Hi everyone,
Im new here and am trying to understand the rationale behind all of this. What I am getting out of this site is that I can lie about everything on the polygraph and still pass! Is this correct and if it is, does anyone have any experience with that
Thanks
Quote from: boeing747 on Apr 15, 2006, 08:40 PMHi everyone,
Im new here and am trying to understand the rationale behind all of this. What I am getting out of this site is that I can lie about everything on the polygraph and still pass! Is this correct and if it is, does anyone have any experience with that
Thanks
If you choose to lie on your polygraph exam I hope lots of bad things happen to you.
The purpose of this site is not to allow people who have done illegal or immoral acts to successfully lie about them to prospective employers or law enforcement agencies.
The purpose of this web site is to provide information on the polygraph.
An unfortunate side effect of providing this informtion is that some unethical people will use that knowledge to lie about prior illegal activity.
Ok thats a pretty immature response. Can anybody else help me out on this one. It seems that he might be a fed.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Apr 15, 2006, 08:47 PM
If you choose to lie on your polygraph exam I hope lots of bad things happen to you.
The purpose of this site is not to allow people who have done illegal or immoral acts to successfully lie about them to prospective employers or law enforcement agencies.
The purpose of this web site is to provide information on the polygraph.
An unfortunate side effect of providing this informtion is that some unethical people will use that knowledge to lie about prior illegal activity.
Sergeant,
I know we have already gone 'round and 'round on this subject, but I can't help pointing this out once again...
One cannot stand a shotgun up in the doorway of the schoolhouse and then take no responsibility when a kid picks it up and shoots another kid.
The statement, "I didn't mean for any kids to pick up that gun, you can't hold me responsible," is itself irresponsible and foolish...
Regards,
Nonombre :-/
boeing747
I have read every one of Sergeant1107's posts and he appears to be very mature and one hell of common sense cop and wants only the right people to become LEO's by telling the truth on the relevant questions. He is, also, against pre-employment polygraphs.
The purpose of this site is to prevent false positives as much as possible i.e., telling the truth on the relevant questions and still failing the polygraph. Which happens way too frequently.
All im saying is that this site teaches people that they can lie on the test and still pass. Thats be realistic about the FBI drug hiring requirements. How many people have smoked weed more than 15 times, ALOT! and are still in the FBI. It isnt fair to anyone. Who cares if you smoked pot when you were 18 but as long as you havent sharpened up and dont do it anymore. I dont think you should be able to punish somebody for that. So when people do smoke more that the guidelines say and they want that job, well guess what, this site will teach them how to lie on the polygraph and pass. And im glad
Quote from: boeing747 on Apr 15, 2006, 08:40 PMHi everyone,
Im new here and am trying to understand the rationale behind all of this. What I am getting out of this site is that I can lie about everything on the polygraph and still pass! Is this correct and if it is, does anyone have any experience with that
Thanks
What you should get from this site is that you can tell the truth on a polygraph and still fail. Especially a pre-employment screening polygraph.
False negatives are much more rare than false positives.
I have to agree with Sergeant, get lost (and learn what a contraction is why you are at it).
boeing,
Plenty of people have never smoked pot. If your integrity is lacking, you are the only person to blame. You appear very childish lashing out against people such as the Sergeant
Nonombre,
You logic is tragically flawed. You are comparing KNOWLEDGE to a shotgun. According to your arguement, anything I learn that could hurt someone falls into the same category. Do you really think we shouldn't teach chemistry because people could poison others with the knowledge? Better yet, they could cover up their crimes if they understand how things like fingerprints work...or physics. Hiding the truth will always damage your credibility. Why do you not understand this?
The real fact is that your witch hunts are not fair or scientific. If they were, knowledge would not scare you so much. It must be very scary to live in a world where you depend on other's ignorance to sustain your superiority.
