I am going to attempt to make a long story short here... Almost a year ago I applied to the RCMP in Canada; I thought it would be a good job for a variety of reasons. I have a University degree; and had been employed overseas for several years. I did well on the written test, physical test and then the interview. Next came the polygraph, to be honest I was always skeptic about the polygraph (who isn't?) so I did a little of research on the internet, I found this site and briefly looked over it. I basically decided that I would trust the RCMP and believed that if I was 100% honest I would pass the "test", I guess I thought this site was alarmist and perhaps not reliable. Huge mistake.
Well you can guess what happened if I'm writing here. Yes I "failed" the test. I maintained my innocence in the post interrogation. I left feeling perplexed and very disappointed. The next day I went to my old University library to research the polygraph and figure out how it was possible to fail while being truthful. My jaw almost hit the floor when I read The Polygraph and Lie Detection written by the National Research Council in 2003 concerned about inaccuracy of polygraphs. Equally disturbing was the 1981 report, A Tremor in the Blood by famous psychologist Dr. David Lykken, also illuminating the short-comings of the polygraph. Lastly, I studied, The Lie Detectors: The History of an American Obsession by historian Dr. Ken Alder published in 2007. All three books ultimately conclude that the polygraph has no scientific basis and people frequently fail the test while telling the truth. I wanted to read a current source supporting the polygraph with scientific evidence however; I could not find any at my library.
I was so angry that I "failed" this "test" that I wrote a letter to the RCMP and told them I wanted to be removed from the recruitment process, why would I want to work for someone who thinks I am a criminal? For god sakes if I was a criminal why would I want to work in the lions den!? Several weeks later they gave me a call to talk, I said why would I want to work for someone who thinks I am a liar? They said "fine that is your choice"... and that was that.
I am ultimately writing this for a few reasons I guess.
1. To get it off my chest and put yet another story out there about how polygraphs do not work.
2. To encourage anyone reading this to go to the library and research the polygraph. You don't have to believe me or this website. Take 30 min at the library and you will see that the polygraph works about as well as flipping a coin.... Simply unbelievable but true.
I'm sort of confused here.
You stated you failed the polygraph, but there still trying to recruit you.
One I don't think they accused of being a liar. They were saying you showed possible deception during the test, which could've of been cleared on a secondary polygraph.
If they were going to allow you to take another polygraph, you might of showed inconclusive results (whick meant the machine could not accuratly determine(ok, the polygrapher) whether you were deceptive or not.
As much as I'm not a fan of prescreening for employment, I personally feel giving up is almost worst then being accused. After seeing this site, and knowing how the machine worked. I'd go back in there with my head held high, and retake the machine. If your honest, have the qualifications, and can dispute the results of your test (which would show in a post test questioning, then you probably would of made it to the next round in the hiring process.
Just my two cents. Good luck in your future ventures.
What I don't understand about the polygraph test is how an employer, such as a local police department, can hold anything against an applicant who researches the polygraph exam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like most agencies and/or examiners will brand you a liar or a cheat for doing research on a test. This is, of course, if you disclose the information to them prior to taking the polygraph examination.
Negative Question:
The one time I did have a problem was when I didn't do the research. That caused for conflict. It's widely known that the majority of appilicants can and will look up information online before a polygraph. Saying you didn't honestly leads to possible deception. Albeit more or less stupidity.
I get the feeling that these individuals wouldn't appreciate being told how one could possibly fool the machine, and their profession.
And... "Another one bites the dust hey!, another one bites the dust!"
Okay, it looses something without music. Wes99, you were the victim of a false positive, which happens with quite some frequency in pre-employment screening for LE jobs. You are also known as collateral damage, the agencies don't give a rat's ass about you personally, they have plenty of applicants, and they are willing to accuse honest people of lying just to weed out those who might not be a good candidate, because frankly, polygraphs are cheaper than background investigations.
Best of luck with whatever career you choose. If I had it to do over again knowing what I know now, I am pretty certain LE would not be my first choice. I am glad I am about done with my career.
You must be withholding information. The machine doesn't lie.
You may be sitting there THINKING your telling the truth, but if the machine shows deception, well, then you must not be telling them everything they want to hear.
Any questions?
And don't bore me with the opinion of some rinky-dink entity like the "National Academy of Sciences", they're just a bunch of BIASED SCIENTISTS!
Sackett
P.S. Based on my experience, false positives don't happen frequently enough to worry about it. How do I know that? Just TRUST ME, I know, I am a professional polygrapher
Al;
Here is my answer Al;
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3832.msg28399#msg28399
Quote from: Wes99 on Feb 17, 2008, 04:45 AMYou must be withholding information. The machine doesn't lie.
You may be sitting there THINKING your telling the truth, but if the machine shows deception, well, then you must not be telling them everything they want to hear.
Any questions?
And don't bore me with the opinion of some rinky-dink entity like the "National Academy of Sciences", they're just a bunch of BIASED SCIENTISTS!
Sackett
P.S. Based on my experience, false positives don't happen frequently enough to worry about it. How do I know that? Just TRUST ME, I know, I am a professional polygrapher
You don't know how many "fasle positives" there really are since, if the "machine" says your lying and there is no subsequent proof that your not, that test is considered accurate.
Trusting you because your a professional poligrapher is no reason to trust you.
You have trained for a few weeks to operate a machine that is scientifiacally unable to accualy do what is is supposed to do, that is unfortunatly used to mess up peoples lives.
HOW DO I KNOW??? TRUST ME I WAS A VICTIM OF A FALSE POSITIVE!!
Notguilty,
I was just kidding. You obviously took my post as serious.
I was being sarcastic and doing a poor imitation of one of our board's polygraphers.
I too was a false positive.
Quote from: Wes99 on Feb 17, 2008, 01:27 PMNotguilty,
I was just kidding. You obviously took my post as serious.
I was being sarcastic and doing a poor imitation of one of our board's polygraphers.
I too was a false positive.
LOL LOL Hey Larry I got it NOW !! LOL.
I guess when I read it it sounded like something a poligrapher would say.
I just don't know what to say about someone who thinks the dozens of doctors and scientists that make up the National Research Council are "rinkey-dink"...
All I know is that my personal experience with a polygraph seemed like something out of George Orwell's novel 1984. I told the truth, and was then told I was a lair by a man who met me 3 hours earlier. The only way to describe it is as bizarre.
Yes, I believe they may have been calling me to take a re-test (or in some cases I have heard that they move you on even after you "fail" the test) I guess I could have gone in with my head held high and taken the test again, however I started to ask myself several questions:
1.Do I want to be subjected to polygraph tests throughout my career?
2.Knowing what I know now, (that polygraphs do not work) do I even want to work for an employer who claims that they do?
Look, with 1 hour at the library it becomes plain to see that the debate about polygraph validity has been over for almost 30 years. They don't work. It seems morally and ethically wrong to brand people liars based on this faulty machine. I guess it's cheaper than a background check and perhaps it helps prevent criminals from applying for LE jobs, but who knows how many qualified non-criminals it also prevents from applying! Also, it may be cheaper than a background check but clearly not as accurate.
I just feel after my personal experience and a bit of research that polygraphs are a total sham. Perhaps the only exception to this is the "guilty knowledge test" that appears to have at least some validity, but is impossible to use in pre-screening. If I have to buy into the myth of the polygraph in order to work in LE, then I guess a career in LE wasn't for me all along anyway. That's fine. Off to graduate school in the fall. Thank you for all the support and even the negativity. I love free speech and wouldn't want it any other way.
Oh I'm sorry Larry, I honestly thought you were serious! HA!
To be honest that is pretty much how the polygraph examiner talked to me. Very rude, he had a high and mighty attitude and said all the negative things written about the polygraph were bullshit... at the time I hardly knew what he was talking about, since I had not researched the topic yet, only spent a few moments on this site.
Quote from: Wes99 on Feb 18, 2008, 11:44 AMQuote from: Wes99 on Feb 17, 2008, 01:27 PMNotguilty,
I was just kidding. You obviously took my post as serious.
