George,
I just finished my log for September and I thought I would share the following names with you;
Jose G, Brian D, Scott V, Bill B, Thomas W, and Chris B.
These are my law enforcement applicants for the month of September who used and admitted that they had used, the information contained in the LBTLD. They were all disqualified. I also disqualified several others however, they denied visiting your academy as well as Doug William's. Without an admission, I won't consider them as "confirmed" countermeasures.
These are real people George, who had real dreams and goals of becoming law enforcement officers. I doubt that any other angency will every give them a second chance.
I know you would like to think you are providing a community service here but this truth is, you are ending a lot of careers for people who just might have made excellent officers. What a shame.
Since cancer screening exams also offer false readings at times, perhaps you should establish a second web-site to ban them as well. Just think what a hit you would be for those people who make a living treating this disease!
Goerge, you are a brilliant man. It is just to bad that you have chosen to send your talents to the "re-cycle bin".
Regards,
MM
What a waste.
You gotta find a better way of grindin' yer axe.
How many truthful people did you deem deceptive and fail?
I believe that number is the truly sad statistic, and is even more so because you have no idea what it is.
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 04, 2007, 11:29 PMGeorge,
I just finished my log for September and I thought I would share the following names with you;
Jose G, Brian D, Scott V, Bill B, Thomas W, and Chris B.
These are my law enforcement applicants for the month of September who used and admitted that they had used, the information contained in the LBTLD. They were all disqualified....
Your recent posting history inspires little confidence in your candor or sincerity. Why should anyone believe your foregoing claim? Your credibility would be increased if you would kindly post audio recordings of the aforesaid admissions.
You have got to be kidding George. You really don't believe him? I get hits like his all the time also. You are clearly deluded about what takes place in the field and you seem to rely and reside with what takes place in your theoretical mind.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 05, 2007, 08:04 AMYou have got to be kidding George. You really don't believe him? I get hits like his all the time also. You are clearly deluded about what takes place in the field and you seem to rely and reside with what takes place in your theoretical mind.
Paradiddle,
I invite you, too, to post audio recordings of your countermeasure confessions for September 2007.
I had two tests this week in which the misguided souls were unable to verify their statements because they were goofing around, as advised in your book. One would have been dismissed (not filed) by the DA, pending a review of the test - he'll have to resolve his case the hard way. The other might not be a pedophile, though he admits he did something egregious - who's going to take his word for it that there isn't a whole lot more? (perhaps there is)
I took the last 3 weeks off---I could post a recording of my last nap?
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 05, 2007, 10:59 AMI took the last 3 weeks off---I could post a recording of my last nap?
Audio recordings of your countermeasure confessions for August 2007 would suffice.
Cute George.
A. All recordings are video and digital.
B. I only run sex offender treatment/supervision exams--which under HIPPA laws, are confidential. You can put your front street doubts on this board, but you and I know countermeasure detection works quite well----you are only interested in countering counter countermeasures. Sound rediculous? So is your time-stalling and face-saving request.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 05, 2007, 11:33 AMCute George.
A. All recordings are video and digital.
The audio track may be separated.
QuoteB. I only run sex offender treatment/supervision exams--which under HIPPA laws, are confidential.
Identifying information may be sanitized.
QuoteYou can put your front street doubts on this board, but you and I know countermeasure detection works quite well----you are only interested in countering counter countermeasures. Sound rediculous? So is your time-stalling and face-saving request.
Claims that "countermeasure detection works quite well" are unsupported by evidence.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 05, 2007, 11:40 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 05, 2007, 11:33 AMCute George.
A. All recordings are video and digital.
The audio track may be separated.
QuoteB. I only run sex offender treatment/supervision exams--which under HIPPA laws, are confidential.
Identifying information may be sanitized.
QuoteYou can put your front street doubts on this board, but you and I know countermeasure detection works quite well----you are only interested in countering counter countermeasures. Sound rediculous? So is your time-stalling and face-saving request.
Claims that "countermeasure detection works quite well" are unsupported by evidence.
Why don't you just speak your unscientific dribble about your countermeasures and how elite and sureptitious they are, rather than attempting to bilke me for film editing money and near federal law breaking (HIPPA) over your empty point. The fact is, this topic and thread does not warrant your posts, as the title states ""Sad Stats"---and it will contain Examiner accounts of countermeasures caught. You can cry "foul" all you want---hell you might even ask for stool samples of the examinees---
but you and I both know that your product is full of weaknesses, and it is your claims that are unsupported by peer-reviewed scientific studies. Your sales pitch is fabulous, but your dogs won't hunt. :P
Paradiddle,
I'd like to see some evidence that your and Mysterymeat's claims of frequent countermeasure detection followed by confession are true. If you are not willing to provide any evidence, so be it. But it doesn't enhance your credibility.
As for the countermeasure information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf), it is documented with ample references that skeptical readers may (and are encouraged to) check for themselves.
Please George, I am asking for peer-reviewed scientific proof, not references and citations. They are not one and the same.
Paradiddle,
I am not obtuse. The citations I mentioned include peer-reviewed research that supports the notion that CQT polygraphy is vulnerable to "point" countermeasures (applied at the point where the "control" questions are asked), that such countermeasures are easily learned, and that even experienced polygraphers cannot detect them. You'll find citations and abstracts of the peer-reviewed studies in questions at pp. 204-207 (in the bibliography) of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf).
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 05, 2007, 11:33 AMYou can put your front street doubts on this board, but you and I know countermeasure detection works quite well----
How do you know it works quite well? Because you sometimes catch people using countermeasures and they admit that's what they were doing?
If you polygraph one hundred people, accuse twenty of using countermeasures and nineteen of those admit to it, that really doesn't tell you how effective countermeasure detection is. For all you know, all one hundred subjects could have been using countermeasures.
How many people have you caught that successfully used countermeasures? I would speculate that the answer, by definition, would have to be zero. Perhaps it would be more accurate to claim that detection of poorly-performed countermeasures works quite well?
So if you could explain how you can claim that countermeasure detection works quite well I would appreciate it.
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Oct 05, 2007, 03:47 AMQuote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 04, 2007, 11:29 PMGeorge,
I just finished my log for September and I thought I would share the following names with you;
Jose G, Brian D, Scott V, Bill B, Thomas W, and Chris B.
These are my law enforcement applicants for the month of September who used and admitted that they had used, the information contained in the LBTLD. They were all disqualified....
