Polygraphers that come to this site seem to hold themselves on such a pedestal...but they are just the same as everyone else here...they have done things that are questionable, they have made bad decisions, and they have lied. Don't let their holier than thou attitude intimidate you. They have a job to do and I respect that...this is their career, but they are just everyday joes like the rest of us. Do polygraphers need to take a polygraph to get that job? If they did, I wonder if they would be nervous and how many would practice countermeasures?
The reason they make statements like "countermeasures don't work!" and "you will get caught!", is the same reason they give you the little speech in the polygraph pre-interview about how the polygraph will detect any lie, even little white lies...to scare you into making confessions. I am suggesting people lie about major crimes or affiliations with bad people, but using countermeasures, even if just mental cm's and breathing techniques, is very smart. How can anyone suggest that being educated and taking steps to ensure your success is wrong or stupid? Countermeasures are not illegal and there is nothing immoral about using them as long as you are not a criminal or have contact with criminals.
I am sure that any polygrapher that reads this will go right to my other posts and start copying and pasting statements that I have made instead of just addressing the words that I am saying...because that is what they normally do to avoid the facts...bit I figured I would state my opinion anyway.
Chris
Correction to previous post:
"I am suggesting people..." should read "I am not suggesting people..."
Quote from: chrismcphee33 on Jan 07, 2008, 11:58 AMPolygraphers that come to this site seem to hold themselves on such a pedestal...but they are just the same as everyone else here...they have done things that are questionable, they have made bad decisions, and they have lied. Don't let their holier than thou attitude intimidate you. They have a job to do and I respect that...this is their career, but they are just everyday joes like the rest of us. Do polygraphers need to take a polygraph to get that job? If they did, I wonder if they would be nervous and how many would practice countermeasures?
The reason they make statements like "countermeasures don't work!" and "you will get caught!", is the same reason they give you the little speech in the polygraph pre-interview about how the polygraph will detect any lie, even little white lies...to scare you into making confessions. I am suggesting people lie about major crimes or affiliations with bad people, but using countermeasures, even if just mental cm's and breathing techniques, is very smart. How can anyone suggest that being educated and taking steps to ensure your success is wrong or stupid? Countermeasures are not illegal and there is nothing immoral about using them as long as you are not a criminal or have contact with criminals.
I am sure that any polygrapher that reads this will go right to my other posts and start copying and pasting statements that I have made instead of just addressing the words that I am saying...because that is what they normally do to avoid the facts...bit I figured I would state my opinion anyway.
Chris
Interesting opinion ChrisMcphee33 especially coming from someone who as never taken a polygraph test or USED COUNTERMEASURES and is only HOPING his planned countermeasures work, because when they
DON'T WORK. he may NEVER WORK IN LAW ENFORCMENT.
Why are you so worried that someone might cut and paste one of your previous posts? Surely you aren't afraid of your own words. ::)
"suggesting people lie" perhaps a freudian slip?
Sancho Panza
Quote from: chrismcphee33 on Jan 07, 2008, 12:33 PMQuote from: chrismcphee33 on Jan 07, 2008, 11:58 AMPolygraphers that come to this site seem to hold themselves on such a pedestal...but they are just the same as everyone else here...they have done things that are questionable, they have made bad decisions, and they have lied. Don't let their holier than thou attitude intimidate you. They have a job to do and I respect that...this is their career, but they are just everyday joes like the rest of us. Do polygraphers need to take a polygraph to get that job? If they did, I wonder if they would be nervous and how many would practice countermeasures?
The reason they make statements like "countermeasures don't work!" and "you will get caught!", is the same reason they give you the little speech in the polygraph pre-interview about how the polygraph will detect any lie, even little white lies...to scare you into making confessions. I am suggesting people lie about major crimes or affiliations with bad people, but using countermeasures, even if just mental cm's and breathing techniques, is very smart. How can anyone suggest that being educated and taking steps to ensure your success is wrong or stupid? Countermeasures are not illegal and there is nothing immoral about using them as long as you are not a criminal or have contact with criminals.
I am sure that any polygrapher that reads this will go right to my other posts and start copying and pasting statements that I have made instead of just addressing the words that I am saying...because that is what they normally do to avoid the facts...bit I figured I would state my opinion anyway.
Chris
Interesting opinion ChrisMcphee33 especially coming from someone who as never taken a polygraph test or USED COUNTERMEASURES and is only HOPING his planned countermeasures work, because when they DON'T WORK. he may NEVER WORK IN LAW ENFORCMENT.
Why are you so worried that someone might cut and paste one of your previous posts? Surely you aren't afraid of your own words. ::)
"suggesting people lie" perhaps a freudian slip?
Sancho Panza
If CMs don't work then you would not be on this site.
Sancho Panza, your response is very typical...you really can't disagree with anything I say, so instead you YELL AT ME.
Interesting opinion ChrisMcphee33 especially coming from someone who as never taken a polygraph test or USED COUNTERMEASURES and is only HOPING his planned countermeasures work, because when they DON'T WORK. he may NEVER WORK IN LAW ENFORCMENT.
Why are you so worried that someone might cut and paste one of your previous posts? Surely you aren't afraid of your own words.
"suggesting people lie" perhaps a freudian slip?
Sancho Panza, I find it interesteing how you try and get your message across and put ideas in peoples heads...look at the words that are in CAPS:
USED COUNTERMEASURES
HOPING
DON'T WORK
NEVER WORK IN LAW ENFORCMENT
This goes along with what I said about trying to scare uneducated people. You count on people having doubt. PEOPLE should NOT have DOUBT...using COUNTERMEASURES is SMART.
regardless of the font or emphasis used, the fact remains, you have never taken a polygraph test. you have never tried using countermeasures during a polygraph test, so you don't know whether or not they will work. you are only hoping they will work so you can pass your upcoming examination. i have suggested you should go ahead and try.
Here you are, telling people how well they work and all you really know is contained in what you have read. why don't you go buy a book on cardiac surgery and report to the hospital maybe they will let you crack a couple of chests this afternoon or you could read abook about how to translate eastern languages and mr. mashke will give you a job doing translations for him.
Sanco Panza
Your comparing a polygraph test to cardiac surgery and language translation? We are talking about a person relying on a bp machine to tell if you are lying or not...not complicated science.
Of course I will take the test, I have no choice if I want this job. I am, and will be quite confident because I am well educated, I have prepared myself, and I know the examiner is just a person trying to get me to confess to what a bad person I am. I am not just crossing my fingers and hoping they will work, I know that answering the questions while using mental counter measures is the smartest thing I can do to get past a process that is far from perfect.
Are you a polygrapher? Did you have to take a polygraph test to get your job? If they made you take one to keep your job, a job which you obviously have a passion for..which is great...would you be nervous?
Quote from: chrismcphee33 on Jan 07, 2008, 01:30 PM
why don't you go buy a book on cardiac surgery and report to the hospital maybe they will let you crack a couple of chests this afternoon
Sanco Panza
Yo Sancho, can you sign me up for the 10 week trade school that teaches cardiac surgery? ;D
Quote from: chrismcphee33 on Jan 07, 2008, 01:48 PM
Of course I will take the test, I have no choice if I want this job. ?
Before you sit down for the polygraph, ask the polygrapher what chance there is that you can tell the absolute truth, but yet have his opinion reflect that he believes you are not truthful? Because, in reality, one cannot PASS or FAIL a polygraph, although those are the words commonly used. What occurs is the polygrapher makes an educated guess as to your truthfulness.
For last polygraph I took, I did exactly that. The examiner told me about 90%, which I felt was a reasonable answer, given I already knew what the answer should be. I then said, "Well, with that in mind, let's get to it."
chrismcphee33 why don't we just let time and the RCMP reveal your ignorance.
Nopoly All I have to say to you is...
Sancho Panza
Sancho, you are avoiding my question...I am genuinly interested to know.
Did you have to take a polygraph test to get your job? If they made you take one to keep your job, a job which you obviously have a passion for..which is great...would you be nervous?
Everyone is a little nervous when they take any test. If mere nervousness were the cause of a "failed" test, than no one could never pass the test. So, your baited question is obviously just that.
QuoteI know that answering the questions while using mental counter measures is the smartest thing I can do to get past a process that is far from perfect.
....and so you my man, are also far from perfect. I look forward to your story after your test. Remember, there are thousands of tests administered every year---and TLBTLD has been downloaded tens of thousands of times. Funny how there is a conspicuous absence of success stories on this forum. I recall 3 or 4 people who seem fairly mentally odd claiming that they defeated the test. Hmmm, 3 or 4 versus tens of thousands of downloads.
