If you've been a frequent visitor to this forum, no doubt you've read some of my posts. I often talk about how George et. al talk a big game, but that they have no actual experience using the machine they hate so much. Theory is theory, and there is theory on both sides. However, there is no substitute for experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af1OxkFOK18
Edited to fix link to media file. -- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 17, 2007, 06:30 PMI often talk about how George et. al talk a big game, but that they have no actual experience using the machine they hate so much.
I do not consider the polygraph issue to be a "game," and the arguments against polygraphy set forth in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) are supported by abundant references to the scientific literature that skeptical readers may check for themselves.
Just as one needn't be an experienced phrenologist to recognize that phrenology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology) is pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience), one needn't be an experienced polygrapher to recognize that so, too, is polygraphy. As I noted in a recent message thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3424.msg23875#msg23875), polygraphy has the hallmarks of pseudoscience stamped all over it.
Note that the great majority of polygraphers who so vehemently reject (http://www.polygraph.org/voicestress.htm) the competing pseudoscience of voice stress analysis have "no actual experience using the machine they hate so much."
But I do not hate polygraph machines. Rather, that which I abhor is the entirely unnecessary and avoidable injustice toward the innocent that predictably results from misplaced reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy.
Quote...Theory is theory, and there is theory on both sides....
The polygraph field offers no theory that explains known facts about human physiology associated with deception. The National Academy of Sciences Report,
The Polygraph and Lie Detection (http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html), notes at p. 102:
Quote- The bulk of polygraph research can accurately be characterized as atheoretical. The field includes little or no research on a variety of variables and mechanisms that link deception or other phenomena to the physiological responses measured in polygraph tests.
- Research on the polygraph has not progressed over time in the manner of a typical scientific field. Polygraph research has failed to build and refine its theoretical base, has proceeded in relative isolation from related fields of basic science, and has not made use of many conceptual, theoretical, and technological advances in basic science that are relevant to the physiological detection of deception. As a consequence, the field has not accumulated knowledge over time or strengthened its scientific underpinnings in any significant manner.
You titled your post "Sharing My Polygraph Experience." But instead of doing so, you posted a link to a snarky Old Spice commercial by a B-list actor. (Note that for security reasons, JavaScript is not allowed in posts; YouTube links may be posted without JavaScript.) Why not take this opportunity to tell the story of your actual experience with the polygraph, and how you came to be a polygraph examiner?
George,
I've been sharing my polygraph experience throughout this forum, and I know you've been reading all of my posts. Right now, without me, your forum is dull as dirt, with the same old tired rhetoric. I created this new post simply as a way of poking some more fun at you and others like you who claim to know what they are talking about when all they've ever really done is fail polygraphs and read lab studies.
I have previously stated that I do think that your claim to have been unjustly treated in the polygraph process is true. But just because it happened to you does NOT mean that it is as common as you continually claim or imply.
You belittle my experience. I belittle your inexperience. I don't belittle you as a person--or at least not seriously--because I don't know you.
Oh, and he may be a B-list actor, but in this commercial he reminds me of some polygraphers I know. :D
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 18, 2007, 10:27 AMGeorge,
I've been sharing my polygraph experience throughout this forum, and I know you've been reading all of my posts.
Indeed I have. But in a post titled "Sharing My Polygraph Experience," it would seem appropriate for you to bring together the scattered details as a coherent narrative for the benefit of those who have not read all of your posts.
QuoteRight now, without me, your forum is dull as dirt, with the same old tired rhetoric. I created this new post simply as a way of poking some more fun at you and others like you who claim to know what they are talking about when all they've ever really done is fail polygraphs and read lab studies.
In addition to poking fun, might you be so kind as to point out anything I've said regarding polygraphy that you believe to be erroneous, and support your view with an argument grounded in facts and reason rather than a mere appeal to the authority of your professed experience? I care deeply about the truth, and should I be mistaken in my beliefs regarding polygraphy, I shall be glad to be shown my error.
QuoteI have previously stated that I do think that your claim to have been unjustly treated in the polygraph process is true. But just because it happened to you does NOT mean that it is as common as you continually claim or imply.
Agreed, but I have not argued that it does. Indeed, I have not ventured so far as to estimate the false positive rate associated with any particular agency's polygraph program, or with polygraphy in general. Polygraph failure rates, to the extent that they have been made public for certain agencies, provide merely an upper limit. But given what is known about polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings, with failure rates as high as 50% in some pre-employment polygraph screening programs (e.g., FBI and LAPD), it is clear that the false positive rate with such agencies is not insignificant.
