Hey all. I'm applying for my first LE position and am in need of some advice from those in the know. I'm taking the application process very seriously, and stumbled onto this site while researching the polygraph portion.
Honestly, I have nothing to hide. I'm on the up and up except for a little pot expirimentation three years ago that is within the requirements for the dept. The problem is that I've spent a lot of time around the suburban drug culture. Laughing and joking about scoring some coke or meth is kind of a running joke with some of my close friends, band-mates and co-workers. Although I honestly have no desire to ever touch the stuff, I must admit that I've led other people to believe that I have in the past. Stupid move, I know, but it's hard to fit in to the alt. rock scene without a "yeah, I tried it" story.
Anyway, I feel guilty about it, and I have a hard time believing that the machine will be able to distinguish the guilt I might feel over EXAGGERATING my drug use in the past with a bald-faced lie when I say "no" on the drug questions.
Would you (hopefully a polygrapher or two will read this also) suggest that I disclose this during the pre-test interview? Will they allow for a stupid mistake and work with me or will they take my story as a lame attempt at a cover-up? Has anybody else ever gotten themselves into this kind of situation? Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
PBR,
Polygraphers would no doubt advise you to disclose anything and everything that might possibly be of concern to you. After all, it is their job to get admissions. But be aware that by admitting to a polygrapher that you've exaggerated your drug use to friends and colleagues, you will likely raise his/her suspicions and may well increase your chances of "failing" the drug-related relevant questions.
I think it would be prudent not to volunteer what you've discussed above to your polygrapher. For tips on reducing the risk of a false positive outcome, see Chapters 3 & 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf).
PBR,
I would suggest that you discuss your concerns with your polygraph examiner for the following reasons.
First, if your exaggerations regarding your drug history are a concern or if you feel like you may be hiding something from the examiner, you are very likely to have problems with a drug related question.
Secondly, your drug history (exaggerations) may very well come to light in a background investigation. If you have previously failed to explain yourself during the application process, you may receive an unfavorable review. By explaining yourself to the examiner you have at least provided a reasonable explanation for your BI to work with.
George's suggestion that you lie during the application process is only going to come back and bite you in the end.
The majority of people who follow this website's advice have significant issues (drugs/crime/national security) that they are attempting to hide. What you've described hardly qualifies as a significant issue or an "admission."
Good luck!
PBR,
Ray (who is a polygraph examiner) provides a timely illustration of another reason why I think it would be unwise to volunteer what you've discussed here to your polygrapher. He writes, among other things:
QuoteGeorge's suggestion that you lie during the application process is only going to come back and bite you in the end.
But I didn't suggest that you lie. I merely suggested that it would be prudent not to volunteer the information you posted here. Just as Ray wittingly or unwittingly misrepresented my remarks (even though he had them in front of him in writing), so too might your polygrapher misrepresent any statement you make regarding having exagerrated your illegal drug use to friends and colleagues.
I agree with Ray that your exaggeration of your drug history might come to light during the course of a background investigation. If it does, then
that would be the appropriate time to mention it. Hopefully by then you'll have passed the polygraph, which should help bolster (in the mind of the agency with which you're applying) your contention that your claims to friends were untrue.
Ray also claims:
QuoteThe majority of people who follow this website's advice have significant issues (drugs/crime/national security) that they are attempting to hide.
Ray cannot possibly know this to be true. No statistical data exists in this regard; indeed, compiling such data would be well nigh impossible. Ray's assertion is a baseless smear.
Because polygraph lie detection has no scientific basis and results in many truthful persons being falsely accused of deception, it is in the interest of everyone facing a polygraph "test" to educate him- or herself about this pseudoscience and to do that which is possible to minimize the risk of a false positive outcome.
George (who has never successfully completed a law enforcement application process and been hired) said:
QuoteBut I didn't suggest that you lie. I merely suggested that it would be prudent not to volunteer the information you posted here.
PBR, I take it back George didn't technically tell you to lie however, he advised you to intentionally omit information during your application process. It's a game of semantics George likes to play. It's kind of like saying, "I didn't LIE to the police department about xyz....I just didn't VOLUNTEER the information."