If antipolygraph were an online weight loss plan, you would be suspicious if all the cheerleaders were morbidly obese. Think about it.
Polygraph Examiners are here because we know that the phony advice causes more pain than helps. If this site stated that if you stuck a butter knife in a power outlet, that you would be able to gain super strength----electricians would be on this site, not because they were scared and jealous such activity was potent, but that such activity harmed people.
CP33
I have taken polygraph tests and yes I was nervous. However, I have an extremely strong sense of honor and integrity (unlike some exhibited here I might add) that would and did prevent me from lying and cheating just to get a job. Once again this appears foreign to some here. Based on your previous statements this group includes you.
I, for one, would not want a job that I had to lie or cheat to get and I find it difficult to understand why anyone would want a job they had to lie or cheat to get. You and I obviously disagree about that. My position on that subject isn't likely to change.
There is something fundamentally wrong with those who endorse lying and cheating as a justifiable means to obtain a position of trust knowing that if they are successful they will be required to swear an oath promising to be trustworthy, truthful and honest. It is wrong there is no way that it can be right and I don't care who else or how many are willing to prostitute their integrity for personal gain or status, it will never be right.
Had I failed a polygraph test, I would not build a website or co-write a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity in order to cheat the testing process, nor would I appear on such a website trying to tell people that cheating on a polygraph test is OK because I didn't get a job I thought I deserved.
I am learning that trying to explain honor to the dishonorable, honesty to the dishonest, and trust to the untrustworthy is a bit like trying to explain sound to someone born deaf or color to someone born blind, They just lack a frame of reference for the discussion.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: chrismcphee33 on Jan 07, 2008, 03:48 PMCP33
I have taken polygraph tests and yes I was nervous. However, I have an extremely strong sense of honor and integrity (unlike some exhibited here I might add) that would and did prevent me from lying and cheating just to get a job. Once again this appears foreign to some here. Based on your previous statements this group includes you.
I, for one, would not want a job that I had to lie or cheat to get and I find it difficult to understand why anyone would want a job they had to lie or cheat to get. You and I obviously disagree about that. My position on that subject isn't likely to change.
There is something fundamentally wrong with those who endorse lying and cheating as a justifiable means to obtain a position of trust knowing that if they are successful they will be required to swear an oath promising to be trustworthy, truthful and honest. It is wrong there is no way that it can be right and I don't care who else or how many are willing to prostitute their integrity for personal gain or status, it will never be right.
Had I failed a polygraph test, I would not build a website or co-write a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity in order to cheat the testing process, nor would I appear on such a website trying to tell people that cheating on a polygraph test is OK because I didn't get a job I thought I deserved.
I am learning that trying to explain honor to the dishonorable, honesty to the dishonest, and trust to the untrustworthy is a bit like trying to explain sound to someone born deaf or color to someone born blind, They just lack a frame of reference for the discussion.
Sancho Panza
That is a bold statement seeing as how polygraphers lie and cheat as part of their jobs. You can't tell me that polygraphers are 100% truthful when discussing the polygraph. :-?
Sancho Panza
There have been many, many posters that have said they told the truth and failed their poly. Are you calling all of them liars?? You have berated the good Sargent's posts and I believe his honesty and integrity are beyound reproach. You and the other polygraphers continually berate George and say that he advocates lying on the poly test. I have never read one of his posts where he says that. He has always has said "tell the truth on the relevant questions".
I and, I think, the majority of people holds honesty and integrity in the highest regard. Is the stim test honest and honorable? Is the polygrapher honest and truthful while preparing a subject for the test? I am asking because all I know is what I read.
As I have posted before, I am far beyond the age of taking a poly for a job, but if a polygrapher ever branded me a liar (when I KNOW that I have told the truth) he would have to prove it before a judge and a jury of my peers. I will never understand how a person, who is honest, can be called a liar, just go on down the road and not fight back. That's just not part of my make-up.
I, for one, would not want a job that I had to lie or cheat to get and I find it difficult to understand why anyone would want a job they had to lie or cheat to get. You and I obviously disagree about that. My position on that subject isn't likely to change.
There is something fundamentally wrong with those who endorse lying and cheating as a justifiable means to obtain a position of trust knowing that if they are successful they will be required to swear an oath promising to be trustworthy, truthful and honest. It is wrong there is no way that it can be right and I don't care who else or how many are willing to prostitute their integrity for personal gain or status, it will never be right.
Sancho, shame on you, this is completely false. Your really grasping at straws here...you should rely on intelligent argurments rather than these types of lies. In my prevoious posts I said a couple of times that I don't think criminals should lie to get through a polygraph test. I think the previous posts speak for themsleves and they are very clear.
I am learning that trying to explain honor to the dishonorable, honesty to the dishonest, and trust to the untrustworthy is a bit like trying to explain sound to someone born deaf or color to someone born blind, They just lack a frame of reference for the discussion.
In one breath you talk about your integrity and honor and in the next you completely lambaste George based on false statements. If you are honorable you would retract your statements about George advocating that criminals lie to get past the test. :-/
I think it is smart to learn about the polygraph and the interrogation process before going into a test. Educating yourself and going into the test with knowledge and confidence is the best thing a person can do...even if they don't do cm's. I think having knowledge and confidence are a sort of countermeasure. Sancho, the reason your back goes up when I talk about going into a test with confidence and knowledge of how the process works, is because it actually makes the test less effective.
Twoblock/ CP33
If you will carefully reread my post you will discover that I said absolutely nothing about polygraphers and I said nothing about anyone who had failed a polygraph test. I also never said that if I had failed a polygraph test after telling the truth that I would just go on down the road and not fight back. What I said was" Had I failed a polygraph test, I would not build a website or co-write a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity in order to cheat the testing process, nor would I appear on such a website trying to tell people that cheating on a polygraph test is OK because I didn't get a job I thought I deserved."
I did talk about me and my disgust for people who apply for positions of trust saying that it is an acceptable behavior to lie and cheat in order to achieve a position of trust.
As to what Mr. Maschke has said about lying, I would refer you to his oft quoted book the lie behind the lie detector. To wit:
But don't tell your polygrapher that you've read this book or that you've done research on the Internet and visited such websites as
AntiPolygraph.org! Page 140 Concealing Information
Instead, provide a general answer to his question about what you know about polygraphy, such as: Page 140 suggesting lies to tell the examiner
I heard on T.V. that they're almost always accurate when
used by a skilled examiner. Is that right?
• A friend of mine in law enforcement said not to worry, just
go in and tell the truth, and you'll have no problem!
• I understand that polygraphs are a lot more accurate than
those voice stress analyzers. (Polygraphers generally hold the competing
voodoo science of Computerized Voice Stress Analysis
[CVSA] in utter contempt.)
• I read in the paper that the polygraph has been constantly
improving with time and that the latest computerized polygraphs
are very reliable.
• When I was in grade school, a polygraph examiner came
and gave a demonstration to my class and showed us how the test
is done using my teacher as a volunteer. She lied about a card she
had picked from a deck, and the polygraph examiner caught her
lie and was even able to figure out exactly which card she had
picked!
• I heard it caught O.J. in a lie! (Virtually no one in the polygraph
community believes O.J. Simpson to be innocent of the
murder of his ex-wife, Nicole.)
Whatever answer you give, don't memorize and repeat the above
examples word-for-word. Page 140 suggesting which lies to use and offering advice on how to deliver them.
If you do choose to submit to a polygraph for some other
reason (most likely as a pre-requisite for an employment process),
the most important step you can take to minimize the potential
for a negative outcome is to make no admissions. Page 197 concealing information Note this statement does not differentiate between what it is or isn't permissable to lie about
Make no admissions is also the rule if and when a polygrapher accuses you of using countermeasures. Page 197 in other words if the examiner accuses you of useing the techniques taught on antipolygraph.org to manufacture false reactions, lie
BTW thankyou for giving me the opportunity to use thise quotes again I think that they should stay near the top so everyone will know that the books attempts to justify dishonesty.
BTW again NO!!! I don't think that because someone might have been dishonest with me that I would be automatically justified in being dishonest with them. I do not see that type of behavior as ethical or honorable. Obviously you disagree.
CP33 Based on the content of your posts, I think it is reasonable for me to conclude that you think that dishonesty is jusified just because you think someone might be dishonest with you and I find that concept completely illogical and frankly somewhat disgusting.
As for the rest of it don't try to twist my words to try and bait me. If you can't understand the meaning of my words, simply ask and I will try to explain them n a manner you can better understand.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: Twoblock on Jan 07, 2008, 05:32 PM
I and, I think, the majority of people holds honesty and integrity in the highest regard. Is the stim test honest and honorable? Is the polygrapher honest and truthful while preparing a subject for the test? I am asking because all I know is what I read.