QuoteYou belittle my experience. I belittle your inexperience. I don't belittle you as a person--or at least not seriously--because I don't know you.
When you make a claim that is unsupported by the scientific literature (for example, that you can detect polygraph countermeasures), but fail to support such claim with anything more than the assertion that you know it to be true from your personal experience, I fail to find that sort of argument particularly convincing, as would, I daresay, most critically thinking persons.
LieBabyCryBaby, you should be ashamed of yourself. You continue to defend a machine that deep down inside you know is JUNK! It does nothing but brand innocent people as liars. I am living proof that the piece of crap has NO validity. You can be darn sure that I am on a mission to have them completely exsposed and God willing BANNED! I am only one person, but I will not give up! I have already started hanging flyers everywhere I go. They state the truth about the polygraph and they give this web address for anyone to look at. Maybe just maybe it will start a public outcry against their use. What amazes me is that the only people that support the polygraph are ones with a vested interest. People such as yourself, manufactures of the machine, LAZY no good snake detectives that would rather use one than do actual police work to get to the truth. I have read sooooo many psychology and science journals and spoken to college psychology professors. They ALL say the same thing. The polygraph is a psuedoscience, a joke, JUNK SCIENCE, completely without validity and the list of descriptions go on and on. These people have NO reason to lie. They only report what they observe. People such as yourself have plenty of reason to deceive the public. YOU MAKE MONEY from this JUNK SCIENCE! That is PATHETIC!
Hey hey, you know I am going to stand up for crybaby here, I may not like the overall process but he did tell directly how it is, the machine itself is all science, the art and skill come in the polygrapher. I agree these things should not have as much weight as they do but I can understand to some small extent why there used.
Fender, try explaining that to the hundreds of people every year that are inaccurately branded as liars and either refused employment or worse yet thrown in jail! If it happened to you, maybe you would have a little more understanding. Anything that can be manipulated and abused such as the polygraph should be banned! The proponent side of the poly argument is yet to show any FEASABLE EVIDENCE that this machine is even remotely accurate or of any validity. There are thousands of research reports that show that it is NOT! Those are the FACTS! I dont care about anyones opinions, I am FACT driven! The FACT is that it brands very good and truthful people as liars. How do I know that is a FACT? Because it did it to me! I cant get any better proof for myself than that!
Oh, one more thing Fender. You are correct on one thing. The polygraph is all science... JUNK SCIENCE!
Well the polygraph machine does exactly what it was designed to do, it works on that fact, it's nothing more then a b/p, heart rate, breathing, and sweat monitor. It works great but it would be the same as me using a spoon to cut a steak, wrong piece of silverware for the job. A spoon works great for soup, not for cutting steak ;o)
Good analogy Fender! You are right, the poly does a good job at reading those bodily functions. So, I would say the only thing it is really good for is to assure that someone is alive!
Yea, so I guess when I goto the hospital I am hooked up to a polygraph too?
Ya Fender, it would sure be a great and precise way of determining that you are indeed alive or dead!
Here here......
In defense to this post I would like to share my story.
At best is clearly shows what a farce the use of lie det tests are....... simply put they destroy peoples lives and are a non conclusive piece of junk that should be tossed in the trash.
Single mother of 2 girls. Never married father (bad violent abusive history that I sadly ended up getting sucked into). When the state took it upon its self to go after father for child support he then turned vindictive and demanded his visitation rights. I had no choice in the matter and had to comply. With in 6 months of visits my oldest child (then 6) began to show signs of sexual abuse. Then made disclosures that her father during visits had been abusing her. Visits ceased and this is where the real fight began. Aside from the sexual assault eval done on my daughter which showed abnormal tissues to areas disclosed abuse.....
My daughter began disclosing that father had been taking pictures of her naked and even showed the therapist how she was told to pose.
At this disclosure the police dept retained a warrant to search his home finding what the detectives called "Grooming seductive pictures along with actual naked photos found that were highly questionable"
I was advised that there was no doubt that the father had involved my daughter in child porn and all evidence was pretty clear cut.