You be the judge PBR. How do you think a PD would view this information if it came to light in a background investigation without a prior disclosure? Will they think you simply forgot to "volunteer" information or will they think you were attempting to lie to them? Why leave it to chance?
Quoteagree with Ray that your exaggeration of your drug history might come to light during the course of a background investigation. If it does, then that would be the appropriate time to mention it.
PBR, George is wrong here. It's always better to disclose ANY potentionally damaging information prior to it being discovered in a BI. Do it George's way and you MIGHT get a chance to explain yourself...then again you MIGHT NOT get that chance.
PBR I didn't want this to be a debate with George. I really am trying to give you advice that will help you reach your goals. Again, good luck!
Thanks to the both of you for replying. I'm going to go with my gut and disclose my concerns during the interview. I have nothing to hide, and I hope a little bit of past self-inflating hype can be forgiven. I'll say this though. If I do this thing straight up and then get tagged as a lier, I'm going to be a bitter, bitter guy.
Quote from: PBR on Jun 03, 2004, 04:08 AMThanks to the both of you for replying. I'm going to go with my gut and disclose my concerns during the interview. I have nothing to hide, and I hope a little bit of past self-inflating hype can be forgiven. I'll say this though. If I do this thing straight up and then get tagged as a lier, I'm going to be a bitter, bitter guy.
I would probably do the same. No job is worth sacrificing your integrity for - even though the poly examiner is being deceptive. Just don't become bitter if you fail. False positives are not uncommon so don't take it personally.
-Marty
Marty,
We all know George questions the integrity of polygraph examiners. So let me ask you this, does George's suggestion that PBR "not volunteer" information (I call it a lie by omission) call into question George's integrity? Based on your statement to PBR one might make that assumption.
Quote from: Ray on Jun 04, 2004, 04:06 AMMarty,
We all know George questions the integrity of polygraph examiners. So let me ask you this, does George's suggestion that PBR "not volunteer" information (I call it a lie by omission) call into question George's integrity? Based on your statement to PBR one might make that assumption.
Hi Ray,
It's not just George. Polygraph's own literature describes processes of misdirecting and flat out lying to examinees. Now I do not believe examiners are malicious but that they justify their duplicity with the belief that it provides a more accurate exam. It probably is better than the older R/I poly. It is also a technique that works against the most honest - especially if the examiner does a poor job of picking controls that the examinee will at least squirm on.
While I personally wouldn't use CM's I don't really see anything more problematic about George's advice to use CM's prophylacticly than a polygrapher's control sensitization.
And George's site provides accurate information about the polygraph. Oddly, this is the area I have the most problem with since I think once someone (who is innocent) understands polygraph they are more likely a false positive if they do not use CMs. But is this George's fault - or that of the polygraph profession?
Ray, there has to be something that works better without compromising the ethics of everyone involved.
-Marty
Ray,
You write in part:
Quote...We all know George questions the integrity of polygraph examiners....
If the issue is deception (versus generalized integrity), the issue is well beyond George's personal belief. Several years ago now (how time flies when you're having fun), while part of an exchange with a polygraph examiner, I offered the following thoughts on this message board regarding deception on the part of a polygraph examiner who conducts probable lie control question tests. I believe those considerations to be true today as I did then.
Quote...
Examiner:
You say in part:
"...Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview. Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process. The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago. This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement. Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here..."
You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions. For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph "examiner" deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as "...examiner lies during the conduct of an interview..." and list certain of those deceptions. Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:
(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.
(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.
(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.
(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.
(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.
(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.
(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...
This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation. You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers. Agreed. I would suggest for your consideration the following points:
(1) The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.
(2) The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers. On what basis would you extend this "license to lie" to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?
...