.
Two Block:
You can expect no truthful answers to your questions, either from Sancho or any other polygrapher, because to give you an HONEST answer would expose the polygraph procedure for what it is, and they certainly don't want that.
What you can expect, (based on my own experience on this very contentions forum) is to either be called names and then ignored, or just ignored.
There's a hole in the moral ozone and it's getting bigger.
Sancho, the biggest problem I have with you is the way you assume that everyone who educates themselves and uses countermeasures is immoral, and that is false and I think you know that. I think you are the one doing the baiting here.
Can you answer a final question(s) for me. In any type of interview/test, isn't it smart to educate yourself as much as possible on what to expect? Isn't always better to go into these things with confidence and knowledge? If someone has this confidence and knowledge, isn't it almost impossible not to use mental countermeasures? If you know what the polygrapher is expecting and what they want you to lie to (ie control questions), it would be natural to allow yourself to react to these questions, and it would be natural to use mental countermeasures to calm yourslef during relevant questions. Like I said before, having knowledge and confidence is kind of like a countermeasre in itself.
Can you answer this question, and not revert back to giving a speech on morals. Thanks. :)
Let's say that there is a test that 8 times out of 10 4+4=8. However, since the test is not perfect those 2 other times the answer 8 is considered wrong and you fail. This is basically what polygraphs are. LE pre-employment polygraphs require applicants to take a test where there is a chance that when answering correctly you will fail. How ignorant is this?
Sancho Panza
Re: your first paragraph. Sorry you got the impression that I was talking about you going on down the road and not fighting back. I was talking about prospective LEOs in general who said they failed the polygraph while telling the truth. It appears that the polygraphers who post on this site do not hesitate to call, those who post failures while telling the truth, liars. Why is this? Nothing is known about them except what they post.
BTW again: Here again, I was not speaking to you individually but about the polygrapher in general. I was talking about the initial phase of the test which in my understanding is called the stim test. Is the polygrapher honest and honerable in the way he conducts the stim? I didn't say anything about the subject being dishonest with the polygrapher first.
I try not to comment on criminal polygraphs. That's a horse of another color and everyone knows how I feel about that. I am specifically interested in the employment poly.
I will let George respond to the reprint if he cares to. We all have differing opinions when the subject is taken in full context. Of coarse a puntative mind will differ from the rest. I just wish you would admit that on numerous occasions he has advocated telling the truth on all relevant questions during the test. If one tells the truth on the relevants, what's there to lie about?
CP33 The biggest problem I have with you is your misconception that unethical behavior is justifiable or that cheating is an appropriate way to enter the law enforcement profession.
Intentionally using countermeasures is dishonest and therefore immoral. Under your logic, should a Navy Fighter Pilot decide that the vision requirements or testing procedures aren't fair then he would be perfectly justified in attempting to manipulate the testing procedure so he could maintain flight status. Perhaps, lets say, by educating himself as to the order of letters he would have to recite from a chart during the exam so he can try to manufacture the response the doctor is expecting during the exam.
You've indicated that you have been practicing with a BP monitor, That is not using a mental counter measure that is a physical countermeasure you are practicing. It is not "allowing yourself to react" it is attempting to manufacture reaction and it is as surely a cheating strategy as taping a crib sheet inside your shirt for a calculus final.
I don't think that you understand that you will never convince me that what you intend to do is anything but immoral, dishonest, and unethical.
I find nothing in Mr. Maschkes book that says anything at all about anyone being able to suppress reactions to relevant questions.
Twoblock
Mr. Mascke has already responded to my quoting of his text. He is aware that I consider his occasional disclaimer and careful choice of words just a simple way to provide an escape argument or plausible deniability for his "lie coaching behavior'. Why don't you go back and read his whole book and calculate how much space he devotes to encouraging the reader to tell the truth versus how much space he devotes to telling the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity in order to cheat the testing process. FYI countermeasures and lying gets a whole chapter.
Sanch Panza
Quote from: Twoblock on Jan 07, 2008, 09:46 PMIntentionally using countermeasures is dishonest and therefore immoral. Under your logic, should a Navy Fighter Pilot decide that the vision requirements or testing procedures aren't fair then he would be perfectly justified in attempting to manipulate the testing procedure so he could maintain flight status. Perhaps, lets say, by educating himself as to the order of letters he would have to recite from a chart during the exam so he can try to manufacture the response the doctor is expecting during the exam.
You didn't differentiate between mental and physical countermeasures in your statement that using countermeasures is dishonest and therefore immoral. It seems reasonable to believe your statement includes both types of countermeasures.
I am curious as to how a person is behaving dishonestly and therefore immorally if they answer all the questions on a polygraph exam truthfully, without withholding any information, and then they do long division or recite poetry in their head? I don't see how a person doing such a thing is behaving the least bit unethically. They are answering the questions truthfully, which is what they are required to do.
Your "Navy Fighter Pilot" analogy is simply deliberate obfuscation. The pilot in your example is not reading the eye chart, which is precisely what he or she is required to do during an eye exam. A subject in a polygraph test is required to answer all questions truthfully and without withholding any information. If they do that they are fulfilling the only reasonable expectation they can possibly be held to.
It simply seems unreasonable to tell the subject of a polygraph that, despite answering all questions truthfully and not withholding any information, they will be disqualified for "dishonest and immoral" behavior because after each truthful answer they chose not to go over their responses in their heads for several more minutes in order to create a physiological response.
A better analogy would be a person arrested for drunk driving that agrees to blow into the Intoxilyzer. If he or she blows into the machine when told to do so, but at the same time they decide to do long division in their head or to mentally recite poetry, they are still doing everything that is required of them. If the person refused to blow because they think the Intoxilyzer is an inaccurate method of measuring BAC, then they are not completing the test. But if they blow into machine they are fulfilling their ethical responsibility to comply with the test, regardless of what they may be thinking at the time they blow.
If the Intoxilyzer was incapable of rendering a analysis unless the subject was thinking about how much they drank that night it would certainly indicate to most reasonable people that the Intoxilyzer was not scientifically valid. It would not indicate that the person who blew into the machine but chose not to dwell on how much they drank that evening was doing anything immoral or dishonest.
Sergeant you wrote " I don't see how a person doing such a thing is behaving the least bit unethically"
That's an issue. You don't see manufacturing false responses as unethical. I do.
We have not been discussing someone who chooses "not to go over their responses in their heads for several more minutes in order to create a physiological response."
What we are discussing is the application of countermeasures as described in Mr. Masckes book. You cannot follow his instructions without being dishonest. Mr. Mascke attempts to remedy this with statements that this dishonesty is justified. I disagree.
CMcphee33 has retreated from "Hi, I have a blood pressure machine at home that measures bp and pulse as well. When I practice using CM's I am able to increase my systolic (top number) by between 7-10, and increase my pulse by about 15 bpm. Is this enough of a change?" and "I have been doing some practice at home with my heart rate monitor. Below are my results....can someone give their opinion on whether these results are good, too obvious, or not good enough?" and "I know that answering the questions while using mental counter measures is the smartest thing I can do to get past a process that is far from perfect. " To "Educating yourself and going into the test with knowledge and confidence is the best thing a person can do...even if they don't do cm's. I think having knowledge and confidence are a sort of countermeasure" and "If you know what the polygrapher is expecting and what they want you to lie to (ie control questions), it would be natural to allow yourself to react to these questions, and it would be natural to use mental countermeasures to calm yourslef during relevant questions. Like I said before, having knowledge and confidence is kind of like a countermeasre in itself.
I believe he is altering his position in an attempt to minimize the dishonorable and unethical nature of what he plans to do. Don't forget that the reason he thinks he needs to cheat and lie is not because he is concerned that he will be falsley accused of some behavior based on an error in the examination process. He plans to use countermeasures in an attempt to conceal behavior he considers emabarrassing even though he maintains it isn't illegal. In his original post he said "Hi all, the only part of the RCMP poly I am worried about is the sexual activity part. I am a bit a of a exibitionist/voyeur at times....just minor..."
How do you think he should respond if he is asked if he intends to try to control, alter or interfere the results of his test? Or if he is asked if he intends to tamper with testing process in any way?
Sancho Panza
Sancho, I am not trying to change my position...I am just expressing my thougts on the subject...sorry if I have more that one thought. :-?
You are deliberately not answering questions or talking about certain things. You never answer questions about truthful people being falsely accused of lying. You never talk about how polygraphers lie and mislead as part of their job. You never talk about how the polygraph really can't tell you if someone is lying, all it can do is tell you if someone reacts to a question. These facts are the reason that this site exists...and that is why you avoid talking about them.
