During an employee screening polygraph test, the polygrapher asks the test subject whether he has "Ever told a lie".
The test subject anwsers in the affirmative.
"Okay", says the polygrapher, "what lie did you tell?"
"I TOLD MY FRIEND I BELIEVED IN THE VALIDITY OF POLYGRAPH TESTS!!!!" ;D
Oh, Larry,
You are so funny! ;)
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 25, 2008, 01:12 PMDuring an employee screening polygraph test, the polygrapher asks the test subject whether he has "Ever told a lie".
The test subject anwsers in the affirmative.
"Okay", says the polygrapher, "what lie did you tell?"
"I TOLD MY FRIEND I BELIEVED IN THE VALIDITY OF POLYGRAPH TESTS!!!!" ;D
Larry,
Here's a different angle which I take when confronted by a "non-believer."
I don't care if you believe in polygraph or not. Why? Because it doesn't matter whether you believe in polygraph or not for it to work; IT WORKS either way!
Sackett
I don't care if you believe in polygraph or not. Why? Because it doesn't matter whether you believe in polygraph or not for it to work; IT WORKS either way!
If a person is truthful, yet fails, then the test didn't work.
When Aldrich Ames passed the test while he was spying for the soviets, the test didn't work.
Yes, yes, I know. You and all the other false positives out there....
Then, you quote an (alleged) false negative. :-? Are you really sure he passed??? Or could it be that due to his rank, position and access level, the examiner's couldn't believe the results? No, that couldn't possibly fall in line with your mantra, could it? I'm sure you and Al are good friends and he told you all about it.
Oh Boy....! :-[
Sackett
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 28, 2008, 10:47 PMY
Are you really sure he passed??? Or could it be that due to his rank, position and access level, the examiner's couldn't believe the results?
Thanks for clearing that one up. I think that many people have for long deduced that there are situational factors that play a part in the final call.
So Sackett, tell us who you passed due to rank / seniority / internal politics etc. Is it a long list ?
Quote from: 7A777A73360 on Feb 29, 2008, 11:55 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on Feb 28, 2008, 10:47 PMY
Are you really sure he passed??? Or could it be that due to his rank, position and access level, the examiner's couldn't believe the results?
Thanks for clearing that one up. I think that many people have for long deduced that there are situational factors that play a part in the final call.
So Sackett, tell us who you passed due to rank / seniority / internal politics etc. Is it a long list ?
The answer is none.
See, this is the reason I rarely get personal. Reason? I don't really know anyone on this board well enough. And, no-one on the board has the first clue to my background, etc. If you did, you and some of the other ignorant (used to explain a lack of knowledge) posters would never say some of the crap that is spewed here about me.
Sackett
My guess is that you're an independent polygrapher, probably have your own office in the midwest somewhere, maybe St. Louis. Been in the profession for a long time, probably since the 80's. Which explains you entrenched position. And why you so keen in not having the polygraph exposed.
But that's just a hunch.
Quote from: PhilGainey on Mar 01, 2008, 01:58 PMMy guess is that you're an independent polygrapher, probably have your own office in the midwest somewhere, maybe St. Louis. Been in the profession for a long time, probably since the 80's. Which explains you entrenched position. And why you so keen in not having the polygraph exposed.
But that's just a hunch.
"polyf",
BAD GUESS! But what does it matter to either of us?
"Not wanting polygraph exposed?" Then what the hell do you think I'm doing here and on polygraphplace?! Otherwise, I've got enough friends...
Sackett
Quote from: PhilGainey on Mar 01, 2008, 04:09 PMQuote from: PhilGainey on Mar 01, 2008, 01:58 PMMy guess is that you're an independent polygrapher, probably have your own office in the midwest somewhere, maybe St. Louis. Been in the profession for a long time, probably since the 80's. Which explains you entrenched position. And why you so keen in not having the polygraph exposed.
But that's just a hunch.
"polyf",
BAD GUESS! But what does it matter to either of us?
"Not wanting polygraph exposed?" Then what the hell do you think I'm doing here and on polygraphplace?! Otherwise, I've got enough friends...
Sackett
Sackett, what you are doing here is trying to patch-up all the holes in your "science" and rather poorly I might add.
Why else would someone in a "proven" business be so hell bent on logging on to an anti site EVERY DAY ??
"notguilty1",
I'm not here to patch anything up! As far as your opinion of my effort and success in my non-adventure to "patch" things up, it is afterall, your opinion.
Further, you will notice I do not feel the need to hide behind a moniker, pseudo-name or another's name in order to make some rediculous point about your standing or non-standing in life.
I have never hidden my opinions or feelings and I try VERY hard not to attack those who would attack me, simply because of my beliefs regarding polygraph. From what I've seen, the people who have failed their examinations and post here have nothing to gain from or lose by expressing their opinion except the comfortability of anonymity.
Finally, why do you feel the need to point out my frequency on this board. Are you suggesting I'm not welcome here? :(
Sackett
"no guilt"
I see examiners coming here as sort of like this analogy;
Say the most omnipresent website about automotive mechanics was produced and populated by people proclaiming that automechanics are all thieves, and their "Scantool (r)"---(the main computer used by modern technicians to indicate system problems)---although not perfect by anymeans----was repeatedly called a "money prop" used for unnecessary and costly exploration. After a while. mechanics would grow tired of all the unchallenged, inductive thoughts, and constant smear upon a square profession that ultimately helps people and even saves lives on occasion. Examiners are here on occasion to keep the HS down to a mere stench, rather than a plague.
Your silly little opinion, while it is your right, is annoying, wrong, and worthy of rebuttal when it is within the limits of sanity.
Am I clear about that point?