You raise the issue of examinee deception and perhaps allude to the ethics of countermeasure use. I would be happy to discuss those issues with you if you will first address point by point the issues I raise about examiner deception in the aforementioned quote. I maintain that examiner deception is first (occurs in the pretest before an examinee is likely to be deceptive), occurs most frequently (each and every time a probable lie control question test is administered independent of whether an examinee is deceptive), is not trivial but quite substantive (the test outcome depends upon it), and lastly but surely is quite comical (requires widespread public ignorance and universal bluff to carry out--perhaps the most important function of this site is not to provide a venue for complaint but to diminish such ignorance.)
Drew, it seems to me there is much more complaining than educating going on here. And by the way, how about a report on your brain fingerprinting "lie detector" machine. Have you perfected it yet?
Quote from: I-SMELL-BS-2 on Jun 04, 2004, 12:46 PMDrew, it seems to me there is much more complaining than educating going on here. And by the way, how about a report on your brain fingerprinting "lie detector" machine. Have you perfected it yet?
ISBS2,
Improve our education then. Please provide URL's to sites with more accurate, detailed, information on polygraph.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Jun 04, 2004, 04:18 PM
ISBS2,
Improve our education then. Please provide URL's to sites with more accurate, detailed, information on polygraph.
-Marty
Farty, I'm not here to educate or complain. I am simply providing a service by pointing out obvious bullshit. There is so much of it on this site that I really haven't the time to do anything else.
Quote from: I-SMELL-BS-2 on Jun 04, 2004, 04:37 PM
Farty, I'm not here to educate or complain. I am simply providing a service by pointing out obvious bullshit. There is so much of it on this site that I really haven't the time to do anything else.
ISBS2,
Service? What service?
I guess George's detailed polygraph facts both bother you and leave you little outlet other than rather childish prattle. Sad.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Jun 04, 2004, 04:51 PM
ISBS2,
Service? What service?
I guess George's detailed polygraph facts both bother you and leave you little outlet other than rather childish prattle. Sad.
-Marty
There you go again Farty, adding to that tremendous pile of bullshit. Sad.
Drew and Marty,
You both failed to answer my original question. Let me repeat it.
We all know the anti-poly crowd questions examiner integrity based on the procedures of an examination. With this in mind, is it fair that we should question George's integrity when he suggests that an applicant should "not volunteer" (lie by omission) specific information in the course of one's law enforcement application. A simple yes or no will do.
Quote from: Ray on Jun 04, 2004, 07:51 PMDrew and Marty,
You both failed to answer my original question. Let me repeat it.
We all know the anti-poly crowd questions examiner integrity based on the procedures of an examination. With this in mind, is it fair that we should question George's integrity when he suggests that an applicant should "not volunteer" (lie by omission) specific information in the course of one's law enforcement application. A simple yes or no will do.
George has no integrity. He is a liar. And his one claim to fame is that he encourages other to be liars also. He is also one of the biggest crybabies around. Those who have been caught in their lies rally round him and together they form the howl-we-liars chorus of fools.
Quote from: Ray on Jun 04, 2004, 07:51 PMDrew and Marty,
You both failed to answer my original question. Let me repeat it.
We all know the anti-poly crowd questions examiner integrity based on the procedures of an examination. With this in mind, is it fair that we should question George's integrity when he suggests that an applicant should "not volunteer" (lie by omission) specific information in the course of one's law enforcement application. A simple yes or no will do.
In the very specific context George answered, I would say no. However, if I agreed with your assessment, that he was suggesting a lie by omission of specific information asked I would have said yes.
-Marty
Quote from: Marty on Jun 04, 2004, 10:01 PM
In the very specific context George answered, I would say no. However, if I agreed with your assessment, that he was suggesting a lie by omission of specific information asked I would have said yes.
-Marty
Farty, he asked for a yes OR no, not a yes AND no.
Quote from: I-SMELL-BS-2 on Jun 04, 2004, 10:18 PM
Farty, he asked for a yes OR no, not a yes AND no.
ISBS,
You have a problem reading? The answer was no, but I went further and described the circumstances under which it would be yes. I did this because of the way the question was phrased.
Tell me ISBS. Are you as clueless as you seem? Please just answer yes or no.
-Marty
OK Farty, sounds like you are warmed up. Now you and George give us a rendition of the howl-we-liars chorus.
