Has there been any research on differences in physiological responses to polygraph exam questions across genders and ethnicities? Maybe even across age groups?
If polygraphy is valid, there should not be subtantial variance across groups, correct?
It seems like this information would be fascinating, regardless of one's opinion of polygraphy.
Human Subject,
I believe that the failure rate or maybe the false positive rate was found to be higher in minority males according to the DODPI's own study.
I remember reading something about that here on this site. I will try to find it, if George or someone else doesn't beat me to it.
Human Subject,
I think it is commonly considered that polygraphs are quite useless with young children (under 8 years), because of their open innocence and susceptibly to manipulation. Their desire to "please" will in fact overcome any psychological or physiological response that may occur.
Polygraphs are also questionable in elderly people, whose minds may be degenerating due to Alzheimers or senility. As an example, my grandmother has to be reminded every week when I see her that yes, I did get married, and yes, I did have 3 kids. Hook her up to a polygraph and ask her if I have children and she'll tell you no. And the charts will show no deception. She also thinks my older brother is our father, who has been dead for 10 years.
Ethnicity is tough. No doubt the majority of persons confessing after a polygraph in a criminal investigation are minorities. But the majority of criminal investigations involve minorities. The question would be one of percentage relationships. But with the poly community totally unwilling to share or pool its data, allegedly out of "concern" for the subject's privacy, we'll never know.
Human Subject,
The DoDPI study to which Suethem referred (and which DoDPI attempted to suppress) may be downloaded here:
http://antipolygraph.org/documents/dodpi-racial-bias-study.pdf
In this study, innocent blacks failed to pass at a significantly higher rate than innocent whites.
Orolan
Looks like you've finally come over to our side. Congratulations. Reading your post at least gives that impression. You write:
"Hook her up to a polygraph and ask her if I have children and she'll tell you no. And the charts will show no deception."
I guess you've finally realized polygraph does discern between truth and deception. :D
Saidme,
How about responding to the DODPI's findings.
Are you concerned that the polygraph seems to have a racial bias?
Saidme,
My bad. I should have written:
"Connect her to a physiological response measuring device and present her with the interrogative statement "Does ... have any biological offspring?" She will then reply in the negative, and the constant-rate recording device attached to the aforementioned physiological response measuring device will fail to record any variation in the various physiological phenomena it is designed to measure."
Better ;)
I note that you choose not to offer an opinion about the initial post of this thread :-/
The initial thread discussed Gender and Ethnicity so I'll respond to that. In my experiences as a polygraph examiner I have found there to be no differences in the pass/fail rate among women/men or different races. Again, in my experiences the deciding variable was truth or deception. Those telling the truth passed, those lying failed. After all, that's what polygraph is about. Someone mentioned polygraphing an eight year old as an example. I don't know any competent polygraph examiner who would polygraph an eight year old. ;)
Saidme,
I take it your not concerned about the DODPI's study that seems to show racial bias- since you didn't answer the question.
Now you don't seems to care about the findings of the pro-polygraph 'experts' either. Hmm.
How can the polygraph just be about telling the truth or lying?
Your not starting to believe that there are no false positives, false negatives and countermeasures are you?
I used to hold you in higher regard than a 'true believer', but I am begining to think that you might not just be a 'utility' guy after all.
What happened? Did the brainwashing finally break you?
I find it humorous that you anti-poly guys and gals put a lot of credibility into a DODPI study (racial bias study) that furthers your cause, yet you attack any DODPI study that perpetuates polygraph validity. Does DODPI run better racial studies than validity studies. Hmmmm. Regarding Suethem's comments. I base my beliefs on day-to-day running of polygraph examinations on women, men, black, white, asian, etc. What do you base your belief's on? George's "book report" (to quote another poster) and sad story about how he was denied a job with the FBI. When you've ran a few thousand polygraph examinations (this goes out to you all) come back and let's talk. ;)
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 03, 2003, 09:20 PMWhen you've ran a few thousand polygraph examinations (this goes out to you all) come back and let's talk. ;)
I guess he's talking about Doug Williams. ;D
That was a good one! :D
Saidme,
Don't care about racial bias and you work for the justice system? Good grief!!!