Quote from: PhilGainey on Mar 01, 2008, 08:47 PM"no guilt"
I see examiners coming here as sort of like this analogy;
Say the most omnipresent website about automotive mechanics was produced and populated by people proclaiming that automechanics are all thieves, and their "Scantool (r)"---(the main computer used by modern technicians to indicate system problems)---although not perfect by anymeans----was repeatedly called a "money prop" used for unnecessary and costly exploration. After a while. mechanics would grow tired of all the unchallenged, inductive thoughts, and constant smear upon a square profession that ultimately helps people and even saves lives on occasion. Examiners are here on occasion to keep the HS down to a mere stench, rather than a plague.
Your silly little opinion, while it is your right, is annoying, wrong, and worthy of rebuttal when it is within the limits of sanity.
Am I clear about that point?
When poligraghers use thier "science" to ruin peoples carriers or to smear thier good name. Then the stench is bad enough.
Polys don't work to detect lies which is what poligraphers use the test to detremine regardless of what flip- floppong Sackett does on the matter. :)
"notguilty1",
where have I ever "flip-flopped" on anything?
If you have a point to make, make it! If not, wait until you have at least an intellectual opinion, before espousing knowledge of things you clearly are ignorant of...With your posting record, I would be :-[
Sackett
Sackett!! My posting record is 100 % I am convinced that polys are not effective in detecting lies!!
You on the other hand said that "no poligrapher ever said that poligraphs detect lies" when I told you what my poligrapher said to me you said " I don't care what your poligrapher said"
Even though you stated that you continue to declare that poligraphs work...... flip folp flip flop flip flopppp. ;D
Quote from: PhilGainey on Mar 01, 2008, 08:47 PM"no guilt"
I see examiners coming here as sort of like this analogy;
Say the most omnipresent website about automotive mechanics was produced and populated by people proclaiming that automechanics are all thieves, and their "Scantool (r)"---(the main computer used by modern technicians to indicate system problems)---although not perfect by anymeans----was repeatedly called a "money prop" used for unnecessary and costly exploration. After a while. mechanics would grow tired of all the unchallenged, inductive thoughts, and constant smear upon a square profession that ultimately helps people and even saves lives on occasion. Examiners are here on occasion to keep the HS down to a mere stench, rather than a plague.
Your silly little opinion, while it is your right, is annoying, wrong, and worthy of rebuttal when it is within the limits of sanity.
Am I clear about that point?
It should be recalled that Eric Johnson spearheaded a trolling campaign to taunt, jeer, and belittle those who post here. See Outing the Trolls: The Polygraph Peanut Gallery (A Cast of Characters Starring Eric S. Johnson, Raymond Nelson, Donna Taylor, Ted Todd, and Louis Irving Rovner) (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3721.msg26600#msg26600).
Quote from: PhilGainey on Mar 02, 2008, 01:01 AMSackett!! My posting record is 100 % I am convinced that polys are not effective in detecting lies!!
You on the other hand said that "no poligrapher ever said that poligraphs detect lies" when I told you what my poligrapher said to me you said " I don't care what your poligrapher said"
Even though you stated that you continue to declare that poligraphs work...... flip folp flip flop flip flopppp. ;D
"notguilty1"
I recognize that I can never change your opinion but for the purpose of "friendly" discussion, I will try to revisit my point.
Polygraph does not detect lies, period! No (informed) examiner,
in a technical discussion of how polygraph works would say so. Now, if after the examination, your examiner says "you're lying", it is said for the reason of simplicity and steamlining the conversation, NOT as a technical discussion of the results! The technical discussion of how it works should have already been engaged in during the pre-test interview. I will assume you received that as well.
When I made the comment of not caring what your examiner said, I don't! Many examiners say and do things during their examination which I disagree with. Some of which I read on this board (if honestly beng reported). I have my training and stick to it. Some do not. Sorry, I can't help that, but I will not be held responsible for what someone else said or did. Nor can I explain everything someone else did. Furthermore, I certainly will not be held responsible to the misrepresentation of the polygraph process you present here, for the convenience of trying to prove your point.
You see, no flip-flopping by me.
Sackett
Quote from: George_Maschke on Mar 02, 2008, 10:48 AMin a technical discussion[/u] of how polygraph works would say so.
You might want to bring this up with the American Polygraph Association then, because their defination of "polygraph" is:
"R -"Polygraph" may mean "forensic psychophysiology" when used in detection of deception."
Last time I considered the subject, the concept of "detection of deception" was anologous to "lie detection."
Of course, the motto of the APA is "dedicated to truth" which might lead a reasonable person to believe that the polygraph had something to do with finding out what the truth was.
Additionally, on their website, they have a glossary which is concluded by the words:
"Source for many terms and definitions: Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, Scientific Truth Verification - Lie Detection by James Allan Matte) "
Guess they think that a book by James Allan Matte which uses the term "lie detection" in the title is good enough for them.
But wait there is more...The American Association of Police Polygraphists states as their primary purpose:
"The primary purpose of a polygraph examination is to determine if the person being examined is being truthful or untruthful to the issue under investigation. "
So Sackett, maybe you want to change the meaning of what a polygraph is, because you personally, in your gut, know that a polygraph machine, procedure, exam or whatever you want to call it cannot detect lies, but until you get the industry which you work in to see it your way, you are stuck with it.
NPC
Hey Nonpoly don't confuse Sackett with facts even if they come from his own organizations.
Read his posts he's all over the place with his statements.
Maybe he should log on to the APA's web site and see what his teams game plan is before he gets out on the field. :o
"notguilty1",
I don't ask anyone for an opinion. I have my own... They rarely conflict with the professional organizations, to which I belong. Further, your statement that I am "all over the place" is another attempt to play upon the laziness of some readers and derail my credibility...My postings are consistent, albeit in conflict with yours and others like you.