Quote from: Tarlain on Apr 20, 2006, 02:06 AMNonombre,
You logic is tragically flawed. You are comparing KNOWLEDGE to a shotgun. According to your arguement, anything I learn that could hurt someone falls into the same category. Do you really think we shouldn't teach chemistry because people could poison others with the knowledge? Better yet, they could cover up their crimes if they understand how things like fingerprints work...or physics. Hiding the truth will always damage your credibility. Why do you not understand this?
Let's look at it this way: If you were to post onto the internet "The Tarlain quick, easy method to make a pipe bomb," and somebody successfully used your method to blow up a pre-school full of kids, would you not have some level of responsibility, even if it were just moral responsibility?
You see, according to your argument, the posting of "KNOWLEDGE" is okay in all cases. After all , it's not like you left a shotgun to be picked up...
I beg to differ with your point of view. Here is another example: I would hate to think that a police applicant downloaded the "Tarlain method of defeating a urinalysis test," and used that method to get on the PD, where he is involved a year later in a fatality accident in his cruiser because he was stoned.
How about the "Tarlain method of keeping ones DNA from being left at a crime scene?" Or "The Tarlain method of defeating your sex offender maintenance polygraph?"
You say, "Hiding the truth will always damage your credibility."
I say, let the truth come out. We all live in a free society. Feel free to say/publish whatever you want, but be prepared to be held responsible if somebody uses the "KNOWLEDGE" you have provided to hurt another person.
Regards,
Nonombre :-[
I think you have your analogies backwards. Polygraphers are the ones with the shotguns and pipe bombs turned indiscriminately against both the innocent and guilty. Maybe you should talk about the Tarlain method of diffusing a bomb?
Quote from: Onesimus on Apr 21, 2006, 03:36 PMI think you have your analogies backwards. Polygraphers are the ones with the shotguns and pipe bombs turned indiscriminately against both the innocent and guilty. Maybe you should talk about the Tarlain method of diffusing a bomb?
Onesimus,
As expected, you missed the point... :'(
(lost my first response from a board error :-[)
Quick reply,
Urine test...use hair or watch the person urinate in the cup. That example is junk.
Pipebomb- I could care less if there are directions on the internet for ways to build a pipebomb.
knowledge is not the enemy. a person's actions and intent are the issue.
Lastly, I don't think Onesimus missed your point. I think he just ignored it because it is a flawed arguement. If I am correct, I agree with him. It is a pointless exercise to try to place blame on people who offer knowledge.
I could just as easily get as many "confessions" by pistol whipping people and telling them I will shoot them if they don't tell the truth. This is basically what you do...just on an intellectual level. It is not a RELIABLE method of discovering the truth. I'm actually beginning to form an opinion that it's mental abuse...purely because of the amount of lying you guys do.
Why should I be prepared to be responsibile for another person's actions? Should I really worry that if I teach my children that anti freeze is deadly...that they might use it to hurt someone? Educate people and then hold them responsible for THEIR ACTIONS. I will never feel guilty because of what someone else does.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GROWN ADULTS HERE. If it is a child, then the parental units are responsible. But there is no reason to censor information...unless you are in the field of the polygraph.
Quote from: Tarlain on Apr 21, 2006, 05:51 PMShould I really worry that if I teach my children that anti freeze is deadly...that they might use it to hurt someone?...I will never feel guilty because of what someone else does....
Tarlain,
I feel really sorry for you....
and I feel especially sorry for your children :'(
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 21, 2006, 06:36 PM
Tarlain,
I feel really sorry for you....
and I feel especially sorry for your children :'(
Talk about a non sequitir. Your reasoning in this thread is full of logical fallacies and absurd arguments. I suggest you have it copywritten for publishing in a logic 101 textbook under the heading "common fallacies".
Let me ask you something: if you do believe that countermeasures can affect the outcome of a polygraph test, why are you so sure that myriad other variables could not also affect it? Say, a nervous or anxious person, someone who is overly "responsive" to judgments regarding his/her character, etc.? In other words, if the polygraph is limited in its effectiveness by some idiot sitting there flexing his sphincter muscle or biting his tongue, doesn't it naturally follow, arguendo, that its effectiveness could also be limited by other factors?
