Do most police departments give out Irrelevant and relevant tests?
Also When I'm answering the control questions do I answer,no, to all the questions? Or when I am employing countermeasures does it matter weather or not I answer yes or no? As I understand the object of police departments polygraph is mainly to see weather or not the applicant is truthful. So by employing countermeasures during control questions to make it appear as if you are lying on the controls. Wouldn't the fact that think think you are lying period get you a disqualification?
Policehopeful,
I apologize for my sharpness at your earlier threads. I know of very few examiners who use Control Question Tests for Application Screening. R&I tests are the standard work-up these days in most cop shops. My advice is to avoid countermeasures. You'll hear otherwise from the fearful and burned ones on this site. They speak loud but their numbers are few.
What would look very well for you in the applicant process would be to see a therapist for a short while beforehand----I know it sounds condescending, but hear me out. The R&I test is a rough haul man. It isn't pretty-----and yes, it is a confessional. A R&I test with no kinky and/or worrisome disclosures when the fat lady sings is a suspicious event indeed. The dog thing would be far more understanding if along with other childhood issues (and we know that kids do things like this who have other sorts of problems i.e. serious depression, abuse)---that you had a record of getting a general therapist to hash out old bagage. A big guy such as yourself who has/had a therapist is quite endearing and shows fearlessness and maturity. Let's not even start with the shit you experienced in the Gulf sand (yah sara). Many applicants are still suffering untreated PTSD and have the stink of the war on them----better reason for some counseling----just to tighten a few bolts as they say. Good luck.
Quote from: policeHopeful on Sep 26, 2007, 03:55 PMDo most police departments give out Irrelevant and relevant tests?
No. The "Control Question Test" (CQT) is the most commonly used technique.
QuoteAlso When I'm answering the control questions do I answer,no, to all the questions?
You should provide the expected answer. While it is often "no," sometimes it's "yes." An example of a control question that should be answered "yes" is, "Are you a truly honest person?"
QuoteOr when I am employing countermeasures does it matter weather or not I answer yes or no?
Again, you should provide the
expected answer to each control question.
QuoteAs I understand the object of police departments polygraph is mainly to see weather or not the applicant is truthful. So by employing countermeasures during control questions to make it appear as if you are lying on the controls. Wouldn't the fact that think think you are lying period get you a disqualification?
No. The key to passing the CQT is to exhibit larger reactions to the control questions than to the relevant questions. Review Chapters 3 & 4 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 26, 2007, 04:17 PMPolicehopeful,
I apologize for my sharpness at your earlier threads. I know of very few examiners who use Control Question Tests for Application Screening. R&I tests are the standard work-up these days in most cop shops.
What a shameless liar you are...
QuoteMy advice is to avoid countermeasures. You'll hear otherwise from the fearful and burned ones on this site. They speak loud but their numbers are few.
Unfortunately, simply answering the relevant questions truthfully is no guarantee that one will pass, as too many of us have learned from personal experience. The use of simple, effective countermeasures is entirely prudent for those facing polygraph screening.
QuoteWhat would look very well for you in the applicant process would be to see a therapist for a short while beforehand----I know it sounds condescending, but hear me out. The R&I test is a rough haul man. It isn't pretty-----and yes, it is a confessional. A R&I test with no kinky and/or worrisome disclosures when the fat lady sings is a suspicious event indeed. The dog thing would be far more understanding if along with other childhood issues (and we know that kids do things like this who have other sorts of problems i.e. serious depression, abuse)---that you had a record of getting a general therapist to hash out old bagage. A big guy such as yourself who has/had a therapist is quite endearing and shows fearlessness and maturity. Let's not even start with the shit you experienced in the Gulf sand (yah sara). Many applicants are still suffering untreated PTSD and have the stink of the war on them----better reason for some counseling----just to tighten a few bolts as they say. Good luck.
The foregoing nonsense is a timely reminder that polygraph operators are not to be trusted.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 26, 2007, 04:19 PMQuote from: policeHopeful on Sep 26, 2007, 03:55 PMDo most police departments give out Irrelevant and relevant tests?
No. The "Control Question Test" (CQT) is the most commonly used technique.
QuoteAlso When I'm answering the control questions do I answer,no, to all the questions?
You should provide the expected answer. While it is often "no," sometimes it's "yes." An example of a control question that should be answered "yes" is, "Are you a truly honest person?"
QuoteOr when I am employing countermeasures does it matter weather or not I answer yes or no?
Again, you should provide the expected answer to each control question.
QuoteAs I understand the object of police departments polygraph is mainly to see weather or not the applicant is truthful. So by employing countermeasures during control questions to make it appear as if you are lying on the controls. Wouldn't the fact that think think you are lying period get you a disqualification?
No. The key to passing the CQT is to exhibit larger reactions to the control questions than to the relevant questions. Review Chapters 3 & 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
As a professional polygraph examiner and not a mere critical theorist, I vehemently disagree with your uncited guess that civilian law enforcement examiners use CQ tests more than R&I tests for applicant screening. It is plain wrong George, and I believe that you are sending this man to a dead end and miserable disappointment.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 26, 2007, 04:29 PMAs a professional polygraph examiner and not a mere critical theorist, I vehemently disagree with your uncited guess that civilian law enforcement examiners use CQ tests more than R&I tests for applicant screening. It is plain wrong George, and I believe that you are sending this man to a dead end and miserable disappointment.
No, I'm not guessing on this. That the CQT is the more common technique is based on feedback from countless sources over a period of years. Nonetheless, the R&I technique is not uncommon, and examinees should be prepared for the possibility of either technique.
So George on the question "Are you truely an honest person?" would I use a countermeasure? Or just the relaxed natural breathing method?
If I do face a IR And R test so I use the countermeasures on the Irrelevant questions?
Quote from: policeHopeful on Sep 26, 2007, 04:37 PMSo George on the question "Are you truely an honest person?" would I use a countermeasure? Or just the relaxed natural breathing method?
That's a control question, and you'd want to show a reaction to it.
I think that I have pretty much got this down. I just need to study more on how to better identify control and relevant questions. I am going to go with the anal spincther(not spelled correctl) for the cardio part. I will wear extra padding in my bottom to ensure that the sensor pad does not pick it up.
Quote from: policeHopeful on Sep 26, 2007, 04:38 PMIf I do face a IR And R test so I use the countermeasures on the Irrelevant questions?
Absolutely not! With the Relevant/Irrelevant technique, you'd probably be best off sticking to the behavioral countermeasures described in Chapter 4 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (and having a pre-planned innocuous explanations for any reactions to relevant questions you may be accused of showing).