Two weeks later I learn that the father has taken a lie detector test and told that ALL the questions he was asked were specifically picked by his attorney. I was even told what he was asked.. 2 times they asked him "did you touch your child's bottom for anything other than hygienic reasons" He said "NO" and he passed the test.
Because of this test the detectives decided to completely ignore all of the evidence plus the porn found in his home (Child porn taken of my daughter) and the prosecutors office suddenly declined to prosecute stating not enough evidence. I was told by the detective at the time that Lie detector tests were 100% conclusive.
Father was ordered to take a sex deviancy eval which to my understanding is also based on a series of lie detector tests and there are ways deviants can pass those as well... especially if the appropriate stimuli are not used like in a case of incest. They are also not admissible (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,)
Link: http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/Scientific_Evidence_Brief.html
Immediately after that test was completed it was sealed. Thus no one was able to see the results.
Despite many attempts to have it unsealed the judge continued to refuse its unsealing.
To make matters worse the judge sitting on the case behind all of this was under investigations for sexual misconduct (talk about conflict of interest) and kept quashing every piece of evidence that came up in the abuse of my daughter. The judge and family support prosecutor refused to see anything else except that lie detector test as evidence kept forcing issues of visitation and a custody swap.....Yet with all of the evidence stacking up my daughter began to disclose yet another abuser (a family member of the father's) who we later learned had previous history of sexually abusing children. It is important to note here that my daughter was disclosing what sounded like ritual abuse naming both father and one of his family members along with other people whose names she did not know but could some what describe.
To make a long story short... despite all the evidence I was labeled a brainwasher and alienator ( oh yea.. another piece of garbage junk science designed by the late pedophile Psych Richard Gardener) thus custody was given to the father and I was barred from any contact with my daughter's period.
Now years later as my oldest is 19 and my youngest 16... my oldest has never once said that she was not abused nor will she say .. it didn't happen. She has had to file restraining orders on her father for assaulting her. Fact is the subject is so traumatic for her still that she refuses to talk about any of it period. But for 6 years she made consistent disclosures to therapists and psychologists appointed by the court. Interesting to note here that each time she disclosed abuse to a newly appointed counselor the judge would remove that counselor and appoint her a new one who tried to talk her out of believing it ever happened.
Her little sister is still living with the father absolutely miserable and wants to live with me. Father won't even allow her to speak to me. Both girls display typical behaviors of being battered and abused.
I have been seeking an attorney to try and turn things around to get my youngest daughter home and this new attorney says..... "you really should take a lie detector test to back up your claims"
What like all the previous evidence wasn't enough??
How can I even condone taking a test like that myself when I have argued all these years that the test the father took should never of been admitted as evidence.
It seems to me that would be contradictory in my beliefs that those tests are in fact a bunch of bogus crap.
Here's another thought......
I have been through so much pain and anguish over the loss of my children and the fraudulent, abuse not only by my ex but by the very system who was supposed to protect us... and am still being harassed in various means by my ex.....that I suspect by everything I have read about those tests and how they work that if I took one and they asked me things about my kids, or the abuse I would be so overly emotional about it that I would probably fail hands down.
There is no way I could be calm and not be an emotional wreck if they were to ask me if I brainwashed my child to say the abuse took place.... after the way the courts have treated me for trying to protect myself and my children.
Sorry to go into so much detail but to make my point I felt it necessary..
In my opinion those tests are a lazy mans way of dealing with justice with out actually having to do the work to find the truth ie: fact finding, evidence and the hard work it takes to do THEIR DAM JOB AS INVESTIGATORS in the 1st place.
Anyone who takes the results of a lie det. test (or even suggests that one be taken) over clear evidence is an absolute idiot and should be ashamed to say they have a license to practice law or sit on any bench or take the oath to uphold and protect the citizens of this country.