If the only thing you care about is confessions, you should have been a priest.
Suethem
Where did you I say I didn't care about racial bias? I think I mentioned something about the antipoly folks using studies to further their own causes. And by the way, there's not much difference between police officers and priests. ;)
Quote...there's not much difference between police officers and priests.
Very true, considering that police officers are getting accused almost as fast as priests of alleged "sexual improprieties" ;)
Orolan
You seem to have an affinity for sex offenses. Do I see a correlation? ;D
Saidme,
You are still side stepping the issue.
Did you read the DODPI racial bias link?
What are your comments regarding the issue raised?
Your a federal polygrapher right? An 1811?
Doesn't most of the training your receive originally come from the DODPI?
It would seem that information regarding racial bias coming from the most pro-polygraph source would carry some weight with a polygrapher.
Since you said that you do care about racial bias, maybe you can help me understand your postion.
Saidme,
Knew you would bite on that one, since you also seem to have an "affinity" for sex offenses ;) I note that you don't dispute the allegation, though. Quite a common thing these days for you, all wind and no substance ;D
For the record, it is known on this board that I devote a lot of time and resources to the study of sex offenses as well as the psychology of offenders and victims.
Saidme,
You can conduct a million exams for all I care, but that doesn't make the polygraph reliable and accurate. Having been on the user-end of the test and being scored deceptive when I wasn't was and is all the proof in the world to me that, aside from any well-grounded scientifc study - NAS comes to mind, the polygraph is a sham. You know it is, and we know you know it is.
There are differences in how certain demographics respond to the exam. One strike against you is intelligence/education - the more intelligent and educated the examinee is, the greater likelihood of being scored as a false positive. Source of that? Can't cite it at this time as it has been a few years since I've seen it, but I'll find it again. But that does fall in line with the NAS findings about how the exam is more likely to be biased against the honest person.
If an examinee believes in the validity of the polygraph, and intentionally tries to be deceitful and is scored that way, well, that's your bread and butter of proof of validity for you.
If you believe the polygraph is capable of detecting lies (those are layman terms of course, all it does is detect physiological responses, subject to "it is the expert opinion of this examiner that Mr. So-and-so is being deceptive"), then you, sir, are the liar.
Mr. Truth,
QuoteSource of that? Can't cite it at this time...
Perhaps you speak of this?
A subject's intelligence may affect the results of a polygraph examination. Highly intelligent subjects may be able to anticipate or recognize relevant questions. This could lead to the subject being able to take counter measures to consciously avoid a stressful reaction. It could also lead to the subject's over sensitivity to the relevant questions and, thus, a stressful reaction. The reaction might be caused by deception or simply from stress from recognizing the relevance and significance of the question.
See Id.;Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation--ATechnical Memorandum, 85 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, Office of TechnologyAssessment, H.R. Doc. No. OTA-TM-H-15, November 1983)
Yes, thank you.
Quote from: orolan on Aug 05, 2003, 08:57 PMA subject's intelligence may affect the results of a polygraph examination. Highly intelligent subjects may be able to anticipate or recognize relevant questions. This could lead to the subject being able to take counter measures to consciously avoid a stressful reaction. It could also lead to the subject's over sensitivity to the relevant questions and, thus, a stressful reaction. The reaction might be caused by deception or simply from stress from recognizing the relevance and significance of the question.
See Id.;Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation--ATechnical Memorandum, 85 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, Office of TechnologyAssessment, H.R. Doc. No. OTA-TM-H-15, November 1983)
Yeah, I've been looking for that for a long time. Thanks.
Saidme,
I posted this one a couple of days ago, you probably weren't online, but I am still interested in your response.