Well George, first I resent being called "a shameless liar". I am many things,---including temperamental, vulgar (sometimes), and even arrogant. But I am no liar.
Examiners around the country began dusting off the ole R&I 3 and 4 years ago after getting so tired of over-scrutinizing charts for countermeasures. I don't expect you to know this as YOU ARE NOT A POLYGRAPH EXAMINER. If you were a polygraph examiner, you would be underpaid, underfire, and under-appreciated.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 26, 2007, 04:46 PMWell George, first I resent being called "a shameless liar". I am many things,---including temperamental, vulgar (sometimes), and even arrogant. But I am no liar.
You are indeed a liar. To be a polygraph operator requires that you be one. Your lies may stem from motives that you believe to be pure, but they are lies nonetheless.
QuoteExaminers around the country began dusting off the ole R&I 3 and 4 years ago after getting so tired of over-scrutinizing charts for countermeasures. I don't expect you to know this as YOU ARE NOT A POLYGRAPH EXAMINER. If you were a polygraph examiner, you would be underpaid, underfire, and under-appreciated.
I'm quite happy
not to be a polygraph examiner. But that doesn't mean I'm unaware of developments in the polygraph community.
Geroge, this is one reason why I stated in an earlier thread that this site does more damage than good. Police Hopeful is so screwed up right now - I have no doubt he will blow the polygraph. Then you will have one more recruit to sling mud!
As for polygraph examiners being liars. I will admit I have lied in polygraph exams. Actually, I do it everytime I sit in a room with a sex offender and act like these deviant fu*ks are normal.
Other than that, I don't lie! and my money is on Paradiddle that he also does not lie.
BTW, did 2block really call me a whore? And, if so, how come you didn't ban him from this site. That would be kind of two faced don't you think George? >:(
Wonder Woman,
Polygraphy depends in fundamental ways on the examiner lying to and otherwise deceiving the person being "tested." Dr. Richardson has enumerated some of the examiner deceptions involved in CQT polygraphy an earlier message thread (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=255.msg1214#msg1214):
QuoteDeceptions 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...
Another astute polygraph expert and critic, the late Dr. David Lykken, notes in
A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., pp. 191-93):
QuoteOne important point about the various lie detection methods that we have only touched on in passing deserves explicit emphasis in this summing up. All of these techniques fundamentally depend on deception -- not just in one way and not just in little ways. The theory and assumptions of polygraphic interrogation require the examiner to successfully deceive each subject that he tests in several basic ways. First, he must persuade the subject that being untruthful or even unsure about his answers to the control questions may cause him to fail the test, although in fact the opposite of this is true. Second, when he administers the "stim" test in order to impress the subject with the accuracy of the technique, the examiner has two choices, both of them deceptive. He can use the original Reid "pick-a-card" method in which the deck is either stacked or marked so that the examiner can be sure to guess the right card. Alternatively, he can use the Raskin "pick-a-number" method in which he deceitfully explains that he is "determining what your polygraphic response looks like when you lie." The truth is, that individuals do not show characteristic physiological response patterns when they lie that they do not also show when telling the truth. Third, throughout his interactions with this subject, the examiner must convey an impression of virtual infallibility. The stim-test is just a component of this basic deception. The purpose is benign enough; if guilty subjects are convinced the polgyraph will reveal their guilt, then they are more likely to respond strongly to the relevant questions. If innocent subjects are similarly convinced, then they will tend not to respond so strongly. Moreover, because most examiners truly believe in their near-infallibility, because as we have seen they are the victims of their own deceptive art, they may convey this needed impression not only effectively but also without conscious guile. Nonetheless, the polygraph test, as we have seen, has an accuracy closer to chance than to infallibility; the innocent being tested by the police faces worse odds than in a game of Russian roulette. The fact that most polygraph examiners are not aware of these facts (indeed, they may be the last to know) is not an adequate excuse. Fourth, when the subject is interrogated after a polygraph test, he may be the victim of repeated deceptions. "This unbiased, scientific instrument is saying that you're not telling the truth about this, John!" "Why don't you tell me whatever it is that you feel guilty about, Mary, then maybe you will do better on the next test." "With this polygraph chart, George, no one is going to believe you now. The best thing you can do is to confess and make the best deal you can."
I will confess here that I do not personally object to certain harmless deceptions of criminal suspects that might lead to verifiable confessions and a quick and easy solution to a criminal investigation. But a procedure that claims to be a genuine test for truth that cannot hope to succeed even by its own theory and assumptions unless the subject is successfully deceived in certain standard ways is an invitation to abuse, abuse by examiners and especially by sophisticated criminals and spies. I submit that it is madness for courts or federal police and security agencies to rely on polygraph results for this reason alone. As we have seen, of course, there are many other reasons for this same diagnosis.
To answer your question, yes Twoblock addressed you in terms he later regretted and asked be deleted.
George, did you give Paleryder a chance to regret his posting and let him delete it. NO. You banned him from the site. >:(
Wonder_woman,
Although I certainly can't speak to whether or not George actually banned Paleryder from this site... I feel relatively certain that if Paleryder really had a desire to continue posting and debating polygraph testing and countermeasures, all he would have had to do is create a new user ID. That is of course, unless George blocked his IP address.
I would suspect that many members of this forum have re-established their persona under a new board identity.
triple x
Trip, check the posts on 9/21/07 @1628 In plain english.....reply 14.
Regardless, I do realize that Palerider can re-invent him or her/self. I thought Paleriders comments were thought provoking and sometimes damn right hillarious. Palerider seamed like a brilliant intellectual with a quick wit. Now Palerider is not to be confused with Pailryder (sorry dude, don't know anything about you - you may be okay too)
Bottom line is this is Georges sand box we are playing in. He can try to push us around but he can't steal our lunch money.
I just don't like the selective bannishment.
palerider? brilliant intellectual? Now that's an oxymoron if I ever heard one. My impression of palerider was something like this:
"Oohh, look at me, I have 3 hours to get to the truth with evil psychos that want to drink your kid's piss. What if there was a child molester in your community? George protects child molesters! I have to sleep for an interview with a child molester tomorrow. You're all welcome you ungrateful morons!"
Aggressive, self-praising, fear mongering, dismissive, & arrogant was more like it.
For the record, palerider stole his jokes from B movies; quick wit wasn't his strongsuit.
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Sep 26, 2007, 05:03 PMGeroge, this is one reason why I stated in an earlier thread that this site does more damage than good. Police Hopeful is so screwed up right now - I have no doubt he will blow the polygraph. Then you will have one more recruit to sling mud!
Maybe I view things differently, but am I the only who sees the inherent problem here?