Hey Jeg! I am very sorry to hear about your case with you daughters. It is very sad when this abuse truly occures and there is huge amounts of evidence that proves that it did. You cant get any better proof than finding pornographic images of the child. However, it is equally horrible when just the opposite happens. I have been on the other side of this type of scenario. My ex wife made up false allegations about me because I was an inconvieniance to her and she was trying to hide her own secret life. She and the "counselors" that my children went to told my kids that I was sick and told them that they needed to say these things about me so they could help me get better because if I got better they could see me more. My kids were so desperate to see me so they said things. NONE of it was true by any means! For the last year I have been basicly alienated from my children all based on a lie. However, I have huge amounts of evidence that clearly shows that my ex has lied on numerous occasions. From what you write, I fully believe you are telling the truth and have no suspicion that you have in anyway brainwashed your children. But, let me tell you that it does happen. It is not a falacy. It has happened to me! I too took the lie detector and failed. Isnt it amazing that a man that they found actual pictures of naked children in his home passes the thing and then a man like me that is COMPLETLY innocent can fail it! Makes no sense to me either! If you are telling the truth, which I believe you are, and you are easily brought to high emotions when discussing the subject, DO NOT TAKE THE POLYGRAPH! It will NOT be accurate. If your lawyer is telling you to do it, GET A NEW LAWYER!!! He is NUTS! I hope the best for you and your children, I truly do! God Bless!
LieBabyCryBaby
How dare you insult someone as famous as Dr. George Matchwzimskkieswitz. Don't you know he has appeared on such notworthy British comedies as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqjMhNGyDyQ
I check this board now and then and probably miss a lot of stuff, but such is life. But since I stopped by, I have one question to Liebabycrybaby and gr8dad. Exactly how many persons have been incarcerated due SOULY on the results of a polygraph in say, the last 20 years. Gr8dad, provide just one example. Liebabycrybaby, if he can't then please explain why not. I don't want to hear about ruined lives, I just want one undisputed fact. Simple question, name the name.
Floyd Fay. There is your answer. The point is, there is a huge amount of weight put on these things throughout an investigation. I pray that you are never wrongfully accused and subjected to a polygraph that says you are lying. But if you are, then maybe you would understand. You dont want to hear about ruined lives?!?!? How rediculous is that?!?!?!? Some people will just never get it!!! So, tell me what corrupt law enforcement agency do you work for uiop? The point is this instrument is continually used and the public at large is continually deceived and lied to by the very people that are suppose to protect them. In my opinion, these people are nothing more than a bunch of save the world vigalanties
Floyd Fay was wrongfully convicted and later exonerated. His conviction was by a jury of his peers and evidence in addition to the polygraph was presented. If you reread my post, I said convicted SOULY because of the polygraph. I would relate to all on this board that eye witnesses and jury trials have resulted in many more wrongful convictions and ruined lives than polygraphs. Please try again and this time, instead of concentrating on trying to damage my professional reputation by suggesting I work for a corrupt agency (and therefor would also be corrupted) actually put some time and effort into answering the question.
Quote from: uiop on Mar 07, 2007, 09:18 PMFloyd Fay was wrongfully convicted and later exonerated. His conviction was by a jury of his peers and evidence in addition to the polygraph was presented. If you reread my post, I said convicted SOULY because of the polygraph. I would relate to all on this board that eye witnesses and jury trials have resulted in many more wrongful convictions and ruined lives than polygraphs. Please try again and this time, instead of concentrating on trying to damage my professional reputation by suggesting I work for a corrupt agency (and therefor would also be corrupted) actually put some time and effort into answering the question.
uiop,
Need somemore polygraph failures, I have been waiting for just such an occasion. I do not state that you are corrupt, just the machine and process you represent as a polygrapher. Personal attacks are not my style.
For your consumption:
Sonia Jacobs & Jesse Tafero Florida 1978 Polygraph evidence contradicts real evidence, except
district attorney disregards and uses the polygraph
evidence. Gets capital murder conviction, Sonia is
later exonerated, Jesse is executed, with serious
issues still pending on the validity of the data. Jesse
was later proven / believed to also be innocent.
Gary Gauger Illinois 1993 Told he failed polygraph, after lengthy interrogation
forced to give false confession. Exonerated by real
evidence.
Charles Goldstein California 1980 Inconclusive polygraph, lengthy interrogation, forced
to give false confession after being told that an
inconclusive was as good as a failure. Exonerated on
real evidence.
Clarence Chance, Benny Powell California 1975 Jailhouse informant was key witness in this
proceeding, Informant told he passed, but really
failed the polygraph on his information,
but witness information still presented to
the court. Convictions were obtained.
The polygraph failure was later shown to
be suppressed by the state. Impeaching
all testimony by this witness. Both exonerated.
Peter Reilly Conneticut 1988 Told he failed polygraph, 8 hrs of interrogation, forced
confession. Later exonerated on real evidence.
You wanted proof.... And there are many more examples if you need it. Enjoy the crow !!
Regards .....