"nopolycop",
the term "lie detection, truth verification", etc, is used to make it easily understandable to the masses (i.e. general public). While identification of a lie, per-say is not what polygraph does, for the laymen the term makes it easier to understand and comprehend what the goal is.
If I say the term "polygraph" or "lie detection", the readers know what I mean. If I say forensic psychophysiological detection of deception, ie detection of lying throught the evaluation of physiology affected by the individuals knowledge of the issues, it becomes confusing...
IOW, "Lie detection" and "Truth Detection" are expiditious terms and publically acceptable. When used, it is easier than using the full explanation of the entire process and activity which most would not be able to comprehend readily without the full explanation of the ANS versus CNS in regards to the physiology and psychology of the entire procedure during a discussion of the process.
We don't go through the full explanation here during cursory discussions, though it is certainly twisted and purposefully confused by people like you, for the readers who are not fully aware of the process.
Of course, the full explanation is given during all polygraph examinations, to ensure the examinee understands the principles and process, completely. IOW, the term "lie detection" is easier than anything else!
Stop trying to derail this discussion and make me look like a liar!
Sackett
The words "deception" and "lie" are not automatically transposable. A person can be deceptive without actually lying. But, if you are lying, you are most definitely being deceptive. I know it may be difficult to grasp the concept, but give it a try. Think of it as interviewing a person who is beating around the bush when you ask a question. This is a common occurrence to experienced law enforcement professionals. The person may not be lying to you, but they are being deceptive. (You alleged law enforcement types on this board should know what I am talking about) An experienced law enforcement professional who conducts detailed and thorough interviews of victims, witnesses and suspects will understand. A person like this would have difficulty in "passing" a polygraph examination. That is to say, a deceptive result would be expected and certainly not surprising. That is where a highly skilled and professional examiner, such as Sackett, would conduct a post-test interview in an attempt to resolve the issue. It may seem as though this is "splitting hairs", but that is a part of the sophistication of the polygraph profession.
"Lie detector" is a term of convenience utilized by lay people who do not understand the complexity of the discipline of Forensic Psychophysiological Detection of Deception.
And yes, it works, and works very well. Which is why I use it almost daily. Give me a better mouse trap and I'll be glad to use it. Until then, I will continue to use what has shown to be successful, effective and legal.
de•cep•tion –noun
1. the act of deceiving; the state of being deceived
2. something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud; artifice.
Synonyms 2. trick, stratagem, ruse, wile, hoax, imposture.
Lie -noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.
;)
Quote from: George_Maschke on Mar 02, 2008, 06:57 PM"notguilty1",
I don't ask anyone for an opinion. I have my own... They rarely conflict with the professional organizations, to which I belong. Further, your statement that I am "all over the place" is another attempt to play upon the laziness of some readers and derail my credibility...My postings are consistent, albeit in conflict with yours and others like you.
"nopolycop",
Of course, the full explanation is given during all polygraph examinations, to ensure the examinee understands the principles and process, completely. IOW, the term "lie detection" is easier than anything else!
Stop trying to derail this discussion and make me look like a liar!
Sackett
First, I am not making you look like a liar, you are doing a pretty good job of that yourself.
In none of the three polygraphs I have taken, was the techno-babble explained, just the lie that the polygraph can detect if I was lying.
"n.p.c.".
you wrote: "First, I am not making you look like a liar, you are doing a pretty good job of that yourself.
Yeah?! How so? What have I stated here that has been nothing more than a difference of your opinion..?
In none of the three polygraphs I have taken, was the techno-babble explained, just the lie that the polygraph can detect if I was lying."
Once again, you're asking me to explain something outside my responsibility. What can I answer for you that I could possibly be responsible for...?
Sackett
Quote from: PhilGainey on Feb 29, 2008, 08:06 PMQuote from: 7A777A73360 on Feb 29, 2008, 11:55 AMQuote from: PhilGainey on Feb 28, 2008, 10:47 PMY
Are you really sure he passed??? Or could it be that due to his rank, position and access level, the examiner's couldn't believe the results?
Thanks for clearing that one up. I think that many people have for long deduced that there are situational factors that play a part in the final call.
So Sackett, tell us who you passed due to rank / seniority / internal politics etc. Is it a long list ?
The answer is none.
See, this is the reason I rarely get personal. Reason? I don't really know anyone on this board well enough. And, no-one on the board has the first clue to my background, etc. If you did, you and some of the other ignorant (used to explain a lack of knowledge) posters would never say some of the crap that is spewed here about me.
Sackett
Gee Whiz - well if nobody knows whou you are they only have to enter your name in the members section of APA and then they will know.
Jim Sackett - Law Enforcement - Las Vegas NV.
We're not as stupid as you may think Jim.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Mar 02, 2008, 10:52 PM"n.p.c.".
you wrote: "First, I am not making you look like a liar, you are doing a pretty good job of that yourself.
Yeah?! How so? What have I stated here that has been nothing more than a difference of your opinion..?
In none of the three polygraphs I have taken, was the techno-babble explained, just the lie that the polygraph can detect if I was lying."
Once again, you're asking me to explain something outside my responsibility. What can I answer for you that I could possibly be responsible for...?
Sackett
Since my polygraphs were outside your responsibility, it is also outside your responsibility to make generalizations about the polygraph industry, since any polygraph exam you don't personally give you have no control over.
So, when you make these statements, you are lying, misleading, deceiving, etc.