If the polygraph was a valid detector of deception, then if the subject tells the truth then he or she should pass. The sole requirement for passing should be: Tell the Truth.
It shouldn't matter if they researched something on the Internet, or if they bite their tongue, or if they do long division in their head, or anything else.
I think the arguments about countermeasure useage and the "damage" done by the information provided on this site simply point to the inherent problems in the polygraph. If it was a valid test to begin with the examiner would be able to determine if the subject was being truthful or deceptive, regardless of what the subject thought, or how they breathed, or whether or not they clenched certain muscles.
It seems more damage is being done by polygraph examiners who are unwilling to admit they have no idea if subjects are being truthful or not.
Every time I see an examiner decry George or another poster for providing information that "helps child molesters" or some other hate-filled straw man attack, it makes me wonder how valid can the polygraph possibly be if a child molester or anyone else can visit a web site for ten minutes and learn enough to confound the exam?
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Sep 26, 2007, 06:56 PMGeorge, did you give Paleryder a chance to regret his posting and let him delete it. NO. You banned him from the site. >:(
Actually, palerider chose to disregard multiple admonishments (made through private messages) to respect AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy and keep it civil. The proximate cause of his being banned was his posting of disinformation in the message thread In plain english how are countermeasures.... (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3687.msg25667#msg25667).
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Sep 27, 2007, 02:11 AMQuote from: Wonder_Woman on Sep 26, 2007, 06:56 PMGeorge, did you give Paleryder a chance to regret his posting and let him delete it. NO. You banned him from the site. >:(
Actually, palerider chose to disregard multiple admonishments (made through private messages) to respect AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy and keep it civil. The proximate cause of his being banned was his posting of disinformation in the message thread In plain english how are countermeasures.... (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3687.msg25667#msg25667).
I wonder how many people on the message board at PolygraphPlace.com have been banned simply for posting anti-polygraph sentiments?
I think it is amusing that a polygraph supporter like "Wonder Woman" would imply that George was somehow unfair or arbitrary in his banning of Palerider. I would challenge her to provide a link to any pro-polygraph message board or forum that allows free discussion, from both sides of the fence, to any degree, much less with the completeness that George allows in this forum.
Free discussion and exchange of ideas, especially ideas opposed to one another, is a good thing. That would beg the question of why such discussion and exchanges are not permitted on pro-polygraph message boards, and why supporters of the polygraph visit this board with no other intent but to post flame-bait and try to discredit the founders and members?
I've got a series of questions that are asked during the polygraph, a sample test if you will, so could someone help me to figure out which ones are irrelevant,relevant and control.
Is John Joe your true legal name?
How many times have been married?
If offered this job would you take it?
Have you ever before been required to take a polygraph?
Have you placed any false information on your application?
When you left high school did you recieve your diploma?
Have you ever been fired from a job?
Were you ever requested to resign from one of your jobs?
Have you ever recieved a verbal or written reprimand?
Within the past year how many unauthorized das of work have you missed?
Have you ever registered for the selective services?
Do you think that you are rehireable for work for all of your past employers?
Would you have any concern about an investigation into your arrest record?
Have you ever been present when anyone else has commited a crime?
Have you ever knowingly transported someone who was carrying illegal drugs?
Since you were 18 years old have you ever thought about commiting some type of sexual crime?
Have you ever collected unemployment benefits or welfare inwhich you were not legally entitled to?
Have you ever commited any type of sexual crime?
Have you ever had any sexual contact with animals?
Other than an employer have you ever stolen anything?
have you ever commited a serious undetected crime?
have you ever committed a sexual crime?
Within the past 5 years have you done anything inwhich you could have been arrested for?
Have you ever smoked marijuana in your life?
Within the past 3 years have you ever been present when someone was using illegal drugs?
If employed with this department would you arrest a friend who was committing a crime?
Could you manage your financial affairs with the salary of this job alone?
Have you ever been late in paying rent?
Would you have any reason to be concerned involving an investigation into your honesty?
Do you gamble?
Since being a licensed driver have you ever drove without insurance required by law?(I'm really concerned about this one)
Have you ever driven under the influence of any type of drug or alcohol?
Have you ever hit or injured any person?
Are you afraid of firearms?
have you ever fired a firearm?
Have you ever done anything that you were ashamed of?
Have you answered each of these questions honestly?
Have you ever hit someone you were living with?
If someone could either put an IR,R or C by each of the questions that would be much appreciated favor. Not only would it help me out but it would help out other people on here, by getting them prepared to take their polygraph.
policeHopeful,
Refer to the note at p. 140 of the 4th edition of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:QuoteNote: If you receive a lengthy background questionnaire from an agency with which you are applying for employment, do not attempt to characterize each question on the list as a potential polygraph question. Questions asked during the "in-test" phase (that is, while you're attached to the polygraph instrument) often differ greatly from those provided on background questionnaires, and you will be better off studying question types here.
Yeah but the source I got these from who was a former polygrapher says that these re typical questions asked on the polygraph.
Actually this would be much less stressful for me if I knew what type of test it is I will be taking. I talked to a cop who works for the department for which I am applying and he said that the test is only about 30 minutes long! Is that typical for a control and relevant test? Or is that more typical of the irrelevant & relevant test?
The questions in your list are not typical of those asked during the in-test phase of a polygraph examination, though they might well be included in a pre-polygraph questionnaire.
30 minutes for a polyraph examination is very short, regardless of the technique used. The polygraph community has a derisive term for polygraphers who administer such abbreviated examinations: "chart rollers."
is that better for me then?
It's hard to say. The polygrapher's subjective opinion of you may become more important in such circumstances. See the section on behavioral countermeasures in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector for pointers on how to avoid "appearing" deceptive.
How can I tell the difference between control and relevant?
Quote from: policeHopeful on Sep 27, 2007, 03:38 PMHow can I tell the difference between control and relevant?
The difference is explained in Chapter 3 of
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and additional tips for recognizing control questions are provided in Chapter 4.
Policehopeful.....due to your obsession with your upcoming test---which albeit is a stressful event.....your absolute fixation makes me think you are not so "hopeful."
Paraddidle: I was just about to say the same thing.
George and the gang: do you still think you should be helping a man that can't even read your manual and process the info?
Eos, I believe it was you that told me yesterday you only help people to beat a pre-employment exam. Did you realize that most of the sex offenders I polygraph are professionals? Do you ever watch Datelines 'to catch a predator?" A Rabbi...a military man...a school teacher. You may think you are only helping pre-employments but of those you have 'personally taught' a great precentage have addiction to porn, deviant sexual behaviors (such as bestiality) etc. Look at all the preists that have been outed for sexually abusing children. I believe Paraddidle said in a previous post, you may be able to beat an old examiner that is not trained (and that is trully unfortunate). However, the majority of us are trained and watch for the likings of you and your cronies. Just think about it the next time you TRY to help someone - do you know everything they have in their closet?