I was denied employment at the first three law enforcement agencies to which I applied solely because I did not pass the prerequisite polygraph exam.
The lack of due process in each incident is particularly frustrating. If it had been in a courtroom I would have at least had the opportunity to defend myself, not to mention the burden of proof that would have been upon the polygraph examiner to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I had done the things he was saying I did.
There was no such opportunity for me in those polygraph exams. The examiner took a wild guess and was wrong, and as a direct result I was dropped from the application process.
I'm sorry, perhaps you didn't read my post. The remark regarding polygraph sending innocents to jail was made by gr8dad. I asked for him to provide one name where polygraph results were the soul evidence used to convict someone. Thanks for the list of cases where a trial jury considered polygraph as evidence but not souly the results of such. So much for the crow. I guess the point is this: There is not a single case where the results of a polygraph have been the SOUL bit of "Evidence" (note the quotes, perhaps I'm skeptical of both polygraph as evidence and those who deride it on this board to hide their actual guilt).
I'm a skeptic. Skeptical of UFO's, ghosts, psychics, polygraphs, polititians and persons on this site. But I'm downright terrified of jury trials, where innocents (like those mentioned) are convicted and the guilty, like O.J are set free.
uiop,
You will never see a sole (not soul) prosecution based on just polygraph results. And you know this already, it just makes for a good excuse, (A RED HERRING, I do believe). A prosecutors job is to get a conviction at all cost, and if it involves questionable actions and information derived from a polygraph, its just that much more ammo. The only saving grace is that 98 % of the US courts (local & federal) refuse to use polygraph information in court. Hence the need for folks to be polygraph literate and knowlegeable about their rights, and protect themselves from a polygraphers vile charms.
Regards ...
Eos, a sincere thanks for the correction of soul vs sole. An additional thanks for quickly figuring out my point as to polygraph "Evidence" not being the single item used by attorneys trying to convict. However, it was not a "red herring". My question was specifically directed towards gr8dad who stipulated persons had been sentenced to jail based on polygraph results, the inference being that nothing else but a polygraph examiner and his words were used as "Evidence".
Now that that has been cleared up, I'm back to other things. I wish you and all other well meaning critics of polygraph good fortune.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Jan 17, 2007, 06:30 PMIf you've been a frequent visitor to this forum, no doubt you've read some of my posts. I often talk about how George et. al talk a big game, but that they have no actual experience using the machine they hate so much. Theory is theory, and there is theory on both sides. However, there is no substitute for experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af1OxkFOK18
Edited to fix link to media file. -- AntiPolygraph.org Administrator
Holy Mother of Jelly,
Who is that man and why is he so irritating. All that 'have..need..more...less.."BS.
soory LBCB - I got halfway through and had to stop. If ever the circus was short
of a human cannonball - I know where they should look.
What a crock of HS.
If you had a point to prove, you let yourself down using the narrow eyed squirrel man.
Quote from: uiop on Mar 07, 2007, 09:18 PMFloyd Fay was wrongfully convicted and later exonerated. His conviction was by a jury of his peers and evidence in addition to the polygraph was presented. If you reread my post, I said convicted SOULY because of the polygraph. I would relate to all on this board that eye witnesses and jury trials have resulted in many more wrongful convictions and ruined lives than polygraphs. Please try again and this time, instead of concentrating on trying to damage my professional reputation by suggesting I work for a corrupt agency (and therefor would also be corrupted) actually put some time and effort into answering the question.
Obviously, a spelling test was not one of the hiring criteria in your case.
Newsflash: Since when was a polygraph examiner accorded the staus of 'Professional'
-- and I mean in the real world sense. Your neighbours in the rusty trailer dont count.
1904,
The actor you find so irritating is a gentleman by the name of "Bruce Campbell", he is king of B movie horror films "Evil Dead" and some recent TV shows, "Xena, Warrior Princess". He is actually quite funny and the movies do provide a mild diversion from the mundane. But using him as a point maker well I agree that is a stretch. I do find your posts most entertaining, as I am sure that our resident polygraphers find you irritating. Keep up the good work. I am sure that your posts are causing massive purchases of antacids in the polygraph community. Buying stock in P & G and other product manufacturers I think would be a good move.
Best Regards ...
Hi EoJ,
It's a tough job (irritating p/g examiners), but somebody's gotta do it.
I miss Palerider, he seems to have taken a sabbatical.