Your recent posting history inspires little confidence in your candor or sincerity. Why should anyone believe your foregoing claim? Your credibility would be increased if you would kindly post audio recordings of the aforesaid admissions.
MM,
Once again I find myself having to stress that no opinion/statement of facts other than Mr. Maschke and friends will ever get any traction on this site. For YEARS, all I read on this site was "If you have really caught people using my countermeasures, then give me names, I want NAMES!" >:(
Soooo, an examiner complies and provides names, and now the omnipotent Mr. Maschke demands audio; he wants video, he wants digital audio with video because they can be "separated." He wants the poor schmuck taped, standing in front of an atomic clock with a newspaper in his hands and a signed affidavit witnessed by Dan Rather and the entire 60 minutes news crew before he would even consider admitting that the dummies he and his friends "train" can be (and indeed are regularly) caught by polygraph examiners day after day, after day...
Like you and all the other people trying to infuse a little sanity on this board, I feel the worst for the poor saps that because of this ongoing malicious stupidity on this website, are caught and disqualified with steadily increasing frequency. Fact is that Mr. Maschke and his minions could care less about these people. They are cannon fodder. Much like the fanatical Muslims who don't mind blowing up other Muslims, because they have now "enabled" these other Muslims to become "unknowing martyrs." Yes, they have done these poor saps a "favor." Because to George, his Iranian friends, and the other crazies on this site, the end most certainly justifies the means. It is now clear to me what Mr. Maschke's strategy is. He believes that if he can HELP get enough people disqualified on the polygraph, then agencies will have to eliminate the procedure over the simple frustration of not being able to process enough candidates to fill needed slots...
Interesting method of attack George. Keep leading your lambs to slaughter. This is getting more interesting by the day.. :-[
I think I am going to be sick...
You know Sarge, I often thought you might be a good guy. Now I have serious doubts. Let's just take your statement of poorly performed CM's. Do you really believe that all these people visiting this site can maintain calculated CM's? If you are really honest you will admit they can't. Okay, I know you won't admit it out loud but deep down inside you know the truth. They all try and most are caught. Again, this site is a dis-service to honest people. If the guilty want to attempt CM's - let them. Just like the case I mentioned about two days ago. A Pedophile that is intelligent and a wiz with computers, working at a College...attempted CM's and I caught him. Also, Sarge, I am not going to tell you how I caught him nor am I going to release his name, address, phone# – video, audio etc, for your confirmation. Polygraphs are confidential.
QuoteThese are my law enforcement applicants for the month of September who used and admitted that they had used, the information contained in the LBTLD. They were all disqualified....
We make it very clear in our book that one should
never admit to using countermeasures, as polygraph operators often bluff in attempt to get people to confess to using countermeasures. From your statement, it appears that the persons you allege were caught disregarded this portion of our advice.
Since your statement establishes that at least some of our advice was not adhered to properly, why should we believe that these individuals were bright enough to follow the other information in the book?
Because people are people! When they realized they f'd up by coming to this site they ask for forgiveness. You guys have an answer for everything. Do you think only rocket scientists come to this site?
Gino my friend, for once you and I can agree. These people were not bright. If they were, they never would have attempted the Cms in the first place.
Your work here has been a great asset to the polygraph community. It is kind of like being in the Superbowl and having the other team's playbook two months before the big game.
Thank you,
MM
Quote from: Gino J. Scalabrini on Oct 05, 2007, 09:58 PMQuoteThese are my law enforcement applicants for the month of September who used and admitted that they had used, the information contained in the LBTLD. They were all disqualified....
We make it very clear in our book that one should never admit to using countermeasures, as polygraph operators often bluff in attempt to get people to confess to using countermeasures. From your statement, it appears that the persons you allege were caught disregarded this portion of our advice.
Since your statement establishes that at least some of our advice was not adhered to properly, why should we believe that these individuals were bright enough to follow the other information in the book?
Fabulous. Gino and the Heartbreakers over here have been singing the repeated chorus that even a child could beat the polygraph like it's their rock anthem. Now he engages in ad hom attacks on people who can't accomplish what modern Examiners have been telling you ahem..."people"... for the last 4 years. Classic-----a miracle diet pill and Gino says the fat guy isn't smart enough to swallow it properly. Perhaps a back-up hobby would be wise. Try Global Warming---a real threat and a noble cause, unlike belching out awful advice and activism that would make the civil rights pioneers embarrassed.
Paradiddle,
An excellent point! I would love to see a video posted here of Dr. Richardson's 10 year old son defeating a polygraph exam with the information contained in the LBTLD. Since the good doctor is a polygraph "expert", he could administer the examination.
MM
Splendid point Mystery Meat, although I would advise that a real examiner probably needs to monitor Drew give a test as he might put the pnuemos around the examinee's groin like a thong! He was after all labeled in a sworn declaration the worst examiner Mark Johnson had ever seen in his entire career as a FBI polygraph examiner---so perhaps he would need some help with, you know, the polygraph basics in that he is "too smart to understand" the simple stuff.
Quote from: Mysterymeat on Oct 04, 2007, 11:29 PMJose G, Brian D, Scott V, Bill B, Thomas W, and Chris B.
These are my law enforcement applicants for the month of September who used and admitted that they had used, the information contained in the LBTLD. They were all disqualified. I also disqualified several others however, they denied visiting your academy as well as Doug William's. Without an admission, I won't consider them as "confirmed" countermeasures.
These are real people George, who had real dreams and goals of becoming law enforcement officers. I doubt that any other angency will every give them a second chance.
I'm curious about your last statement there, MM. A person trying to use countermeasures is doing nothing but trying to deceive the examiner; it is the equivalent of lying. But lying in order to improve your chances of getting a job is just fine, according to polygraph doctrine, which assumes that most, or at least many, of the applicant's responses to the control questions are lies.
It seems to me that, if the applicant is otherwise qualified and the interrogation turns up nothing else that would be damning, the person, on whom the department has already spent resources (I'm guessing--I don't know how the vetting process goes), should be educated about how useless countermeasures are and given the choice of taking the test again if he or she agrees not to attempt them.
Why not? Why would it be okay for an ignorant person to lie in order to get a job ("oh no, I never exceed the speed limit!") but not okay for a smart person to do so? I trust that you won't be ignorant in your response. We're all adults here, let's act that way--that goes for everybody.
