- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 31, 2002, 06:41 AMQuote from: Guest on Dec 31, 2002, 12:47 AM
Diesel...don't do it.....I can guarantee you if you attempt ANY of the drivel printed in George and Gino's book...when you are discovered...and you will be.....you will be disqualified for attempting to interfere with the selection process.
Guest, on what ground do you characterize the contents of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector as drivel? Please be specific. Note that the National Academy of Sciences concluded (at p. 8-2 of The Polygraph and Lie Detection) that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures." (emphasis added)
You also claim that any countermeasure use will be discovered ("when you are discovered...and you will be"). On what basis do you make this claim? Again, please be specific. The American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, in its more than 30-year history has not published a single article setting forth any methodology by which polygraphers can reliably detect countermeasures. In peer-reviewed analog studies by Charles R. Honts and collaborators, even experienced polygraphers were not able to detect countermeasures use at better-than-chance levels. And Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge remains untaken after nearly a year.
So please back up your claim that countermeasure use will be detected. Otherwise, thinking readers might conclude that you are bluffing.
QuoteI would advise you to ensure that you make the admissions that you need to and to be truthful. No one is perfect and the examiner understands this. It is people who make a conscious decision NOT to disclose things (for whatever reason) that they begin to whine and cry that they did not get a "fair chance".
I would agree with you that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical obligation to truthfully answer the relevant questions. But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the "control" question "test" used by agencies such as the U.S. Secret Service is predicated on the assumption that even applicants whom the agency would hire will be less than truthful in answering the "control" questions. In fact, the more candidly an applicant answers the "control" questions, and as a consequence feels less anxiety when answering them, the more likely the applicant is to fail! Don't you see the perversity in this? How can you defend such an unethical (and indeed, un-American) practice?
The reason that those of us who have been the victims of polygraph screening "whine and cry" (as you put it) is that we find it intolerable that we have been wrongly branded as liars (in most cases, by our own government), all on the basis of a fraudulent technique (polygraph screening) that has no theoretical foundation and is without validity.
QuoteRemember, there are thousands of people from all walks of life who CHOSE to be honest and successfully passed their polygraph examinations and each one of them are doingthe job that they wanted to do.
Similarly, there are thousands of people from all walks of life who chose to be honest, were wrongly accused of deception by their polygraphers, wrongly denied employment with the agency in question, and in many cases blacklisted from employment with other agencies (as Diesel will probably be if he/she fails to pass the USSS polygraph).
QuoteTry not to be influenced by certain "wanna be's on this site. At this point in time, I would even tell the examiner that you went to this site because you had questions and was looking for answers. Not disclosing your visit to the site MIGHT cause you problems..and my gut tells me that you are an honest person and genuinely wants the job to which youa re applying. Best of luck....keep us advised....yes, even those anti-polygraph guys! If you have questions, ask your examiner.
What assurance can you provide Diesel that if he/she uses the "complete honesty" approach described in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and tells his/her polygrapher that he/she has visited AntiPolygraph.org and read the polygraph documentation available here that he/she will not be arbitrarily accused of deception and/or countermeasures?
In 2000, I asked American Polygraph Association president Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr., how polygraphers should handle those who know "the lie behind the lie detector." His response was not encouraging. Our brief e-mail exchange may be read here:
http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml#informed-subjects
Until the polygraph community publicly articulates a standardized policy on how to handle those who admit to understanding the trickery on which the "test" depends, many will undoubtedly conclude that it is in their interest not to tell their polygrapher just how much they know about polygraphy.
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 31, 2002, 01:43 AMQuote from: Guest on Dec 31, 2002, 01:01 AM
Thank you Skeptic.....cooler heads DO prevail....I noticed, as you apparently did that Diesel was making an inquiry and he was sort of lost in the mud-slinging....I'll try to avoid that in the future.
It's easy to get caught up in. I do so as well, probably more often than I should.
Skeptic
Posted by Guest
- Dec 31, 2002, 01:01 AMThank you Skeptic.....cooler heads DO prevail....I noticed, as you apparently did that Diesel was making an inquiry and he was sort of lost in the mud-slinging....I'll try to avoid that in the future.
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 31, 2002, 12:55 AMI agree with Guest that you should be honest regarding relevant questions put to you in all aspects of the background investigations. It sounds like you have been so thus far.
Skeptic
Skeptic
Posted by Guest
- Dec 31, 2002, 12:47 AMDiesel...don't do it.....I can guarantee you if you attempt ANY of the drivel printed in George and Gino's book...when you are discovered...and you will be.....you will be disqualified for attempting to interfere with the selection process. I would advise you to ensure that you make the admissions that you need to and to be truthful. No one is perfect and the examiner understands this. It is people who make a conscious decision NOT to disclose things (for whatever reason) that they begin to whine and cry that they did not get a "fair chance". Remember, there are thousands of people from all walks of life who CHOSE to be honest and successfully passed their polygraph examinations and each one of them are doingthe job that they wanted to do. Try not to be influenced by certain "wanna be's on this site. At this point in time, I would even tell the examiner that you went to this site because you had questions and was looking for answers. Not disclosing your visit to the site MIGHT cause you problems..and my gut tells me that you are an honest person and genuinely wants the job to which youa re applying. Best of luck....keep us advised....yes, even those anti-polygraph guys! If you have questions, ask your examiner.
