.
I cannot speak for others, but I can tell you why I visit and post here. I enjoy conversing with and learning from those who hold views different from my own, especially posters like you who can advocate and discuss without attacking the motives of the other side.
That said, I do not believe a truthful person can protect themselves by applying cm. Playing games, while pretending to cooperate, is, most likely, a receipe for failure.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Mar 21, 2009, 07:05 AMQuote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 20, 2009, 08:43 PMI try to save them by pointing out that cheating on a polygraph is wrong.Your arguements are illogical. You continually denigrate George and Gino for authoring a book in which they, in your words, encourage people to lie. Yet you feel you have some sort of "lifeguarding" duty to protect people who intend to cheat on their polygraph by letting them know that cheating is wrong.
You present yourself as having a moral and ethical problem with encouraging cheating, but simultaneously present yourself as someone who needs to save people who actually try to cheat.
That is absurd and contradictory. Which is the greater evil in your mind? Writing that a person should attempt to cheat or actually attempting to cheat? If you don't feel that a person who attempts to cheat is wrong (or perhaps you only feel they become wrong if you give them advice that cheating is wrong and THEN they cheat anyway) then how can you villify someone who doesn't cheat but writes that they believe it is acceptable for others to do so?
I think a much more logical answer to the question of why you and other polygraph operators spend time on this message board is that George and Gino have published good information, and they are obviously correct in their thinking.
Your stated reason for being here is simply inconsistent the posts you have authored since you've been here.
Do you really think that someone trying to "cheat" on a polygraph needs to be told that such cheating is wrong in the eyes of a polygraph examiner? I would think that anyone needing to be told such things lacks the requisite intelligence for any job requiring a polygraph exam.
Posted by Twoblock
- Mar 21, 2009, 04:47 AMEd Earl
I won't say that is my best question and you know I have asked it before and it has yet to be answered. The preacher keeps preaching around the question but offers no scientific proof of his abilities to detect CMs but says "trust me - I'll catch you with my mind reading ability". What I'm saying is, my confidence in my ability to beat you WILL beat you. Make no mistake about that.
The only people that I'm trying to save are those who are innocent, but might be scared enough and gullible enough to believe polygrapher's Pelosi that they are there to help the applicant pass the test and get the job of their dreams by spouting untrue capabilities of him/herself and the machine which creates a greater probability of a truthful person failing the test.
You see we are like life guards trying to save the truthful applicants that have fallen into a cesspool of sharks.
I won't say that is my best question and you know I have asked it before and it has yet to be answered. The preacher keeps preaching around the question but offers no scientific proof of his abilities to detect CMs but says "trust me - I'll catch you with my mind reading ability". What I'm saying is, my confidence in my ability to beat you WILL beat you. Make no mistake about that.
The only people that I'm trying to save are those who are innocent, but might be scared enough and gullible enough to believe polygrapher's Pelosi that they are there to help the applicant pass the test and get the job of their dreams by spouting untrue capabilities of him/herself and the machine which creates a greater probability of a truthful person failing the test.
You see we are like life guards trying to save the truthful applicants that have fallen into a cesspool of sharks.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Mar 20, 2009, 10:48 PMQuoteIf a polygraph operator cannot tell when someone is being truthful what hope do they have of correctly identifying a lie? And what does that say about the overall efficacy of the polygraph? That it is only effective when the examinee obeys the operator's instructions, but there is no way to tell when that is occurring and when it is not?
Oh ye of little faith.
It's like faith healing. You have to believe! Retaining ones critical judgment and questioning the word will on serve to piss off the preacher!
Best thing would be to convince the preacher you've been converted, when actually your not. Secretly maintain your critical judgment, but throw in an "amen brother!" here and there. Just know their gospel better than they do, and realize it's just dogma. If they throw you a control question, lie like a politician and visualize your only begotten son as "road kill". When questioned about your "reaction", tell the minister some VERY MINOR sins you've committed (stole a church pen, touched yourself inappropriately, snuck a sip of the altar wine etc.) and beg for his polygraphic forgiveness. Then leave the temple "saved"!
Brother CAN YOU SAY Amen!