Common sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 06, 2007, 12:09 AMCommon sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster.
So, lying is okay? But "cheating" in order to pass a flawed test that has serious built in biases against you is okay? I can certainly see the distinction there. Is that the one that you are making?
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 05, 2007, 09:13 PMYou know Sarge, I often thought you might be a good guy. Now I have serious doubts. Let's just take your statement of poorly performed CM's. Do you really believe that all these people visiting this site can maintain calculated CM's? If you are really honest you will admit they can't. Okay, I know you won't admit it out loud but deep down inside you know the truth. They all try and most are caught. Again, this site is a dis-service to honest people. If the guilty want to attempt CM's - let them. Just like the case I mentioned about two days ago. A Pedophile that is intelligent and a wiz with computers, working at a College...attempted CM's and I caught him. Also, Sarge, I am not going to tell you how I caught him nor am I going to release his name, address, phone# – video, audio etc, for your confirmation. Polygraphs are confidential.
You really lost me with this one, Wonder Woman.
Paradiddle made a claim that countermeasure detection works quite well, and I asked what I think is an objectively reasonable question as to how he came to that conclusion. And that gave you serious doubts that I'm a "good guy?" Okay...
I have no idea if "all the people" visiting this site can maintain "calculated CM's". I also don't know how many people use CM's at all, or how many people use CM's but have never visited this site. I don't know how you could possibly know any of the above, either.
You claim "they all try". That doesn't seem reasonable. Everyone who visits this site attempts CM's? And most are caught? How do you know that?
Your conclusion seems to based on your claim that you sometimes catch people who admit to using CM's, and who also admit to having visited this web site, right?
How many people have used CM's but were not caught? Neither you nor I have any idea. How many of the people who successfully used CM's learned how at AntiPolygraph.org? Again, neither you nor I have any idea. So how can any polygraph reasonably make the claim countermeasure detection works well? You simply don't have the data necessary to make any such claim. There could be a significant percentage of subjects who pass because they successfully use CM's, or there could be one or two a year - there's no way to know. All you can refer to is the number of people who admit to using CM's, and that number by itself is useless unless you can compare it to the number of subjects who used CM's and were not caught and did not admit to their use.
Also, if you care to look at my previous posts, I never asked you how you "caught" anyone, and I didn't ask you to release anyone's name. Therefore I am uncertain as to why you directed those comments at me.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 06, 2007, 12:09 AMCommon sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster.
If I am taking a polygraph exam and I answer all the questions truthfully, and I don't withhold any information at all, aren't I doing everything an ethical person should do?
If I recite poetry in my head after each answer, or I do long division in my head after each answer, or if I think of a peaceful beach scene to stay calm throughout the test, would you consider that cheating?
Would you consider that to be countermeasures?
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 06, 2007, 04:29 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 06, 2007, 12:09 AMCommon sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster.
If I am taking a polygraph exam and I answer all the questions truthfully, and I don't withhold any information at all, aren't I doing everything an ethical person should do?
If I recite poetry in my head after each answer, or I do long division in my head after each answer, or if I think of a peaceful beach scene to stay calm throughout the test, would you consider that cheating?
Would you consider that to be countermeasures?
Sergeant, I think if that behavior was engaged in with the intent of manipulating the results that it would qualify as a countermeasure under any reasonable definition of countermeasure.
Anyway, back to the idea that it is okay to "lie" in order to get a job but it is not okay to "cheat", I think we could extend that principle. For instance:
Okay: "No officer, I just had two drinks and that was hours ago!"
Okay: "No, mom, I'm not going to that party, I'm just going to Billy's house."
Okay: "This car will be very reliable and, no, it was never in any accidents."
Okay: "If elected, I will lower taxes and improve education and health care."[/list]
So... is that
really what you're saying? That it is perfectly fine to lie to people, it only becomes wrong when you try to manipulate some sort of test? Surely you jest, say it ain't so. Or, perhaps I misunderstand the principle that you are actually elucidating. If so, please correct me.
Also, what about deception on one's tax return? Is that lying (and thus okay) or cheating (and thus not okay)?
Quote from: Lethe on Oct 06, 2007, 11:21 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 06, 2007, 04:29 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 06, 2007, 12:09 AMCommon sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster.
If I am taking a polygraph exam and I answer all the questions truthfully, and I don't withhold any information at all, aren't I doing everything an ethical person should do?
If I recite poetry in my head after each answer, or I do long division in my head after each answer, or if I think of a peaceful beach scene to stay calm throughout the test, would you consider that cheating?
Would you consider that to be countermeasures?
Sergeant, I think if that behavior was engaged in with the intent of manipulating the results that it would qualify as a countermeasure under any reasonable definition of countermeasure.
Anyway, back to the idea that it is okay to "lie" in order to get a job but it is not okay to "cheat", I think we could extend that principle. For instance:
Okay: "No officer, I just had two drinks and that was hours ago!"
Okay: "No, mom, I'm not going to that party, I'm just going to Billy's house."
Okay: "This car will be very reliable and, no, it was never in any accidents."
Okay: "If elected, I will lower taxes and improve education and health care."[/list]
So... is that really what you're saying? That it is perfectly fine to lie to people, it only becomes wrong when you try to manipulate some sort of test? Surely you jest, say it ain't so. Or, perhaps I misunderstand the principle that you are actually elucidating. If so, please correct me.
Also, what about deception on one's tax return? Is that lying (and thus okay) or cheating (and thus not okay)?
And here lies the crux of the problem, deception itself is neither right or wrong, it is the context in which it occurs which denotes its morality.
As a matter of fact, deceit is an adaptive trait common to all species. Viruses fool other species into carrying and replicating them. Other species use camouflage to hide from predators; predators use traps to lure prey.
We lie to escape punishment, seduce lovers, secure employment, and prevent hurt feelings. Lying also takes many forms from the simple act of not telling the truth to lies of omission. We also lie to ourselves to rationalize our misfortunes, prevent cognitive dissonance, and externalize blame so that we can feel better about ourselves. We feed our children myths about imaginary beings that bring gifts on certain holidays to good children or bring harm to bad ones. People will even lie and falsely confess to things they didn't do if certain situational factors present themselves.
But again, what we are really talking about here is not that lying or deception occurs but the context in which it occurs.