Did you read the DODPI racial bias link?
What are your comments regarding the issue raised?
Your a federal polygrapher right? An 1811?
Doesn't most of the training your receive originally come from the DODPI?
It would seem that information regarding racial bias coming from the most pro-polygraph source would carry some weight with a polygrapher.
Since you said that you do care about racial bias, maybe you can help me understand your postion.
Suethem
Right on all counts (examiner, DoDPI, 1811). Yes, I've read the DODPI study on racial bias. I don't give any of these studies (DoDPI, NAS, and anyone else's) a lot of weight. Most of these studies are just snapshots in time which can be influenced by many variables. Including ones agenda. I believe DoDPI is an excellent training institution and produces quality and competent polygraph examiners. Do a few knuckleheads slip through the cracks? Occasionally (Drew did). Are they a research institute? I think they've got a ways to go before they reach that level. Should they be a research institute would be a better questions. I think not. They should focus on what they do best - producing quality, competent polygraph examiners. Regardless of what research material they put out, someone like you and your buddies will shoot it down, regardless of how valid or invalid. There's just no pleasing some folks, period. ;)
Saidme,
Seems like if the director of the FBI selected Dr. Drew to analyze the polygraph and give his opinion, then Dr. Drew must have been held in high regard within the FBI Crime Lab community and HQ as well- If he was a knucklehead, they probably wouldn't give him such an important task.
It's the DODPI who's information raises the question of racial bias. I would think that a "quality, competent' examiner would be troubled by the information. If the DODPI study is not accurate, please tell me why and how?
It bothers me a little that you don't put faith in any of the studies pro or con. Most professionals rely on the training and education that they received from their (training) agency. If your operating on your own theories I would sure like to hear them.
The me, my horse and my little black box stuff seems unprofessional. Individual experience is important but when its not married to standards and guidlines it degrades in quality.
Are you a federal probation officer?
Saidme once told the board:
QuoteMy definition of "work and work well" would be the countless confessions I've obtained as a result of polygraph examinations. Those same confession have landed murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers, and thieves in jail.
And now this latest response:
QuoteRight on all counts (examiner, DoDPI, 1811).
Anybody know what Federal Agency investigates
all of the types of offenses Saidme listed?
"the truth" and "saidme" don't see too much of each other... I wouldn't put too much stock in anything an admitted professional liar has to say, here or anywhere else...
Orolan
I would venture to say almost all federal agencies run those type of cases. Maybe your lack of law enforcement experience is shining through.
Anonymouse
No response for idiots.
Suethem
Just because someone has a lot of education and a grand title does not inherently make them smart. I wonder what agenda Drew has that has not been plastered on this website! Hmmmm. Regarding your comments on the studies (pro and con). The point I guess I was trying to make, albeit not very well, is that you guys have bashed DODPI from the very outset on everything from training polygraph examiners to their "biased" studies. Then you turn right around and want to use a study they did that didn't necessarily come out in their favor. You guys can't have it both ways. Either they produce quality studies or they don't. I've not made the determination in my own mind on those issues. Regarding what I'm operating on. That would be the information initially taught to me through DODPI along with continuing education programs all federal examiner's are required to maintain. You attempt, albeit not very well, to paint a picture that I'm some rogue polygraph examiner out on the loose. All agencies maintain a very strict quality control process. So I guess to sum it all up I rely on my training from DODPI, continuing education, and personal experiences when it comes to running polygraph examinations. And no, I'm not a federal probation officer. I'm not even sure they have polygraph examiners. ;)
By the way, I think these last few posts are getting off topic. You can only beat a dead horse so much.
Saidme,
Dr. Drew is probably very smart. He is a Dr. and was a supervisory SA with the FBI. Both of those are significant achievements.
As for Dr. Drew's agenda-
He was tasked, by the FBI, to study the PLQCT. He did and discovered that it was worthless.