I don't think anyone wants to, or cares about, convincing you of anything. I think most people read this site and post questions and comments is because it is troubling to think about taking a test that can is far from perfect, to decide if you can have a job or not. At the same time, I understand the need to weed out certain people....so I can't completely dismiss everything you say.
Allow me to clarify I don't really think you are changing your position at all. I think your position is exactly the same as it was when you started. You are changing the way you describe your position, in my opinion to minimize the unethical nature of the behavior you have said you plan to use.
Every test has an error rate and I am not talking just about polygraph. Every test has an error rate. If you find the risk of being victimized by whatever error rate exists unacceptable, don't take the test. If you think the RCMP is out to get you by using the polygraph, just apply somewhere where they don't use polygraph and retain whatever integrity you now possess. Try to cheat the test and you compromise whatever integrity you now possess.
Attempting countermeasures as you have described and that have been described in Mr. Maschkes book is unethical and dishonest.
You have no right to work for the RCMP just a desire and they have a right to establish whatever criteria they want, within the law, to qualify and disqualify applicants. Right now they desire to include polygraph and it really doesn't matter what you, me, or anyone else thinks about polygraph. It doesn't matter that truthful people may have been falsely accused of lying. It doesn't matter that someone has convinced you that polygraphers lie and mislead as part of their job. It doesn't even matter that you think a polygraph really can't tell you if someone is lying. It doesn't change your situation one bit.
You have the right to try and change their policy if you think it is a bad policy, but you don't have the right to attempt to cheat the test because you are unable to get them to change their policy.
From what I have read, agencies engaged in polygraph screening do not generally use polygraph as a sole qualifying/disqualifying factor. I doubt very seriously that some of the people who think they were disqualified by polygraph actually were disqualified, just because of polygraph results. I think that they may have inferred that as the reason for disqualification because their polygrapher questioned them about the results of their test and when the agency to which they applied rejects them they think it must have been because of polygraph. I think that some agency heads might use polygraph as an excuse when they make a decision not to hire someone because they just don't like the way a guy looks. I have never heard of a rejection letter that cites polygraph as the reason for rejection. I'm not saying that one doesn't exist, I'm just saying I have never heard of one and if someone has one, I would love to see it.
I see the probability that you will be busted for attempting countermeasures as significantly greater than you being disqualified for any legal but embarrassing act you may have in your past. I would be willing to wager that they don't have to prove you used them, the mere suspicion that you use them will drop you on the eligibility list.
Sancho Panza
Thanks Sancho, I appreciate your answer. I know you haven't changed your view on anything, but the way you are stating your opinion now is much more sensible to me.
Your Wrote:
"You have no right to work for the RCMP just a desire and they have a right to establish whatever criteria they want, within the law, to qualify and disqualify applicants. Right now they desire to include polygraph and it really doesn't matter what you, me, or anyone else thinks about polygraph. It doesn't matter that truthful people may have been falsely accused of lying. It doesn't matter that someone has convinced you that polygraphers lie and mislead as part of their job. It doesn't even matter that you think a polygraph really can't tell you if someone is lying. It doesn't change your situation one bit.
You have the right to try and change their policy if you think it is a bad policy, but you don't have the right to attempt to cheat the test because you are unable to get them to change their policy. "
I see what you are saying here, but the same could be said the other way around. LE have the right to administer polygrpahs, and they have the right to dq anyone based on the results, but they can't just expect to people to not educate themselves and give themselves any advantage they can get, as long as they couple that with telling the truth to the polygrapher.
Also Sancho, I was wondering if you can back up your statements like "CM's don't work" and "You will get caught" with an example. Let's assume someone just uses some mental cm's...how can you know they are using cm's?
Snacho wrote, "Every test has an error rate and I am not talking just about polygraph. Every test has an error rate."
If that is true then what is the error rate of written tests for say the FBI? Name another type of test that is used by LE that has error rates. You made the statement lets here it. I will admit that certain written tests might have an error rate but they, just like your polygraph, are subjective. I promise you though that when the FBI asks what 2+2 is and you say 4 that there is no error rate in those tests. I do agree though that there is an error rate for those who read the bumps on skulls in order to predict the future. Obviously I've over simplified things but I'm just curious what other tests have an error rate......lets hear it.
First of all the nom de plume is Sancho NOT "Snacho" or are you name calling trying to earn yourself a nastygram from the administrator.
Quote from: 5F42080 on Jan 08, 2008, 09:31 AMSnacho wrote, "Every test has an error rate and I am not talking just about polygraph. Every test has an error rate."
If that is true then what is the error rate of written tests for say the FBI? Name another type of test that is used by LE that has error rates. You made the statement lets here it. I will admit that certain written tests might have an error rate but they, just like your polygraph, are subjective. I promise you though that when the FBI asks what 2+2 is and you say 4 that there is no error rate in those tests. I do agree though that there is an error rate for those who read the bumps on skulls in order to predict the future. Obviously I've over simplified things but I'm just curious what other tests have an error rate... ...lets hear it.
Before I respond, to what I see as your silly question "what other tests have an error rate?, let me attempt to explain to you that the error rate in pre employment written tests does not lie in whether or not 2+2 =4.
The error/accuracy rate lies in the ability of a question or question set to determine what the test is designed to resolve. Or in other words, How well ones ability to accurately answer the question,( "what is 2+2?) determines their ability to be an FBI agent. I guess one could conceivably argue that knowing the answer to "What are 2+2" doesn't have, by itself any arguable ability to determine someone's overall qualifications as an agent. Although, if you failed that question, the FBI might justifiably determine that you lacked the necessary math skills to perform the parts of the job that required math skills.
That is why they put all those different questions on the test. It s not really to see whether or not you get the correct answer to any particular question, but whether or not you have answered a sufficient number of questions correctly to convince them that you have the ability to learn to perform the tasks required of an agent. If this test was absolutely accurate in its ability to weed those people out then no one would ever fail the academy for academic reasons.
Those academic washouts help establish that their written test does in fact have an error rate. Unless you scored 100% on your written test you encountered another error rate, your own. Perhaps the FBI will accept a 30% applicant error rate on its written test, I don't know I'm just guessing, but for the sake of our discussion that would mean if your accuracy was 70% YOU PASSED.Does that mean that someone who scored a 60% would not make a good agent? No it just means they failed the standard and got eliminated. Somewhere during the application process you may encounter the Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory or MMPI. I really don't have a citation but I recall reading somewhere that this test may have an error rate as high as 40% in detecting clinical depression, but it is still used by many Law Enforcement Agencies and I presume that includes Federal Agencies in determining psychological fitness for service. No one is in a better position to be aware of whatever failure rate exists in polygraph and how that rate may be quantified. Error rates are made of false positives (honest people called deceptive) and false negatives (dishonest people called truthful) The Federal government has made a conscious informed decision that at the risk of letting a few honorable people fail the process they will continue to use the process to weed out all of the dishonorable people they can. That is their right. Your right is not to apply if you don't like the way they exercise their rights. You do not have any right to act in a dishonorable fashion or cheat or lie during any part of the process in which they evaluate your suitability, your honesty, or your integrity, by whatever method they choose to employ that are within the law.
Response to "Name another type of test that is used by LE that has error rates."
Polygraph
DNA
Hair Analysis
Latent Fingerprint comparison
Blood Alcohol Analysis (Breath)
Blood Alcohol Analysis (Blood)
Handwriting Comparison
Statement Analysis
Determination of speed from skid marks
Determination of speed from yaw marks
Determination of speed from deformation of metal
Presence of blood
Presence of human blood
Marijuana field test
Marijuana Lab test
Heroin Field test
Heroin Lab Test
as a matter of fact to save time all presumptive tests for drugs whether in the field or lab
Urinalysis
Ink analysis
Identification of trace evidence
Foot Print Comparison
Puzzle fit analysis
Ballistics
NEED I GO ON??? Didn't you talk about error rates in college? Chemistry?, Physics?, Biology? Any science at all?
BTW You said that you used to be a military officer. What is the error rate of the impact location of a 105mm howitzer? If there were not error rate, all of the shells would hit the exact same spot unless the settings were changed.
I realize this answer is probably too long because I don't think you are looking for answers. I think you are looking for argument
Sancho Panza
WJ
To be clear, 2+2=4 is an equation, not a test.
One could use the equation (2+2=?) as a test, of perhaps the math skills of FBI applicants, but it might be what we call excessively "blunt" or just plain uninformative. It would make about as much sense as administering the Vineland tests for adaptive functioning to FBI applicants. Sure they'd get a perfect score, because the Vinland is intended to assist, along with IQ scores, in the assessment of mental retardation.