Or maybe attending a reunion at the College of Lingua Franca, where he
majored in 'Cliche's & Impressive Words' but diddent doo to welle in
'Spellyng and Grammah'
:)
.... I guess the point is this: There is not a single case where the results of a polygraph have been the SOUL bit of "Evidence" ...[/quote]
No one pointed out that not even in theory can polygraph be the sole evidence in a conviction. After all, there has to be something in evidence that provoked the polygraph test in the first place. That evidence may be circumstantial or it may be testimony from a liar, but it is evidence nonetheless.
A polygraph exam can, however, be the principal evidence (as in the tragic cases cited above)
Quote from: ecchasta on Jun 17, 2007, 09:17 AM
Huh? I dont think that can happen in the 1st World.
I do think that some people post hard luck p/g stories
merely to 'stir the pot a bit'.
Did you know that the GSR ( :) ) component of the p/g can be manipulated by
mental CM's.....?
There was/is a computer game named MIND DRIVE. It comprised different
MIND games like MIND SKI , WORM etc.
works like this: You attach a fingerplate which is plugged into pc and the selected game starts. EG - SKI; A skier proceeds slowly down a hill; you
(the player) have to try and avoid obstacles in your path by using mind power.
The WORM game - on same principle - a fuzzy worm in a maze. After several fun weeks of playing mind drive, most of the family could get the worm through
the maze and avoid all the skiing obstacles.
I'm sure you can still get the game - if you can - play it. It's amazing
what you can do with your mind.
So, if your mind power can conquer MIND DRIVE games, it should be able to
will the GSR trace up and down at selected intervals.
Once you have mastered the technique, challenge the VD Princess to test
you and detect your CM's. (VD = verbal diarrhoea = palerider )
I took my CVSA exam this morning and after 2 weeks of extreme nervousness, I can say that I passed with flying colors, without using ANY countermeasures whatsoever... there were at least 4 or 5 questions that I did not answer truthfully and the machine detected no signs of deception at all. I just went in and did not let myself get nervous before the exam and then just answered the questions as quickly as possible without even thinking about the question. I decided whether or not the investigator was asking a "yes" or "no" question as soon into the question as possible and then I just blocked out the rest of the question and answer quickly in a monotone voice. No breathing techniques used at all. I can't believe how easy that exam was. It's amazing what a joke it really is. I must say that I did not believe all the posts written by others saying how easy it was, but now that I have actually experienced it myself, I can say with confidence that no one should have any trouble passing this exam! :o
Quote from: flbcm850 on Aug 08, 2007, 12:16 PMI took my CVSA exam this morning and after 2 weeks of extreme nervousness, I can say that I passed with flying colors, without using ANY countermeasures whatsoever... No breathing techniques used at all. I can't believe how easy that exam was. It's amazing what a joke it really is. I can say with confidence that no one should have any trouble passing this exam! :o
Excuse the editing.
Breathing CM's wont help you one iota in a CVSA test.
Not one of the Polygraph CM's will help you in fact.
When taking a CVSA test, the examiner may instruct you to wait till he signals you to answer.
If he does, then he's quite sharp and what you should do is wait a second longer before you answer.
If he does not (signal when to answer) then wait approx 2 secs before you answer - that way your
Flight or Fight response would have diminished somewhat.
But, the biggest problem remains that 'situational stress' does not equate to 'deceptive stress'.
Quite possibly you had nothing serious to conceal.
:)
Yes, I don't need to know how to do zodiac readings or palm reading to know that they are bunk. It's the same with the polygraph, all you have to know is how it works to know that it doesn't work. It measures physiological responses and that is not a lie detector. And don't forget, many of us know for sure that it doesn't work because I know I'm telling the truth and if the machine or the operator says I'm not, I know it doesn't work. One polygrapher said to me, "How can you know the polygraph doesn't work?" I said, "Because you dipshit, you/it say I'm lying and I know that I'm not, therefore I know for sure that it doesn't work."
Quote from: 1904 on Dec 08, 2007, 10:33 AM And don't forget, many of us know for sure that it doesn't work because I know I'm telling the truth and if the machine or the operator says I'm not, I know it doesn't work. One polygrapher said to me, "How can you know the polygraph doesn't work?" I said, "Because you dipshit, you/it say I'm lying and I know that I'm not, therefore I know for sure that it doesn't work."