The FBI places a lot of institutional belief and $ in the PLCQT and their reaction is not surprising.
I am guessing that the FBI was not thrilled with Dr. Drew's results, but you shouldn't ask questions if you don't want answers.
I wouldn't think that Dr. Drew's study helped his career at FBI. It seems to me that the FBI does not like anyone to say anything that is not in line with their ideology.
I would say that the good Dr. has a great deal of integrity to say that the PLCQT is worthless, knowing that his stance would not further ( and probably diminish) his career.
You both know that the test is bullshit, he's just got the backbone and moral fiber to come out with the truth.
Bravo Suethem
You seem to be a vehement defender of Dr Drew. I would like to hear from Dr Drew what his experience with polygraph is from a technician's standpoint. I don't want to hear about his studies or his opinions. I want to hear about his personal experiences with polygraph, i.e. how many exams has he ran? How many DI as opposed to NDI exams he had? How many post-test confessions he obtained? I would also like to hear about some of his experiences as an interviewer/interrogator regarding non-polygraph interviews? Trust me, just because he's a supervisory FBI agent does not make him an expert in interviews and interrogations. If you believe that, you've been watching too much TV. ;)
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 10, 2003, 10:13 PMBravo Suethem
You seem to be a vehement defender of Dr Drew. I would like to hear from Dr Drew what his experience with polygraph is from a technician's standpoint. I don't want to hear about his studies or his opinions. I want to hear about his personal experiences with polygraph, i.e. how many exams has he ran? How many DI as opposed to NDI exams he had? How many post-test confessions he obtained? I would also like to hear about some of his experiences as an interviewer/interrogator regarding non-polygraph interviews? Trust me, just because he's a supervisory FBI agent does not make him an expert in interviews and interrogations. If you believe that, you've been watching too much TV. ;)
Saidme,
I see in your attacks on Dr. Richardson's qualifications that you're still maintaining the polygraph is some sort of a mysterious black box that science cannot fathom. You'll pardon me, I hope, if I find such excuses wholly unsatisfactory, as they've been used too many times by countless charlatans to justify all sorts of snake oil.
That's not to say that I necessarily believe you're being knowingly dishonest. But I have yet to see any good reason provided here why scientific investigation cannot determine the accuracy of claims regarding the polygraph's validity. Frankly, I believe your statements along those lines represent little more than self-delusion by a true believer. And I think your criticisms of Dr. Richardson sound an awful lot like those of a religious fanatic who says those who don't believe as he does and criticize the cult he's in just haven't had the right revelations yet...
As for DoDPI's studies, most of the criticism of their work I've seen has been based upon methodology. Certainly, the issue of bias does come into the picture, and the fact that DoDPI tried to supress a study that was also contrary to their interests suggests the study deserves extra attention. However, you're quite correct that the ultimate issue is whether the studies are done well, and that assessment largely needs to be done on a case-by-case basis.
Skeptic
Skeptic
I've come to the conclusion that you guys must all be a band of Gypsies. Black box, snake oil, charlatans. Just joking. My intent is not to "attack" Dr Drew, I'm just interested in his polygraph experiences from a technician standpoint as opposed to a research standpoint. Regarding DODPI alleged suppression of their racial bias study, if true, shame on them.
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 11, 2003, 02:42 PMSkeptic
I've come to the conclusion that you guys must all be a band of Gypsies. Black box, snake oil, charlatans. Just joking. My intent is not to "attack" Dr Drew, I'm just interested in his polygraph experiences from a technician standpoint as opposed to a research standpoint. Regarding DODPI alleged suppression of their racial bias study, if true, shame on them.
If your intent isn't to attack Dr. Richardson, then perhaps referring to him as a "knucklehead" isn't the best way to go about it.
As you've noted, simply having a good education and an impressive title doesn't make one "smart". However, the three do tend to be correlated, especially at the Ph.D. level, and especially considering the tasks with which Dr. Richardson was charged.