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Sep 27, 2007, 04:53 PMEos, I believe it was you that told me yesterday you only help people to beat a pre-employment exam. Did you realize that most of the sex offenders I polygraph are professionals? Do you ever watch Datelines 'to catch a predator?" A Rabbi...a military man...a school teacher. You may think you are only helping pre-employments but of those you have 'personally taught' a great precentage have addiction to porn, deviant sexual behaviors (such as bestiality) etc. Look at all the preists that have been outed for sexually abusing children. I believe Paraddidle said in a previous post, you may be able to beat an old examiner that is not trained (and that is trully unfortunate). However, the majority of us are trained and watch for the likings of you and your cronies. Just think about it the next time you TRY to help someone - do you know everything they have in their closet?
I'm not sure I understand.
You seem to be saying that you are trained to catch people who attempt countermeasures. That seems to imply that you can catch people who attempt countermeasures, but I could be mistaken.
You also seem to be chiding Eos for helping people learn countermeasures.
If the countermeasures are either noneffective and/or easily detected, what is the concern?
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Sep 27, 2007, 04:53 PM
" you may be able to beat an old examiner that is not trained (and that is trully unfortunate)
Interesting. Are you saying that "old" examiners were not trained, or are you saying that their
training received was imperfect ? Either way, what is your cut-off for "old" ?
Do you mean that any polygrapher that falls outside of your cutoff should stop testing ?
If I think in terms of "old", then by your own definition you have probably condemned the entire APA
board to the rubbish heap.
Tip: engage your mind before your tongue.
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Sep 27, 2007, 04:53 PM
You may think you are only helping pre-employments but of those you have 'personally taught' a great precentage have addiction to porn, deviant sexual behaviors (such as bestiality) etc.
And just how do know what 'great percentage' of professionals are addicted to porn, deviant sexual behaviours and bestiality ??
Where did you get your info from?? Does your p/g have a 'Clairvoyant' mode ?
Personally, I think that 98,36% of your statistics are made up on the spur of the moment,
together with your p/g calls.
Allow me.
I will lastly state here what CM's can do.
1. There are still Examiners out there that haven't viewed several samples of different sorts of countermeasure charts, so to that end, I am threatened by the lack of familiarity on the part of other examiners---with countermeasure identification and the ways in which to handle them. Call it a priesthood, whatever-----don't call me late for dinner.
2. Behavioral countermeasures are certainly a threat---as they can damage the flow of information. Call it an interrogation deterrant------whatever. It is an elaborate version of creating a fake ID----a gutter crime in some instances, a high crime in other instances.
3. Countermeasures, like the tests that they invite (any test has countermeasures) change, necessitating countercountermeasures----and then new 2.0 countermeasures. This process is unending. It is interesting that so many antipolygraph people are not in the profession of human testing--of any kind---be it student aptitude testing, drug testing, or polygraph testing. There is an entire field of epistemology dedicated to human testing theories---which extends into many fields both social/phsych and the hard sciences. Plainly said, the "testing science/art" is a worrisome activity, and that will never change, as humans are not silicone based lifeforms (no shit, right.)
Now, please all, stop the platitudes and the rhetoric that you all understand recisely what threats cm's actually pose. Here is the absolute codified phylosophy on countermeasures.
COUNTERMEASURES MIGHT IN IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCES BE SUCCESSFUL, ALTHOUGH THIS NOTION IS NOT BACKED UP WITH RESEARCH, AND SO POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS SHOULD EXCERCISE CAUTION, NOT TERROR---AND STAY ABREAST OF LATEST TESTING METHODS AND COUNTERMEASURE RESEARCH. HOWEVER, WITH SEX OFFENDERS IN TREATMENT, WHERE THE INFORMATION AND DISCLOSURE PROCESS IS VITAL TO THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY, BEHAVIORAL COUNTERMEASURES PRESENT WITH A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY. LIKEWISE, BEHAVIORAL COUNTERMEASURES ENGAGED IN BY APPLICANTS ATTEMPTING EMPLOYMENT WITH SENSETIVE CLEARANCES PRESENT WITH A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO NATIONAL SECURITY, AS MANY APPLICANTS ARE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO IDENTIFY/DISCLOSE THEIR OWN RISK MANAGMENT CONCERNS.
I notice you didn't cite a source for your "codified phylosophy" on countermeasures. Your cite might have greater credibility if you did.
Since you appear to like the term "clear and present danger," the following quote from the National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer) could easily be interpreted as describing a "clear and present danger" to national security objects. The quote was from page 219 of the following report: The Polygraph and Lie Detection (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309084369/html).
QuoteOverconfidence in the polygraph--a belief in its accuracy not justified by the evidence--presents a danger to national security objectives.
Regarding your "codified phylosophy" of countermeasures, can you elaborate on what "ideal circumstances" might be?
If you are using a test to monitor the behavior of sex offenders, and under "ideal circumstances" that test can be successfully rendered pointless by someone using countermeasures, isn't the continued use of that test the actual "clear and present danger" to the community?
As already mentioned, George did not invent the information on this site. All of it was freely available to anyone who chose to look for it.
You can't un-ring the bell and make knowledge of the polygraph go away. And no reasonable person should be looking to blame someone for that knowledge being available. If you are relying on a test that requires a subject's ignorance in order to have any chance of success I submit you are using a flawed test to begin with.
The reliance of governmental agencies on the pseudoscience of the polygraph, which as you have already admitted can be defeated by countermeasures, is the truly negligent act here.
Information on countermeaures has been available probably since the first polygraph was used. The only difference is now it is more widely available than before.
Prior to this widespread dissemination of countermeasure techniques, I would imagine that examiners
hoped their subjects did know know anything about the testing procedure and how to obviate it. They couldn't tell for sure then any more than they can now, but they could reassure themselves that such knowledge was relatively rare. Now, they cannot.
So, please, if you are able... Explain the threat that the use of countermeasures presents. And, if you are able, explain why the fact that information on countermeasures exists is more to blame than the simple fact that you are relying on a test that can be successfully obviated (by your own admission) by someone with Internet access.
SARGE, EVERY TEST HAS BEHAVIORAL COUNTERMEASURES. THE TOURE DE FRANCE HAS BEHAVIORAL COUNTERMEASURES, SHOULD THEY ELIMINATE THAT RACE?