Quote from: Wallerstein on Apr 21, 2006, 07:00 PM
Talk about a non sequitir. Your reasoning in this thread is full of logical fallacies and absurd arguments. I suggest you have it copywritten for publishing in a logic 101 textbook under the heading "common fallacies".
Let me ask you something: if you do believe that countermeasures can affect the outcome of a polygraph test, why are you so sure that myriad other variables could not also affect it? Say, a nervous or anxious person, someone who is overly "responsive" to judgments regarding his/her character, etc.? In other words, if the polygraph is limited in its effectiveness by some idiot sitting there flexing his sphincter muscle or biting his tongue, doesn't it naturally follow, arguendo, that its effectiveness could also be limited by other factors?
Uh uh, don't change the subject Hombre,
Am I to understand that if you were to explain to your children the lethality of antifreeze, and they then used that information to deliberately poison somebody, you would feel NO sense of responsibility for their actions?
I guess that is what they mean by the "me" generation... :-/
Regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 21, 2006, 07:22 PM
Uh uh, don't change the subject Hombre,
Am I to understand that if you were to explain to your children the lethality of antifreeze, and they then used that information to deliberately poison somebody, you would feel NO sense of responsibility for their actions?
I guess that is what they mean by the "me" generation... :-/
Regards,
Nonombre
I guess I was assuming that you were bright enough to see the absurdity of that analogy. Apples/oranges anyone?
OK, I'll spell it out. Jumping from the fact that disseminating information on how to "beat" or "pass" a polygraph machine that countless scientists including the NAS have routinely judged to often produce inaccurate/incorrect results, especially when employed as part of a pre-screening process, could also lead to dishonest people using this knowledge to pass a polygraph exam TO a shotgun in the doorway of a schoolhouse and teaching children that antifreeze is very, very bad is not very, very good logic.
The first example imparts knowledge on how to beat a flawed machine. If you want to argue that the machine is not flawed, that's for another day, and for you to take up with the NAS. The fact that those with no integrity could use such knowledge to also beat a flawed machine is troubling, I agree, but this very fact should likewise call the effectiveness of the polygraph into more doubt. To me it's also troubling that good people are rejected from employment because of this machine.
We are talking about a test here--in your two examples you are talking about (1) an illegal action and (2) supplying knowledge to a child in good faith that is later used by the child for ill means. I fail to see any connection between the CM teaching and (1) or (2).
Moreover, there's a flip side to your coin, compadre--am I to assume that you feel no responsibility when a polygrapher judges an honest and moral person to be dishonest and/or morally corrupt and thereby ruin that person's dreams of working as a cop or intel analyst?
Quote from: Wallerstein on Apr 21, 2006, 07:44 PMMoreover, there's a flip side to your coin, compadre--am I to assume that you feel no responsibility when a polygrapher judges an honest and moral person to be dishonest and/or morally corrupt and thereby ruin that person's dreams of working as a cop or intel analyst?
Sorry, Wallerstein, I did not see your handle. When you first posted, I thought you were Tarlain.
Anyway, I can answer your question this way. In my experience, I have had very, very few people "fail" a polygraph examination that was not ultimately cooberated in some other way. Therefore, for me the polygraph has been an exceptional screening tool, as well as a specific issue criminal investigative methodology.
In the few cases where the DI polygraph results were not confirmed in some way, I have never written up any polygraph report that called a person "dishonest and/or morally corrupt." Those are your words, not mine.
Regards,
Nonombre
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 21, 2006, 08:04 PM
I have had very, very few people "fail" a polygraph examination that was not ultimately cooberated in some other way. Therefore, for me the polygraph has been an exceptional screening tool, as well as a specific issue criminal investigative methodology.
Most agencies kick an applicant to the curb on a failed polygraph with little recourse for the applicant.