I was being sarcastic and doing a poor imitation of one of our board's polygraphers.
I too was a false positive.
LOL LOL Hey Larry I got it NOW !! LOL.
I guess when I read it it sounded like something a poligrapher would say.
You know Larry, I get it too. I don't mind being challenged with opinion, inuendo and (so-called) experience but for you to attept to imitate me, write some garbage then sign MY name to it! This is a time when imitiation is NOT flattery. Not everyone who reads this is focused enough to research the posting line to see that you were writing something as me, AS IF you could...
If you don't have the decency to challenge or interact with me directly with something more than sarcasm and self-righteousness, then don't bother. I gotta tell you, you have truly shown yourself to be an unworthy and dishonest adversary.
Sackett
Sackett,
Have you ever "suckered" a test subject into making some minor admission so you could blow it all out of proportion to justify a "reaction" on your ouija board machine?
Your pattern of posting indicates that you have. In additon, the pattern of bird droppings in my office parking lot show you are being deceptive.
So "come clean" and admit it.!
Does it bother you that you may be victimizing innocent people in that way, while the guilty go free?
Shame on you!
"Not everyone who reads this is focused enough to research the posting line to see that you were writing something as me, AS IF you could... "
How does it feel to have you're reputation smeared unfairly, like polygraphers do on a regular basis.
My gosh, you guys squeal like "stuck pigs", when you get your own medicine!
To be honest that is pretty much how the polygraph examiner talked to me. Very rude, he had a high and mighty attitude and said all the negative things written about the polygraph were bullshit...
Sounds like some of the polygraphers on this board. And when you catch them at their own game, they talk in circles and squeak like mice.
And they are not dumb. They know perfectly well the game they are playing.
And they probably have numerous rationalizations to justify it. Just like the judges at the "salem witch trials".
"We are doing God's work!"
"We had to expunge the devil they held within!"
"Tolerate the demon, spoil the soul! More rocks lads!"
Quote from: Wes99 on Feb 18, 2008, 09:21 PMSackett,
Have you ever "suckered" a test subject into making some minor admission so you could blow it all out of proportion to justify a "reaction" on your ouija board machine?
Your pattern of posting indicates that you have. In additon, the pattern of bird droppings in my office parking lot show you are being deceptive.
So "come clean" and admit it.!
Does it bother you that you may be victimizing innocent people in that way, while the guilty go free?
Shame on you!
"Not everyone who reads this is focused enough to research the posting line to see that you were writing something as me, AS IF you could... "
How does it feel to have you're reputation smeared unfairly, like polygraphers do on a regular basis.
My gosh, you guys squeal like "stuck pigs", when you get your own medicine!
Well said Larry!
I still don't understand why people in the "business" care to come on here. If this site was not a threat to thier scam they would just let the science prove itself making us what they want to believe we are " a bunch a liars that need to hang on each other for strength"
I was told by my poligrapher that getting info on poly's before the test probably hurt me!!! WHAT?? BTW, I didn't read anything about counter mesures, I didn't think I would need them.
If the test is supposed to be vurtually unbeatable as they say how the hell can getting some info on what the test is possibly affect the results??
If the test is supposed to be vurtually unbeatable as they say how the hell can getting some info on what the test is possibly affect the results??
Because getting information means uncovering the scam.
That doesn't mean, however, that you should be confrontational when tested. Actually, you should play along.
IOW, rather than say: "Bullshit! I'm telling the truth, I don't care what your $%^^#ing machine says!"
It would be better to remain polite, and just exhibit surprise. Maintain that you have absolutely no idea why you are "reacting" to the question. Just don't let them con you into believing you could somehow be lying, and not know it.
It reminds me of the old Apache Lie-detection test. They would heat up a knife and place it on some poor bastard's tongue. If the knife stuck, he was assumed to be lying, if not, he was being truthful.
But all that proved was that if the knife stuck, it was because his mouth was dry from nervousness! But why would he be nervous IF HE WAS NOT LYING? How about because some dang injun was about to put a red hot knife on his tongue!!
In the case of a pre-employment poly, one explanation could be: "SHIT! I need this job, this is the job of my dream. But he says I'm lying. Oh dear, and they say this thing is fool proof! What am I gonna do? I WANT THIS JOB!"
But NOOOOO! Mr. "Edgar Cayce" Sackett knows all. He KNOOOOOOWS if you are "withholding information". So he says!
And if the NAS says otherwise, then they are just BIASED!
Quote from: Wes99 on Feb 18, 2008, 09:21 PMSackett,
Have you ever "suckered" a test subject into making some minor admission so you could blow it all out of proportion to justify a "reaction" on your ouija board machine?
No. I go after explanations for the reactions. Sometimes, they are simple ommissions in which the examinee thought was unimportant and were not discussed before the test. Then, after spending my time to clear it up, retested, cleared up the issue with the subject who then passed. Other times they are actually lies (yes, some people actually lie to me.. imagine that!?), then resolve the issue. Good lord, imagine that?!! An examiner who actually wants to seek the truth. Truly, a concept you can not grasp.
Your pattern of posting indicates that you have. In additon, the pattern of bird droppings in my office parking lot show you are being deceptive.
Well, I will admit, you WOULD know the difference...
So "come clean" and admit it.!
Does it bother you that you may be victimizing innocent people in that way, while the guilty go free?
Nope!
Shame on you!
You are right... Please send Pamela Anderson to come punish me. I have been a baaaaaad boy!
"Not everyone who reads this is focused enough to research the posting line to see that you were writing something as me, AS IF you could... "
How does it feel to have you're reputation smeared unfairly, like polygraphers do on a regular basis.
This is what I find to be the most absurd assertion. That you, a fanatical anti-polygraph poster could "smear" MY reputation. ::) You go boy, keep trying...
My gosh, you guys squeal like "stuck pigs", when you get your own medicine!
You have served nothing here but whiny ass opinions. This, without substance and tainted with nothing more than ranting and raving of what would apear to be fanatical and misdirected diatribe. You hardly cause any more than a desire by me to make you look.... well, I don't wish to get that personal...
Sackett
This is what I find to be the most absurd assertion. That you, a fanatical anti-polygraph poster could "smear" MY reputation. Roll Eyes You go boy, keep trying...
That is really ironic. A polygrapher complaining about having his reputation unjustly "smeared".
Sometimes, they are simple ommissions in which the examinee thought was unimportant and were not discussed before the test. Then, after spending my time to clear it up, retested, cleared up the issue with the subject who then passed.....
So what happens when you get a PERSISTENT "response" on a relevant question, and after repeated follow-up (which for some "false positives" can go on for days), the person will not produce an "omission" or "admission"? Do they get an "inconclusive"?
And since, scientifically, a "response" does not necessarily equal a "lie" or a "withholding of info", how is this any different from any interrogation in which the interrogator, after hours of badgering, can't get the subject to "crack".
IOW, you SUSPECT the guy is lying, but can't prove it. Maybe this is why our beloved polygraph test is NOT ADMISSIBLE in court.
In a previous post (forget what thread) you claimed you KNOW when a person is withholding information. How?
Suspecting and KNOWING are two different things.
As for the my claim that you are being "deceptive". I just couldn't resist giving a polygrapher his own medicine (i.e. accusing somebody of deception without any proof). Doesn't feel very good, does it?
You have served nothing here but whiny ass opinions.
Is the NAS report a "whinny ass opinion"?
Can you really be unbiased considering the fact that you work as a polygrapher? It would be understandable if you can't.
Admittedly, one could equally question my bias as a "false positive".
So let's stick with the research. You've pooh poohed the NAS report.
So what academic research is there (not published by the polygraph industry), to substantiate the validity of your test?
If it's so reliable, why is it not admissible in court? And in that case, we are talking about LE polygraphs where there an actual crime has been committed versus a preemployment witch hunt screening.
Simple questions.