If mere knowledge of the construct of the test itself were to the detriment of accuracy, than why are many polygraph examiners required to take the test? If anything but a thoughtful response comes from your fingertips, than I will be gravely disappointed with the "one with the good heart."
p.s. Provided that you really did recieve 3 (?) false positives, I would very much like to meet that examiner and see those unfortunate charts. My mother is blind from a doctor who made a simple mistake---twice. I still go to doctors, but I am highly curious as to their credentials upon meeting them.
Here is an idea; www.anti-dumbassDoctors.com
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 28, 2007, 11:30 AMIf mere knowledge of the construct of the test itself were to the detriment of accuracy, than why are many polygraph examiners required to take the test? If anything but a thoughtful response comes from your fingertips, than I will be gravely disappointed with the "one with the good heart."
I don't recall ever posting that mere knowledge of the construct of the test itself is detrimental to its accuracy, so I am uncertain as to why you chose to pose that question to me. However, I did not look through my past several hundred posts, so I may very well have written it.
However, as I sure you are already aware, any theoretical or actual requirement that "many" polygraph examiners take the test is completely irrelevant. What would be relevant are the results of those tests compared to the actual truth or deception on the part of the subjects, and whether the subjects' knowledge of the construct of the tests did or did not affect their accuracy. The number of examiners who do or do not take the test means nothing in and of itself. I am sure you can see that.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 28, 2007, 11:30 AMp.s. Provided that you really did recieve 3 (?) false positives, I would very much like to meet that examiner and see those unfortunate charts.
And now you question my veracity? That is hardly polite. None of the posts I have directed toward you have contained anything resembling ad hominem attacks or remarks.
Police applicants are hardly in the position or possessing of the mindset to question the qualifications of someone whose endorsement they must receive in order to be hired. And if you read my preceding posts, you will note that I failed three polygraphs with three different examiners. Your post indicates you believe I failed three times with the same examiner.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Sep 28, 2007, 12:00 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Sep 28, 2007, 11:30 AMIf mere knowledge of the construct of the test itself were to the detriment of accuracy, than why are many polygraph examiners required to take the test? If anything but a thoughtful response comes from your fingertips, than I will be gravely disappointed with the "one with the good heart."
I don't recall ever posting that mere knowledge of the construct of the test itself is detrimental to its accuracy, so I am uncertain as to why you chose to pose that question to me. However, I did not look through my past several hundred posts, so I may very well have written it.
However, as I sure you are already aware, any theoretical or actual requirement that "many" polygraph examiners take the test is completely irrelevant. What would be relevant are the results of those tests compared to the actual truth or deception on the part of the subjects, and whether the subjects' knowledge of the construct of the tests did or did not affect their accuracy. The number of examiners who do or do not take the test means nothing in and of itself. I am sure you can see that.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 28, 2007, 11:30 AMp.s. Provided that you really did recieve 3 (?) false positives, I would very much like to meet that examiner and see those unfortunate charts.
And now you question my veracity? That is hardly polite. None of the posts I have directed toward you have contained anything resembling ad hominem attacks or remarks.
Police applicants are hardly in the position or possessing of the mindset to question the qualifications of someone whose endorsement they must receive in order to be hired. And if you read my preceding posts, you will note that I failed three polygraphs with three different examiners. Your post indicates you believe I failed three times with the same examiner.
Points taken. We can agree to disagree regarding the polygraph and examiner's ability to detect deception, despite your tenacious adherence to your anecdotal experience with applicant testing.
When I made referance to your 3 "alleged" false positives, I meant no disrespect------and knee jerk reaction to using the "alleged" word is a consequence of not knowing you personally. In absolute truth, you could be a 22 year old female imposter while I could be a 75 year old nursing home hobbyist. I was actually in my precise way conceding that I am angry on behalf of polygraph Examiners, provided that your story is true. See there I go again with the disclaimer/qualifier. I am very sorry for your experiences.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 28, 2007, 12:21 PMPoints taken. We can agree to disagree regarding the polygraph and examiner's ability to detect deception, despite your tenacious adherence to your anecdotal experience with applicant testing.
I believe my tenacious adherence to my belief that the polygraph is worse than worthless in pre-employment screening is based on exactly the same thing that your adherence to its worth is based – our own experience.
Clearly in your experience the polygraph has high accuracy rates, a low or nonexistent false positive rate, and is therefore worthwhile as a detector of deception.
In my experience I have been subjected to four polygraph exams by three different examiners (I had the same examiner on my third and fourth exams) in three different agencies/companies. I answered the same sets of questions with the same truthful responses in all four tests.
On my first three tests the examiners looked me right in the eye and told me it was clear I was lying (each time the deception was apparently regarding a different subject.) On my fourth test the examiner must have concluded I was truthful because they said I passed.
I do not see how any reasonable individual could go through that experience and not conclude that the polygraph is worthless in pre-employment screening.
I gave the same sets of truthful answers to the same sets of questions four times in a row. Three times the examiner concluded I was being deceptive, one time the examiner concluded I was not. How could anyone have that happen to them and not become concerned that the same machine is used to screen applicants for jobs that impact national security? That the same machine and process are used to monitor the activities of sex offenders? How could I help but wonder how many other outstanding police applicants were summarily struck from hiring lists because of nothing more than a "failed" polygraph?
In my opinion, I have an advantage over you and all the other polygraph examiners. You take educated guesses, based on your training and experience, as to the accuracy of the polygraph. If the test indicates deception and your training and experience lead you to believe the subject is in fact deceptive, your belief in the accuracy of the polygraph is confirmed. But the fact is, and I hope you would be willing to admit this, lacking evidence or a confession you never really know if the subject was deceptive.
Therein lies my advantage, though that advantage is a Pyrrhic victory at best. Each time I failed, I didn't have to guess if I had been deceptive or not; I knew I had been telling the truth. I
know the polygraph is not accurate in pre-employment screening; polygraph examiners
believe it is.
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Sep 27, 2007, 04:53 PMEos, I believe it was you that told me yesterday you only help people to beat a pre-employment exam. Did you realize that most of the sex offenders I polygraph are professionals? Do you ever watch Datelines 'to catch a predator?" A Rabbi...a military man...a school teacher. You may think you are only helping pre-employments but of those you have 'personally taught' a great precentage have addiction to porn, deviant sexual behaviors (such as bestiality) etc. Look at all the preists that have been outed for sexually abusing children. I believe Paraddidle said in a previous post, you may be able to beat an old examiner that is not trained (and that is trully unfortunate). However, the majority of us are trained and watch for the likings of you and your cronies. Just think about it the next time you TRY to help someone - do you know everything they have in their closet?