I hate to break the news to ya I-smell-BS-2, but I personally know cops who have and still do use injectable steroids, ephedrine,clenbuterol, GHB, excessive amounts of alcohol(bordering on alcoholism)Growth Hormone, Injectable vitamins, and so on. I have even heard of some cops using cocaine, speed, pot, and even worse, sleeping with prostitutes....etc.I don't condone any of it. If you're a police officer, you should'nt be using drugs period, or getting drunk in public, as a matter of fact you should'nt be addicted to anything except a healthy vigorous life style.
The bottom line is, these cops who do this are fantastic police officers. It's just unfortunate they have to participate in such unhealthy lifestyles.
George is right, the polygraph is a joke. It eliminates tons of people who are telling the truth. The only reason for the polygraph is to intimidate you into disclosing IRRELEVANT confidential info that you would never tell another soul.
Please don't call people names I-smell-BS-2, it only shows that you're losing the arguement. In philosophy they call this an ADD-HOMONYM. We're all adults here, or at least some of us are.
Keep up the good work George, at least you treat people with respect and don't call people childish names like LIAR or Farty.
You are right titty. Georgie is a real sweeheart. Why don't you join him and Farty in a trio and give us another song, here we go....howl-we-liars, howl-we-liars, howl-we-liars, howl-we-liars, howl-weeee-liars, oh how we lie and shoot the steroooooids, howl-we-liars...... Very good! But titty, you are a little flat - perhaps a push up bra.......
Quote from: I-SMELL-BS-2 on Jun 05, 2004, 01:37 AMYou are right titty. Georgie is a real sweeheart. Why don't you join him and Farty in a trio and give us another song, here we go....howl-we-liars, howl-we-liars, howl-we-liars, howl-we-liars, howl-weeee-liars, oh how we lie and shoot the steroooooids, howl-we-liars...... Very good! But titty, you are a little flat - perhaps a push up bra.......
If you're in law enforcement, I pitty the dept that has to put up with your pathetic excuse of a human being.
Quote from: stud on Jun 05, 2004, 01:47 AM
If you're in law enforcement, I pitty the dept that has to put up with your pathetic excuse of a human being.
Hey Dud, I PITY you too, you illiterate ignoramus.
Quote from: I-SMELL-BS-2 on Jun 05, 2004, 02:55 PM
Hey Dud, I PITY you too, you illiterate ignoramus.
Talk about an illiterate ignoramus, you freaken moron, you can't even spell "dude" right. It's dude, not dud idiot. Look it up in the dictionary, or do you even own one dork. You are a dunce, and a disgrace to everyone on this web site. If you are in law enforcement, get out, you are a danger not only to yourself, but everyone around you.
P.S. I apologize to everyone else on this web site, for the immature level I have descended to regarding this member. I have had enough of this criticizing bafoon.
Good by
Quote from: stud on Jun 05, 2004, 07:45 PM
Talk about an illiterate ignoramus, you freaken moron, you can't even spell "dude" right. It's dude, not dud idiot. Look it up in the dictionary, or do you even own one dork. You are a dunce, and a disgrace to everyone on this web site. If you are in law enforcement, get out, you are a danger not only to yourself, but everyone around you.
P.S. I apologize to everyone else on this web site, for the immature level I have descended to regarding this member. I have had enough of this criticizing bafoon.
Good by
I said DUD, rhymes with STUD, and that is exactly what I meant - you simply show your abysmal profound ignorance with every post. DUD - of little or no worth, one that is ineffectual, failure, misfit..... a perfect description of you you fucking idiot.
To All,
Please be aware of AntiPolygraph.org's new posting policy (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1791.msg13605#msg13605). All are requested to abide by it.
Ray,
I am quite happy to discuss examinee deception, what it is and what it is not, and the propriety (or lack thereof) of any recommendations for it, but with regard to that or any other commentary I make on this board, I do it according to my own dictates and not those of others. If you are interested in such dialogue (and I do believe there are several things/issues to discuss which have not previously been addressed on this message board), please read or reread the last paragraph of my last post and respond accordingly. That post in its entirety:
Ray,
You write in part:
Quote...We all know George questions the integrity of polygraph examiners....