Now if one takes the very blunt equation/test (2+2=?) and gives it to a cohort of primary students in early grades, one might see a proportion of students provide the correct answer and pass, with some other students unable to provide the correct answer (and fail?). One might anticipate observing more "failures" among students in earlier grades, along with more "passing" scores/answer among students in progressively older grades. Now if we do that enough, we begin to understand that we can predict a certain percentage range of students in each grade will produce correct/passing or incorrect/failing answers to the 2+2=? equation/test.
So yes, 2+2=?, when used as a test of math skills, and not a simple equation, will have a range of correct and erroneous answers - an error rate, which may vary somewhat predictably with age, grade, and other factors. It is even likely that some of the students in younger grades might provide an incorrect answer to the test/equation (2+2=?) while possessing or expressing no great deficiency in mathematical abilities. That is because the construct of math abilities will not be perfectly represented by a single equation (more error, you see), and it is impossible to eliminate all confounding variables such as fatigue, hunger, abuse, attentional difficulties, or perhaps the student was sick and absent on the previous day when the class was introduced to the concept of addition. In general though, we can reasonable anticipate that while providing the correct answer is minimally informative, an incorrect answer might be a signal to a teacher or school professional that something is amiss with a particular student.
Try again?
r
Regarding the 2+2=4 test. The problem would occur with the graders themselves. If the graders were so stupid or negligent so as not to score this as a correct answer, then their would be a very easy appeal process. Such is not the case with a "failed" polygraph based on examiner (grader) error. The fault isn't with the question, (for example, have you ever stolen from an employer?) but instead, how the answer, (squiggly lines on a chart) are graded.
Quote from: WJ on Jan 08, 2008, 02:47 PMWJ
To be clear, 2+2=4 is an equation, not a test.
One could use the equation (2+2=?) as a test, of perhaps the math skills of FBI applicants, but it might be what we call excessively "blunt" or just plain uninformative. It would make about as much sense as administering the Vineland tests for adaptive functioning to FBI applicants. Sure they'd get a perfect score, because the Vinland is intended to assist, along with IQ scores, in the assessment of mental retardation.
Now if one takes the very blunt equation/test (2+2=?) and gives it to a cohort of primary students in early grades, one might see a proportion of students provide the correct answer and pass, with some other students unable to provide the correct answer (and fail?). One might anticipate observing more "failures" among students in earlier grades, along with more "passing" scores/answer among students in progressively older grades. Now if we do that enough, we begin to understand that we can predict a certain percentage range of students in each grade will produce correct/passing or incorrect/failing answers to the 2+2=? equation/test.
So yes, 2+2=?, when used as a test of math skills, and not a simple equation, will have a range of correct and erroneous answers - an error rate, which may vary somewhat predictably with age, grade, and other factors. It is even likely that some of the students in younger grades might provide an incorrect answer to the test/equation (2+2=?) while possessing or expressing no great deficiency in mathematical abilities. That is because the construct of math abilities will not be perfectly represented by a single equation (more error, you see), and it is impossible to eliminate all confounding variables such as fatigue, hunger, abuse, attentional difficulties, or perhaps the student was sick and absent on the previous day when the class was introduced to the concept of addition. In general though, we can reasonable anticipate that while providing the correct answer is minimally informative, an incorrect answer might be a signal to a teacher or school professional that something is amiss with a particular student.
Try again?
r
I used that math equation which when combined with multiple questions make up a test. Did you actually expect me to write a test in here?
Sancho,
You are trying to put the subjective "test" of a polygraph in the same column as DNA testing and many other tests which you wrote (more smoke and mirrors). Polygraph accuracy does not even compare to the accuracy of a sold scientifically proven test like DNA and genetic testing. For example, DNA testing is 99.999% accurate or it is correct, at a minimum of 99,999 times out of 100,000. The POLYGRAPH DOES NOT COME ANYWHERE NEAR THIS WITH REGARDS TO ACCURACY. You should be embarrassed when trying to compare your little 10 week course to the education and skill these medical professionals need to understand and administer genetic or DNA testing.
Also, you are trying to Divert, Distort and Distract from my intent with regards to my original question. What other type of tests, that have the lack of accuracy like the polygraph, do LEO use to select new members of LE?
Gee WJ, I thought you meant what you said. My mistake. I guess. ::)
Didn't you say "Name another type of test that is used by LE that has error rates"?
I didn't see anything in your challenge that said only to name tests that had a similar quantifiable error rate to polygraph. Regarding DNA error rates in order to achieve a 99.999% PROBABILITY of correct results, please try to use correct terminology if you want to communicate. I would refer you to the OJ trial remember Barry Scheck "How about that MS Mazoler" what he was doing there was punching holes in her evidence handling protocol that might alter the probability of the correctness of her results. Lawyers evidently know what you do not. adding variables to the testing process such as, failure to follow strict collection protocol to guard against contamination increases the probable error rate in the sample. While some DNA testimony might reflect a match probability of 1 chance 1 trillion that 2 different people would exhibit the same DNA profile, many testimonies also indicate much lower probabilities like 3 chances in a million which would place a probability of 2 dozen or so possible matches in New York City.
One of the questions I have always had about forensic DNA is would a cross contaminated sample of blood which included blood from both a mother and father who both had Type A blood, possibly falsely implicate a child of the couple who provided the samples? That, in my humble opinion, is how you write a clear question, even though the answer is not a matter for this forum.
While a perfectly collected sample may be 99.999% accurate (even though you will have to show me a study that DNA testing has such a small error rate to get me to believe it) if the sample is not perfectly collected the accuracy rate drops and the error rate climbs. Does polygraph need to strive to reduce it's error rate Yes the NAS review criticized this aspect of polygraph research and I would agree that part of the job of ongoing research into any testing process should be to reduce error rate. Does having an error rate mean a process is worthless NO.
If you want to change your challenge after you have submitted it, (although it isn't appropriate argument), to "What other type of tests, that have the lack of accuracy like the polygraph, do LEO use to select new members of LE?" Regardless of your unfounded presumption implied by that backhanded statement that the error rate in polygraph is somehow unacceptably large, my previous post already addressed the written suitability exam and the MMPI. Plus, how subjective was the oral review board?? There are three. How many tests did you take? How objective is a BI when you provide all of the references.
You made a mistake WJ you climbed out on a limb with your challenge then started sawing between yourself and the trunk.
How dare you accuse me of trying to divert, distort and distract from your intent , when the only evidence that I had of your intent was "Name another type of test that is used by LE that has error rates" If anyone distorted your intent it was you because you evidently lack the ability to convey your intent.
All that being said quantification of Law Enforcement suitability test error rates DOESN"T MATTER because as I said earlier, "The Federal government has made a conscious informed decision that at the risk of letting a few honorable people fail the process they will continue to use the process to weed out all of the dishonorable people they can. That is their right. Your right is not to apply if you don't like the way they exercise their rights. You do not have any right to act in a dishonorable fashion or cheat or lie during any part of the process in which they evaluate your suitability, your honesty, or your integrity, by whatever method they choose to employ that are within the law." This statement applies to all of the suitability tests they choose to use, not just polygraph.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: Twoblock on Jan 08, 2008, 07:05 AMSergeant you wrote " I don't see how a person doing such a thing is behaving the least bit unethically"
That's an issue. You don't see manufacturing false responses as unethical. I do.
How is a person who answers each question truthfully and without withholding any information manufacturing false responses?
There is no verifiable way of determining what someone was thinking, and it is ridiculous to administer a test that includes instruction on what you are and are not allowed to think of after answering each question.
If a test subject answers all questions honestly, and does not withhold any information, how is he behaving unethically if he does long division or recites poetry in his head?
I have referred you to the context of that statement in a previous post.
Please answer my question regarding CMcphee based on his description of what he says he has read, what he has practiced, and what he has said he is trying to conceal.
How do you think he should respond if he is asked if he intends to try to control, alter or interfere the results of his test? Or if he is asked if he intends to tamper with testing process in any way?
Sancho Panza
PS I sincerely hope that the recent news about some Connecticut officer's behavior is a significant distance from your agency. A couple of bad apples can tar and feather a whole PD in the eyes of the public.
sp
Quote from: WJ on Jan 09, 2008, 05:36 AMI have referred you to the context of that statement in a previous post.
Please answer my question regarding CMcphee based on his description of what he says he has read, what he has practiced, and what he has said he is trying to conceal.
How do you think he should respond if he is asked if he intends to try to control, alter or interfere the results of his test? Or if he is asked if he intends to tamper with testing process in any way?