WW,
Those in need have the most to lose, taking advantage of the fear by using a polygraph is just wrong, when (I believe) most of them are decent and honest. (this is obvious speculation on my part). But I believe in the goodness of humans, not the dark mindless primitive of them. Granted I cannot read minds, nor would I ever try. Well let me correct that, I do have some theories on cognition and heuristic interfacing. But that aside, I didn't start this fight. But I intend to end this debate about deception detection once and for all. The polygraph will be nothing more than a bi-line and antidote on technological foolishness of the 20-21st Century. Again best science and laws wins. And the term Cultural / Behavioral Countermeasures is at best a primitive term. The paradigm term or definition should be "Cognitive Transfiguration", the best part is, its not a detectable thing as each of us has it as part of our :id: I can see all the minions at DACA (DODPI), scrambling now. The human mind is a wonderful tool when properly prepared. And I am doing no more than what you do in your pretest to condition the examinees for polygraph, with the exception I am telling them the truth. I will continue .....
Regards ....
EOS wrote;QuoteThose in need have the most to lose, taking advantage of the fear by using a polygraph is just wrong, when (I believe) most of them are decent and honest. (this is obvious speculation on my part). But I believe in the goodness of humans, not the dark mindless primitive of them. Granted I cannot read minds, nor would I ever try. Well let me correct that, I do have some theories on cognition and heuristic interfacing.
We are the world, we are the children...we are the ones to make a ....Jesus H Christ Eos, are you a pastor? I don't share your puritanical views on mankind, as I have spent too much time working with sexually violent predators, my specialty. I only wish you could read minds, as it might give you more insight into the "dirty dozen" of criminal thinking errors. Perhaps a large number of your "clients"
are such innocent victims to be tested with the diabolical FOF Box, but based on your faithful portrait of your fellow man, I doubt that you are steely-eyed enough to recognize a con-artist when you see one up close and needy.
"The honor system works when others are watching"---unknown poet
also:
"Virtue is insufficient temptation"
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 28, 2007, 04:52 PMI don't share your puritanical views on mankind, as I have spent too much time working with sexually violent predators, my specialty. I only wish you could read minds, as it might give you more insight into the "dirty dozen" of criminal thinking errors. Perhaps a large number of your "clients" are such innocent victims to be tested with the diabolical FOF Box, but based on your faithful portrait of your fellow man, I doubt that you are steely-eyed enough to recognize a con-artist when you see one up close and needy.
Paradiddle,
Again your profession is to work with these lower life forms, (truth be told, I admire anyone who can be LE), and from this saturation, this is what you expect of all people. Its the old 1/2 full or 1/2 empty cliche' , I prefer the 1/2 full. Obviously you prefer the 1/2 Empty. When you always look for the worst in someone, you will undoubtly find it. And I chose to believe in them. A christian pastor would be a great vocation, but alas, I don't have the patience. But never assume that BS is easily passed by me. I help those I believe in, others I don't. My choice ...
Regards .....
wonder_woman, first of all I know exactly how polygraphs work and I fully understand everything on the book. And secondly I am NOT a FUCKING sex offender. That is a word that is labeled on people all to liberally today. The real sex offenders are the rapists, people who get their rocks off of looking at child pornography, and child molestors. Those are the real sick and twisted people. I have moved past the events of my youth. I will not concern myself with those past event for the rest of my life. I am a good person. I have never been intoxicated(if you have it does not make you a bad person), I have never tried illegal drugs, I have never shoplifted, I have never downloaded illegal music, I have never recieved a traffic violation, and I served my country.
And after much deliberation I have decided to take the honest way out. I will not use countermeasures to manipulate a reaction on the polygraph. I will tell the truth, or at least 99% truth.
And for any polygrapher or polygraph expert I would love to ask a couple of questions via messages. Please only people who are willing to not judge me and people who will answer my question honestly. Thanks so much.
Quotefirst off all I know exactly how polygraphs work and I fully understand everything on the book.
Well then. You should have absolutely no trouble beating, er, uh, passing the test.
By the way where did you gain your expertise in polygraph? From "the book?"
QuoteAnd secondly I am NOT a FUCKING sex offender.
Easy killer (WW touched a nerve or somp'in). There just might be some sex offenders reading this site, and you wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings now would you. Sex offenders are people too. They simply have some "issues," or something. Maybe they just don't talk about there true feelings enough. So, you go right ahead and vent. We're all listening. Right everyone? (right??)
George is providing an equal opportunity service here, because sex offenders deserve to beat/pass polygraphs too.
And if you do get hired, don't go pissing in the pool and making a bad impression for public servants - like ya'll have some kind of calloused attitude towards the troubled folks.
I actually agree with a lot of the people on here that polygraph test do serve a purpose in weeding out those who are unfit to become police officers. That is a big reason why I have decided to scrap using countermeasures and to just tell the truth.
"By the way where did you gain your expertise in polygraph? From "the book?"" actually "the book" helped but I learned most of it from Doug Williams' manual.
Oh, Dougie's book.
That'll make you an expert for sure.
Quote from: policeHopeful on Sep 29, 2007, 04:05 PMAnd after much deliberation I have decided to take the honest way out. I will not use countermeasures to manipulate a reaction on the polygraph. I will tell the truth, or at least 99% truth.
And for any polygrapher or polygraph expert I would love to ask a couple of questions via messages. Please only people who are willing to not judge me and people who will answer my question honestly. Thanks so much.
Keep in mind that during a PLCQT there are 3 relevant questions. Agencies are more concered with other areas of criminal activity. As such I doubt such a question would appear during the intest phase of the examination. However, it's pretty likely it will appear in the pretest interview.
Don't let Ludovico get to you. He's obviously arrogant and despite what his in person claims might be, not trying to help you in anyway. He's the type of person that causes false-positives. That is discernable for his complete lack of ability to converse cordially and constructively. To be blunt: he's a dick.
Quote from: Ludovico on Sep 29, 2007, 04:13 PMGeorge is providing an equal opportunity service here, because sex offenders deserve to beat/pass polygraphs too.
If sex offenders, or anyone else for that matter, are able to beat/pass a polygraph simply because they have access to the Internet, how valid a test can the polygraph possibly be?
Information on polygraph procedures and countermeasures predates the existance of this site. If you believe that the information on this site enables sex offendes to beat/pass polygraph exams, it logically follows that sex offenders have always been able to beat/pass polygraph exams. Before this site existed they simply obtained their information somewhere else.