I have written similar sentiments on this board many times. I know the polygraph process is not accurate because I was telling the truth and answering all the same questions the same way on all four of my pre-employment polygraphs. I failed three out of the four.
Some of the polygraph examiners on this board respond to my story by calling me a liar, and then claiming to "prove" mathematically that the polygraph is accurate. Then they tell me my experiences don't mean anything. They have written that I have psychoses that prevent me from being accurately polygraphed, and that I am stupid for expecting a different result on any of my subsequent exams after failing the first one. They are also completely comfortable jumping to the (erroneous) conclusion that because I refer to my polygraph experiences as a "story", I am obviously not telling the truth and am not even a real cop.
It seems they are not familiar with Occam's Razor. If I tell the truth on a test which is purported to detect deception, and the test result is that I am lying, the simplest explanation is that the test is not accurate.
I'm sure that examiners can come up with loads of possible excuses as to why a truthful person could fail a polygraph. If the polygraph was a valid method of detecing deception then truthful people would pass, and deceptive people would fail. That simply doesn't happen with enough regularity.
QuoteI know the polygraph process is not accurate because I was telling the truth and answering all the same questions the same way on all four of my pre-employment polygraphs. I failed three out of the four.
I know polygraph works because I took three and passed them all.
QuoteSome of the polygraph examiners on this board respond to my story by calling me a liar, and then claiming to "prove" mathematically that the polygraph is accurate. Then they tell me my experiences don't mean anything.
Stop playing the victim, and start paying attention. Do you have a college education? Did you ever study statistics or research methodology? People have only pointed out what you should already know. You've got to separate fact from emotion and be objective. The data is what it is.
Nobody has ever said your experiences don't mean anything. They aren't scientific data, but they have meaning. They motivate you to be here. They motivate you to err. They blind you from reason. They have much meaning. If you are telling the truth, and I don't know one way or the other - none of us (save you) do - then they only attest to the fact that polygraph isn't perfect. Find a test that is.
Is the interview? Is the written test? Is the psych? Pick any employment hurdle along the way and you'll find problems.
QuoteIt seems they are not familiar with Occam's Razor.
Yes, we're familiar, and we've conceded the test isn't always accurate. The question is, does it give us more information in the long run. That's where the math comes in, and the answer is yes, if done correctly.
The problem with poly's are also that if the falsely accused, unless somehow proven innocent by other later evidence are still considered guilty based on the poly results. Therefore counting those results as "accurate", and the accused .....GULITY.
I think that the fact that people with "agendas" get on here to "poke fun at George and others" is a further argument of the failed validity of poly's.
Would you rather have a science that is never questioned even though there are SERIOUS flaws in it?
If the science was good and proven there would no need to "poke fun" or disagree.
I think DNA testing may be a good example of a scientific and court approved test that not many are fighting though I cannot be sure of that.
Quote from: 1904 on Feb 03, 2008, 03:20 PMThe problem with poly's are also that if the falsely accused, unless somehow proven innocent by other later evidence are still considered guilty based on the poly results. Therefore counting those results as "accurate", and the accused .....GULITY.
I think that the fact that people with "agendas" get on here to "poke fun at George and others" is a further argument of the failed validity of poly's.
Would you rather have a science that is never questioned even though there are SERIOUS flaws in it?
If the science was good and proven there would no need to "poke fun" or disagree.
I think DNA testing may be a good example of a scientific and court approved test that not many are fighting though I cannot be sure of that.
Plenty of people are fighting against DNA testing, and there are websites that are advocating a more measured weight given by courts regarding DNA evidence. Like any test, there are serious errors. As more and more of the DNA test errors are coming to light, we will see a backlash against that modality of testing.
http://www.scientific.org/articles/JFS%20excerpt.htm
Plenty of people are fighting against DNA testing, and there are websites that are advocating a more measured weight given by courts regarding DNA evidence. Like any test, there are serious errors. As more and more of the DNA test errors are coming to light, we will see a backlash against that modality of testing.
Yes, but at least DNA testing is "scientific".
Sure there are errors in any test (scientific or pseudo-scientific). But can you honestly put Polygraph testing in the same category as DNA testing, or HIV testing in terms of scientific validity?
Can you imagine coming up with a HIV test which:
1. Can't really tell for sure whether you have HIVs?
2. Routinely labels healthy people as "aids carriers"?
P.S. I changed my moniker, per your request. Happy?