Sancho Panza
PS I sincerely hope that the recent news about some Connecticut officer's behavior is a significant distance from your agency. A couple of bad apples can tar and feather a whole PD in the eyes of the public.
sp
I am curious as to why you feel you can expect an answer from me when you refuse to answer my reasonable and straightforward question. In the interests of discussion, though, I will attempt to do so.
The question I will attempt to answer is the bold print in the above quote. I am not inclined to go through all of CMcPhee's prior posts to determine exactly what is "his description of what he says he has read, what he has practiced, and what he has said he is trying to conceal."
If he plans on answering all questions truthfully, and does not withhold any information, I don't know what else can be ethically, reasonably, or logically required of him. If that is his intent then he should of course answer the examiner by truthfully saying that he is not going to try to control, alter, or interfere with the results. I don't even know how you could claim he is tampering with the testing process if he answers all the questions truthfully and does not withhold any information. He is doing everything that is ethically and reasonably required of a person who is taking a test that is purportedly able to detect deception.
If, on the other hand, he intends to lie on his answers and then use mental or physical countermeasures in order to attempt to pass, then I would certainly agree that he is attempting to interfere with the test and should tell the examiner what he intends. Of course, I think if he is planning to lie he should simply decline to take the polygraph altogether and look for another line of work.
If you had bothered to read my post from 7:05 am yesterday, (I presumed you had read it because you cut a quote from it,) you would have the context of ChrisMcphees activities in practicing physical countermeasures using a BP/Pulsemonitor in an effort to conceal embarrassing sexual activity and that he described himself as an exhibitionist/voyeur.
In response to your question. If you engage in any thoughts that you think might alter your genuine physiological reactions to questions asked on a polygraph examination, you are attempting to alter the results of the examination. Attempting to purposely alter the results of the examination is dishonest and unethical. I realize that this may be a different moral standard than you are willing to ascribe to but that is the source of my comment
QuoteSergeant you wrote " I don't see how a person doing such a thing is behaving the least bit unethically"
That's an issue. You don't see manufacturing false responses as unethical. I do.
You seem to have a common theme to some of your posts that makes it appear to me that you are searching for an ethical loohole that would allow one to escape moral responsibility for dishonest behavior. In my world ethics do not have loopholes.
You are more than welcome to disagree with me if you choose, but it isn't likely that I would ever compromise my ethics and assume yours because I see your position as absolutely unethical.
Sancho Panza
To set the record straight, the minor things I discussed..I plan on disclosing. At first I said something general about voyeurism...then later explained it once the angel polygraphers started calling me the devil. At this point we should assume we are talking about telling the truth and using countermeasures.
Quote from: WJ on Jan 09, 2008, 07:29 AMYou seem to have a common theme to some of your posts that makes it appear to me that you are searching for an ethical loohole that would allow one to escape moral responsibility for dishonest behavior. In my world ethics do not have loopholes.
But you hold a double standard. You aver that it is unethical for those whose honesty and integrity is going to be judged by the pseudoscientific procedure we know as polygraph screening to use polygraph countermeasures to protect against the risk of a false positive outcome. Yet you condone the many deceptions practiced by polygraph examiners that are an integral part of the polygraph process.
Quote from: WJ on Jan 09, 2008, 07:29 AM In response to your question. If you engage in any thoughts that you think might alter your genuine physiological reactions to questions asked on a polygraph examination, you are attempting to alter the results of the examination. Attempting to purposely alter the results of the examination is dishonest and unethical. I realize that this may be a different moral standard than you are willing to ascribe to but that is the source of my comment
The bold text above strikes me as utterly ridiculous. My thoughts are my own. What other people are thinking is completely unverifiable, yet you obviously believe that the thoughts of test subjects are an aspect of the polygraph exam that can and should be controlled by a polygraph examiner. There is simply no verifiable way of doing that, as you well know.
Quote from: WJ on Jan 09, 2008, 07:29 AM You seem to have a common theme to some of your posts that makes it appear to me that you are searching for an ethical loohole that would allow one to escape moral responsibility for dishonest behavior. In my world ethics do not have loopholes.
You are more than welcome to disagree with me if you choose, but it isn't likely that I would ever compromise my ethics and assume yours because I see your position as absolutely unethical.
Sancho Panza
I'm not searching for a "loohole" or a "loophole."
If I take a polygraph test and the examiner tells me to be honest, and not to clench muscles or breathe incorrectly or step on a tack or bite my tongue, I'll gladly do all those things. However, there is simply no logical pathway to thought control and it is completely untenable in practice.
If the examiner tells me what to think about, i.e., to think about the question and the answer I just gave, isn't that essentially telling me to produce an artificial reaction? If you ask me if I am 100 years old and I truthfully tell you that I'm not, why on earth would I continue to think about my answer? If I am asked about stealing or drug use or driving drunk and I answer honestly, why should I continue to think about my answer? Because my answers are truthful it's as uncomplicated as answering any other objective question. If I'm asked what state I live in and I answer, "Connecticut", why would I continue to ponder the question or the answer? If I am told that to do anything else is somehow unethical that is absolutely ridiculous. I've answered honestly and there's no need to give it another thought, so why would I? Yet according to your stated logic, I'd be behaving unethically by thinking about something else. That makes no sense whatsoever.
I am fairly confident that neither you nor any other polygraph supporters truly have a problem with a truthful person's thoughts, for exactly the reason I just stated. A truthful person will answer and that will be it – there will be little reason for them to dwell on their answer or replay the question in their head because once they answered truthfully they are done. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
I believe that you, justifiably so, have a problem with someone who lies on the polygraph and then tries to calm themselves by thinking of other things. The real problem, ironically, is that neither the examiners nor the polygraph are able to determine who the truthful subjects are and who the liars are.
Quote from: WJ on Jan 09, 2008, 08:18 AMQuote from: WJ on Jan 09, 2008, 07:29 AMYou seem to have a common theme to some of your posts that makes it appear to me that you are searching for an ethical loophole that would allow one to escape moral responsibility for dishonest behavior. In my world ethics do not have loopholes.
But you hold a double standard. You aver that it is unethical for those whose honesty and integrity is going to be judged by the pseudoscientific procedure we know as polygraph screening to use polygraph countermeasures to protect against the risk of a false positive outcome. Yet you condone the many deceptions practiced by polygraph examiners that are an integral part of the polygraph process.
I'm sorry Mr. Maschke but your comment about a double standard is based solely on your inference an not one tiny bit on my statements or implications contained in my comments. Your opinion is based on an assumption that all polygraphers are practicing deception and that in order for polygraph to work all polygraphers must lie, which are assumptions you can't prove. Your reference to polygraph as "pseudoscience" is simply your parroting of someone elses unproven opinion.
I have never said that I condone deception practiced by anyone concerning polygraph. If you think I am misrepresenting this statement, each and every one of my posts is available for your review. As the person who literally wrote the book condoning deception, I'm surprised that you don't see the difference.
As I have said repeatedly, If you don't believe that polygraph is a fair process, REFUSE TO TAKE THE TEST and go find a job elsewhere.
If you don't think that polygraph should be used by agencies to help them determine whether or not a person is a suitable employee, WORK TO CHANGE THE LAWS THAT ALLOW THEM TO DO SO.
Either or both of those activities are both ethical and moral and they evidence the dedication to values that indicate the presence of integrity.
Conversely, if one engages in purposeful physical countermeasures .If one engages in any thoughts that they think might alter their genuine physiological reactions to questions asked on a polygraph examination, they are attempting to alter the results of the examination. Attempting to purposely alter the results of the examination is dishonest and unethical. Encouraging others to attempt these countermeasure is unethical and evidences negative integrity issues. These actions would also prove beyond doubt. a lack of honesty and integrity that Law Enforcement appears to want to exclude from its ranks.
On another note, back before the holidays just about the time that you got real busy I asked you a quesion I wonder if you have time to address it now: I notice that in your personal statement about polygraph you are very careful not to talk about certain issues surrounding the nature of your employment with the government. How can they control what you talk about after you no longer work for them?
Sancho Panza
Sergeant, Neither one of us should appear naive here. You keep talking about letting ones innocent mind wander to where ever it will and that is not the topic under discussion. Let your mind wander all it wants and that isn't using countermeasures but the minute you attempt to direct your thought process in in any way in order to manufacture or supress a response to a question on a polygraph it becomes a countermeasure. If you engage in countermeasures you are acting in a dishonest and unethical manner whether or not you are caught. You also place yourself squarely in the group Law Enforcement appears to want to exclude from its ranks.
Remember ethics and morals are what govern our behavior especially when no one can see us.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: WJ on Jan 09, 2008, 07:29 AM
Attempting to purposely alter the results of the examination is dishonest and unethical.