Being an unrepentant polygrapher is, perhaps, another story. However, I'm sure there are intelligent polygraphers who inexplicably continue to believe in the "test" (you seem to be an example), just as there are intelligent creationists. If our experience on this message board is at all representative, however, such people are likely in the minority.
With that in mind, I'm not sure what Dr. Richardson's field experience with the polygraph would have to do with his status as a "knucklehead" or a "smart person", to say nothing of his credentials to discuss the "test"'s efficacy from a scientific point-of-view.
Of course, you're really just saying an indication of intelligence is to have administered polygraph tests and have since seen the error of one's ways, I heartily concur :)
Skeptic
Skeptic
Acutally I wanted to hear from Drew about his experiences. I'm interested to know some of the following: Was he a full time polygraph examiner? Did he attend polygraph school only as part of a research project? If he ran polygraph examinations would he (or his peers) considered him to have been competent? If he ran polygraph examinations, would he have considered himself to have been a competent interrogator? I think it's important to know because there are examiners out in the field who don't succeed at polygraph. Not necessarily because they're knuckleheads but because they're probably better suited for other programs in law enforcement. Many of those former examiners know their limitations and move on carrying fond memories of their former profession. Others move on as bitter proponents of polygraph because they couldn't succeed and since they couldn't succeed, they'll do anything to undermine polygraph as an excellent law enforcement tool. I just wanted to see which side of the fence Drew stood. :)
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 11, 2003, 10:46 PMOthers move on as bitter proponents of polygraph because they couldn't succeed and since they couldn't succeed, they'll do anything to undermine polygraph as an excellent law enforcement tool.
priceless
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 11, 2003, 10:46 PM...
I think it's important to know because there are examiners out in the field who don't succeed at polygraph. Not necessarily because they're knuckleheads but because they're probably better suited for other programs in law enforcement. Many of those former examiners know their limitations and move on carrying fond memories of their former profession. Others move on as bitter proponents of polygraph because they couldn't succeed and since they couldn't succeed, they'll do anything to undermine polygraph as an excellent law enforcement tool.
Don't you think it's possible your thinking might be a little too narrow if you believe ex-polygraphers only fall into two groups: those who enjoyed it and those who hate it because they couldn't succeed at it? I think you're leaving out the possibility where the examiner realizes s/he practices a garbage science that screws innocent people out of potential jobs and/or casts criminal suspicion on them, and simply gives it up. I don't think denouncing polygraphy automatically makes one a "bitter proponent" (see subject) of it. Could you explain why you believe that nobody who has given up polygraphy has done so because they simply realized it was a sham?
Actually they do fall into two groups. Those who end up believing they're sticking it to the examinees are the examiners who have either lost they're confidence or never had it to begin with. From a polygraph (or examinee's) perspective, it's best they leave the profession anyway because they probably would stick it to some poor examinee. It's actually a win-win situation for everyone. ;)
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 11, 2003, 10:46 PMOthers move on as bitter proponents of polygraph because they couldn't succeed and since they couldn't succeed, they'll do anything to undermine polygraph as an excellent law enforcement tool.
Quote from: anonymouse on Aug 11, 2003, 11:14 PM
priceless
Yeah, it's priceless alright. Because the word he's looking for is "opponent".
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 11, 2003, 10:46 PMSkeptic
Acutally I wanted to hear from Drew about his experiences. I'm interested to know some of the following: Was he a full time polygraph examiner? Did he attend polygraph school only as part of a research project? If he ran polygraph examinations would he (or his peers) considered him to have been competent? If he ran polygraph examinations, would he have considered himself to have been a competent interrogator?
I can almost picture the studied look of wide-eyed innocence on your face as you wrote the above, Saidme :) Oh, have it your way: you're "just curious".