It would seem that, if you believe countermeasure information enables people to beat/pass the polygraph, then polygraph examiners cannot possibly have any accurate figures for how many people have used countermeasures on them in the past in order to beat/pass their polygraph. By definition, successful countermeasure use would remain undetected.
The only difference this site has made in this regard is now polygraph examiners worry that
more people will be able to successfully use countermeasures. Since they have no idea of how many people were able to do it before, the thought of
more people doing it now has them understandably upset.
QuoteDon't let Ludovico get to you. He's obviously arrogant and despite what his in person claims might be, not trying to help you in anyway. He's the type of person that causes false-positives. That is discernable for his complete lack of ability to converse cordially and constructively. To be blunt: he's a dick.
Abuse. And you don't even know me.
Lets be clear. Nobody visits this website for any positive purpose.
Even George, just wants to help people defeat the polygraph, embarrass the folks he's ticked off at, and get away with no good. Even if you fail, due to the increased likelihood of FP's from all the blasted wriggling around and singin' numbers in yer head.
Don't think, anyone, that George care about your experience. He's read the NRC report, and what the committee said about the efficacy of countermeasures.
You're just Georgie-fodder - you beat the poly and the bad guys win. You FP-up your poly, and he wins too 'cause yer then ticked like him.
Later,
and do try not to worry about your polygraphs...
Quote from: Ludovico on Sep 29, 2007, 07:29 PMLets be clear. Nobody visits this website for any positive purpose.
I guess you guys really do believe you can detect thoughts...
What is my negative purpose for coming to this web site? I am not aware of any, so if you would be so kind as to let me know, I'd appreciate it.
I passed my pre-employment polygraph more than ten years ago and haven't taken one since. I doubt very much I would ever have to take another polygraph for the rest of my life.
I have absolutely nothing to gain if the use of the polygraph is curtailed. And I have nothing to lose, either.
I am here because I believe the polygraph is inaccurate in pre-employment screening and is damaging because of that. It stands to reason that if it is inaccurate in that arena it is inaccurate in others as well...
I said it earlier. Honesty makes you calm---not a cheesy performance of INTERNET COUNTERMEASURES. I won't even buy a CD on the internet without feeling like I am going to get screwed, much less take career advice from people who flunk polygraphs but get bright ideas after the fact.
Tell the truth, even about the damn dog---it will have a calming effect that no "knowlege or trickery" will ever remedy.
Pass the fucking test, come back here, tell George and all that your Examiner was a decent human being and that you felt initially nervous, but eventually liberated. Tell the examiner that the dog thing was such a point of humiliation that you flirted with the idea of using countermeasures, but decided not to. Been there, done that. I am always impressed with examinees who tell me up front of knowlege and temptation. It is strikingly candid, and if told by a compelling individual, is quite endearing. I S U not.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Sep 29, 2007, 07:54 PMI said it earlier. Honesty makes you calm---not a cheesy performance of INTERNET COUNTERMEASURES.
I was calm and answered all the questions honestly in all four of my polygraphs. Yet I failed the first three.
Maybe I would have passed one of my first three if I'd used countermeasures. I could not have done any worse than I wound up doing...
I have yet to hear a compelling argument against using countermeasures. I still believe it is important to tell the truth, but if an applicant answers all questions honestly and uses countermeasures to protect against a false positive, is he or she doing anything unethical? I don't think so.
Simply telling the truth is, at best, a shot in the dark with regard to passing your polygraph. If I answer all the questions honestly and then do long division in my head, or bite my tongue, or do whatever after each answer, are my odds of passing going to go up, go down, or stay the same?
QuoteWhat is my negative purpose for coming to this web site? I am not aware of any, so if you would be so kind as to let me know, I'd appreciate it.
Do you really think you are supporting good police work and community safety, by ancouraging a bunch of sex offenders to try and defeat their monitoring exams, or by helping a bunch of undesirables to try to get hired? Do you really think its working?
Is this the best form of community activism that you can think of?
Quote from: Ludovico on Sep 29, 2007, 08:41 PMQuoteWhat is my negative purpose for coming to this web site? I am not aware of any, so if you would be so kind as to let me know, I'd appreciate it.
Do you really think you are supporting good police work and community safety, by ancouraging a bunch of sex offenders to try and defeat their monitoring exams, or by helping a bunch of undesirables to try to get hired? Do you really think its working?
Is this the best form of community activism that you can think of?
I'll ask this again, since no one seems to have a valid answer for it...
If you are using a test to monitor the behavior of sex offenders and to prevent "undesirables" from getting hired, and that test can be beaten, defeated, or confounded by someone with access to the Internet, how valid can that test possibly be?
I had three different polygraph examiners tell me they knew I was lying when I knew I was telling the truth. How can any reasonable person go through that experience and not be open to the possibility that sex offenders can rape a child on Monday and pass their polygraph exam on Tuesday? Or that a police applicant with a history of carjacking, sexual assault, and ecstasy use can lie about all of that on their pre-employment polygraph and pass anyway?
In my personal experience the polygraph is not accurate. I don't think it should be used for anything of importance. As an interrogation intimidator it is certainly useful, but only if the subject believes it is capable of detecting deception.
If you are an examiner and you believe the test can be beaten by someone after surfing the web for a weekend, how exactly are you supporting community safety? Shouldn't you stop conducting pointless tests and bring it to someone's attention that the polygraph is not a valid form of monitoring sex offenders and screening applicants because it can be defeated by anyone with a computer and a modem?
Sarge, I think your experience with polygraph reflects the opinion many in LEAs have formed after exposure to a preemployment screening poly. I agree with you that no employment related decesion, whether in the public or private workplace should ever rest soley on the opinion of a polyex. That is why EPPA, a law designed to end private poly testing actually worked to improve the private end of our profession. But lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
If you take recruits to the range, and provide a good lecture on safety, sight alignment, and trigger control, can most of those trainees be expected to hit a single target? Could most hit seven seperate targets in the same string? Or would that be seven times harder? And would they always know which shots were misses and which were hits?
The single issue specific exam is essentially different from the multiple issue screening exam. The undeniable fact that many LEAs use poly screening simply as an interrogration prop, is regretable but, does not, in and of itself, invalidate other uses of the techniques.
Thank you for your service to community.
QuoteIf you are using a test to monitor the behavior of sex offenders and to prevent "undesirables" from getting hired, and that test can be beaten, defeated, or confounded by someone with access to the Internet, how valid can that test possibly be?
You wear a bullet-proof vest Serge? Why bother; they are easily defeated, by more powerful weapons, and by not aiming for the vest.
If you are really going to have an intellectual conversation, it would help to have a less black-and-white understanding of the concept of validity. It would also help to refrain from drawing global conclusions from personal or annecdotal experience. That just ain't science, boss.