Not to mention the likelihood that a polygraph failure will effect the applicant not only with the administering agency but possibly with future testing agencies. Also, any public show of disagreement with an agency with which a polygraph exam has been "failed" holds the very real possibility of becoming a detriment to future applications. This is the "good 'ole boy network" at its finest.
Nonombre,
Why would you feel sorry for my children? Do free thinking, intelligent, honest, respectful, responsible people scare you? Every arguement you have is completely emotion driven. You continually change your stories (reminds me of how I change fishing lures). You never try to use facts, science, or logic to prove anything. You resort to emotional appeals...oh no...my children couldn't POSSIBLY find their way through this world with all these scary things to avoid. They couldn't possibly decide for themselves what is right and wrong...
Thank God you are here to protect them from all this dangerous stuff...too bad you'll probably falsely brand them of some immortal sin in a pre-employment test someday and undo all that I have taught them about working hard to earn what you want.
Maybe you should begin a book burning campaign...and be sure to destroy all copies of Fahrenheit 451. We wouldn't want people to understand why we have a freedom of speech.
Quote from: Tarlain on Apr 23, 2006, 12:36 AMNonombre,
Why would you feel sorry for my children? Do free thinking, intelligent, honest, respectful, responsible people scare you?
No Tarlain,
What scares me is a parent who would feel no guilt or responsibility if their children poisoned someone with antifreeze.
You are one sick puppy...
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 21, 2006, 08:04 PM
Anyway, I can answer your question this way. In my experience, I have had very, very few people "fail" a polygraph examination that was not ultimately cooberated in some other way.
So how many people did you pass that ultimately turned out to be lying?
As for your answer above, very few is not very descriptive. What constitutes very few? Was it 5%? 10%? Out of how many?
You seem to be suffering from two cognitive biases. The first is confirmation bias where you're seeking only the data that confirms your preconception. The second is self-serving bias where you claim more responsibility for your successes than your failures...
Regardless of how you try to twist the facts and use logically fallacies to support your argument, the polygraph as a screening tool is completely ineffective because it rests on wholly unscientific principles and is only a fancy version of the Jones and Sigall (1971) bogus pipeline...
Tarlain:
I would much ratherr trust my children's welfare to the likes of nonombre, polygraphers and other LE officers than some fool who beileves in Michael Moore. Fahrenhiet 451. Give me a break. And what facts or science can you cite that backs up your half ass attacks on the polygraph. Make sure you cite the truth and dont be like Michael Moore who debases defense, drug companies and capitialism but lies about owning these kind of stocks.
Quote from: retcopper on Apr 24, 2006, 02:14 PMTarlain:
And what facts or science can you cite that backs up your half ass attacks on the polygraph.
Is the NAS report sufficiently factual for you?
Mr Mystery:
I dont want to sound rude but I asked Tarlain. I dont know if he ever heard of the stufy before he came on here and started calling polygraphers liars, etc. Now that you mentioned it I read where the NAS study may have been flawed and or bias.
I didn't find it to be that biased at all. There were parts of it that supported polygraphy, and parts of their study were quite harsh towards polygraphy.
Quote from: Mr. Mystery on Apr 24, 2006, 04:04 PMThere were parts of it that supported polygraphy, and parts of their study were quite harsh towards polygraphy.
Supported the polygraph? Really?
Was it the part that went:
"Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy." (pg. 2)
or
"Moreover, many other psychological and physiological factors (e.g., anxiety about being tested) also affect those responses. Such phenomena make polygraph testing intrinsically susceptible to producing erroneous results." (pg. 2)
Or is it the "well above chance" quote that polygraphers hang their hats onto while ignoring the whole context:
"Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection. Because the studies of acceptable quality all focus on specific incidents, generalization from them to uses for screening is not justified." (pg. 4).
And we haven't even made it out of the executive summary yet...