QuoteI think it's important to know because there are examiners out in the field who don't succeed at polygraph. Not necessarily because they're knuckleheads but because they're probably better suited for other programs in law enforcement. Many of those former examiners know their limitations and move on carrying fond memories of their former profession. Others move on as bitter proponents of polygraph because they couldn't succeed and since they couldn't succeed, they'll do anything to undermine polygraph as an excellent law enforcement tool. I just wanted to see which side of the fence Drew stood. :)
Hmmm...I note you've completely excluded the possibility that one might come to a reasoned, logical conclusion through one's experiences that the polygraph is bogus...
Do I gather correctly from the above that you believe any former examiner who now opposes the polygraph is simply "bitter"? If so, would you be so kind as to provide references to the polling you've conducted on the matter?
Or is this another one of those infamous Saidme "specifics and evidence are for lesser beings" assertions?
Skeptic
I would place the majority in that catagory. I'm sure there are a few exceptions. I would place all former examiner's who oppose polygraph as those who've lost their own confidence in administering polygraph examinations. They beleive it is bogus because they don't have the capabilities to properly run an examination. And like I said before, it's certainly better for the examinees that those folks are no longer administering polygraphs. It's just as well their out there supporting you guys. ;)
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 12, 2003, 12:17 AMI would place the majority in that catagory. I'm sure there are a few exceptions. I would place all former examiner's who oppose polygraph as those who've lost their own confidence in administering polygraph examinations. They beleive it is bogus because they don't have the capabilities to properly run an examination. And like I said before, it's certainly better for the examinees that those folks are no longer administering polygraphs. It's just as well their out there supporting you guys. ;)
Sorry to belabor the point, but I'm afraid I'm still not quite clear on what you're saying. Are you saying that you believe all former examiners who now oppose the polygraph do so because they lost their confidence in administering polygraph examinations, as opposed to doing so because they lost their confidence in the test's accuracy and efficacy itself, period? The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know -- in fact, the former might be seen as due to the latter.
How can you be sure of this?
Skeptic
Saidme,
Since you ignore your own "advice" and remain off-topic, I'll respond to your post.
QuoteI would venture to say almost all federal agencies run those type of cases. Maybe your lack of law enforcement experience is shining through.
I never claimed to have any law enforcement experience. What I do have is knowledge. Or do I? Please enlighten me, oh great one. Tell us what Federal LEA handles those types of cases. Agencies tend to "specialize" in a few different crimes, but none handles ALL of the types you claim to have gained confessions on. CIA doesn't do rapes and thefts. Ditto DIA or Customs. The Post Office police don't care about murders. NSA wouldn't give a rat's a__ about a child molester or a purse snatcher. The FBI might see fit to involve itself one way or another in all of those crimes, but it would be a stretch.
Maybe that's it. Your an FBI polygrapher. No wonder you don't like Drew :o
Quote from: orolan on Aug 12, 2003, 12:38 AMSaidme,
Since you ignore your own "advice" and remain off-topic, I'll respond to your post.
I never claimed to have any law enforcement experience. What I do have is knowledge. Or do I? Please enlighten me, oh great one. Tell us what Federal LEA handles those types of cases. Agencies tend to "specialize" in a few different crimes, but none handles ALL of the types you claim to have gained confessions on. CIA doesn't do rapes and thefts. Ditto DIA or Customs. The Post Office police don't care about murders. NSA wouldn't give a rat's a__ about a child molester or a purse snatcher. The FBI might see fit to involve itself one way or another in all of those crimes, but it would be a stretch.
Maybe that's it. Your an FBI polygrapher. No wonder you don't like Drew :o
Orolan,
A pre-employment screen might result in confessions of all sorts, but hasn't Saidme remarked that he has never done those?
Skeptic
Saidme,
So now all ex-polygraphers are either at 'trembling woods' due to a loss of confidence- "Doctor, I just can't take the pressure!"
or
The polygraphers, who no longer believe in what they did, never really had the abilities to be good polygrapher in the first place (eventhough they got hired and passed all their 'extensive' training).