Given the prevalence, breadth, and psychology of deceit, it's not surprising that we haven't developed good methods for detecting it.
Everyone lies, whether it is for self gain or self protection. But believing that we can reliably detect deceit with a machine is self-deception in its grandest form.
Quote from: digithead on Oct 07, 2007, 04:51 PMQuote from: Lethe on Oct 06, 2007, 11:21 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 06, 2007, 04:29 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 06, 2007, 12:09 AMCommon sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster.
If I am taking a polygraph exam and I answer all the questions truthfully, and I don't withhold any information at all, aren't I doing everything an ethical person should do?
If I recite poetry in my head after each answer, or I do long division in my head after each answer, or if I think of a peaceful beach scene to stay calm throughout the test, would you consider that cheating?
Would you consider that to be countermeasures?
Sergeant, I think if that behavior was engaged in with the intent of manipulating the results that it would qualify as a countermeasure under any reasonable definition of countermeasure.
Anyway, back to the idea that it is okay to "lie" in order to get a job but it is not okay to "cheat", I think we could extend that principle. For instance:
Okay: "No officer, I just had two drinks and that was hours ago!"
Okay: "No, mom, I'm not going to that party, I'm just going to Billy's house."
Okay: "This car will be very reliable and, no, it was never in any accidents."
Okay: "If elected, I will lower taxes and improve education and health care."[/list]
So... is that really what you're saying? That it is perfectly fine to lie to people, it only becomes wrong when you try to manipulate some sort of test? Surely you jest, say it ain't so. Or, perhaps I misunderstand the principle that you are actually elucidating. If so, please correct me.
Also, what about deception on one's tax return? Is that lying (and thus okay) or cheating (and thus not okay)?
And here lies the crux of the problem, deception itself is neither right or wrong, it is the context in which it occurs which denotes its morality.
As a matter of fact, deceit is an adaptive trait common to all species. Viruses fool other species into carrying and replicating them. Other species use camouflage to hide from predators; predators use traps to lure prey.
We lie to escape punishment, seduce lovers, secure employment, and prevent hurt feelings. Lying also takes many forms from the simple act of not telling the truth to lies of omission. We also lie to ourselves to rationalize our misfortunes, prevent cognitive dissonance, and externalize blame so that we can feel better about ourselves. We feed our children myths about imaginary beings that bring gifts on certain holidays to good children or bring harm to bad ones. People will even lie and falsely confess to things they didn't do if certain situational factors present themselves.
But again, what we are really talking about here is not that lying or deception occurs but the context in which it occurs.
Given the prevalence, breadth, and psychology of deceit, it's not surprising that we haven't developed good methods for detecting it.
Everyone lies, whether it is for self gain or self protection. But believing that we can reliably detect deceit with a machine is self-deception in its grandest form.
Ladies and germs, I present the official cognitive flatulence of the weekend-----brought to you by Milanta. Jiminy Christmas, what the heck does that have to do with the thread D-Head? Your platitudes and moral relativism plays well in the hash bars, but we are discussing the commoness of people attempting to cheat on tests and getting caught----and how polygraph error rates seem to be overshadowed by people getting goofy ideas of cheating on their polygraph tests based on some advice from an internet based "not-for-profit"company (don't forget to check out our selection of t-shirts!) -----which incidentally has a track record of
membership polygraph disasters. :P
Why don't you start your own thread regarding your weed-induced postulations on human deception and how it's vitamin for growth. ::)
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 07, 2007, 06:36 PMQuote from: digithead on Oct 07, 2007, 04:51 PMQuote from: Lethe on Oct 06, 2007, 11:21 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Oct 06, 2007, 04:29 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 06, 2007, 12:09 AMCommon sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster.
If I am taking a polygraph exam and I answer all the questions truthfully, and I don't withhold any information at all, aren't I doing everything an ethical person should do?
If I recite poetry in my head after each answer, or I do long division in my head after each answer, or if I think of a peaceful beach scene to stay calm throughout the test, would you consider that cheating?
Would you consider that to be countermeasures?
Sergeant, I think if that behavior was engaged in with the intent of manipulating the results that it would qualify as a countermeasure under any reasonable definition of countermeasure.
Anyway, back to the idea that it is okay to "lie" in order to get a job but it is not okay to "cheat", I think we could extend that principle. For instance:
Okay: "No officer, I just had two drinks and that was hours ago!"
Okay: "No, mom, I'm not going to that party, I'm just going to Billy's house."
Okay: "This car will be very reliable and, no, it was never in any accidents."
Okay: "If elected, I will lower taxes and improve education and health care."[/list]
So... is that really what you're saying? That it is perfectly fine to lie to people, it only becomes wrong when you try to manipulate some sort of test? Surely you jest, say it ain't so. Or, perhaps I misunderstand the principle that you are actually elucidating. If so, please correct me.
Also, what about deception on one's tax return? Is that lying (and thus okay) or cheating (and thus not okay)?
And here lies the crux of the problem, deception itself is neither right or wrong, it is the context in which it occurs which denotes its morality.
As a matter of fact, deceit is an adaptive trait common to all species. Viruses fool other species into carrying and replicating them. Other species use camouflage to hide from predators; predators use traps to lure prey.
We lie to escape punishment, seduce lovers, secure employment, and prevent hurt feelings. Lying also takes many forms from the simple act of not telling the truth to lies of omission. We also lie to ourselves to rationalize our misfortunes, prevent cognitive dissonance, and externalize blame so that we can feel better about ourselves. We feed our children myths about imaginary beings that bring gifts on certain holidays to good children or bring harm to bad ones. People will even lie and falsely confess to things they didn't do if certain situational factors present themselves.
But again, what we are really talking about here is not that lying or deception occurs but the context in which it occurs.
Given the prevalence, breadth, and psychology of deceit, it's not surprising that we haven't developed good methods for detecting it.
Everyone lies, whether it is for self gain or self protection. But believing that we can reliably detect deceit with a machine is self-deception in its grandest form.
Ladies and germs, I present the official cognitive flatulence of the weekend-----brought to you by Milanta. Jiminy Christmas, what the heck does that have to do with the thread D-Head? Your platitudes and moral relativism plays well in the hash bars, but we are discussing the commoness of people attempting to cheat on tests and getting caught----and how polygraph error rates seem to be overshadowed by people getting goofy ideas of cheating on their polygraph tests based on some advice from an internet based "not-for-profit"company (don't forget to check out our selection of t-shirts!) -----which incidentally has a track record of membership polygraph disasters. :P
Why don't you start your own thread regarding your weed-induced postulations on human deception and how it's vitamin for growth. ::)
I'm pretty sure that my post was directly on point but if you're keeping score, give yourself bonus points again for ad hominem and baseless accusations you used in your post...