TC
P.S. Praising their Satan (GM, Lyken, Richardson) will be seen as blasphemy, and an "inquisition" will ensue. Your devils will be cast out heathen! For reading the Gospel of George! An apocryphal text written in a dark cave!
Posted by Ed Earl
- Mar 20, 2009, 08:43 PMQuotewhy would any polygraph supporter bother visiting this web site at all?
Sergeant, I'm glad you asked.
Sergeant the reason a polygraph supporter like me would visit this web site is I consider myself and those like me similar to lifeguards at the edge of an anti-polygraph cesspool. Some of the people who dive in may still drown, but it won't be because we didn't try to save them.
I try to save them by pointing out that cheating on a polygraph is wrong. I try to save them by pointing out the absurdity behind the premise of the countermeasures made available in TLBTLD, which is unsupported by research, that someone could somehow study their book and use it to pass a test using countermeasures. I try to save them by explaining to them like I did earlier today to Gino just how difficult it will be to apply countermeasures effectively. If you will go back and read my comment to Gino or whatever his name is concerning what is wrong with the ideas they peddle about countermeasure you'll get a pretty good idea of what I am talking about.
The only people I am trying to save are those who are innocent, but might be scared enough or gullible enough to try these "countermeasures" which I believe, and research confirms, creates a greater probability of a truthful person failing the test.
There are also thieves, terrorists, and child molesters etc. who also come to this site in an effort to escape responsibility to society and their victims; Well, I ENCOURAGE them to read TLBTLD and take their best shot. Polygraphers are not scared of them. They will end up getting what they deserve. Applicants and Honest people who are too stupid to listen and stupid enough to try countermeasures will also get what they deserve.
The only people who won't get what they deserve are George and Gino. I can almost hear them giggling every time an honest man fails his test as a result of the feculent bilge-water they peddle as a cure for polygraph while shielded by the first amendment.
You see its not really about studies, or numbers, or who can argue better, it's about trying to save a few honest men and women from being victimized by GM and Gino who are trying to convince them that lying and cheating is an appropriate path to a career in a job requiring honesty, honor and integrity. What I am doing is what I really believe is the best way currently available.
That is why I am here. If you think you are going to change my mind about it, you are welcome to try.
Thank you for asking.
Why are you here?
If a Prospective examinee seeks your advice really they have only 3 choices. Be absolutely honest and truthful and don't try to cheat on the test, Cheat on the test by attempting countermeasures, or Refuse the examination. These possibilities are mutually exclusive. What would your advice to them be?
Posted by G Scalabr
- Mar 20, 2009, 06:52 PMQuote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 20, 2009, 02:56 PM
George, why should I expend any effort whatsoever to answer any of your questions when you consistently and repeatedly ignore mine?
Would you like a list?
Speaking of such lists and avoiding direct questions...
Are you trying to assert that polygraph operators do not, on a routine basis, omit (intentionally or otherwise) the well-established truth that the autonomic nervous system responses chronicled on a polygraph instrument can result from numerous phenomena other than attempts at deception?
Yes or no, it's that simple.
Alternatively, do you feel that it is common for polygraph operators to inform examinees that despite the existence of other possible causes, during the scoring of the examination, ANS activity will be associated with deception, and deception alone?
I fully agree with your assertion that individuals facing a polygraph interrogation should consider views of all sides.
And if you continue to maintain that the contrived physiological "explanations" of how the "test" actually "works" a rarity, anyone who is on the fence with regard to who to believe will quickly know who is telling the truth within ten minutes of the polygraph suite.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Mar 20, 2009, 06:46 PMQuote from: Ed_Earl on Mar 20, 2009, 04:43 PMThe product you peddle cures nothing. You have been ineffective in changing the law. and have failed to produce one single shred of scientific peer reviewed scientific research that proves that someone an take your book, practices the procedures you described in it and pass a polygraph in a field situation.
One can't help but wonder; if that were true, why would any polygraph supporter bother visiting this web site at all? If that were true, George would be a complete non-factor, less important than background noise, and not worthy of any attention whatsoever.
If that were true, a polygraph operator visiting this site would make as much sense as a meteorologist visiting a site to decry its founder for shouting at the rain.