Only the weak or stupid ( I guess that includes the Supreme Court and the NAS) don't believe in polygraphy!!!
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 12, 2003, 12:17 AMI would place the majority in that catagory. I'm sure there are a few exceptions. I would place all former examiner's who oppose polygraph as those who've lost their own confidence in administering polygraph examinations. They beleive it is bogus because they don't have the capabilities to properly run an examination. And like I said before, it's certainly better for the examinees that those folks are no longer administering polygraphs. It's just as well their out there supporting you guys. ;)
What about a polygrapher who has gotten many DI's to confess? By your logic, their technique works, so if they choose to later denounce polygraphy, it's obviously not because they weren't confident in their abilities.
Orolan
Your ignorance knows no bounds. CIA, DIA, and NSA are not federal law enforcement agencies. They would be considered intelligence agencies. However, I'm sure they would all be interested if their employees are child molesters. Although I'm not a customs agent, I would bet the kitchen sink they've ran a few murder investigations. Your knowledge of law enforcement concerns me. I thought I was corresponding with people that had at least a basic understanding. I'm going to have to discount anything you've said previously based on your ignorance. Which basically means I'm giving you a free ride on your bone head comments. ;)
Suethem
My comments were regarding polygraph examiners only. How you dragged the Supreme Court in is beyond me.
SEX
Even old time examiner's lose their confidence. Just changes with time. No different than an insurance guy who no longer can cut the mustard. ;)
Orolan
No, I'm not and FBI examiner (thank god).
Saidme,
Pretty much the response I expected from you. You're full of sh_t and you know it. There is NO Federal law enforcement agency that as a matter of day-to-day operations investigates EVERY type of crime you claim to have polygraphed and obtained confessions on. As I said, the FBI is the only one that even remotely might have a hand in all of them. But you say you don't work for the FBI, so we'll forget that one.
You choose not to answer because there is no such agency, and you know it. The alternative would be that you are lying about your alleged accomplishments.
So back up what you say. Name the agency, or admit that you're a liar.
You can give me all the "free rides" you want on my so-called bonehead comments. I really don't care. But don't expect me to reciprocate and give you a free ride on your unsubstantiated claims.
Orolan
Seems like I've touched a nerve on your lack of law enforcement experience. You're latest post continues to unmask your ignorance. ;)
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 12, 2003, 11:50 AMOrolan
Your ignorance knows no bounds. CIA, DIA, and NSA are not federal law enforcement agencies. They would be considered intelligence agencies.
Saidme's right regarding the above agencies, Orolan -- though I would imagine that might have been what you were driving at in the first place.
Of course, it's always possible he's merely exaggerating his own hand in "landing [name a criminal] in jail". As usual, most of what he says must be taken for the anonymous, uncorroborated boast it is.
QuoteHowever, I'm sure they would all be interested if their employees are child molesters. Although I'm not a customs agent, I would bet the kitchen sink they've ran a few murder investigations.
And I'd be surprised if they didn't turn such matters over to the appropriate law enforcement people in virtually all cases, since murder investigations really aren't their bailiwick.
Skeptic
Skeptic
Much of my "uncorroborated boast" as you put it, is no more or no less valid than the garbage everyone else puts on this website. To set the record straight, I'm just putting out the facts. If you wish to view them as "boasts" then have at it. I get no pleasure in having to respond to crime scenes involving serious injury, death, or sexual assault of a child. I do however get great pleasure insuring these criminals go to jail for those crimes. You anti folks forget the primary purpose of polygraph is to assist law enforcement in resolving these crimes. You get caught up in your own little self-important world and whine to everyone about how you were wronged by the polygraph in your pre-employment interviews. Whaaaa! I get sick and tired of listening to your crap. Okay, I feel better, I'm off the soap box. :D
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 12, 2003, 10:21 PMSkeptic
Much of my "uncorroborated boast" as you put it, is no more or no less valid than the garbage everyone else puts on this website. To set the record straight, I'm just putting out the facts.