If the issue is deception (versus generalized integrity), the issue is well beyond George's personal belief. Several years ago now (how time flies when you're having fun), while part of an exchange with a polygraph examiner, I offered the following thoughts on this message board regarding deception on the part of a polygraph examiner who conducts probable lie control question tests. I believe those considerations to be true today as I did then.
Quote
Examiner:
You say in part:
"...Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview. Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process. The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago. This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement. Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here..."
You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions. For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph "examiner" deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as "...examiner lies during the conduct of an interview..." and list certain of those deceptions. Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:
(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.
(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.
(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.
(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.
(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.
(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.
(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...
This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation. You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers. Agreed. I would suggest for your consideration the following points:
(1) The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.
(2) The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers. On what basis would you extend this "license to lie" to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?
...
You raise the issue of examinee deception and perhaps allude to the ethics of countermeasure use. I would be happy to discuss those issues with you if you will first address
point by point the issues I raise about examiner deception in the aforementioned quote. I maintain that examiner deception is first (occurs in the pretest before an examinee is likely to be deceptive), occurs most frequently (each and every time a probable lie control question test is administered independent of whether an examinee is deceptive), is not trivial but quite substantive (the test outcome depends upon it), and lastly but surely is quite comical (requires widespread public ignorance and universal bluff to carry out--perhaps the most important function of this site is not to provide a venue for complaint but to diminish such ignorance.)
Dear Drew,
Emotional outbursts aside, this website is by far the most complete public source of total polygraph information both PRO and CON.
The reader has enough information to make their own opinions based upon many scientific articles and spirited discussions.
Many postings are more concerned with examinees who have complete ignorance of the subject. They assumed it was 100% accurate and somehow disagree with its findings.
After now being exposed to many of the inner workings of government, I cannot dispute that the government has an almost obsessive-compulsive desire for the polygraph to be valid. The polygraph does provide a secretive wall to hide behind and releases individuals from liability should a security breach occur.
Regards.
Drew,
Marty and I were having a rather civil discussion when you decided to join in and demand that I answer your questions before you would answer my question (which was never initially addressed to you). I'm not sure who you think you are...you want to dictate the direction of a discussion that you were never initially involved in?
If I had initially posed the question to you I might understand your desire to control the conversation. The bottom line is that if you don't want to address my points, why should I even participate?
Marty - Thanks for addressing my question. I think it's a VERY thin line George walks with his advice to applicants and I think he crossed it in this case.
Ray,
The reason I joined this discussion uninvited (since when is a message board discussion a private affair) is that I find it hard to believe (and certainly worthy of commentary) that a representative of a community that individually "cross the line" of deception with each and every day in the professional office has the audacity to question whether an individual not a part of that community has in isolation crossed a related but different line of propriety.
Quote from: Drew Richardson on Jun 06, 2004, 05:53 PMRay,
The reason I joined this discussion uninvited (since when is a message board discussion a private affair) is that I find it hard to believe (and certainly worthy of commentary) that a representative of a community that individually "cross the line" of deception with each and every day in the professional office has the audacity to question whether an individual not a part of that community has in isolation crossed a related but different line of propriety.
But the primary reason Drew is now so antipolygraph is because he is in business with the manufacturers of the "Brain Fingerprinting" lie detector machine that he hopes will replace the polygrah. Follow the money......he is simply trying to show the polygraph needs to be replaced by the machines he hopes to sell.
ISBS,
My rationale for joining this discussion stands as outlined in my previous post:
Quote
Ray,
The reason I joined this discussion uninvited (since when is a message board discussion a private affair) is that I find it hard to believe (and certainly worthy of commentary) that a representative of a community that individually "cross the line" of deception with each and every day in the professional office has the audacity to question whether an individual not a part of that community has in isolation crossed a related but different line of propriety.