But since you insist, the CQT polygraph procedure requires someone to lie about something they did in their past (e.g., denying past DUIs, lying to get out of trouble, whatever probable lie question you guys use now, etc.) so that it can determine that they're lying about something relevant? Aren't those that use CQT polygraphy tacitly approving that some lies and behaviors are worse than others?
Simply put, CQT polygraph relies on lies to find other lies. How's that work in the moral relativism scheme of things?
Little boy, have you lost your mommy? Why don't you post your polygraph analysis on well----hmmm.....the post titled Polygraph Analysis :(.
D-Head please excuse my ad hom, but your thread is ignoring Mystery Meat's original post. Your musings on polygraph and deception analysis is puffy and belongs in a thread relating to analysis (if you can call your platitudes and musings as such.)
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 07, 2007, 07:52 PMLittle boy, have you lost your mommy? Why don't you post your polygraph analysis on well----hmmm.....the post titled Polygraph Analysis :(.
We may well have gotten off-topic but nonetheless...
And I'm not going to engage in childish name calling...
In this very thread, you guys are the ones who brought up that trying to beat the polygraph was morally corrupt. So I'll ask you again: since CQT polygraph relies on expecting people to lie so it can find other lies, how's that work in the moral relativism scheme of things?
Paradiddle, I am neither for, or against polygraphy, but all these gyrations to mask not answering the questions. Answer the question, straight up, alot of folks follow this board, and flatly your credibility and your other polygraphers is questionable, against these well thought out people. Do you have some deep dark secret that needs to be hidden. Just my 2 Cents but answer the dam questions.
Lethe, Digithead
Well done
Quote from: digithead on Oct 07, 2007, 08:03 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 07, 2007, 07:52 PMLittle boy, have you lost your mommy? Why don't you post your polygraph analysis on well----hmmm.....the post titled Polygraph Analysis :(.
We may well have gotten off-topic but nonetheless...
And I'm not going to engage in childish name calling...
In this very thread, you guys are the ones who brought up that trying to beat the polygraph was morally corrupt. So I'll ask you again: since CQT polygraph relies on expecting people to lie so it can find other lies, how's that work in the moral relativism scheme of things?
Who on earth ever claims that a person has to lie in order to pass a polygraph exam? Such simplistic characterizations of the CQT method is tiresome, and D-Head, Lethe, and all others know this. An examinee need not lie on a CQT test to pass. V is for vaginitis, not vendetta---in the medical sense----nice try, and you need not use profanity V.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 07, 2007, 08:35 PMQuote from: digithead on Oct 07, 2007, 08:03 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 07, 2007, 07:52 PMLittle boy, have you lost your mommy? Why don't you post your polygraph analysis on well----hmmm.....the post titled Polygraph Analysis :(.
We may well have gotten off-topic but nonetheless...
And I'm not going to engage in childish name calling...
In this very thread, you guys are the ones who brought up that trying to beat the polygraph was morally corrupt. So I'll ask you again: since CQT polygraph relies on expecting people to lie so it can find other lies, how's that work in the moral relativism scheme of things?
Who on earth ever claims that a person has to lie in order to pass a polygraph exam? Such simplistic characterizations of the CQT method is tiresome, and D-Head, Lethe, and all others know this. An examinee need not lie on a CQT test to pass. V is for vaginitis, not vendetta---in the medical sense----nice try, and you need not use profanity V.
Hmm, now that doesn't comport at all with Matte's
Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph (1996). On page 324 he defines a control question as a question "designed to offer the threat to the well-being of the examinee who is expected to lie to that question, which is then used for comparison with the neighboring relevant question in the same test."
He then goes on to describe three types of control questions - non-current exclusive, current exclusive, and non-exclusive - that all have slightly different purposes but nonetheless each assumes that the subject will lie. He also compares the Bartlett CQT version which uses all three against the Honts CQT version which uses only the non-current exclusive type.
So explain to me again how CQT or ZCT or "whatever the heck you're calling it now" doesn't rely on expecting people to lie so it can find other lies...
Quote from: digithead on Oct 07, 2007, 04:51 PM
And here lies the crux of the problem, deception itself is neither right or wrong, it is the context in which it occurs which denotes its morality.
As a matter of fact, deceit is an adaptive trait common to all species. Viruses fool other species into carrying and replicating them. Other species use camouflage to hide from predators; predators use traps to lure prey.
We lie to escape punishment, seduce lovers, secure employment, and prevent hurt feelings. Lying also takes many forms from the simple act of not telling the truth to lies of omission. We also lie to ourselves to rationalize our misfortunes, prevent cognitive dissonance, and externalize blame so that we can feel better about ourselves. We feed our children myths about imaginary beings that bring gifts on certain holidays to good children or bring harm to bad ones. People will even lie and falsely confess to things they didn't do if certain situational factors present themselves.
But again, what we are really talking about here is not that lying or deception occurs but the context in which it occurs.
Given the prevalence, breadth, and psychology of deceit, it's not surprising that we haven't developed good methods for detecting it.
Everyone lies, whether it is for self gain or self protection. But believing that we can reliably detect deceit with a machine is self-deception in its grandest form.
D-Head, you'r philosophizing about lying is as underwhelming as your vacant assessment of the mathematical and empirical complexities of polygraph. No. Its more underwhelming. Too bad some people are impressed with simple pompousness.
The only logical conclusion that could result from your statements is some version of "don't bother." Hardly an expression of scientific curiosity, wouldn't you say? Your one-sided conversation is more evidence that you are not the scientist you claim to be.
To suggest that it is self-deception to attempt to detect deceit with a machine is a transparent straw-man argument. Polygraph is a test. The thing about tests, as you should know, is that there may never be any form of perfect test - for IQ, personality, cholesterol, heart disease, HIV, anthrax or anything else. They are just tests. They have there usefulness and their limitations.