Larry,
I have addressed or answered everything you have put to me, with exception of admissability in court. Therefore, I present the following:
You are severely mistaken in your presumption of information. In many jurisdicitons, polygraph IS admissable in court. Certain factors have to be met, of course, but certainly polygraph is admissable. I have in fact testified at many trials and boards regarding polygraph and/or the results.
Further, regarding sex offenders, MANY judicial orders include periodic polygraph examination as a maintenance program requirement. Not admissable? Not judicially noted? Then why are judges increasingly utilizing polygraph for that particular purpose?
On a personal note, polygraph is an investigative tool. I never said it was the be all or end all of fact finding. Personally, I do not believe in the (blind) admissability of polygraph evidence. The reason is simple. Some examiners do not perform in the manner in which they were taught. Many have in fact been at it so long, they think they know better than the training. Some were never trained appropriately. Some are not given all information for consideration of test developement and run improper testing. Some are simply unethical and would certainly fit the mold you are trying to cast all examiners in to.
Furthermore, and maybe more importantly... If polygraph were to be blindly admiitted into courts, then what would be the need of the jury system? The constitution (of the U.S.) provides that right and it would be usurped through the blind application and admissabilty of polygraph.
So as you can see Larry, once again you are incorrect in your presentation of misinformation. A common theme, I think...
Sackett
I have addressed or answered everything you have put to me
You haven't answered how it is that the polygraph allows you TO KNOW whether somebody is "withholding information".
You also never answered the question regarding cases in which a person is persistently showing a an unacceptable "response" to a relevant question, yet will not produce an admission to account for it. Presumably, because untruthfulness is only one possiblity for such a response (versus anger, fear, embarassment...etc.)
On a personal note, polygraph is an investigative tool. I never said it was the be all or end all of fact finding.
Again, then why did you claim you KNOW when somebody is withholding information?
In many jurisdicitons, polygraph IS admissable in court. Further, regarding sex offenders, MANY judicial orders include periodic polygraph examination as a maintenance program requirement. Not admissable? Not judicially noted?
In MOST juristictions it is not allowed. In the case of sex offenders, you are talking about "post-conviction supervision".. IOW, the guy has already been found GUILTY. The polygraph was not used to FIND GUILT.
So as you can see Larry, once again you are incorrect in your presentation of misinformation. A common theme, I think...
Wikipedia states my position precisely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph
There is little scientific evidence to support the reliability of polygraphs. Despite claims of 90% - 95% reliability, critics charge that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established.
Personally, I do not believe in the (blind) admissability of polygraph evidence. The reason is simple. Some examiners do not perform in the manner in which they were taught.
Then do you believe it should be used to be blindly used to eliminate a candidate for employment, and smear their reputation?
Most of the polygraphers on this board seem to think we're just a bunch of "cry babies".
I have addressed or answered everything you have put to me
You haven't answered how it is that the polygraph allows you TO KNOW whether somebody is "withholding information".
You also never answered the question regarding cases in which a person is persistently showing a an unacceptable "response" to a relevant question, yet will not produce an admission to account for it. Presumably, because untruthfulness is only one possiblity for such a response (versus anger, fear, embarassment...etc.)
On a personal note, polygraph is an investigative tool. I never said it was the be all or end all of fact finding.
Again, then why did you claim you KNOW when somebody is withholding information?
In many jurisdicitons, polygraph IS admissable in court. Further, regarding sex offenders, MANY judicial orders include periodic polygraph examination as a maintenance program requirement. Not admissable? Not judicially noted?
In MOST juristictions it is not allowed. In the case of sex offenders, you are talking about "post-conviction supervision".. IOW, the guy has already been found GUILTY. The polygraph was not used to FIND GUILT.
So as you can see Larry, once again you are incorrect in your presentation of misinformation. A common theme, I think...
Wikipedia states my position precisely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph
There is little scientific evidence to support the reliability of polygraphs. Despite claims of 90% - 95% reliability, critics charge that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established.
Personally, I do not believe in the (blind) admissability of polygraph evidence. The reason is simple. Some examiners do not perform in the manner in which they were taught.
Then do you believe it should be used blindly to eliminate a candidate for employment, and smear their reputation?
Most of the polygraphers on this board seem to think we're just a bunch of "cry babies". And you claimed that false positives really don't happen that often, yet the NAS report stated that for every "bad guy" failing a test, there is likey to be hundreds if not thousands of innocent people falsely accused.
Is the NAS presenting misinformation?
I, like most of the public and "crybabies" on thise board, I used to believe in the reliability of the test. It's only after we actually FAIL THE TEST DESPITE BEING TRUTHFUL, and have our reputation smeared, do we start to question the reliability of the test. Then people start reading the literature, and their suspicion of the test are confirmed.
In fact, that is why our Canadian friend (remember him?) started this thread!
Larry, Larry, Larry,
I have in-deed answered, just not to your satisfaction.
Of course, based on your fanatical, skewed and venemous attacks and responses to me; your satisfaction can never be met.. :( :-[ :'( :'( :'(
Please, have the last word...as I believe this thread has run its course.
Sackett
"I have in-deed answered (your questions), just not to your satisfaction. "
If only more people would say that to their polygrapher!
Mr Sackett could open a college for Spin-Doctors.
His posts reek of narcissism - an egomaniac delux.
But he thoroughly checked his resources through the reliable website known a wikepedia...
Larry I'm guessing is not Law Enforcement, has never interviewed anyone, and obviously thinks a polygrapher is reading the charts to determine deception. Oh well.
Sackett
You brought up great points. ;D
But he thoroughly checked his resources through the reliable website known a wikepedia...
I've cited the NAS report repeatedly.
Guess I better stop confusing you guys with facts.
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 26, 2008, 11:12 PMBut he thoroughly checked his resources through the reliable website known a wikepedia...
I've cited the NAS report repeatedly.
Guess I better stop confusing you guys with facts.
Larry, You cannot expect these guys to be impressed by FACTS if they did they would not have a job to go to!!
Larry, You cannot expect these guys to be impressed by FACTS if they did they would not have a job to go to!!
All they are good for is the occasional "cat call" from the "peanut gallery".
Wait a minute !!! You and this site in fact do repeatedly bring up the National Academy of Sciences Report, AS IF that were some kind of Peer Review Study without bias !! Aren't many of the members of the NAS in fact the VERY SCIENTISTS that the Government employs directly, or in the military industrial complex, that the government wants to test in the first place ??? Hardly an unbiased peer review, and rather a self serving statement.
In my experience, and from what I'm reading and hearing, those who incorporate the mind games of this site have found themselves in the unemployment line like George M. did. I wonder if there are enough jobs in Holland that he can refer you folks to, as he, despite a PhD in Middle Eastern languages, could not get a job here despite the war on radical Islam / Al Queda. It tells me that something must be missing above and beyond the polygraph issue --------- like maybe his psyche test or something. At the end of the day when all is said and done, the polygraph is in place until the ever changing world of science adds something new to replace it. Don't just throw out he baby with the bath water, take on the challenge to improve it, as the world has enough gripers and winers already. ::)
Don't just throw out he baby with the bath water, take on the challenge to improve it, as the world has enough gripers and winers already.
You don't throw out the baby with the bathwater ..... unless the baby is dead as the technology in poly's is. Poly's simply do NOT detect lies!!! (the ability of poly's to detect lies being the baby in the bath)
The proof is out there and is supported by the fact that ploy's are NOT admissable in court. If your test was so great at detecting lies why not allow it in court? I will tell you why IT DOESENT DETECT LIES!! At best it detects your response to a questions, that response can be manipulated intentionally or unintentionally by MANY factors.
If you were on the receiving end of a false positive poly you'd know too.
Pre-employment polygraph tests are actually ILLEGAL, except in the federal government and law enforcement. And the clock is ticking there.
What good is a test that falsely brands the innocent liars, and allows the guilty to get by undetected?
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
IF IT WASN'T THE NATIONAL SECURITY AT STAKE, IT WOULD BE FUNNY!