I frankly find your whole argument here stupid, and simply proffered to confuse uninformed readers.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Mar 02, 2008, 07:05 PMThe words "deception" and "lie" are not automatically transposable. A person can be deceptive without actually lying. But, if you are lying, you are most definitely being deceptive. I know it may be difficult to grasp the concept, but give it a try. Think of it as interviewing a person who is beating around the bush when you ask a question. This is a common occurrence to experienced law enforcement professionals. The person may not be lying to you, but they are being deceptive. (You alleged law enforcement types on this board should know what I am talking about) An experienced law enforcement professional who conducts detailed and thorough interviews of victims, witnesses and suspects will understand. A person like this would have difficulty in "passing" a polygraph examination. That is to say, a deceptive result would be expected and certainly not surprising. That is where a highly skilled and professional examiner, such as Sackett, would conduct a post-test interview in an attempt to resolve the issue. It may seem as though this is "splitting hairs", but that is a part of the sophistication of the polygraph profession.
"Lie detector" is a term of convenience utilized by lay people who do not understand the complexity of the discipline of Forensic Psychophysiological Detection of Deception.
And yes, it works, and works very well. Which is why I use it almost daily. Give me a better mouse trap and I'll be glad to use it. Until then, I will continue to use what has shown to be successful, effective and legal.
de•cep•tion –noun
1. the act of deceiving; the state of being deceived
2. something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud; artifice.
Synonyms 2. trick, stratagem, ruse, wile, hoax, imposture.
Lie -noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.
;)
So, I guess all the folk over at APA who refer to polygraph as Lie - Detection are simply 'lay people' - according to you that is.
I wonder if they would agree with you...I think not.
For all your bs my brother, polygraphy is utilised for one thing only.
Not to make medical diagnosis...it is used to try and detect if the examinee is responding truthfully or untruthfully to a question.
If he is not telling the truth - then what is he doing precisely???
What is the antonym for truth ?
If a verbal response is deceptive, then it is a lie.
Full Stop.
How can a Yes or NO response be anything else but a Lie, if it is not Truthful ?????
Tell you what. Try politics.
Quote from: PhilGainey on Mar 01, 2008, 08:47 PM"no guilt"
I see examiners coming here as sort of like this analogy;
Say the most omnipresent website about automotive mechanics was produced and populated by people proclaiming that automechanics are all thieves, and their "Scantool (r)"---(the main computer used by modern technicians to indicate system problems)---although not perfect by anymeans----was repeatedly called a "money prop" used for unnecessary and costly exploration. After a while. mechanics would grow tired of all the unchallenged, inductive thoughts, and constant smear upon a square profession that ultimately helps people and even saves lives on occasion. Examiners are here on occasion to keep the HS down to a mere stench, rather than a plague.
Your silly little opinion, while it is your right, is annoying, wrong, and worthy of rebuttal when it is within the limits of sanity.
Am I clear about that point?
No, not at all. your analogy is quite silly actually.
But it does illustrate the subconscious hierarchy to which you have assigned the polygraph - and i agree with you. It has no more status than a garage tool.
Poisons save lives.
Lies save lives.
Criminal activity also saves lies.
Your point has no steam feller.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Mar 03, 2008, 11:11 AMQuote from: George_Maschke on Mar 02, 2008, 10:52 PM"n.p.c.".
you wrote: "First, I am not making you look like a liar, you are doing a pretty good job of that yourself.
Yeah?! How so? What have I stated here that has been nothing more than a difference of your opinion..?
In none of the three polygraphs I have taken, was the techno-babble explained, just the lie that the polygraph can detect if I was lying."
Once again, you're asking me to explain something outside my responsibility. What can I answer for you that I could possibly be responsible for...?
Sackett
Since my polygraphs were outside your responsibility, it is also outside your responsibility to make generalizations about the polygraph industry, since any polygraph exam you don't personally give you have no control over.
So, when you make these statements, you are lying, misleading, deceiving, etc.
I frankly find your whole argument here stupid, and simply proffered to confuse uninformed readers.
Once again, you haven't answered my question that you accused me of, i.e. lying. What have I said or elluded to that was a lie?! Avoidance of the topic is not responsible!
And, again, oversimplification, which seems to be the order of the day... I SAID I can't answer for a specific action of another examiner or person during an examination which has already taken place. I CAN make observations and comments about the gengeneralizations of polygraph. How you connect the two, totally opposing issues, I'll never understand.
Sackett
P.S.
"LALE" why are you trying to make it appear that I was hiding? I've never hidden my opinions behind false monikers... and I'm not trying to conceal who I am, unlike you and some of the other anti posters. A little disengenuous, I think! Finally, you wrote: "We're not as stupid as you may think Jim" Once again, your opinion and certainly entitled to it... ::)
QuoteNo, not at all. your analogy is quite silly actually.
But it does illustrate the subconscious hierarchy to which you have assigned the polygraph - and i agree with you. It has no more status than a garage tool.
Poisons save lives.
Lies save lives.
Criminal activity also saves lies.
Your point has no steam feller.
LALE, you are clearly having fun, eh? Antipolygraph activists are trying to change the industry, pro-polygraph activists are advocating the positive uses and both parties come here to debunk one another. And LALE is after something altogether different.
My anology of using computerized Scantools on modern automobiles---which by the way are more technologically advanced than the first space shuttle----fits quite well. The Scantool doesn't detect malfunctions nor does it claim to (see your point here little man), as many a consumer has assumed. The Scantool pulls a code from the vehicles' computer system. The code doesn't merely tell the technician "fix the suspension actuators"---but instead, the code aids the technician by "indicating" (i.e."problem indicated")a system gliche, but the code does not pinpoint
precisely what the malfunction is.