Your statements imply that you doubt there are any useful or reliable physiological, behavioral, or psychological indicators of deception. How could that be? Do people not know when they are deceiving? Your own statements indicate they might be aware of their motivation for doing so. Do you really think those motivational states and and behavioral choices have no correlated features in physiology? If so, how do you explain the NRC study which conceded "well above chance" levels of accuracy. That hardly sounds like accepting the null hypothesis to me.
Your statements reflect your desperation about the need for the polygraph not to work. All I can surmise is that you must have some need to think of yourself as a really good liar, and that your deception will go undetected due either to your masterful skills or the utter futility of any attempt to determine your true credibility.
Though you seem not much of a scientist, neither are you any type of philosopher.
Conversations about "moral relativism" are a dodge. They are a cudgel with which to beat one's opponent, when your argument is weak and when you are ill-prepared to understand complex discussions about ethics and overlapping philosophical questions like how should people live and behave in communities.
Its convenient in the field to assume that deceit and honesty, or lying and truthtelling, are uniform and dichotomous opposites. In both linguistics and behavior they are often neither. But as you indicated, people generally know when and why the lie. That is exactly why we can expect the act of lying to produce physiological changes that can in fact be measured with a "machine." Scary thought huh?
So, if you're going to get all puffed up and beat your intellectual chest about how common, normal and adaptive deceit may be, then you also owe it to consider that adaptive and positive attributes of truthtelling.
Or you could simply have another glass of wine and pontificate some more - o great wearer of stained sweatpants and holder of the intellectual cards.
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 07, 2007, 09:22 PMD-Head, you'r philosophizing about lying is as underwhelming as your vacant assessment of the mathematical and empirical complexities of polygraph. No. Its more underwhelming. Too bad some people are impressed with simple pompousness.
Thanks, your lengthy response to what you claim is pompous must mean that I've hit on something...
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 07, 2007, 09:22 PMThe only logical conclusion that could result from your statements is some version of "don't bother." Hardly an expression of scientific curiosity, wouldn't you say? Your one-sided conversation is more evidence that you are not the scientist you claim to be.
Yes, the evidence shows that mechanical ability to detect deception from physiological signs is limited. What's not limited is the mechanical ability to detect guilty knowledge...
Since you're responding to me, that would suggest something more than one-sided conversation...
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 07, 2007, 09:22 PMTo suggest that it is self-deception to attempt to detect deceit with a machine is a transparent straw-man argument. Polygraph is a test. The thing about tests, as you should know, is that there may never be any form of perfect test - for IQ, personality, cholesterol, heart disease, HIV, anthrax or anything else. They are just tests. They have there usefulness and their limitations.
You really should take a course in logic or read something on logical fallacies. A straw man is when you caricature a position to make it easier to attack. I've done no such thing...
And you keep mixing constructs such as intelligence, cholesterol, IQ and personality which everyone has with testing for the presence or absense of a condition, which is what polygraphy is trying to do. You need to compare apples to apples...
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 07, 2007, 09:22 PMYour statements imply that you doubt there are any useful or reliable physiological, behavioral, or psychological indicators of deception. How could that be? Do people not know when they are deceiving? Your own statements indicate they might be aware of their motivation for doing so. Do you really think those motivational states and and behavioral choices have no correlated features in physiology? If so, how do you explain the NRC study which conceded "well above chance" levels of accuracy. That hardly sounds like accepting the null hypothesis to me.
Because the NRC quote - which is about specific issue exams and not screening applications - can be understood in terms that specific issue testing is related to cognition or guilty knowledge and therefore is more closely related to the scientific GKT...
And yes, I do think there are motivational states and behavioral choices that are correlated in physiology. What I don't believe is that there is any evidence that the mere presence or absence of these features can distinguish truth from deception with any degree of reliability...
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 07, 2007, 09:22 PMYour statements reflect your desperation about the need for the polygraph not to work. All I can surmise is that you must have some need to think of yourself as a really good liar, and that your deception will go undetected due either to your masterful skills or the utter futility of any attempt to determine your true credibility.
Glad you're psychoanalyzing my motives but I have no desperate need for the polygraph to not work. I wish it did work but the preponderance of the evidence leads me to a different conclusion...
In the end, my true credibility will be written by my colleagues and their measure of my influence on our discipline. Until then, I just try to do my best...
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 07, 2007, 09:22 PMThough you seem not much of a scientist, neither are you any type of philosopher.
You're entitled to your opinion...
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 07, 2007, 09:22 PMConversations about "moral relativism" are a dodge. They are a cudgel with which to beat one's opponent, when your argument is weak and when you are ill-prepared to understand complex discussions about ethics and overlapping philosophical questions like how should people live and behave in communities.
Actually, I think ethics and normative behavior are appropriate discussions...
As for you repeatedly stating that my argument is weak without corroborative evidence does not make your statement true.
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 07, 2007, 09:22 PMIts convenient in the field to assume that deceit and honesty, or lying and truthtelling, are uniform and dichotomous opposites. In both linguistics and behavior they are often neither. But as you indicated, people generally know when and why the lie. That is exactly why we can expect the act of lying to produce physiological changes that can in fact be measured with a "machine." Scary thought huh?
You need to read more about evolutionary adaptive traits and how deception - in the real sense of the word - works. Additionally, my statement that the breadth, depth, and prevalence of deception in all its forms make it hard to detect. How does that comport to a belief that it is dichotomous?
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 07, 2007, 09:22 PMSo, if you're going to get all puffed up and beat your intellectual chest about how common, normal and adaptive deceit may be, then you also owe it to consider that adaptive and positive attributes of truthtelling.
There is a ton of research on altruism and its evolutionary purposes. You should look some of it up, it's fascinating. I've found E.O. Wilson's
Sociobiology text to most informative. Additionally, Dawkin's
The Selfish Gene has a lot of great material in it...
But since we are talking about detecting deception, I apologize for focusing solely on that side of human existence...
Quote from: Ludovico on Oct 07, 2007, 09:22 PMOr you could simply have another glass of wine and pontificate some more - o great wearer of stained sweatpants and holder of the intellectual cards.
Again, why do you feel the need to insult people? I'd speculate on the reasons but I'll just assume that you also have deep-seated reasons...
Anyhow, I'll be off the board for a week or so while I travel for job talks as I'm wrapping my Ph.D. up and I need to start earning real money again. But until then, I'll be waiting for the next round of invictive, vitriol, ad hom, and snarkiness from you guys...