What ever happened to good old fashioned detective work. They would have nabbed Aldrich Ames a lot sooner if they had done that and not relied so much on his stupid polygraph updates!
And several soviets spying for us wouldn't be dead!
Larry,
wrong again! Any governmental agency may use polygraph, that is to say, local, county, state and federal... Also, select private companies may use it in pre-employment screening as well. Didn't you accuse someone else of not doing their "homework?"
notguilty1,
once again, you elude to yourself and the (perhaps) three other posters who claim false positives in the past... While I can not address your specific test, I can remind you that no polygraph examiner claims the polygraph detects lies. YOU (on this board) are the only people who claim, we examiners claim to detect lies through the polygraph.
The polygraph process simply identifies threats associated with withheld, falsified, minimized, ommitted and/or rationalized information/answers. I'll bet your examiner told you to be 100% honest and the results of your testing indicated an amount less than that. Ergo, you failed and now proudly claim the victim status you repeatedly maintain here.
Sackett
Quote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Feb 28, 2008, 01:05 AMWhile I can not address your specific test, I can remind you that no polygraph examiner claims the polygraph detects lies. YOU (on this board) are the only people who claim, we examiners claim to detect lies through the polygraph.
Then why is the polygraph school founded by the man who started the CIA's polygraph program (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=435.msg2012#msg2012), and who came up with the idea of numerically scoring polygraph charts, called the Backster School of Lie Detection (http://www.backster.net)?
notguilty1,
once again, you elude to yourself and the (perhaps) three other posters who claim false positives in the past... While I can not address your specific test, I can remind you that no polygraph examiner claims the polygraph detects lies. YOU (on this board) are the only people who claim, we examiners claim to detect lies through the polygraph.
The polygraph process simply identifies threats associated with withheld, falsified, minimized, ommitted and/or rationalized information/answers. I'll bet your examiner told you to be 100% honest and the results of your testing indicated an amount less than that. Ergo, you failed and now proudly claim the victim status you repeatedly maintain here.
Sackett
Sackett, You idiot!! And I say that as a perfectly descriptive term and not a insult.
1) the general public knows poligraphs as "lie detector tests"
2) My poligrapher, when I asked if he was telling me that this machine was saying that I was lying said, " It is telling me that there is some deception on some questions"
webster's says deceive means "persuade of what is false" Sounds like LIE to me.
Sackett you are making a fool of yourself nut please continue!!
I guess you need to convince yourself that your right to sleep well.
Once polys are exposed as the scam they are I know someone who would make a great meter maid. Sharpen your pencil Sackett
"notguilty1"
Sackett, You idiot!! And I say that as a perfectly descriptive term and not a insult.
1) the general public knows poligraphs as "lie detector tests"
2) My poligrapher, when I asked if he was telling me that this machine was saying that I was lying said, " It is telling me that there is some deception on some questions"
webster's says deceive means "persuade of what is false" Sounds like LIE to me.
Sackett you are making a fool of yourself nut please continue!!
I guess you need to convince yourself that your right to sleep well.
Once polys are exposed as the scam they are I know someone who would make a great meter maid. Sharpen your pencil Sackett
Very nice! Your ability to intellectually converse with someone of an opposing opinion has been truly defined...
1) Yes, the general public refers to them as such, but that's a term of convenience, not actual description of purpose and results. But, on the other hand, I would not expect you to make the extra effort to understand, given your rabid hatred for and distorted "understanding" of the process..
2) I do not care what your examiner did. I can't answer for anyone other than myself.
Regarding your meter maid comment. I have no interest in keeping you from gainful employment opportunity which so closely matches your abilities. For that reason, I won't apply and let you keep your position. Otherwise, you'd be out of a job! :'(
Have a great day.
Sackett
Quote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Feb 28, 2008, 01:22 AMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Feb 28, 2008, 01:05 AMWhile I can not address your specific test, I can remind you that no polygraph examiner claims the polygraph detects lies. YOU (on this board) are the only people who claim, we examiners claim to detect lies through the polygraph.
Then why is the polygraph school founded by the man who started the CIA's polygraph program (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=435.msg2012#msg2012), and who came up with the idea of numerically scoring polygraph charts, called the Backster School of Lie Detection (http://www.backster.net)?
because "The San Diego Institute for Higher Learning in the Art and Science of Forensic Psychophysiological Detection of Withheld, Minimized and Ommitted Information from the Criminal Suspect and Unemployed" was already taken...
BECAUSE IT IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED (with the exception of a few posters here) THAT, THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE POLYGRAPH PROCEDURE!
Very nice! Your ability to intellectually converse with someone of an opposing opinion has been truly defined...
1) Yes, the general public refers to them as such, but that's a term of convenience, not actual description of purpose and results. But, on the other hand, I would not expect you to make the extra effort to understand, given your rabid hatred for and distorted "understanding" of the process..
2) I do not care what your examiner did. I can't answer for anyone other than myself.
Regarding your meter maid comment. I have no interest in keeping you from gainful employment opportunity which so closely matches your abilities. For that reason, I won't apply and let you keep your position. Otherwise, you'd be out of a job!
Have a great day.
Sackett
Sackett you don't have an opposing opinion you have a deep seated desire to keep the "job" you have which by the way probably takes less schooling than a meter maid.
Besides I don't need to get on a anti web site to keep my job.
I can assure you that once you get that job you won't have to worry about me taking it, my ocupation has taken many years of training.
The term "Lie detector" is not a term of convinience but a well imbedded ( by the polygraph industry) term to bolster the percieved validity of the scam.
I don't have a "haterd" for the process and my "understanding" of the process is by far not "distorted" it is very much on target since the test was WRONG in my case.
Unlike others here who may have a bone to pick for a failed poly i.e. loss of a job, my failed poly cost me NOTHING but the realization that many many inocent people must be victims of ths scam. ( if the test had any validity I would have been arrested for theft)
I am purely here to further the cause to rid our country of this scam.
Sackett, when you do become a meter maid you will be accually doing your community some good and accually bring parking violators to justice and raising needed funds for the city!!
You may have to take some more classes though, Think you can handle that?? ;D
"notguilty1",
No, not in "your world."
I suppose we could compare education, training, life experiences, etc.
But, I think even that would be a waste of my time!
Anyway, this is my chosen profession and if, for some rediculous reason, people like you are successful in ridding the world of polygraph, I assure you, I will be successful, happy and very good at whatever I do. See ya around...
Sackett ;D
Sackett
I am sure you will find another scam job to replace this one.
If you have so much training and education and this is your "chosen profession" that is truly sad for you my friend.
Sackett, Go ahead and attack me all you want but if you google Poligraphs guess what comes up?
The truth will set you free of your "chosen profession" as many scamed people will come to find out.
Quote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Feb 28, 2008, 11:17 PM"notguilty1",
No, not in "your world."
I suppose we could compare education, training, life experiences, etc.
But, I think even that would be a waste of my time!
Anyway, this is my chosen profession and if, for some rediculous reason, people like you are successful in ridding the world of polygraph, I assure you, I will be successful, happy and very good at whatever I do. See ya around...
Sackett ;D
Maybe its time you started looking around cos it sure dont seem like you got a real job right now, besides blowing your trumpet on this board.
Polygraphy is cr*p Sackett. When you look at yourself in the mirror,
do you have to practise your lines or do they simply come out automatically by now.......
All that "its the best we've got so far" bs is just sooo painful.
And btw - neither you nor any other polygraphist would ever take on
Drews challenge because you all know you will end up looking an omelette.
Ya wouldnt know a good cm if it sneaked up on ya an bit ya in the butt
I have been reading posts here and it just seems so strange...anti poly folks are attacking pro poly folks by putting down there profession of choice, putting down their character, and just putting them down as human beings. The pro poly folks are attacking anti poly folks by calling them devious, dishonest liars because they go on this site and educate themsleves on polygraph research. It just all seems so silly. We are all just people and some of us disagree with the the claim that the polygraph exam is valid, and some others agree with it...other than that many of us here are the same and probably have many of the same value and morals. BTW I am guilty of this too...name calling and the like.