So one could not call the computerized scantool a diagnostic computer in the true sense of the word----but it is more properly labeled a "diagnostic aid." Techs love them, but do not worship them.
Similarly, the polygraph is short-hand called a lie detector, although it really is a tool to aid investigaters in "pulling a code" from individuals. It is imperfect, and when an error occurs, troublesome to say the least. Like in the analogy, Scantool does not work as well with some "types" of systems. As demonstrated by the site author's Bell's Palsy type ticks [see You Tube videos], and another poster who comes to mind who suffers from debilitating panic attacks, the instrument is not ideal for pulling good data on certain types of individuals. Such limitations do not make something unscientific, it merely makes it's use limited, period.
Perhaps LALE is a sufferer of some form of degenerative disease or neurological ailment. He certainly has demonstrated a degree of decompensation. :(
Quote from: George_Maschke on Mar 03, 2008, 11:55 AM[Once again, you haven't answered my question that you accused me of, i.e. lying.
I have never accused you of lying. Of course, facts are not your strong suit, are they?
"n.p.c.",
You wrote: "So, when you make these statements, you are lying, misleading, deceiving, etc."
Are you on the same planet as the rest of us?
Sackett
Okay, I get it... I hurt your feelings cause I said that when you make the statements that polygraph isn't about lie detection, (flying in the face of what the rest of the industry is saying the purpose of polygraph is) is lying, misleading, deceiving, etc. and so that is what you are referring to when you say I called you a liar. No my friend, that was just my opinion, which is all a polygraphers opinion of someone being deceptive being, an opinion. Consider it akin to a false positive.
No, we are on the same planet, but because we are hashing things out here on an internet board, it is the best we have to communicate like this. I know mistakes can happen with this form of communication, but there is no better way, we just have to live with these mistakes, okay?
Quote from: George_Maschke on Mar 03, 2008, 01:23 PMQuoteNo, not at all. your analogy is quite silly actually.
But it does illustrate the subconscious hierarchy to which you have assigned the polygraph - and i agree with you. It has no more status than a garage tool.
Poisons save lives.
Lies save lives.
Criminal activity also saves lies.
Your point has no steam feller.
Quote
LALE, you are clearly having fun, eh? Antipolygraph activists are trying to change the industry, pro-polygraph activists are advocating the positive uses and both parties come here to debunk one another. And LALE is after something altogether different.
Lale is here to debunk you. Confusion over.
QuoteMy anology of using computerized Scantools on modern automobiles---which by the way are more technologically advanced than the first space shuttle----
NASA would probably disagree..
Quote
The Scantool doesn't detect malfunctions nor does it claim to (see your point here little man), as many a consumer has assumed. The Scantool pulls a code from the vehicles' computer system. The code doesn't merely tell the technician "fix the suspension actuators"---but instead, the code aids the technician by "indicating" (i.e."problem indicated")a system gliche, but the code does not pinpoint precisely what the malfunction is.
I think you are bored out of your wits....?
Quote
Similarly, the polygraph is short-hand called a lie detector,
Sackett et al will def disagree with you...
Quote
although it really is a tool to aid investigaters in "pulling a code" from individuals. It is imperfect, and when an error occurs, troublesome to say the least.
Aint that the truth and the general pattern. ie - Polygraph errors.
QuoteLike in the analogy, Scantool does not work as well with some "types" of systems. As demonstrated by the site author's Bell's Palsy type ticks [see You Tube videos], and another poster who comes to mind who suffers from debilitating panic attacks, the instrument is not ideal for pulling good data on certain types of individuals. Such limitations do not make something unscientific, it merely makes it's use limited, period.
My friend, if scantool is unreliable when diagnosing man made articles that are to all intents and purposes - identical - Then what chance does your polygraph scantool have in pulling identical codes from human beings, of whom not one of the billions born have identical psyche ?
May I reply on behalf of yourself and Sackett: "Zero chance."
Quote
Perhaps LALE is a sufferer of some form of degenerative disease or neurological ailment. He certainly has demonstrated a degree of decompensation.
Yes. My ICU has a system glitch. My 'actuators' are decompensing with inductive resonance.
BTW Jonsy, You articulate better when you stay away from the technical dictionary. ;)
— Lale is here to debunk you. Confusion over.
So
that is why you're here, eh? I thought you were here for the recipes.
QuoteQuote:
My anology of using computerized Scantools on modern automobiles---which by the way are more technologically advanced than the first space shuttle----
NASA would probably disagree..
No, they would not disagree. The first space shuttle had less computer memory and hard drive than a modern Ford Taurus. The more complexities were the space shuttle back-up systems, and the back-up for the back-up systems. The first shuttle was very much a more analogue type vehicle.
QuoteI think you are bored out of your wits....?
sometimes, but I generally retain my wits----especially if operating heavy machinery.
QuoteSimilarly, the polygraph is short-hand called a lie detector,
Sackett et al will def disagree with you...
Do you actually believe polygraph examiners agree on everything? Are you 17 years old?
Quotealthough it really is a tool to aid investigaters in "pulling a code" from individuals. It is imperfect, and when an error occurs, troublesome to say the least.
Aint that the truth and the general pattern. ie - Polygraph errors.
I suppose in your profession, there are no errors? I'll have to contact Dominos to see.
OK, cheap shot----sorry, I'm grouchy.
Yes Lale, errors happen. My wife has a client who was told last month that she had HIV. It was a false positive. The woman made drastic changes in her life---until the mistake was rectified 2 weeks later---the woman had already cashed her 401k, taking a huge loss in annuities/interest. That's the second false positive they have had in 2 months. Go figure.