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 07, 2007, 08:35 PMQuote from: digithead on Oct 07, 2007, 08:03 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 07, 2007, 07:52 PMLittle boy, have you lost your mommy? Why don't you post your polygraph analysis on well----hmmm.....the post titled Polygraph Analysis :(.
We may well have gotten off-topic but nonetheless...
And I'm not going to engage in childish name calling...
In this very thread, you guys are the ones who brought up that trying to beat the polygraph was morally corrupt. So I'll ask you again: since CQT polygraph relies on expecting people to lie so it can find other lies, how's that work in the moral relativism scheme of things?
Who on earth ever claims that a person has to lie in order to pass a polygraph exam? Such simplistic characterizations of the CQT method is tiresome, and D-Head, Lethe, and all others know this. An examinee need not lie on a CQT test to pass. V is for vaginitis, not vendetta---in the medical sense----nice try, and you need not use profanity V.
paradiddle, You and the rest of your polygraph friends more and more prove why these people on here are angry. You act like a bunch of thugs. If the information on here is just so wrong, why do you fight so hard to mock and insult people. I will not be coming back here but let me just say, I fully understand that if you act this way on here, god help anyone one taking a polygraph test.
This site has quite the following on many campuses too. Keep proving the anti people right.
V
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 05, 2007, 09:13 PM
Again, this site is a dis-service to honest people.
Quantum in ura hora imputas?
Quote from: V on Oct 08, 2007, 12:54 AMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 07, 2007, 08:35 PMQuote from: digithead on Oct 07, 2007, 08:03 PMQuote from: Paradiddle on Oct 07, 2007, 07:52 PMLittle boy, have you lost your mommy? Why don't you post your polygraph analysis on well----hmmm.....the post titled Polygraph Analysis :(.
We may well have gotten off-topic but nonetheless...
And I'm not going to engage in childish name calling...
In this very thread, you guys are the ones who brought up that trying to beat the polygraph was morally corrupt. So I'll ask you again: since CQT polygraph relies on expecting people to lie so it can find other lies, how's that work in the moral relativism scheme of things?
Who on earth ever claims that a person has to lie in order to pass a polygraph exam? Such simplistic characterizations of the CQT method is tiresome, and D-Head, Lethe, and all others know this. An examinee need not lie on a CQT test to pass. V is for vaginitis, not vendetta---in the medical sense----nice try, and you need not use profanity V.
paradiddle, You and the rest of your polygraph friends more and more prove why these people on here are angry. You act like a bunch of thugs. If the information on here is just so wrong, why do you fight so hard to mock and insult people. I will not be coming back here but let me just say, I fully understand that if you act this way on here, god help anyone one taking a polygraph test.
This site has quite the following on many campuses too. Keep proving the anti people right.
V
D-Head---lies are evolutionary defense mechanisms, rather like memetic viruses of the mind..blah blah blah
Ludovico----well, the polygraph does utilize mathmatics and probabilities, and philosophy doesn't really play so much.
Paradiddle----D-head, this thread is titled Sad stats---not the evolution of the bicameral mind and memetic propensities
V---hey paradiddle---answer the damn question
Paradiddle----hey V---go fly a kite---
V---you guys are so mean boohoohooo.
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 05, 2007, 09:13 PMAgain, this site is a dis-service to honest people.
I am an honest person, and this site has been nothing more than a source of reasonable, logical information for me.
On the other hand, the inaccuracy of the polygraph was responsible for me being dropped from the applicant list for three separate police departments.
In my experience, the polygraph is a disservice to honest people.
digithead:
QuoteAnyhow, I'll be off the board for a week or so while I travel for job talks as I'm wrapping my Ph.D. up and I need to start earning real money again. But until then, I'll be waiting for the next round of invictive, vitriol, ad hom, and snarkiness from you guys...
'till then.
Safe travels, and good luck with the job.
l
I don't have anything against the conversation that has been going on here since my last post, but I would like to call attention to what I think is a very important point:
People, departments, and agencies that use the probable lie control question test to screen applicants and employees think that
it is okay for someone to lie if needed to get a job.[/list]
Now, that is a coherent idea and can be defended on logical grounds. But I think people who are in favor of using the PLCQ exam that way need to be honest about that. It's silly to say that "lying" is okay but "cheating" is wrong; that is a distinction without a difference, the motive is
precisely the same in both cases.
So, why is someone who is willing to lie and deceive perfectly qualified to be, for instance, a police officer but someone who knows how the polygraph works, and understands that it will be much less accurate in his case on account of his knowledge, and who can't get a straight, honest answer out of a polygrapher, and therefore decides that he must "cheat" in order to get the exam to accurately say he is honest not suitable? Why not simply educate such a person about the facts and allow him to take the test again? Do you polygraphers even know yourselves? If so, let us hear a sensible answer.
Quote from: Lethe on Oct 08, 2007, 03:36 PMI don't have anything against the conversation that has been going on here since my last post, but I would like to call attention to what I think is a very important point:
People, departments, and agencies that use the probable lie control question test to screen applicants and employees think that
it is okay for someone to lie if needed to get a job.[/list]
Now, that is a coherent idea and can be defended on logical grounds. But I think people who are in favor of using the PLCQ exam that way need to be honest about that. It's silly to say that "lying" is okay but "cheating" is wrong; that is a distinction without a difference, the motive is precisely the same in both cases.
So, why is someone who is willing to lie and deceive perfectly qualified to be, for instance, a police officer but someone who knows how the polygraph works, and understands that it will be much less accurate in his case on account of his knowledge, and who can't get a straight, honest answer out of a polygrapher, and therefore decides that he must "cheat" in order to get the exam to accurately say he is honest not suitable? Why not simply educate such a person about the facts and allow him to take the test again? Do you polygraphers even know yourselves? If so, let us hear a sensible answer.
Your philosophical underpinnings suggest that you believe that lying and cheating are one in the same----and your questions beg...Beg...
BEG.....
BEG the question that you already know the answer to. Ya don't have to lie on a CQT (we don't even use the "PLCQT" term) for it to far better than chance indicate deception from a mathematical probablity standpoint. Polygraph is a test---imperfect....nonetheless a test. If you are an African American inner-city parent who has read Andrew Hacker's works on how tests in white America are unfairly biased against Black children, "test theory" holds some serious caveats. Hacker's work makes sense, so tests underwent some changes---and if Black parents aren't liking the bias, they take their kids to a school that doesn't administer such tests, or better yet---more often parents opt to home school there kids. People who don't like polygraph, should just not take the test, nor should they pursue careers that ask of highly personal historic events and behaviors.