Nice post Chris----although the only disagreement I would have with it is that many people here do not visit to "look at the research" of polygraph, but come here in an effort to attempt to cheat on a test. Cheating on a test----be it the host of nebulous psych and IQ tests which are also disagreeable to many---is still cheating, regardless if one is a "supporter" of the test or not. Therein lies the ethical disagreement. People who disagree so much with polygraph and who by proxy hate examiners are the same ilk who despise IRS agents because they hate the tax system with which they work. Google "Inductive Reasoning." It is a poisonous way of thinking, as I believe you implied in your post.
You made some good points though man.
QuotePeople who disagree so much with polygraph and who by proxy hate examiners are the same ilk who despise IRS agents because they hate the tax system with which they work. Google "Inductive Reasoning." It is a poisonous way of thinking, as I believe you implied in your post.
Apples and oranges.
Here is another way of looking at it.
You go in to take a test you think is legitimate. You are truthful, yet fail the test and are falsely accused of being a liar.
You find a website with others who just went through the same experience. IOW, took a test they believed in, told the truth and failed anyway.
Then, to your surprise, you find out the test really has no scientific basis. Furthermore, ou find out that a body of the country's top scientific researchers (at the request of congress), have concluded the test to be invalid. in particular, the type of test you just took (pre-employment).
Talk about ranting. Here is a typical Polygrapher post:
QuoteFirst, I'm NOT Your Bro, My Bro's actually have a job, and ARE making a contribution, and did not have to try to find a way to cheat to do so. Further, they do not have as their prophet a zealot such as GM who is no less than an obsessed waste of talent who blew his chance just prior to the war on terror occurring where he might have been able to find some use for his skills.
And these people are in a position to effect people's careers? Scary!
LARRY, LARRY, LARRY: It seems every time somebody shows up with a point you can not dispute you respond with something like "And these people are in a position to effect people's careers? Scary! " SCARY !!! seems to be an internal operating word with you. So let me tell you something scaredy cat ! Guys like me have been to the middle east many times and were men enough to leave scary behind in our youth. Once again Larry, somebody got the job, and you can't say that they were less qualified than YOU ! Your being Sold the job by the human resources types and being given a tenative offer is NOT the same as a bona fide offer.
You continue, as if on sesame street, to repeat the mantras you here on this site. No Scientific Basis ? That's just stupid to say ! Like the wheel the aspect of Psychological Set does NOT have to reproven each time. You were in a room with no artificial stimuli, so why did you react to the questions posed to you, as they were not surprises to you. They were reviewed in advance and you made a commitment with a yes or no. When we peel away the smoke screen you rejects put up, it becomes clear that you don't want any test in place, and want to be hired on face value. The gray area for you is very wide. However, the field of intelligence, its professionals and methods, are to reduce gray areas and produce a timely informational product for our national leaders / decision makers. You were not the best fit for that job overall, and don't blame JUST the polygraph. This is the third or fourth time I have had to tell you this now. Didn't you take the MMPI written psyche test as well ? It has ONLY an associated basis for comparison doesn't it ? It casts you into a group which passed, or didn't pass, or showed you as not worth putting more time into. You and I / We just don't know the WHOLE Truth about your full background. Somebody got the job, the mission is being met, and you are free to apply elsewhere, and I think they told you that you could also re-apply for the same agency again right ? Do so, and leave the CM's at home, as GM has been the tune up man for this profession, and in reality did it more good than he will ever know or want to take credit for.
WES99,
You seem like a very reasonable person ! The Anti people trying to catagorize the Pro people and operate from what seems to be a mantra like mindset. They, like many false prophets, have a set mindset they wish to spread, but is a house of cards once you go into the details. Example: they continually claim the NAS report as their holy bible; not realizing that the very scientists who took this position did not do so in a true peer review, but were rather the very scientists who are dependant on security clearances for their jobs and polygraph testing itself. Not a fair body to ask questions to if you are a fair minded person. Psychologists, Physiologists, and other professionals (PhD's or not) understand the mechanisms of the human body, and ARE the best source of informaiton about that. Just remember, Truth is ALWAYS a simple thing, and it is only LIES where are complex, which begat more LIES layered ever deeper. Somehow, you came to a fork in the road, and were either out competed for the job overall, or otherwise someone clearly passed when you either ran inconclusive and were frozen in process, or failed , or had admissions which made you less desireable. i am sorry if this hits a raw nerve with you, but Truth often does that !
Chris,
My opinion only:
The purpose of this site is the elimination and removal of polygraph from the face of the earth. The manner is by presenting enough information in such a way that the gullible person of normal intellect will blindly believe what they read and attemt to "beat" the examiner during their upcoming test; thereby, making the process obsolete.
The purpose of this board is to provide, under the guise of information and sharing, a "pity me" environment allowing the few who claim to have been false positives to come and whine about their experience and "get it off their chest." Problem is, some have bigger chests than others and it takes longer for them to get back to normal and move on with their lives....
Do false positves occur? Yes.
Do false negatives occur? Yes.
Do true positives occur? Yes.
Do true negatives occur? Yes.
Everyone on this board seems to agree to that premise. The extent to which each occur, is the only thing really being debated here...and that, despite a chapter and verse quote involving the partially reported opinion of the NAS.
Sackett
Quote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Feb 29, 2008, 08:32 PMChris,
My opinion only:
The purpose of this site is the elimination and removal of polygraph from the face of the earth.
Sackett
Well Sackett, your "Opinion" flies in the face of the following:
"AntiPolygraph.org seeks the complete abolishment of polygraph "testing" from the American workplace. Now that the National Academy of Sciences has conducted an exhaustive study and found polygraph screening to be invalid, and even dangerous to national security, Congress should extend the protections of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act to all Americans. "
quoted from the home page "what we want."
TheNoLieGuy4U,
Maybe if you backed up an argument with facts, rather than rant, make assinine assumptions, and ignore facts you'd be taken seriously here.
You don't even know that a "conditional offer" of employment is an OFFER of employment. IOW, the agency in question want's to hire the person.
You still haven't shown us an example of anyone on this board claiming they are "entitled" to a job.
QuoteExample: they continually claim the NAS report as their holy bible; not realizing that the very scientists who took this position did not do so in a true peer review, but were rather the very scientists who are dependant on security clearances for their jobs and polygraph testing itself.
Really, got anything to document that with?
Right, it's the scientists who are wrong. They are purposely trying to smear the polygraph industry! Yeah, that's it. They were out to get you from the start. STUPID SCIENTISTS!!
I notice you don't mention anything in the report that you question. Just more ranting and raving.
Right. Better to get info from people who make a living off the test. After all, they're the unbiased EXPERTS!
QuoteDo false positves occur? Yes.
Do false negatives occur? Yes.
Do true positives occur? Yes.
Do true negatives occur? Yes.
Wow, what a useful test.
Wouldn't it be easier to just flip a coin? You'd probably get better results.
Only, call it a MAGIC coin to impress the test subject. LOL
Hey, let's start a NEW THREAD.
This one has gotten old.
And our young "Mountie" candidate seems to be long gone.
Quote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Feb 29, 2008, 09:35 PMQuote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Feb 29, 2008, 08:32 PMChris,
My opinion only:
The purpose of this site is the elimination and removal of polygraph from the face of the earth.
Sackett
Well Sackett, your "Opinion" flies in the face of the following:
"AntiPolygraph.org seeks the complete abolishment of polygraph "testing" from the American workplace. Now that the National Academy of Sciences has conducted an exhaustive study and found polygraph screening to be invalid, and even dangerous to national security, Congress should extend the protections of the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act to all Americans. "
quoted from the home page "what we want."
Mybe I'm wrong but isn't that what I said. OK! You only care about the American workplace now, but the world is "your" oyster...