— Quote:
Like in the analogy, Scantool does not work as well with some "types" of systems. As demonstrated by the site author's Bell's Palsy type ticks [see You Tube videos], and another poster who comes to mind who suffers from debilitating panic attacks, the instrument is not ideal for pulling good data on certain types of individuals. Such limitations do not make something unscientific, it merely makes it's use limited, period.
My friend, if scantool is unreliable when diagnosing man made articles that are to all intents and purposes - identical - Then what chance does your polygraph scantool have in pulling identical codes from human beings, of whom not one of the billions born have identical psyche ?
May I reply on behalf of yourself and Sackett: "Zero chance."I never said Scantool was not accurate. I just said it is a great tool to diagnose peripheral malfunctions----but the public has this steadfast misconception that the machine is the end all simple solution.
"Zero chance" eh? Now you are just being blustery.
QuoteQuote:
Perhaps LALE is a sufferer of some form of degenerative disease or neurological ailment. He certainly has demonstrated a degree of decompensation.
Yes. My ICU has a system glitch. My 'actuators' are decompensing with inductive resonance.
BTW Jonsy, You articulate better when you stay away from the technical dictionary.
QuoteYes. My ICU has a system glitch. My 'actuators' are decompensing with inductive resonance.
Now we agree on something (lol). Tell me more of your problems, and together we can make sense of why the voices keep telling you to do bad things. :P
— BTW Jonsy, You articulate better when you stay away from the technical dictionary Don't we all. The root of "articulate" is "art." I don't use technical dictionaries when I write here (maybe it would help my spelling eh?)----it's useless, as many posters have problems with looking at science and how many fields have both strengths AND weaknesses----and the weaknesses don't negate the validity of the whole. Doing such is, again I say, Inductive Reasoning. Look it up.
night night.
Quote from: sackett on Mar 06, 2008, 11:12 PMDon't we all. The root of "articulate" is "art." I don't use technical dictionaries when I write here (maybe it would help my spelling eh?)----it's useless, as many posters have problems with looking at science and how many fields have both strengths AND weaknesses----and the weaknesses don't negate the validity of the whole. Doing such is, again I say, Inductive Reasoning. Look it up.
night night.
I don't believe the root of "articulate" is "art". Rather, the root of the word is "articulatus", which means "to divide into distinct parts."
"Ars" (not "art") is the Latin word for "art".
I sit corrected.
LALE,
first off, I don't know a thing about Scantool; nor do I want to. I do understand when the mechanic who uses it and tells me my timing is off, though... It means I'm gunna be paying out some money!!
BTW, you have totally misrepresented my statements on "lie detection." No doubt purposefully, so for your benefit I'll type this slowly. The term, "Lie Detector" is a common slang used to identify the polygraph process. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIE DETECTOR! (w/ the exception of your mother, of course). Do we, the polygraph community use this common slang? Yes! Yes! Yes! So get over it, already!!! ::)
Sackett
Quote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 10:05 AM The term, "Lie Detector" is a common slang used to identify the polygraph process. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIE DETECTOR! (w/ the exception of your mother, of course). Do we, the polygraph community use this common slang? Yes! Yes! Yes! So get over it, already!!! ::)
Sackett
What are you trying to say here, Sackett? The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not? Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?
Quote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 10:52 AMQuote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 10:05 AM The term, "Lie Detector" is a common slang used to identify the polygraph process. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIE DETECTOR! (w/ the exception of your mother, of course). Do we, the polygraph community use this common slang? Yes! Yes! Yes! So get over it, already!!! ::)
Sackett
What are you trying to say here, Sackett? The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not? Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?
Nonpoly,
It's useless to get Sackett to use his brain ( I guess thats why he had to have this as his "chosen profession")
He tells you that somehow the term lie detector is a slang and does not exist, however he admits that the industry uses that "slang term". Which leads me to wonder if the "slang term" for the machine was what it accualy is "scam machine" if the "industry" would be so willing to embrace the term.
By Sackett's own admission the term " lie detector" though missleading is conviently perpetuated to increase the "scam quality" of the test.
Besides, agian Sackett shows his blind ingnorance or unwillingness to see the truth by his admission that poly's do not dectect lies but somehow gauges truthfull statements by some arbitrary physical response to untruthfull statements. This play on words and nonsense is of course all part of this scam.
you replied, "What are you trying to say here, Sackett? The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not? Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?"
I certainly feel like an inarticulate layman. I thought my postings were fairly clear and written for the simplistic of minds, apparently, I was wrong.
One last time... The same way you have a f-f-f reaction in the ANS when you see a cop on the side of the road when driving, your body reacts to the mental developement of a lie because we subconsciously know it's wrong (based on the natural thought process being truthful and the sociological reinforcement throughout our life that lying is wrong). All societies in the world have the same basic premise. The correlation is clear and obvious. BTW, why do we have the ANS reaction versus maintenance of homeostasis when seeing a cop? What is it about a guy on the side of the road, in a marked car, with a radar gun that poses the threat. We have that reaction before going through even the first of cognitive thoughts of, what is my speed? Did he get me? How much is the ticket, etc? (Also equivalently post presentation thought to, am I going to be falsely accused a liar, etc)
You and others like to address lying as the sole act of saying something (out of your mouth) that is not true. This allows for the further premise that, I told the truth and they called me a liar. The facts is, withholding, minimizing, rationalizing and avoidance are also manners of lying through the natural thought process. All of this are causes for the mental conflict resulting in the ANS reaction. Are there other reasons for ANS reaction? Yes!, but not generally in a polygraph suite.