So Lethe, the test works just as good with knowledge. Go to polygraph school and intern. If you don't want to (which of course you don't), than your hyper-probing questions involving nuance and psychological artistry are nothing more than snow balls from a bunker-----you know it, I know it---hell even twoblock knows it while on Risperdol. lol ;D
Yes, of course, I know that you don't have to lie on every control question to pass, you just need to be more anxious and concerned about the control questions than the relevant ones. But, that fact does nothing to modify my point: that a person who is willing to lie in order to get a job is perfectly okay.
Anyway, it is true that I don't see any moral difference between "lying" and "cheating." They're both equally culpable in my mind. What do you see as the difference? Why is the later bad and the former okay? Why retest people who lie but not ones who cheat? It seems totally self serving on the part of the polygraph community to me.
Do you have any substantive response to this?
Quote from: Lethe on Oct 09, 2007, 04:48 PMYes, of course, I know that you don't have to lie on every control question to pass, you just need to be more anxious and concerned about the control questions than the relevant ones. But, that fact does nothing to modify my point: that a person who is willing to lie in order to get a job is perfectly okay.
Anyway, it is true that I don't see any moral difference between "lying" and "cheating." They're both equally culpable in my mind. What do you see as the difference? Why is the later bad and the former okay? Why retest people who lie but not ones who cheat? It seems totally self serving on the part of the polygraph community to me.
Do you have any substantive response to this?
Lethe, it is clear from many of your posts that "your mind" makes little distinctions regarding an assortment of moral concepts. Please keep this point on topic as it relates to anecdotally confirmed attempts by people to cheat on their polygraph tests by way of behavioral, non-compliance, and physical/mental countermeasure attempts. This thread isn't about culpability comparisons, or any sort of sanctity of truth telling---it's about cheating with unempirically proven internet monkey business on contemporary polygraph tests with countermeasure trained examiners. Your waxing poetic and moral relativism reminds me of a certain amateur poet and his thinly layered agnosto-ethical atheism.
Quote from: Paradiddle on Oct 09, 2007, 08:17 PM
Lethe, it is clear from many of your posts that "your mind" makes little distinctions regarding an assortment of moral concepts. Please keep this point on topic as it relates to anecdotally confirmed attempts by people to cheat on their polygraph tests by way of behavioral, non-compliance, and physical/mental countermeasure attempts. This thread isn't about culpability comparisons, or any sort of sanctity of truth telling---it's about cheating with unempirically proven internet monkey business on contemporary polygraph tests with countermeasure trained examiners. Your waxing poetic and moral relativism reminds me of a certain amateur poet and his thinly layered agnosto-ethical atheism.
It seems to me that you're the moral relativist between the two of us. I'm saying that lying to get a job and cheating to get a job are morally the same thing. You're the one who finds some sort of distinction between the two. Would you care to tell us what it is? I admit that this is getting somewhat off topic in this thread. Shall we carry on this line of discussion in a new thread?
I met yet another victim of the anti-poly-folly.
Sad thing too, because he might have done just fine without the "help" from this website.
Yep, I had two this week that were disqualified. Sad fact as they are victims from the info on this site!
Quote from: Wonder_Woman on Oct 20, 2007, 01:05 PMYep, I had two this week that were disqualified. Sad fact as they are victims from the info on this site!
Did you have any this week that were disqualified even though they made no admissions and maintained that they were being honest?
How many of them were false positives?
QuoteYep, I had two this week that were disqualified. Sad fact as they are victims from the info on this site!
If these people 'fessed up to using countermeasures, we can all agree that there is at least SOME of our advice that was not followed.
If they couldn't follow one of the most clearly stated ideas in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, why should any of us believe that they managed to get anything else right?
There are people out there that are just less intelligent than others.
If there is a recipe that clearly states no salt is to be used, and a cook puts 1/4 cup of salt in the pot and the thing turns out to be a disaster, is the recipe bad? No, the cook is incompetent. Who knows what other parts he omitted or bastardized?
Moreover, the real question is how many of your examinees this week--both truthful and intentionally deceptive--exploded into laughter when they reached their cars to leave--after successfully employing countermeasures?
Gino,
You called it correctly again! TLBTLD is nothing more than a bad recipe ! In most cases, those who try to follow it find it is a recipe for disaster.
Keep up the great work!
SC
Quote from: Squeezecheeze on Oct 21, 2007, 05:38 PMGino,
You called it correctly again! TLBTLD is nothing more than a bad recipe ! In most cases, those who try to follow it find it is a recipe for disaster.
Keep up the great work!
SC
How did you read Gino's post and conclude that he felt TLBTLD is a bad recipe? His analogy actually implied the opposite.
I am curious as to how you reached the conclusion that "most" of the people who try to follow TLBTLD find it a recipe for disaster. Is it because some people who admit to countermeasures (against the advice contained in TLBTLD) claim they got their information from this site?
The only way you could determine that "most" of the people who took advice from this site found it to be a recipe for disaster would be if you knew how many people took polygraphs while using countermeasure information they found on this site. The truth is that you have no idea of that number.
How many people around the country passed their polygraphs this week while using countermeasures?
Does anyone think the number is zero?
Sargeant
They "maybe" catch one from time to time but I have logged on to this site many times a day, quite often between 1 and 4 oclock in the AM, and there are any where from 10 to over 100 guest on this site at a time. Are they here for just recreational reading? I would think not. I think one could make an educated guess as to the percentage caught using CMs when a couple of polygraphers say "hey, I caught one to day" like it's not an every day occurance.
Quote from: Twoblock on Oct 22, 2007, 02:55 AMSargeant
They "maybe" catch one from time to time but I have logged on to this site many times a day, quite often between 1 and 4 oclock in the AM, and there are any where from 10 to over 100 guest on this site at a time. Are they here for just recreational reading? I would think not. I think one could make an educated guess as to the percentage caught using CMs when a couple of polygraphers say "hey, I caught one to day" like it's not an every day occurance.
Hi 2Block, your math is a little smokey---and I would caution you from calling your guesses "educated" when there are over 3,000 examiners worldwide---the majority of which don't make their experiences known to your greatness. ;)
E