My employment with Brain Fingerprinting did not occur until roughly a decade after I first raised the concerns I have about probable lie control question test (PLCQT) polygraphy. And even now, that which I have repeatedly and largely expressed misgivings regarding is the use of the PLCQT for various screening applications. I find these to be nothing but completely invalid fishing expeditions with absolutely no theoretical basis for practice and one(s) causing to harm to individuals, various agencies, and the nation alike. I can assure you as long as I have any association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, Brain Fingerprinting will never be used as a general screening tool, for lie detection, or any other questionable and/or invalid pursuits and accordingly will never make a single dime from any such activity.
Drew, you know very well you will have no say about how that machine will be used when it is sold and it you also know that you are pushing for it to replace the polygraph. But you, like George, want to act like you are so noble and have no other motives than the good of humanity - peddle that tripe to someone who doesn't know better.
Ray,
You earlier wrote:
QuoteWe all know the anti-poly crowd questions examiner integrity based on the procedures of an examination. With this in mind, is it fair that we should question George's integrity when he suggests that an applicant should "not volunteer" (lie by omission) specific information in the course of one's law enforcement application. A simple yes or no will do.
I strongly disagree with your contention that my suggestion to PBR that he not volunteer the fact that he has exaggerated his past drug use to friends and colleagues is tantamount to suggesting that he commit a "lie by omission."
Such information is not responsive to any relevant question in common use for pre-employment screening. Therefore, PBR has no ethical obligation to disclose it, and a choice not to do so would not constitute a "lie by omission," as you maintain. The question PBR asked regarding whether or not to disclose this information is one of pragmatics, not ethics.
Quote from: I-SMELL-BS-2 on Jun 06, 2004, 07:29 PM
But the primary reason Drew is now so antipolygraph is because he is in business with the manufacturers of the "Brain Fingerprinting" lie detector machine that he hopes will replace the polygrah. Follow the money......he is simply trying to show the polygraph needs to be replaced by the machines he hopes to sell.
ISBS,
Your contention is refuted not only by the fact that Dr. Richardson's criticism of CQT polygraphy pre-dates his association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories (http://www.brainfingerprinting.com) by years, but also by the fact that when he first made these criticisms, he did so against his career interests with the FBI. Indeed, the FBI retaliated against him for his candor, among other things prohibiting from testifying in court on polygraph matters, despite his eminent qualification to do so.
Your scurrilous attack on Dr. Richardson's motives seemingly stems from an inability to refute his arguments with facts and reason.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Jun 07, 2004, 12:01 AM
ISBS,
Your contention is refuted not only by the fact that Dr. Richardson's criticism of CQT polygraphy not only pre-dates his association with Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories (http://www.brainfingerprinting.com) by years, but also by the fact that he first made these criticisms he did so against his career interests with the FBI. Indeed, the FBI retaliated against him for his candor, among other things prohibiting from testifying in court on polygraph matters, despite his eminent qualification to do so.
Your scurrilous attack on Dr. Richardson's motives seemingly stems from an inability to refute his arguments with facts and reason.
George,
lielabs, at polyplace, said this rather interesting piece on 5/31/04:
QuoteI would think that if you understood the testing process you would understand the control questions are vitally important and based on your assumption would generate a reaction based on the knowledge that you must respond to those questions. If you did not understand that as your post suggests then it is more evidence of the damage other sites are doing to innocents.
wdc (pillpopper) then responded that that would be, in his view, using CMs and unethical.
It's rather interesting that lielabs, a moderator there, suggested (in the guise of a criticism) that innocents should "respond" to these controls if they sufficiently understood the process. I was rather surprised to find that admission.
-Marty
Quote from: I-SMELL-BS-2 on Jun 05, 2004, 08:06 PM
I said DUD, rhymes with STUD, and that is exactly what I meant - you simply show your abysmal profound ignorance with every post. DUD - of little or no worth, one that is ineffectual, failure, misfit..... a perfect description of you you fucking idiot.
The only bullshit you smell is your own, because you are so so full of it. Nothing you say makes any sense, only nonsense, ha ha ha.
You are a walking violation to the laws of nature. Get off this website, your advice is a repugnant odor to everyone on it, just like the ridiculous archaic polygraph you believe in.