And, a polygrapher lying to the examinee isn't? The mere fact that you are hooked up to a machine that is called a lie detector is dishonest on it's face, because the machine cannot detect lies.
In fact, the last time I discussed the issue face to face with a polygrapher, he admitted that he cannot tell if a person is lying.
If a polygraph was actually capable of detecting lies, then a one question test would be valid, such as: "Did you kill John Doe?"
A yes or no answer, and the poly is over, and spits out the results. Instead, the examiner first attempts to convince the examinee that the machine is a "lie detector" then falsely "tests" the examinee in a stim test, then presumes that the examinee is telling little white lies during the test on the control questions, but those are not relevant, and then on the relevant questions, the whole truth (or deception) is revealed. All of which can be altered if the examinee squeezes his butt muscles, does math in his head, bites his tongue or steps on a tack.
All this is done under the justification that "Well, no test is perfect". I submit a polygraph examination is not even a test, because there is no objective way to pass. One must receive a favorable "opinion" that he or she is being truthful or deceptive. One cannot "pass" an opinion.
Sheesh... The poly is a joke and a fraud.
Sergeant, On a slightly different subject but still pertaining to polygraph, I have been doing some reading on pre-employment screening tests for law enforcement. It appears that after failing your first test because of drugs, you should have been given a specific test on the subject of drugs before being disqualified. When you failed your second test due to fighting/assaults you should have been given a specific test on that subject before being disqualified. When you failed your third test due to theft issues, you should have been given a specific test regarding theft before being disqualified. If these tests occurred what were there results? If they did not occur you might have a legitimate cause for criticism based on the polygraphers not being thorough.
We've discussed screening exams before, and we've discussed the higher error rates that exist in screening exams. Specifically we have discussed that if you score positive on a TB skin test, they don't start treating you for TB they give you another test to confirm the results of the screening exam. It would appear that this is also the proper protocol for pre-employment polygraph.
Just thought I would share that with you
Sancho Panza
Nopoly Once again my response to you is ...
Mr. Mashke, Are there any published scientific independant peer reviewed studies that prove that any type of polygraph countermeasure can make a guilty examinee appear innocent or assist an innocent examinee who is having difficulty, pass the exam?
A simple yes or no would certainly suffice if you are busy, but if the answer is yes could you direct me to where I can read it?
Sancho Panza
Sancho's last response to nopoly is very telling indeed...
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Jan 09, 2008, 11:00 AMSancho's last response to nopoly is very telling indeed...
To keep this response to your comments on topic, it is indeed telling that the polygraph supporters here cannot (or will not) answer straight forward questions honestly, but instead choose to rant and rave about anyone who might want to ensure the success on this arbitrary and capricious procedure commonly called a "lie detector test".
If one goes through my posts, (not suggesting this, but just commenting generally) one will see that typtically the straight forward questions I ask are ignored, or if not ignored, are not answered directly, but emotionally and off-topic. Or, in the extreme, they do the equivalent of stamping their feet, put their fingers in their ears and say, "I don't HEAR you." All very childish, in my opinion.
For the record, am pretty much done researching the polygraph, I believe I have a pretty good handle on what takes place during a polygraph examination. I can now just post for the fun of it, and to help others who come to this site to gain information about the polygraph come to understand it's limitations and the falsity of it all.
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Jan 09, 2008, 11:00 AMSancho's last response to nopoly is very telling indeed...
THANK YOU Chrismcphee33 I have decided that Nopolys wild unsubstantiated claims and the baiting nature of his posts are unworthy of further response. He appears to lack the ability for logical discussion and chooses instead to toss wild accusations that are without foundation.
You will probably notice, as I have, that the polygraphers on this board have started ignoring ignoring him as well. You'll need to ask them why. Surley if you have actually read his posts you don't think that is due to the intelligent nature of his commentary.
He has directly accused me of cowardice and brown nosing without basis. I have never said anything to anyone on this board that I would not happliy say to their face.
If NoPoly4me had the intestinal fortitude to make that comment to my face he would also need the agility to duck.
So based on all of that I choose not to respond to his comments.
So What?
Sancho Panza
In my limited experience posting on this site, it has already become obvious that polygraphers like SanchoPanza tend to make general sweeping statements about morality instead of answering questions. While they are writing these long drawn out responses, which include YELLING and exclaiming! they don't seem to realize that their avoidance of the actual questions is the most telling thing of all about their own understanding of the validity of the polygraph interrogation process.
nopoly wrote:
And, a polygrapher lying to the examinee isn't? The mere fact that you are hooked up to a machine that is called a lie detector is dishonest on it's face, because the machine cannot detect lies.
In fact, the last time I discussed the issue face to face with a polygrapher, he admitted that he cannot tell if a person is lying.
If a polygraph was actually capable of detecting lies, then a one question test would be valid, such as: "Did you kill John Doe?"
A yes or no answer, and the poly is over, and spits out the results. Instead, the examiner first attempts to convince the examinee that the machine is a "lie detector" then falsely "tests" the examinee in a stim test, then presumes that the examinee is telling little white lies during the test on the control questions, but those are not relevant, and then on the relevant questions, the whole truth (or deception) is revealed. All of which can be altered if the examinee squeezes his butt muscles, does math in his head, bites his tongue or steps on a tack.
All this is done under the justification that "Well, no test is perfect". I submit a polygraph examination is not even a test, because there is no objective way to pass. One must receive a favorable "opinion" that he or she is being truthful or deceptive. One cannot "pass" an opinion.
Sancho:
What part of nopoly's post are the wild and unsubstantiated claims? Could you also tell me which parts are of baiting nature?
Chrismcphee33 Your assumption that I am a polygrapher is based on what?
I have considerably more evidence that you are and exhibitionist and voyeur than you have that I am a polygrapher.
You just can't seem to acknowledge the possibility that intellectually curious individuals can research polygraph without eventually worshipping at the George Mashcke antipolygraph shrine.
You criticize statements that promote honesty truth and integrity when you came to this forum attempting to learn how to avoid being honest and truthful about your admitted embarrassing sexual behavior in your upcoming polygraph test.
The vast majority of your questions attempt to establish an avenue of credibilty that you can use to justify your intended attempt to alter the results of that test.
You have my answer to that question. There is no moral and ethical justification for using countermeasures of any kind.
Asking the quesion over and over changing the words of the questions without changing the substance of the question is unlikely to elicit an different response.
The use of different kinds of emphasis like the one you call yelling (which seems odd to me considering this board doesn't use sound)is just an attempt at emphasising that "hey you've heard this answer before" or to call attention to a particular point. Your repeated asking of the same questions over and over after you have received responses is just an indication you refuse to read the response or that you are refusing to acknowledge a response because it doesn't tell you what you want to hear.
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Jan 09, 2008, 11:52 AMnopoly wrote:
And, a polygrapher lying to the examinee isn't? The mere fact that you are hooked up to a machine that is called a lie detector is dishonest on it's face, because the machine cannot detect lies.
In fact, the last time I discussed the issue face to face with a polygrapher, he admitted that he cannot tell if a person is lying.
If a polygraph was actually capable of detecting lies, then a one question test would be valid, such as: "Did you kill John Doe?"
A yes or no answer, and the poly is over, and spits out the results. Instead, the examiner first attempts to convince the examinee that the machine is a "lie detector" then falsely "tests" the examinee in a stim test, then presumes that the examinee is telling little white lies during the test on the control questions, but those are not relevant, and then on the relevant questions, the whole truth (or deception) is revealed. All of which can be altered if the examinee squeezes his butt muscles, does math in his head, bites his tongue or steps on a tack.
All this is done under the justification that "Well, no test is perfect". I submit a polygraph examination is not even a test, because there is no objective way to pass. One must receive a favorable "opinion" that he or she is being truthful or deceptive. One cannot "pass" an opinion.
Sancho:
What part of nopoly's post are the wild and unsubstantiated claims? Could you also tell me which parts are of baiting nature?
First I was referring to his posts in general not the post you referenced although I wouldn't necessarily exclude it.
If I responded to the above, wouldn't that really be responding to Nopoly? Go back and read the part where I clearly stated "I have decided that Nopoly's wild unsubstantiated claims and the baiting nature of his posts are unworthy of further response." Do I need to resort to capital letters and yellow highlights to get you to read that? If there is some part of that statement you are unable to comprehend, please describe it as best you can and I will try to explain even though the language was sufficiently plain that further explanation would probably make someone accuse me of condescension.