Since you won't back up most of your assertions of "facts", they are (pretty much by definition) "uncorroborated". And claiming to be able to do what no one has demonstrated the ability to do (namely, detect countermeasures reliably) is, again by definition, a "boast".
QuoteIf you wish to view them as "boasts" then have at it. I get no pleasure in having to respond to crime scenes involving serious injury, death, or sexual assault of a child. I do however get great pleasure insuring these criminals go to jail for those crimes.
It seems to me, Saidme, that (given your passion for crime-fighting and your ability to carry on extended confrontations without allowing yourself to be baited) your skills as an interrogator are wasted on the polygraph. Just my humble opinion, though.
QuoteYou anti folks forget the primary purpose of polygraph is to assist law enforcement in resolving these crimes. You get caught up in your own little self-important world and whine to everyone about how you were wronged by the polygraph in your pre-employment interviews. Whaaaa! I get sick and tired of listening to your crap. Okay, I feel better, I'm off the soap box. :D
I forget nothing, Saidme. All evidence says the polygraph doesn't do the job it is purported to do -- namely, discern truthfulness from falsehood with sufficent reliability to warrant faith in the device. That's why I oppose it, not because my life has been ruined (or indeed, significantly impacted) by the polygraph.
I'm the first to admit I didn't enjoy my pre-employment polygraph sessions, but to the best of my knowledge, I "passed" them. Not that being bitter about having one's career ruined by a bogus instrument is necessarily a bad thing, though.
Perhaps, in all of your time polygraphing suspects, you've forgotten how important a little compassion for your fellow man can be...
Skeptic
Skeptic
I'm unclear on your polygraph. Did you pass it or fail it. You talked about passing it then you talked about it ruining your career. Which is it? Regarding compassion. I always have compassion for my fellow man. Particularly the misguided souls taking our polygraph examinations. Compassion is what get's those confessions.
YMWC-5 Stars :D
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 12, 2003, 10:52 PMSkeptic
I'm unclear on your polygraph. Did you pass it or fail it. You talked about passing it then you talked about it ruining your career. Which is it? Regarding compassion. I always have compassion for my fellow man. Particularly the misguided souls taking our polygraph examinations. Compassion is what get's those confessions.
YMWC-5 Stars :D
Saidme,
If you re-read my statement, I think you'll find I said it
didn't ruin my career. I was referring to those for whom the polygraph was arguably a career-ender.
The NSA doesn't approach polygraphs as determining "truth" or "falsehood". Rather, they use it as an interrogation prop for gaining confessions. Thus, I went through three polygraph interrogations. From contact with other NSA job-seekers, I believe this is not unusual for their process.
I voluntarily withdrew my candidacy for a variety of reasons, but given the length of time after my last polygraph with no "rejection" notice, and given the "please apply again with us in the future" letter I received after withdrawing, I have every reason to believe I passed.
Skeptic
Sorry for not reading more closely. I'm familiar with the NSA polygraph process and as I've stated before I have some acquaintances who administer polygraph examinations there. They do a good job and they're good examiners. I don't know what they're results are on every exam but I believe they get a high number of confessions/admissions. I would disagree with your assessment on your polygraph examination. I would imagine you were no opinion (inconclusive). If you're a good applicant, they're not going to give up on you that easy. ;)
Quote from: Saidme on Aug 12, 2003, 11:41 PMI would disagree with your assessment on your polygraph examination. I would imagine you were no opinion (inconclusive). If you're a good applicant, they're not going to give up on you that easy. ;)
Thank you. But now you've made me curious. Why would you assume the results were inconclusive after the third poly?
Per NSA polygraph regs, they would have needed Director of Security approval for a fourth, but it stands to reason they would have scheduled a fourth poly (or issued a rejection letter) inside of two months.
Skeptic