By your logic, one could argue that the use of bullet proof vests is invalid, as a measure of police safety and protection - else why would cops still get killed by gunfire in the line of duty. (I apologize for this example. I do not mean to trivialize people who are harmed while doing good work - I simply couldn't find a more powerful metaphor at the moment.)
Sarge 1107
My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test. I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart. After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know. If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson? Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:
A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again. Alexander Pope (1711)
Quote from: pailryder on Oct 04, 2007, 07:42 AMSarge 1107
My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test. I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart. After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know. If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson? Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:
A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again. Alexander Pope (1711)
I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.
In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth. If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them. I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will. I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth. It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.
I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.
I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening. All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.
I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing. But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.
If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen. And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies. Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 04, 2007, 09:40 AMQuote from: pailryder on Oct 04, 2007, 07:42 AMSarge 1107
My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test. I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart. After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know. If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson? Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:
A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again. Alexander Pope (1711)
I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.
In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth. If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them. I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will. I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth. It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.
I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.
I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening. All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.
I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing. But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.
If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen. And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies. Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.
Sergeant1107,
I agree. All of my tests were pre-employment as well. Each one with different outcomes.
Quote from: rice80 on Oct 04, 2007, 08:53 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 04, 2007, 09:40 AMQuote from: pailryder on Oct 04, 2007, 07:42 AMSarge 1107
My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test. I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart. After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know. If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson? Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:
A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again. Alexander Pope (1711)
I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.
In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth. If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them. I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will. I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth. It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.
I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.
I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening. All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.
I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing. But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.
If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen. And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies. Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.
Sergeant1107,
I agree. All of my tests were pre-employment as well. Each one with different outcomes.
Classic antipolygraph thread. An examiner attempts some thoughtful discourse---a little food for thought. Than an anti guy writes that he agrees in part, but continues to wash his hands of the fact that this site advocates cheating on tests that it feels are unwarranted and invalid. Then the poster goes on to ask some repeated and previously addressed questions---several questions mind you. Then rice80 comes along and says "I agree." Agree with what....Serge's questions? How do you agree with questions rice? My theory is that you weren't really paying attention and that you were merely clapping your hands out of deferrance----only I must inquire Why? Why would a person post such a rediculous thread----you have already told your oddly suspicious war story (study statement analysis---and yes, it works on the internet boards too Serge.) Have you been instructed to do so in an effort to bury pro-polygraph discourse? Pardon my inquirey, but you Rice80, seem quite disengenuious.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 04, 2007, 10:45 PMQuote from: rice80 on Oct 04, 2007, 08:53 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 04, 2007, 09:40 AMQuote from: pailryder on Oct 04, 2007, 07:42 AMSarge 1107
My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test. I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart. After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know. If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson? Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:
A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again. Alexander Pope (1711)
I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.
In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth. If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them. I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will. I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth. It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.
I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.
I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening. All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.
I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing. But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.
If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen. And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies. Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.
Sergeant1107,
I agree. All of my tests were pre-employment as well. Each one with different outcomes.
Classic antipolygraph thread. An examiner attempts some thoughtful discourse---a little food for thought. Than an anti guy writes that he agrees in part, but continues to wash his hands of the fact that this site advocates cheating on tests that it feels are unwarranted and invalid. Then the poster goes on to ask some repeated and previously addressed questions---several questions mind you. Then rice80 comes along and says "I agree." Agree with what....Serge's questions? How do you agree with questions rice? My theory is that you weren't really paying attention and that you were merely clapping your hands out of deferrance----only I must inquire Why? Why would a person post such a rediculous thread----you have already told your oddly suspicious war story (study statement analysis---and yes, it works on the internet boards too Serge.) Have you been instructed to do so in an effort to bury pro-polygraph discourse? Pardon my inquirey, but you Rice80, seem quite disengenuious.
Well it seems you, Paradiddle, aren't that smart either. My comment was for Sarge. At no time did it say "Hey Paradiddle, please feel free to interject with your non-sense comments and self suspect theories!"
I wonder why a person like you who "swears" by the polygraph would be on a "anti" polygraph site trying to defend its vaildity. Maybe it's because you feel the need to sway the newcomers into thinking that it really and truely does detects lies. Well guess what? I'm one up on ya, I know better ;) You don't know me or my educational background. All you see is "Oh shit another one who is against the polygraph. I better attack him cuz our numbers are few and I need to make a statement!" Well, you need not make a statement to me or even try for that matter. I know what this "so-called" machine is all about and it really doesn't detect shit. It only monitors and records the body's vital signs. I have seen first hand how "valid" it is. It's good for interrogations and making the guilty criminal think he has been caught in a lie. That's it. As for anything else, its just a bunch of squigly lines on chart paper.
O I amost forgot, Paradiddle since your so smarter then everyone, show me in Sarge's above comment where there is a question?? :-? All I see is statements. Now who is "disengenuious"? :-/
rice80
I don't know about your educational background either but it sure as hell does not include any education in polygraph! First of all, the polygraph is not a machine and it does not "monitor vital signs".
Based on your last post, I think your knowledge about polygraph rates right up there with Brittany Spear's parenting skills! Have another shot and go back to bed! Why are you here tonight? Was the NAMBL web site down?
MM
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 05, 2007, 12:29 AMrice80
I don't know about your educational background either but it sure as hell does not include any education in polygraph! First of all, the polygraph is not a machine and it does not "monitor vital signs".
Based on your last post, I think your knowledge about polygraph rates right up there with Brittany Spear's parenting skills! Have another shot and go back to bed! Why are you here tonight? Was the NAMBL web site down?
MM
MM,
Doesn't monitor vital signs you say? So what are ,blood pressure, breathing rate, and sweat activity? You might want to educate yourself before you answer becuase I was a medic before becoming a cop. You also say its not a machine? then what would you call it? Please enlighten me? O wait I know A 'crude reaction recorder". You sir should go back to bed and also seems your polygraph knowledge isn't very good either!
Polygraph is an instrument---an instrument measures and a "machine" moves/works things. You wouldn"t (or maybe you would) call a thermometer a temperature machine. Go back to school rice80.
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 05, 2007, 12:29 AM
First of all, the polygraph does not "monitor vital signs".
MM
For someone who is blind and apparently quite stupid, you type rather well.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 05, 2007, 07:58 AMPolygraph is an instrument---an instrument measures and a "machine" moves/works things. You wouldn"t (or maybe you would) call a thermometer a temperature machine. Go back to school rice80.
ok instument/machine whatever.