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 30, 2002, 09:02 PMQuote from: Guest on Dec 30, 2002, 07:46 PM
Then POST it Skeptic....or Septic...or whatever name you want to use...THIS WEEK.......don't just talk about it.....personally, I do not believe your protestations!
Sorry, Guest. I'm not biting.
You know, I really wish we could get back to a little higher level of discourse here, rather than trading insults with pro-polygraph agent provocateurs and instigators. It really is a waste of time. It doesn't make polygraphers look good, and I'd bet it doesn't deter people from learning about the polygraph and using countermeasures, either.
Skeptic
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 30, 2002, 08:35 PMQuote from: Diesel on Dec 30, 2002, 07:56 PM
Was just a name because i couldn't chose anything better...as for the outcome, they know everything, including the 2 times i smoke pot, and the stolen steak i receieved from a friend at school....thats bout it, but i dont want to be nervous, and just screw up from that..i know i have nothing to hide, but the whole polygraph irks me....
Diesel,
Don't worry about it. Ever since the NAS came out with their condemnation of polygraph screening, an obviously shaken polygraph community has taken to trying scare tactics on those who visit here. My advice to you would be to download The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and read it thoroughly. Knowledge is power.
Skeptic
Posted by Diesel
- Dec 30, 2002, 07:56 PMWas just a name because i couldn't chose anything better...as for the outcome, they know everything, including the 2 times i smoke pot, and the stolen steak i receieved from a friend at school....thats bout it, but i dont want to be nervous, and just screw up from that..i know i have nothing to hide, but the whole polygraph irks me....
Posted by Guest
- Dec 30, 2002, 07:46 PMThen POST it Skeptic....or Septic...or whatever name you want to use...THIS WEEK.......don't just talk about it.....personally, I do not believe your protestations!
Posted by Marty
- Dec 30, 2002, 04:29 PMQuote from: Skeptic on Dec 30, 2002, 03:05 PM
But perhaps the strident personal attacks are understandable. After all, with the National Academy of Sciences' recent condemnation of polygraph screening, he and his buddies might soon be out of a job. I suppose I'd be a little upset, too.
That may be a part of the rather churlish and superficial comments made by "guest" but, even so, I suspect the NAS report will have less impact than one might expect. I believe that the main reason the polygraph's use had been limited is the wide sense that it is an invasion of privacy, not it's lack of accuracy. The wide popular belief in it's accuracy has not been impacted much. The technical literati already were aware of it's shortcomings, for others it was just more noise.
For instance, Dr. Schlessinger continues to make pro-polygraph comments (save up for a lie detector test, etc) which rather suggests a certain level of ignorance re the way polygraphs work. It's especially curious given the normal practice of LE when looking at estranged family members with a homicide victim. She is fortunate that, by dint of circumstance, she is exempted from a process that would likely be inflicted on most american families.
-Marty
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 30, 2002, 03:05 PMQuote from: Guest on Dec 30, 2002, 02:03 PM
CHOSE not take the job???...I hear it a little different! Care to come clean to all of your followers? After all, you are one of George's minions.
Note that I've never posted my identity here, so it would be impossible for "Guest" to know anything about my situation. If I had posted my identity, I would be more than happy to also post the letter I received verifying that I voluntarily withdrew from the NSA application process and inviting me to return in the future.
I guess you'll just have to take my word for it, Guest. But a word of advice: if you try to bluff someone, make it believable.
George, I agree. "Guest" is a sterling example of what applicants face in the polygraph procedure. He's not exactly helping his cause.
But perhaps the strident personal attacks are understandable. After all, with the National Academy of Sciences' recent condemnation of polygraph screening, he and his buddies might soon be out of a job. I suppose I'd be a little upset, too.
Skeptic
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Dec 30, 2002, 02:20 PMBeech Trees, Skeptic,
I think "Guest" is unwittingly making a significant contribution to this discussion by illustrating for Diesel and others just what sort of characters they may encounter when they show up for their polygraph interrogations.
I think "Guest" is unwittingly making a significant contribution to this discussion by illustrating for Diesel and others just what sort of characters they may encounter when they show up for their polygraph interrogations.
Posted by Guest
- Dec 30, 2002, 02:08 PMAha!...I knew that guy that came in with the "enormous" floppy RED shoe was you!..Just think, if you had passed the test (you really didn't now did you...tell the truth), we could have used to to entertain at the office parties we have all of the time.
Posted by Guest
- Dec 30, 2002, 02:03 PMCHOSE not take the job???...I hear it a little different! Care to come clean to all of your followers? After all, you are one of George's minions.
Posted by Skeptic
- Dec 30, 2002, 01:35 PMQuote from: Guest on Dec 30, 2002, 12:47 PM
Naw!....Bozos like Beech Trees and especially Skeptic would NEVER make it through the initial screening...They would be eliminated long before they EVER got to the polygraph stage. Besides, would not have tyo detect the countermeasures...their physiological response to the QUESTION would be enough to affirm that they were using countermeasures and eliminate them due to their actions....remember, honest people have nothing to hide.
<chuckle>
I think Beech Trees and George have already said what I would have. I'd just like to add that I, also, had no trouble passing all other aspects of a background check and psychological testing (NSA SSBI). I freely admit that I found the R/I polygraph testing interrogation traumatic, which was one reason I chose not to take the job.
"Honesty" has nothing to do with the polygraph.
Skeptic