I'll let your informed and obvioulsy learned opinion stand... ::)
Sackett
Quote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Feb 29, 2008, 11:50 PMQuoteDo false positves occur? Yes.
Do false negatives occur? Yes.
Do true positives occur? Yes.
Do true negatives occur? Yes.
Wow, what a useful test.
Wouldn't it be easier to just flip a coin? You'd probably get better results.
Only, call it a MAGIC coin to impress the test subject. LOL
Wen,
most scientific testing have those results as a possibility. Once again, you're missing the point and only reporting half the information. I also said it is the frequency in which those findings occur, which is the discourse on this board.
If your gunna report the facts, at least report them all and let the readers make up their own minds...
Sackett
P.S. I agree! Let's move on to another issue.
Quotemost scientific testing have those results as a possibility.
But the polygraph is not a scientific test, so your point is irrelevant.
You can't scientifically test for a false positive, for example.
The machine only measures for sympathetic nervous system stimulation which is not limited to lying.
QuoteI also said it is the frequency in which those findings occur, which is the discourse on this board.
Again, how can you test the frequency in which those findings occur, when they are not scientifically measurable. How do you know whether I am telling the truth unless later evidence surfaces to confirm I was lying?
And, as I've said before, with preemployment tests, you're pseudo-scientifically testing for the hypothetical!
— If your gunna report the facts, at least report them all and let the readers make up their own minds...If you're going to make the claim that you KNOW, not suspect but
know, when a person is withholding information using the polygraph, please substantiate it!.
Especially, considering the fact that a person's career and reputation is probably at stake!
nopolycop
I believe Sackett is correct in his opinion that the anti posters want more than an extension of EPPA into the governmental workplace. In all my reading on this board I have never read an anti post that acknowledges even a single legimitate use of the PDD techniques.
"polyf"you wrote: "But the polygraph is not a scientific test, so your point is irrelevant."
Not true. Anything quantifiable can be a scientific test. That include flipping a coin, which your ilk so frequently likes to compare polygraph with..."You can't scientifically test for a false positive, for example.
Now I'm not a scientist, but I believe there are in fact methods in research which identify potential weaknesses in a particular methodology.The machine only measures for sympathetic nervous system stimulation which is not limited to lying.
Truly. So it seems we're making progress here. With your admission the ANS is correlated to "lying", what else does it include?QuoteI also said it is the frequency in which those findings occur, which is the discourse on this board.
Again, how can you test the frequency in which those findings occur, when they are not scientifically measurable. How do you know whether I am telling the truth unless later evidence surfaces to confirm I was lying?
Probabilities, based on numeric evaluation. Please pay attention to previous posts.And, as I've said before, with preemployment tests, you're pseudo-scientifically testing for the hypothetical!
Nope, simply looking for areas of significance.— If your gunna report the facts, at least report them all and let the readers make up their own minds...If you're going to make the claim that you KNOW, not suspect but
know, when a person is withholding information using the polygraph, please substantiate it!.
"Knowing" something and having an extreme probability there is a connection, are similar in nature.
This is why polygraph works so well. Not perfectly, but very well!Sackett
Sackett,
Suppose you perform a polygraph examination on an individual, and the person shows markedly stronger reactions to the relevant questions than to the control questions. How do you know that the reason that the person has reacted more strongly to the relevant questions is that the person has answered them untruthfully?
QuoteHow do you know that the reason that the person has reacted more strongly to the relevant questions is that the person has answered them untruthfully?
In particular, if they steadfastly maintain their truthfulness, refuse to make an admission, or otherwise cooperate in your attempt to get them to "open up" so you can "help them get that job...".
QuoteNot true. Anything quantifiable can be a scientific test.
How many "false positives" were there last year at CIA?
How many "liars" took and passed the test?
QuoteNow I'm not a scientist, but I believe there are in fact methods in research which identify potential weaknesses in a particular methodology.
DODGE!!
QuoteWith your admission the ANS is correlated to "lying", what else does it include?
Never said it wasn't. I said "lying when answering a question" is only one possiblity. Here are others:
Anger (This dumbass polygrapher keeps telling me I'm lying but I'm telling the truth).
Fear (I'm not gonna get the job if I can't get this guy to believe I'm telling the truth!)
Also, (internal dialog) "there's that question again, the one he say's I'm reacting to, but telling the truth. He keeps changing it so it won't bother me, but I know it's just another permutation of the original question. Damn! This is bugging me!...etc."
Of course, the ANS is largely controlled by the "unconscious", not the conscious mind. The unconscious is the seat of a person's memories and fantasies. So there is a whole myriad of reasons for a ANS reaction, other than deception, that is.
QuoteProbabilities, based on numeric evaluation. Please pay attention to previous posts.
Numerical evaluations? What numerical evaluations? In statistics, probability theory is applied to QUANTIFIABLE data.
How do you know if you pass somebody who was lying, or fail somebody who was truthful?
Quote"Knowing" something and having an extreme probability there is a connection, are similar in nature.
Well, how do you KNOW there is an "extreme probability" I am lying.
Quote from: TheNoLieGuy4U on Mar 01, 2008, 02:04 PMQuoteHow do you know that the reason that the person has reacted more strongly to the relevant questions is that the person has answered them untruthfully?
In particular, if they steadfastly maintain their truthfulness, refuse to make an admission, or otherwise cooperate in your attempt to get them to "open up" so you can "help them get that job...".
I'll address both previous questions in one post.
There is a difference between ANS reaction and CNS thought. Why would someone react with ANS activity to any queston if no immediate threat existed? I'm not talking about CNS threats associated with elongated thoughts of; "what if I'm falsely accused of lying, or I won't get the job", etc... That contributes to general (Central) nervous tension, not ANS reactivity.
ANS is immediate and self-preservatory in nature, NOT,"OMG, now what will I do for money" (thought) or "now they're gunna think I did it, I'm going to jail, I can't make money for my kids, what will my mother do or think", etc, thoughts...
Remember, everything in the testing phase is discussed, ad nauseum
prior to the actual examination. And, there are NO surprise questions during the test! Therefore, the simple introduction of the relevant issue, after having reviewed everything prior to the test should not be a threat to anyone if they have no recollection or memory of the issue.
Further, you both are ignoring the major differences between CNS thoughts and ANS reaction; though some here would love to to make the correlation for convenience of explanations sake.
That's the lay-version for the readers. If that fails to address your questions, then I am sorry, I can't make it more simplistic.
"Polyf": If, after an examination they refuse to provide explanatory information and they "steadfastly maintain their (so-called) truthfulness", then guess what? They don't get the job!
On the other hand, and as in many cases with me, after falling victim to false information, trying to hide that which they feel is not important or embarrassing, victimized by dis-information provided by friends or boards like this, they oftentimes do clean up their testing. Then, after being
totally honest, they pass the examination.
Sackett
Sackett,
How do you actually know that a person who flunks a polygraph test is not a truthful person who was simply more fearful of the consequences of not being believed with regard to the relevant questions than with regard to the control questions?
George,
I think I addressed that in a different and previous posting; however, "notguilty1" I believe, hijacked the discussion and muddied the waters.
Sackett
Sackett,
You did post a reply, but your explanation seems like mumbo jumbo to me (and, I suspect, many other readers).
I didn't expect this conversation to go on for so long! It seems like every one agrees that polygraphs can give inconclusive results... the degree to which this happens is what is being debated on these forms. That debate however, is over in the scientific world, it has been finished for quite some time and the polygraph lost. Again I encourage individuals to spend an hour at the library.
There are a few other things that have come to my attention that may be interesting.
1. My polygraph interviewer was not an RCMP member. He a "guest ID tag" just like me. In retrospect I wish they had the respect to provide me with an RCMP member who (perhaps) would have been better at his job.
2. The RCMP only implemented the polygraph into the selection process two years ago. Since then they have not been able to meet their recruitment goal. They have so many polygraphs to conduct they need to hire outside help.