I didn't say there were a lot of parts friendly to polygraphy :)
And yes I was referring to the fact that in cases involving specific incidents and a naive examinee the polygraph can achieve greater than chance accuracy. Again, no one really disputes that it can drag the truth out of the unwitting (sometimes).
Anyways the most interesting part comes on page 144:
"Polygraph practitioners claim that they can detect countermeasures; this claim would be much more credible if there were known physiological indicators of countermeasure use"
Also page 139
"....there is anecdotal evidence of increasing levels of countermeasure use in federal security screening programs."
Or page 101
"The scientific basis for polygraph testing is far from what one would like for a test that carries considerable weight in national security decision making"
Finally I posted a link to a discussion on polygraphplace.com that occurred when the NAS report was released. As a whole the community didn't take it well.
So please don't confuse me as a supporter of polygraphs for anything other than an interrogation tool.
Quote from: Mr. Mystery on Apr 24, 2006, 11:26 PMSo please don't confuse me as a supporter of polygraphs for anything other than an interrogation tool.
My mistake...in addition to the pro-polygraph folks, a lot of people that post here do so under the guise of regular people when in actuality they are polygraphers trying to spread misinformation...
As for the polygraph's use as an interrogation tool, again, it is nothing more than a fancy version of Sigall and Jones (1971) bogus pipeline. If you believe it works, you're more likely to make admissions, if you don't believe, you won't. Not much of a tool, is it?
And regardless of issue-specific or screening usage, one can employ countermeasures to defeat it...
Interesting. In famous spook fashion, the conversation inevitably jumps to things most protected and fragile: the human morale engine and those things 'taboo' from discussion: kids and family.
Wow. We have some seasoned operators trolling these boards, do we not?
You see, ladies and gents, it's really the first thing they teach you in interrogation school: nothing is out of bounds. Move to family if you feel your subject is going to leak like a Dutch dam should that topic be approached. It's the psychological operators first stop: taboo subjects.
Watch out. The eyes have walls.
Quote from: digithead on Apr 25, 2006, 01:12 AM
My mistake...in addition to the pro-polygraph folks, a lot of people that post here do so under the guise of regular people when in actuality they are polygraphers trying to spread misinformation...
Hey no problem :) I've been called much worse than a polygraph sympathizer (but not much). Yes, some of the old threads from polygraphers are quite entertaining. They've done everything from accusing George of being a pedophile through a bogus Washington Times article and I believe we had one who was posting as two separate people working for the NSA.
They could stop this site very quickly simply by publicly demonstrating their ability to detect countermeasures. That would be much more effective than half-hearted dis-information attempts.
Mr Mystery and Digithead:
I don't want to bust your bubble but I can detect counter measures.
Quote from: retcopper on Apr 25, 2006, 11:34 AMI don't want to bust your bubble but I can detect counter measures.
How?
Quote from: retcopper on Apr 25, 2006, 11:34 AMMr Mystery and Digithead:
I don't want to bust your bubble but I can detect counter measures.
Well for goodness sakes get out there and publicly demonstrate it can be done at greater than chance accuracy!
Quote from: nonombre on Apr 16, 2006, 12:01 AM
Sergeant,
I know we have already gone 'round and 'round on this subject, but I can't help pointing this out once again...
One cannot stand a shotgun up in the doorway of the schoolhouse and then take no responsibility when a kid picks it up and shoots another kid.
The statement, "I didn't mean for any kids to pick up that gun, you can't hold me responsible," is itself irresponsible and foolish...
Regards,
Nonombre :-/
Nonombre,
I must have skipped over this thread for some reason for a few days, as I'm just seeing it now.
The purpose of this site is to provide information on the polygraph. George and many others believe that the accuracy of the polygraph for non-specific issue testing (such as pre-employment screening) is approximately 50%. The reason it is approximately 50% (random chance when you have two possible outcomes, DI or NDI) is because the polygraph is incapable of detecting truth or deception.