Besides, you can't give yourself an ANS reaction voluntarily. You can't think through the question of, "did you do___..?." and later cause a ANS reaction if you have no recollection of the incident and/or conflict arising from the answer of no." Meanwhile, you know if you're not telling everything which you have knowledge of about an issue and are withholding that information. This knowledge is a reason for the ANS reaction.
Finally, as I've already discussed in previous postings, the general nervous system, i.e., cognitive thought, residual to a question and answer will not cause the same ANS reaction, though it will certainly effect the GNS. BUT, that effects the whole system, and throughout the entire test, not specifically to one question or the other.
I hope that explain things stisfactorily enough. If not, I can not make it any more easier to understand, and I give up trying to get through to you and your anti-buddies.
Sackett
Quote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 12:31 PMQuote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 10:52 AMQuote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 10:05 AM The term, "Lie Detector" is a common slang used to identify the polygraph process. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LIE DETECTOR! (w/ the exception of your mother, of course). Do we, the polygraph community use this common slang? Yes! Yes! Yes! So get over it, already!!! ::)
Sackett
What are you trying to say here, Sackett? The purpose of a polygraph procedure is to verify the truthfulness of the statements a person makes, is it not? Of course, the machine itself cannot detect lies, but the polygraph machine, in the hands of a competent polygrapher is supposed to be able to detect lies to a reasonable degree of certainty, correct?
Nonpoly,
It's useless to get Sackett to use his brain ( I guess thats why he had to have this as his "chosen profession")
He tells you that somehow the term lie detector is a slang and does not exist, however he admits that the industry uses that "slang term". Which leads me to wonder if the "slang term" for the machine was what it accualy is "scam machine" if the "industry" would be so willing to embrace the term.
By Sackett's own admission the term " lie detector" though missleading is conviently perpetuated to increase the "scam quality" of the test.
Besides, agian Sackett shows his blind ingnorance or unwillingness to see the truth by his admission that poly's do not dectect lies but somehow gauges truthfull statements by some arbitrary physical response to untruthfull statements. This play on words and nonsense is of course all part of this scam.
"notguilty1",
Once again, I try, I mean, I really try to make the things as basic as humanly possible. This way even the most simple minded people can understand what I say. The reader (that's you) does not have to agree with me, just understand. In your case and the case of your compadres here, I must say, I have failed to achieve even that minimal a level of accomplishment. Since I don't have crayons and paper, I guess this will have to do.
H a v e a g o o d d a y.
Sackett
No Sackett, please answer my questions directly. I'll re-phrase for simplicity:
Is the purpose of a polygraph examination to find out if a person is telling the truth?
Does a polygraph examination accomplish this task to a reasonable degree of certainty?
Quote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 12:39 PM. The same way you have a f-f-f reaction in the ANS when you see a cop on the side of the road when driving,
Sackett[/b]
BTW, I don't have an f-f-f reaction in the ANS when I see a cop by the side of the road when driving, I usually slow down a little to make sure my brother or sister is okay... But, that's just me.
Okay, okay, nopolycop, you're the one anomaly of human nature. But I suspect you're probably saying that simply to be argumentative. Doesn't matter...readers know what I mean.
Sackett
P.S. I've already answered your other question sufficiently. Stop trying to bait me... and you wonder why no examiner would touch "the challenge?"
Quote from: sackett on Mar 09, 2008, 02:13 PMOkay, okay, nopolycop, you're the one anomaly of human nature. But I suspect you're probably saying that simply to be argumentative. Doesn't matter...readers know what I mean.
Sackett
P.S. I've already answered your other question sufficiently. Stop trying to bait me... and you wonder why no examiner would touch "the challenge?"
Anomoly of human nature? NOOOOO, I am a cop, and knowing that other cops sometimes get into a jam on the side of the road, I slow down and make sure everything is okay, that's all.
And, regarding my questions, any reader will obviously see that you not only have not sufficiently answered my simple questions, but refuse to do so.
Have a nice day. ;)
Of course, sackett will not answer these simple, straightforward questions.
QuoteIs the purpose of a polygraph examination to find out if a person is telling the truth?
No. The purpose is to get a gullible person to "open up" and provide info that can be used against him/her. The polygraph is just a "prop".
QuoteDoes a polygraph examination accomplish this task to a reasonable degree of certainty?
No. Not according to the scientific community. A response by the ANS to a question does not necessarily equate to deception.
Furthermore, you can "fake" an ANS response by puckering yer anus, biting your tongue, or altering your breathing pattern.
I had fun with a polygrapher once. He told me the standard polygrapher lie that the test was 98% accurate. When asked the question "is your name xxxxx", I puckered my anus, bit my tongue and altered my breathing slightly.
He stopped the tape, and asked me why I would react to such a question. I said I wasn't reacting. He persisted, so I pulled out my I.D. and said "Look! My name is xxxxx! Want to see my birth certificate? What a joke! This test is 98% accurate? What a joke!"
His faced turned a sickening shade of red, and he left the room! Of course I failed, but they were going to fail me anyway.
It's a long story. It was for a preemployment test. I was first tested at the agency as part of the preemployment process. Three days of polytesting with the usual shennanigans, ended up with me ripping of the chest straps and me telling me what I thought about their voodoo ritual with some pretty salty language (I don't recommend others do that!).
To my great surprise, 6 months later I get a call from HR asking if I'd like to take the test again!
A few phone calls to my contacts at the agency, and I found out that the "hiring committee" and security were having a big "pissing contest" over me. My contact told me that security was just going "through the motions" to satisfy the HR/OPS people and retest me. They probably had no intention of passing me, and were out for blood, because I had made one of their precious polygrapher babes look bad. I had insulted the "high priesthood"!
So, I decided to have some fun.