3. It is illegeal in my province for police to use polygraph tests on applicants. The RCMP can because they are a federal police.
4. I was incredibly upset and confused when my interviewer told me I was being dishonest when I wsa telling the truth. In the following weeks I became even more angry as I researched the polygraph at the library and discovered that it was a total sham. They had lied to me! It took them two months to contact me after my test. During that time I had written them a letter explaining my concerns. When they called me they told me they never got my letter... I was again upset and basically said I cant work for someone who brands innocent people criminals. In retrospect I should have given them a chance to explain why they were calling. Were they calling to invite me for a re-test? To inform me they were starting the background check? To cut me from the process? I received a letter stating just that two weeks after the phone call, so I doubt it was for that. My point it this: if you are going to brand people criminals (when you know the polygraph gives inconclusive results) you should not wait two months to contact them! Tell them right away that they have a chance for a re-test or that sometimes they make mistakes and a background check will be conducted.
5. Lastly I do not believe I was "out-competed" for a position. I scored 3.9 on the written test, a minimum of 3.2 is required. I ran the obstacle course in 3:59, under 4:45 is required. I passed the interview (dont know my score) do not have a criminal record, have lived overseas and have a University degree. With a police force that is not meeting its recruitment goal I'm not sure how I would be "out-competed"!!!
In closing I would like to thank the operators for providing this site. The truth does hurt: polygraphs do not work.
Well, as you can see from their pattern of posting, the polygrapher regulars here would just respond by saying you simply don't know what you are talking about. So just get over it and get on with your life.
Karma will finally catch up with them. It always does.
T.M.,
You wrote: Well, as you can see from their pattern of posting, the polygrapher regulars here would just respond by saying you simply don't know what you are talking about. So just get over it and get on with your life.
Karma will finally catch up with them. It always does.
In regard to the Karma thing, it seems only those pretending to be polygraph examiners like John Grogan have faced such Karma as evidenced on the Tom Leykis show otherwise posted on this site. The other examiners seem to be doing fine, have a solid and challenging job, satisfying career, and working well on behalf of their agency Federal or State, or local law enforcement.
Thus far all of the Karma I have seen dolled out has been on those who chose to rationalize their answers and not take the process serioiusly. We already agree that the Examiners do in fact want to meet their agency's hiring goals, and must defend to their seniors what they are seeing in their charts for a judgement call. So they where does the responsibility rest ? I think on the subject much of the time unless you could show a deviation in the examiner's process. You must by process of elimination, blame either the examiner's direct actions (their treating you differently), or on a recording device which records exactly what it says it does. Your assertion as a novice that it doen't work is completely insufficient when compared to the amount of dollars spent by researchers more informed than you in these things.
At the end of the day, when all is said and done, the pragmatic use of the computer polygraph is the gold standard. When you can show that some other device works better, then they will buy that. The burden is NOT on them to make you Happy !!! Their burden is find the best qualified within the pool for the tax payer's dollars.
Isn't it true that somebody could apply in one time period and be the MOST competative, and at another time be LESS competative overall. The unemployment rate dictates that !!! High unemployment equates to a large number of good and well qualified people out there chasing a few jobs. Low unemployment equates to much fewer such applicants chasing jobs, so employers have to choose from who is actually available. Simple Math !!!
QuoteThus far all of the Karma I have seen dolled out has been on those who chose to rationalize their answers and not take the process serioiusly.
Wes99, little boy, and a few other NEW posters who've come here with stories (this week alone) would probably disagree, as they all took the test seriously, told the truth yet failed.
Why don't you respond to their posts and tell them it's just bad karma they brought on themselves.
TC
Speaking of karma, doesn't the results speak for themselves...?
Sackett
P.S. On a more serious note, stop whining about the polygraph, it is here to stay. On the flip-side, give us something better, then we'll talk.
Hi T.M.,
For all of those you have mentioned that have recently written in whom you said should be addressed directly; let the messege be clear. The bad Karma is YOU T.M., and others like you. Each of these folks has done their own soul searching and knows the degree to which they withheld, ommitted, rationalized, or otherwise failed to provide the interviewer / examiner the Whole Truth, and thus their result. Guys like you have nothing positive to add to the equation and are a real downer. These young folks still have dreams you ask them to sabotage with your C.M.s. You insinuate that the Examiners are all people of bad character and that they would simply throw away their own careers for no good reason. Clearly they have much more going on in life and were chosen as the best and brightest among their peers to attend this advanced school. It is not that these recent posters need to be put down in any way as you suggest, but rather saved from crawling into the gutter with you.
QuoteYou insinuate that the Examiners are all people of bad character
No Mr. Patrick Coffey, but you certainly seem to be. Making unsubstantiated accusations under an alias. What courage.
Well, you've been exposed!
I hope your industry is proud of you.
TC
We are very proud of Mr. Coffey. I don't agree with all his posts but he is a credit to our profession.
QuoteWe are very proud of Mr. Coffey. I don't agree with all his posts but he is a credit to our profession.
I am sure you are. And I am sure he is. ;)
Yes, yes!
Now, let's all return to your normally programmed whining... :'(
Sackett
CHECK IT OUT DUDE !!! GROGAN GOT HIS KARMA AS YOU PREDICTED !!!! HE IS IN A FAR DIFFERENT LEAGUE THAN THE OTHER PRO-POLY POSTERS HERE.
GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE DOCUMENTED TRUTH ABOUT JOHN L. GROGAN & THE TROJAN HORSE ORGANIZATION PEOA.
http://www.truthaboutgrogan.org/index.htm
FIRST EXPOSE ON JOHN L. GROGAN / POLYGRAPH PARASITE
http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/issue138.htm#1
SECOND EXPOSE ON JOHN L. GROGAN / PSEUDO-POLYGRAPH EXAMINER
http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/issue142.htm#1
GROGAN WAS EXPOSED ON THE (33 Minute & 28 Second Mark) TOM LEYKIS SHOW
http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/956464.mp3
http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/956500.mp3
YouTube.com VIDEOS OF GROGAN DOING PSEUDO-TESTS
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1otdXn-WGYM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4sPeD5FizTY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3lPefCNKGbE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tqoJIoPtfwg
Further posts to this thread should substantively address the original topic (the RCMP polygraph screening program).
T.M.,
Hi Buddy / I'm Back !, I saw your posting to this guy Wes99, and just wanted to assure you personally that I am NOT Wes99, and that I have no problem writing you directly and addressing your posts. I was complimented that you saw my shadow in those posts which agreed with me in some way, but that I am not that person / poster. I'm glad to see you missed me though !!!! ::)
Regards,
PATRICK T. COFFEY
TheNoLieGuyForYou
Yeah, we've missed you here like we miss a case of hemorrhoids
Quote from: admin on Jun 10, 2008, 03:57 PMT.M.,
Hi Buddy / I'm Back !, I saw your posting to this guy Wes99, and just wanted to assure you personally that I am NOT Wes99, and that I have no problem writing you directly and addressing your posts. I was complimented that you saw my shadow in those posts which agreed with me in some way, but that I am not that person / poster. I'm glad to see you missed me though !!!! ::)
Regards,
PATRICK T. COFFEY
TheNoLieGuyForYou
Weren't you banned?
Why would you come back and post on a board that has already banned you? Do you feel the rules of polite behavior on the Internet do not apply to you?
Quote from: admin on Jun 10, 2008, 08:29 PMQuote from: admin on Jun 10, 2008, 03:57 PMT.M.,
Hi Buddy / I'm Back !, I saw your posting to this guy Wes99, and just wanted to assure you personally that I am NOT Wes99, and that I have no problem writing you directly and addressing your posts. I was complimented that you saw my shadow in those posts which agreed with me in some way, but that I am not that person / poster. I'm glad to see you missed me though !!!! ::)
Regards,
PATRICK T. COFFEY
TheNoLieGuyForYou
Weren't you banned?
Why would you come back and post on a board that has already banned you? Do you feel the rules of polite behavior on the Internet do not apply to you?