George has specifically stated that he believes an applicant for a public service position has an ethical responsibility to tell the truth. He also believes that simply telling the truth will not increase a person's chances of passing a polygraph. So he also provides information on how to artificially augment one's reactions to certain questions during the polygraph exam to ensure that you will pass.
I know from personal experience that telling the truth on a polygraph actually allows you to pass only 25% of the time. I wish I had known about this site when I was agonizing over why I was failing my polygraphs and losing out on the police career at which I know I would excel. It certainly would have helped me feel better and not beat myself up for my continuing failures at the polygraph. And that's what this site is here for.
The purpose of this site is to help people. People like me who were telling the complete truth and couldn't figure out why I alternately being labeled as "deceptive" with regards to selling cocaine, "deceptive" with regards to assaulting people, and "deceptive" with regards to stealing. I thought there was something wrong with me, since I had never heard anything about the polygraph other than it was a "lie detector." I have always been a very honest person and I was hurt by the accusations of deception on matters I was being 100% honest and forthright about.
By providing this information George helps people understand that if they suffered through one or more false-positives they are not alone. If they told the truth and still "failed" their test they are not alone. If they missed out on a job because they couldn't pass the polygraph exam even though they were completely honest they are not alone.
If you have never been a false-positive then you probably don't understand what I'm talking about. It is a hurtful experience that leaves you shaken. I remember thinking, "This must be some sort of terrible mistake! How can this be?" And then it happened again, and again after that.
I applaud George's efforts in bringing this information to the Internet for anyone to read. By doing so he has helped many people, which I am confident was his intention.
If some people choose to use the information on this site for unethical reasons the responsibility for doing so is theirs and theirs alone. Pretty much any sort of information, regardless of the motivation behind its dissemination, could be used for nefarious purposes. That doesn't mean that all such information should be withheld from this point on.
Leaving a loaded shotgun in a schoolhouse serves no useful purpose other than to endanger the children. There is no realistic reason for leaving the shotgun there that could be deemed to be benevolent in any fashion. It would be a reckless act that could hardly be compared to providing information on how a supposedly scientific test works.
As I have mentioned before in other threads, why would anyone be concerned about the information on this site if the polygraph was, in fact, a scientifically valid test? How valid can a test be if one can learn to defeat it by studying a web site for a few minutes?
If there was a website called "AntiPhysics.org" which claimed that Newton's laws of motion were invalid and could not be used to determine the paths of vehicles involved in a motor vehicle accident I cannot imagine that it would bother me. If the site contained information on how to "think exciting thoughts" or bite your tongue during an accident in order to thwart the efforts of the traffic crash reconstructionist it would make me laugh, but it wouldn't bother me. Since I know physics is a scientifically valid method of reconstructing traffic accidents I really don't care if some people don't believe it works.
If someone can study an online manual for a few minutes and learn how to defeat a supposedly valid test, and by doing so get away with doing unethical or criminal acts, doesn't that speak more to the validity of the test than it does to the propriety of disclosing that information?
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Apr 25, 2006, 02:27 PM
If someone can study an online manual for a few minutes and learn how to defeat a supposedly valid test, and by doing so get away with doing unethical or criminal acts, doesn't that speak more to the validity of the test than it does to the propriety of disclosing that information?
Of course it does. Your post, sergeant, is about as well-reasoned and thorough as they come for providing the raison d'être of this website.
Geroge and Mr Mystery:
With all due respect why would I want to tell you how we detect counter measures. Polygraphers have nothing to prove so I personally don't fell the need to do what Mr. Mystery suggests. I will say that when I do detect counter measures and warn the subject, they stop trying to manipulate the test in about 95% of the time.
Quote from: retcopper on Apr 24, 2006, 02:14 PMTarlain:
I would much ratherr trust my children's welfare to the likes of nonombre, polygraphers and other LE officers than some fool who beileves in Michael Moore. Fahrenhiet 451. Give me a break.
What does Michael Moore have to do with the book Farenheit 451, written by Ray Bradbury? :-/