Good story polyfibber. I'm a beleiver.....not
::)
Still waiting for a response from you in the "Trimbarco" thread (reply #37)
Guess you're only good for short little quips.
Polyfibber,
If your question is, What do you do if the examinee is DI and does not make an admission or confession? The answer is, you pass on the results to the adjudicator. I don't support using a less than acceptable polygraph test (DI) as the singular rationale to deny employment. I never have and that was my view even before the APA put it in writing. It is merely one part of the whole process. A pre-employment test is usually very broad, unlike a specific issue test, and the research I have read on pre-employment screening is it is not as "good" as a specific issue examination. The reason apparently has to do with the broadness of the test. That is not to say the process does not have value, because it does, and for the reasons I have previously given. When I have that occasional DI w/o a confession/admission, I will remind the adjudicator not to use the test results as the sole reason for denial of employment. But, as I have posted earlier, those are rare occurrences, however, they do occur.
And I do not make any attempts to debunk or attack the NAS report. I was, however, surprised that they did not conduct any of there own research. Read it and learn, but read it all, not just selected portions. How many times must polygraph examiners keep telling the opponents of polygraph that it is not perfect. It never has been and never will be. I think one beneficial outcome of the NAS report is that there are now ASTM standards for certain protocols and some testing protocols have mathematical calculations to determine probability of error. In many polygraph tests there are variables that are unknown, and will never been known. It is that unknown entity that allows the polygraph process to be attacked. But, the documented successes of even those tests apparently have been judged to be "worth the cost." That is not my call. Someone else has made that decision. And if it ruffles some feathers, too bad. My feathers have been ruffled in the past, but it hasn't stopped me.
I hope this was the response to which you referred. In closing, I refer you to Bill Gates' rules of life. Rule #1: Life isn't fair. Get used to it.
It may only be part of the process, but if you get anything short of a "pass", you not likely to get hired. And if you get a "fail", which you can get without being deceptive, you sure as hell ain't getting hired.
Quoteunlike a specific issue test, and the research I have read on pre-employment screening is it is not as "good" as a specific issue examination.
Not as good? No it isn't. The specific issue test will provide results "well above chance, though
well below perfection", as for the preemployment test:
"
For each spy or terrorist that might be correctly identified as deceptive would be accompanied by at least hundreds of nondeceptive examinees mislabeled as deceptive"NAS Report
Doesn't sound like a very "valuable" test. I suppose I could eliminate all the weeds in my garden by dousing it with kerosene, but many of the flowers would die also! But hey, such a process would have SOME value.
QuoteWhen I have that occasional DI w/o a confession/admission, I will remind the adjudicator not to use the test results as the sole reason for denial of employment.
So then the best advice is DON'T make a confession or admission, no matter how small you think it is. It will be used against you, and you at least have some chance of being hired with a DI w/o c/o as it's hardly ever used as the sole criterion for hiring!
And "deception indicated" is a misnomer, as you really don't know if they are being deceptive, you may suspect it, but you really don't know.
QuoteBut, as I have posted earlier, those are rare occurrences, however, they do occur.
You, a polygrapher who makes his living off the test, say false positives are a rare occasion.
Yet again, aprestigious body of scientific researchers reviewed findings on the subject and concluded there are hundreds of false positives for every spy or would be spy possibly caught.
Add to that my personal experience with the test, and my wife, and many other people I've talked to over the years.....think I disagree with your "rare occasion" estimate.
QuoteHow many times must polygraph examiners keep telling the opponents of polygraph that it is not perfect. It never has been and never will be.
Your statement above is an understatement.
The NAS concluded the specific issue test is "...well below perfection"
IOW, it's not anywhere near perfection.
So significantly better than a coin flip, but far from perfect (in at it's BEST), yet likely to smear the reputation of hundreds of people for each would be spy or security violator it catches.
QuoteRule #1: Life isn't fair. Get used to it.
My favorite: "Living well is the best revenge."
But that is neither here nor there.
The purpose of this board, contrary to what polygraphers would have you believe, is to educate people WHO HAVE YET TO TAKE THE TEST. So they don't get scammed. That is a positive thing.
If a soon to be tested applicant reads GM's book, it will level the playing field a bit. Like educating oneself prior to visiting a used car lot or dealership.
QuoteRead it [NAS report] and learn, but read it all, not just selected portions.
I agree, and I have read it, but just look at one of their final conclusions regarding the "VALUE" of the test:
"
Danger of Overconfidence Overconfidence in the polygraph—a belief in its accuracy not justified by the evidence—presents a danger to national security objectives. A false faith in the accuracy of polygraph testing among potential examinees may enhance its utility for deterrence and eliciting admissions. However,
we are more concerned with the danger that can arise from overconfidence in polygraph accuracy among officials in security and counterintelligence organizations, who are themselves potential examinees. Such overconfidence, when it affects counterintelligence and security policy choices, may create an unfounded, false sense that because employees have appeared nondeceptive on a polygraph, security precautions can be relaxed.
Such overconfidence can create a false sense of security among policy makers, employees in sensitive positions, and the public that may in turn lead to inappropriate relaxation of other methods of ensuring security. It
can waste public resources by devoting to the polygraph funds that would be better expended on developing or implementing alternative security procedures.
It can lead to unnecessary loss of competent or highly skilled individuals because of suspicions cast on them as a result of false positive polygraph exams YES!!!!!! or because they avoid or leave employment in federal security organizations in the face of such prospects. And it can lead to credible claims that agencies that use polygraphs are infringing on individuals' civil liberties for insufficient benefits to national security.
Note the ref to false positives you claim only occur "rarely"!
Off-topic replies have been moved to: this topic (https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1205165461).