Sergeant1107 (and all),
I invited Mr. Coffey to register and post in a non-anonymous fashion.
I am in the application process.... I am a good, sound person... why would they set up a machine to fail you?? I am going to be honest when i get mine... and make sure i have a clear head. If he/ she is intimidating.. that is something that they will have to be... i have dealt with alot of people like that.. dont care... i do have a question for you though,,,, i have smoked some wackie very lightly and now I am waiting to take the testing for alteast 6 more months as I want to tell the truth and say that i havent been around drugs and havent done them in a year... is this the righht approach??
Quote from: admin on Sep 24, 2008, 08:32 AMI am in the application process.... I am a good, sound person... why would they set up a machine to fail you?? I am going to be honest when i get mine... and make sure i have a clear head. If he/ she is intimidating.. that is something that they will have to be... i have dealt with alot of people like that.. dont care... i do have a question for you though,,,, i have smoked some wackie very lightly and now I am waiting to take the testing for alteast 6 more months as I want to tell the truth and say that i havent been around drugs and havent done them in a year... is this the righht approach??
Hey Wanda, Keeping to the standard of the job your seeking is ALWAYS the best bet. Waiting the proper time frame before applying can only help your process though it won't guarantee a pass.
If you want my two cents worth, here it is. There is much debate about polygraphs and rightly so. Has anybody ever heard of "if it walks like a chicken and talks like a chicken than most likley its a chicken"? My overall point being, that its easy to draw conclusions and most people do. So what I think is if the RCMP could conclude your entire history from a polygraph, than why would there be a background check. Just by looking at this evidence alone I would conclude that the polygraph is not perfect and nothing in this world is. I do think that it is a wonderful tool for the RCMP to use because people are intimidated by it, and are more likley to spill their guts because of this reason. I know I did. Its a serious career choice for me and I do not want to give them a reason to reject my application. As a result I told them about the drugs I have done, the things I have stolen and the lie's that I have told. If there presumabley was no polygraph examination than I probably wouldnt have been as forth coming as what I have been. But its good that I did. It makes me feel like I am more fit going into this profession. for the polygraph I think you should let it all out, whether you shoot yourself in the foot or not, at least you owned your mistakes.
What do you all think about my little blurb?
The use of the polygraph for RCMP recruitment has been structured uniquely in the law enforcement field. There is the right way, the wrong way and then there is the RCMP way. Other PD's have been utilizing the polygraph for years with excellent results. The RCMP have only recently begun using it. The RCMP interview/examination is a 5+ hour process done by mostly retired polygraphists. The unfortunate part is that it is really a 5 hour interrogation, replete with all the interview and interrogation techniques applied to heinous criminals. From bonding to minimizing, nothing is left out. Zeroing in on anything they might perceive as a "suspicious" the entire weight and experience of the examiner in gaining confessions to crimes is brought to bear on a naive young person or 40 year old seasoned adult in an effort to get the "confession".
Experienced outside examiners given the RCMP training to do the "RCMP way" have walked away from the $500 per exam lure as they do not believe in the method used. Their extensive experience was not listened to or even respected.
There is a reason that the polygraph is not admissible in court. At least however, the court would be able to examine the methodology and accuracy of the procedure. The RCMP hides behind a wall of secrecy and you cannot even examine your own results or have them examined by an expert and neutral third party. You have to ask yourself why that is. Interviews and interrogations on criminals are closely examined in court to assure fairness to any person accused of criminal activity. If the RCMP process is fair and reasonable, why would you not be given the results?
The use of the examination in the recruitment process is also ill timed. One can only speculate that it is done to save shoe leather in the good old fashioned background checks. In criminal activity the polygraph is voluntary and only done after exhaustive research and background. So another question to ask is why in the RCMP way is it used before they have even interviewed employers, mates, teachers, neighbors? If there was something untoward in the persons past, it would come to light and be addressed further in the interview for veracity and content.
One last observation. In every large corporation the human resources department is staffed by formally trained and experienced personnel. Some firms utilize head hunting companies to hire. Why is the front line RCMP recruiting / staffing not fully trained, or even staffed exclusively by senior experienced personnel?
Dear B rabs,
I am a U.S. citizen with different experiences. So I will use that perspective in commenting on your blurb.
QuoteMy overall point being, that its easy to draw conclusions and most people do. So what I think is if the RCMP could conclude your entire history from a polygraph, than why would there be a background check.Just by looking at this evidence alone I would conclude that the polygraph is not perfect and nothing in this world is.I do think that it is a wonderful tool for the RCMP to use because people are intimidated by it, and are more likley to spill their guts because of this reason.
How on this good earth could a polygrapher "conclude your entire history" from a polygraph? It is an excellent tool for intimidation, we can agree on that. But does that yield truth? That depends. It is important to keep in mind that the device's only value is through it's potential power of intimidation. As an instrument, it has no validity. Therefore, it falls upon the polygrapher to "read" the polygraphee to obtain the "results". If interrogators held Ph.D's in psychology and understood not only how severe stress and other factors affected a the polygraphee's psychology, but also how their own biases came to play in making a "decision", I would be more inclined to accept the polygraph's usefulness as stage prop. But a Ph.D. requires a high level of training, and a high degree of intelligence, and a high degree of emotional intelligence. Finally, it would also require that the polygrapher worked in an environment where polygraphers were rewarded equally for false positives as for false negatives. In other words, where employment incentives were aligned with morality. In my own experience, I would wager such is generally not now the case.
No one is asking for perfection. Furthermore, there is no right to obtaining a security clearance. But governments do have a solemn obligation to protect their citizens and a duty not to waste taxpayers money. Can a system that capriciously denies large numbers of highly qualified applicants accomplish this?
Alternatively, if the polygraph was not used for screening, but merely to "encourage" folks to share more information, this would also seem understandable. Perhaps this is more like what happened in your experience?
I was extremely truthful in my application as well. Furthermore, I did not need to be intimidated to be totally forthcoming. The polygrapher was only able to get extra dribs and drabs as a result of what was essentially an interrogation. I told the truth to the best of my ability. Yet I was rejected.
Mr. Bellemont
Because there is no ability to review or scrutinize the examination and its results, the examiner can take a dislike to you or feel personally you are not good enough for the department and make sure you do not get hired. All that has to be done is for him to report you are deceptive on some question and you are toast.
They do not want you to research the polygraph beforehand or they will scratch you for trying to beat it. Aldrich Ames passed more than one examination during his time in the CIA. Real reliable. From the card trick to the last ditch "I guess we both know the truth now" pitch, its no wonder the courts do not recognize it.
For the RCMP to use this junk science on aspiring applicants is beneath them. To hide the results and refuse scrutiny contradicts their open and transparent claims. It is a star chamber at its worst, it is contrary to the Charter, and a poor substitute for good interview skills and in depth investigation for hiring people.
people are intimidated by it, and are more likley to spill their guts because of this reason. [highlight][/highlight]
This admission from a polygrapher wraps up this thread in a nice fancy bow. Isn't it just ducky? What a bunch of lying tools. Ugh.
If you were rejected by Buffalo Cabs because of a failed poli, and they actually were dumb enough to tell you that was the reason, then you can easily wipe out poli testing in the True North by filing a federal human rights tribunal complaint.
Oh, yeah, the moment the complaint is filed and you get a file number, issue a press release, with your whole story in writing and the references to how bogus Polis are. All news days in Canada are, by comparison to anywhere else "slow news days". Count on a lot of coverage. Finally, as soon as the media has the bit in their teeth, call your MP, make a complaint, and attach all of the news clippings. Then, sit back and watch the fun.
You will create many miserable days for ever red coat recruiter. Revenge will be sweet.
I was considering RCMP, but no longer, this is too much man. My VPD poly was cancelled 2 hrs in due to issues that i should have disclosed earlier in the week-id hate to see what would have happened if the poly went through.
Does anybody know of a polie agency that doesnt do a polygraph?