The idea that simply regurgitating his post somehow makes it yours is just a bit silly. Someone might possibly even call it plagiaristic. ::)
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Jan 09, 2008, 11:37 AM
He has directly accused me of cowardice and brown nosing without basis. I have never said anything to anyone on this board that I would not happliy say to their face.
If NoPoly4me had the intestinal fortitude to make that comment to my face he would also need the agility to duck.
Sancho Panza
NOW it's getting FUN!
I presume you are referring to the following comment:
"You probably survived by avoiding the hot calls, (like you avoid my posts) and getting into internal affairs as soon as you could brown nose enough brass."Well, of course the above is not a direct accusation as you state, but instead couched as an opinion, which frankly was beneath my dignity and not worthy of a person with my intellectual prowess. I guess I got caught up in the moment, and for that I apologize. I find it curious and instructive though, that you actually don't deny it's truthfulness, but instead misdirect by stating that I directly accused you of avoiding hot calls and brown nosing your way into internal affairs. No, Sancho, I was just stating my opnion based on my 30 years of active duty police work, (I still carry a badge, BTW). You see, I have seen many people get to the top, (or at least a cushy ROAD* job such as internal affairs) on the backs of good cops and their carreers.
And, I have said nothing here that I wouldn't say to your face, or anyone elses face. I would welcome a personal meeting with anyone here. Perhaps Dr. Phil or Maury Povich could arrange it, it could be a very exhilerating experience for all, and extremely entertaining.
* ROAD means "Retired On Active Duty" for the non-police readers.
Gotta go now, I have a one o'clock court appearance.
I forgot something in my previous post about polygraphers, like Sancho, not answering questions directly. I meant to also include that he/she also tends to revert back to prvious posts (ie: I have considerably more evidence that you are and exhibitionist and voyeur than you have that I am a polygrapher. ). You can repeat that 100 times, I have no issues with it because I have explained in more detail what I meant...if you really cared to know. Read over your previous post and it will; be very obvious just how much you avoid the actual questions. You act like you don't want to justify such questions with a response, yet you will respond to my statements about you yelling (ie. The use of different kinds of emphasis like the one you call yelling (which seems odd to me considering this board doesn't use sound).
You made a statement about nopoly making wild and unsubstantiated claims...I am just asking which of the claims he made, which I pasted in my previous post, are wild and unsubstantiated?
nopoly4me
WOW!!!
Many thanks for putting your life on the line for so many years in these dangerous times.
Good job
Again Nopoly the only response I have for you is ...
Chrismcphee33 Your assumption that I am a polygrapher is based on what?
And I can't understand your support of Nopoly when he probably survived 30 years active duty puttiing the arm on merchants for freebies and cop discounts while radioing HQ that he was out of position to respond to anything dangerous and perjuring himself in court while padding his expenses or siphoning gas out of his agency car for his kids go-cart. Of course that's not an accusation, thats just an opinion isn't it?
Hey Mr. Maschke You decide Unsupported accusation or Statement of opinion?
Sancho Panza
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Jan 09, 2008, 01:04 PMnopoly4me
WOW!!!
Many thanks for putting your life on the line for so many years in these dangerous times.
Good job
Thank-you Twoblock for your kind words. I will be the first to admit though, that my carreer hasn't been all that action packed, but there are a few times where the pucker factor was pretty high.
I frankly only brought up this aspect of my personal life to counter Sancho's holier than thou attitude. No cop has a corner on the integrity and honestly department.
What I find incomprehensible is the willingness to brand innocent applicants as liars, and denying them the opporunity to serve their community based on an arbitrary and capricious test such as the poly. It is no wonder that jobs go wanting for lack of applicants. When I started, there were a hundred applicants for every open job. The reverse is now true, and I believe the polygraph is responsible for a large part of that.
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Jan 09, 2008, 01:35 PMChrismcphee33 Your assumption that I am a polygrapher is based on what?
And I can't understand your support of Nopoly when he probably survived 30 years active duty puttiing the arm on merchants for freebies and cop discounts while radioing HQ that he was out of position to respond to anything dangerous and perjuring himself in court while padding his expenses or siphoning gas out of his agency car for his kids go-cart. Of course that's not an accusation, thats just an opinion isn't it?
Hey Mr. Maschke You decide Unsupported accusation or Statement of opinion?
Sancho Panza
Actually your opinion is ill-concieved and inaccurate, but I will admit to a free cup of coffee now and then back in the day when that was not considered a gratuity. :-*
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Jan 09, 2008, 11:43 AMIn my limited experience posting on this site, it has already become obvious that polygraphers like SanchoPanza tend to make general sweeping statements about morality instead of answering questions. While they are writing these long drawn out responses, which include YELLING and exclaiming! they don't seem to realize that their avoidance of the actual questions is the most telling thing of all about their own understanding of the validity of the polygraph interrogation process.
Chris McPhee, as you now know I am retired LEO and a Polygraph Examiner for the past 7 years. It amazes me that other supposed LEOs posting on this site can't see through the BS you spout. You came to this site to find out how to avoid a sexual area on an upcoming polygraph. Now you state you are going to tell the truth but still employ CM's to assure you pass the Polygraph. You act as if you now 'know it all' because you practiced with a BP cuff. As I have stated previously, do what you plan to do; but, please return here after your polygraph and tell us all how you did. It's plain and simple.
Just remember what has been posted in the past. In a study that was published in 2007 (Dr. Honts & Wendy Alloway)..... The result-the book TLBTLD
did not assist the guilty group to pass but did cause more of the innocent group to fail. This is completely opposite of what is stated at AP. Studying the countermeasures actually caused more
innocents to fail without helping guilty to pass. For more details check out: Latest Study Indicates "Lie Behind the Lie Detector" Hurts Innocent, Doesn't Help Guilty (posted under AP polygraph policy - 12/7/01)
As for nopoly4me, I also don't care to engage in discussions with you as you just try to argue and bait. Someone recently asked for stats on if there really is a 75% failure rate on pre-employment exams. Yankeedog and I provided just the opposite and you tried to dissect that information. I can see why Sancho ignores you.
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Jan 09, 2008, 01:57 PM
As for nopoly4me, I also don't care to engage in discussions with you as you just try to argue and bait. Someone recently asked for stats on if there really is a 75% failure rate on pre-employment exams. Yankeedog and I provided just the opposite and you tried to dissect that information. I can see why Sancho ignores you.
Well, wonders never end... Ms. Taylor the questions I ask which you and others refuse to answer are precisely the type of questions that, if left unanswered, exposes the polygraph for the sham that it is. The fact that you do not know how many people you "pass" were using countermeasures, exposes the truth. You don't know, and can't tell.
BTW, I have a lot of respect for polygraphers who choose to work with SO's on a daily basis, as the mere association leaves a stain that is difficult to wash out. I also have no problem or issue using the poly for SO's, because they should be in prison anyway, IMO.
QuoteIt amazes me that other supposed LEOs posting on this site can't see through the BS you spout. You came to this site to find out how to avoid a sexual area on an upcoming polygraph. Now you state you are going to tell the truth but still employ CM's to assure you pass the Polygraph.
Surprise surprsie, a polygrapher making sweeping statements and trying to bait. For anyone who is interested in the post where my sexual activity is discussed in a little bit more detail, go here:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3795.msg27406#msg27406
QuoteYou act as if you now 'know it all' because you practiced with a BP cuff
I have an opinion after doing some research...so that makes me a know it all? If you and other polygrapher woudl answer direct questions, maybe I would get some actual information which opposes most of the views on this site....but time and time again polygraphers choose to avoid actually answering the tough questions.
Quoteplease return here after your polygraph and tell us all how you did
I will be happy to. I might pass, I might fail, I might use cm's, I might be falsy accused of lying, I might be falsy accused of using cm's...who knows....but I will come back an let you know how I did. This is about the fifth time you said this over the past two weeks to me...I appreciate your genuine concern. ;)
Ms. Taylor, do you find any part of the statement below as wild or unsubstantiated?
If a polygraph was actually capable of detecting lies, then a one question test would be valid, such as: "Did you kill John Doe?"
A yes or no answer, and the poly is over, and spits out the results. Instead, the examiner first attempts to convince the examinee that the machine is a "lie detector" then falsely "tests" the examinee in a stim test, then presumes that the examinee is telling little white lies during the test on the control questions, but those are not relevant, and then on the relevant questions, the whole truth (or deception) is revealed. All of which can be altered if the examinee squeezes his butt muscles, does math in his head, bites his tongue or steps on a tack.
All this is done under the justification that "Well, no test is perfect". I submit a polygraph examination is not even a test, because there is no objective way to pass. One must receive a favorable "opinion" that he or she is being truthful or deceptive. One cannot "pass" an opinion.