Lying on the test

[boeing747]

Hi everyone,

Im new here and am trying to understand the rationale behind all of this.  What I am getting out of this site is that I can lie about everything on the polygraph and still pass!  Is this correct and if it is, does anyone have any experience with that

Thanks

[Sergeant1107]

Hi everyone,

Im new here and am trying to understand the rationale behind all of this.  What I am getting out of this site is that I can lie about everything on the polygraph and still pass!  Is this correct and if it is, does anyone have any experience with that

Thanks

If you choose to lie on your polygraph exam I hope lots of bad things happen to you.

The purpose of this site is not to allow people who have done illegal or immoral acts to successfully lie about them to prospective employers or law enforcement agencies.

The purpose of this web site is to provide information on the polygraph.  

An unfortunate side effect of providing this informtion is that some unethical people will use that knowledge to lie about prior illegal activity.

[boeing747]

Ok thats a pretty immature response.  Can anybody else help me out on this one.   It seems that he might be a fed.

[nonombre]

If you choose to lie on your polygraph exam I hope lots of bad things happen to you.

The purpose of this site is not to allow people who have done illegal or immoral acts to successfully lie about them to prospective employers or law enforcement agencies.

The purpose of this web site is to provide information on the polygraph.  

An unfortunate side effect of providing this informtion is that some unethical people will use that knowledge to lie about prior illegal activity.

Sergeant,

I know we have already gone 'round and 'round on this subject, but I can't help pointing this out once again...

One cannot stand a shotgun up in the doorway of the schoolhouse and then take no responsibility when a kid picks it up and shoots another kid.

The statement, "I didn't mean for any kids to pick up that gun, you can't hold me responsible," is itself irresponsible and foolish...

Regards,

Nonombre :-/

[Twoblock]

boeing747

I have read every one of Sergeant1107's posts and he appears to be very mature and one hell of common sense cop and wants only the right people to become LEO's by telling the truth on the relevant questions. He is, also, against pre-employment polygraphs.

The purpose of this site is to prevent false positives as much as possible i.e., telling the truth on the relevant questions and still failing the polygraph. Which happens way too frequently.

[boeing747]

All im saying is that this site teaches people that they can lie on the test and still pass.  Thats be realistic about the FBI drug hiring requirements.  How many people have smoked weed more than 15 times, ALOT! and are still in the FBI.  It isnt fair to anyone. Who cares if you smoked pot when you were 18 but as long as you havent sharpened up and dont do it anymore.  I dont think you should be able to punish somebody for that. So when people do smoke more that the guidelines say and they want that job, well guess what, this site will teach them how to lie on the polygraph and pass.  And im glad

[Mr. Mystery]

Hi everyone,

Im new here and am trying to understand the rationale behind all of this.  What I am getting out of this site is that I can lie about everything on the polygraph and still pass!  Is this correct and if it is, does anyone have any experience with that

Thanks

What you should get from this site is that you can tell the truth on a polygraph and still fail.  Especially a pre-employment screening polygraph.

False negatives are much more rare than false positives.

I have to agree with Sergeant, get lost (and learn what a contraction is why you are at it).

[Tarlain]

boeing,
Plenty of people have never smoked pot.  If your integrity is lacking, you are the only person to blame.  You appear very childish lashing out against people such as the Sergeant


Nonombre,
You logic is tragically flawed.  You are comparing KNOWLEDGE to a shotgun.  According to your arguement, anything I learn that could hurt someone falls into the same category.  Do you really think we shouldn't teach chemistry because people could poison others with the knowledge?  Better yet, they could cover up their crimes if they understand how things like fingerprints work...or physics.  Hiding the truth will always damage your credibility.  Why do you not understand this?

The real fact is that your witch hunts are not fair or scientific.  If they were, knowledge would not scare you so much.  It must be very scary to live in a world where you depend on other's ignorance to sustain your superiority.

[nonombre]

Nonombre,
You logic is tragically flawed.  You are comparing KNOWLEDGE to a shotgun.  According to your arguement, anything I learn that could hurt someone falls into the same category.  Do you really think we shouldn't teach chemistry because people could poison others with the knowledge?  Better yet, they could cover up their crimes if they understand how things like fingerprints work...or physics.  Hiding the truth will always damage your credibility.  Why do you not understand this?

Let's look at it this way:  If you were to post onto the internet "The Tarlain quick, easy method to make a pipe bomb," and somebody successfully used your method to blow up a pre-school full of kids, would you not have some level of responsibility, even if it were just moral responsibility?

You see, according to your argument, the posting of "KNOWLEDGE" is okay in all cases.  After all , it's not like you left a shotgun to be picked up...

I beg to differ with your point of view.   Here is another example:  I would hate to think that a police applicant downloaded the "Tarlain method of defeating a urinalysis test," and used that method to get on the PD, where he is involved a year later in a fatality accident in his cruiser because he was stoned.

How about the "Tarlain method of keeping ones DNA from being left at a crime scene?"  Or "The Tarlain method of defeating your sex offender maintenance polygraph?"

You say, "Hiding the truth will always damage your credibility."  

I say, let the truth come out.  We all live in a free society.  Feel free to say/publish whatever you want, but be prepared to be held responsible if somebody uses the "KNOWLEDGE" you have provided to hurt another person.

Regards,

Nonombre  

[Onesimus]

I think you have your analogies backwards.  Polygraphers are the ones with the shotguns and pipe bombs turned indiscriminately against both the innocent and guilty.  Maybe you should talk about the Tarlain method of diffusing a bomb?

[nonombre]

I think you have your analogies backwards.  Polygraphers are the ones with the shotguns and pipe bombs turned indiscriminately against both the innocent and guilty.  Maybe you should talk about the Tarlain method of diffusing a bomb?

Onesimus,

As expected, you missed the point...

[Tarlain]

(lost my first response from a board error  )

Quick reply,
Urine test...use hair or watch the person urinate in the cup.  That example is junk.

Pipebomb- I could care less if there are directions on the internet for ways to build a pipebomb.

knowledge is not the enemy.   a person's actions and intent are the issue.

Lastly, I don't think Onesimus missed your point.  I think he just ignored it because it is a flawed arguement.  If I am correct, I agree with him.  It is a pointless exercise to try to place blame on people who offer knowledge.

 I could just as easily get as many "confessions" by pistol whipping people and telling them I will shoot them if they don't tell the truth.  This is basically what you do...just on an intellectual level.  It is not a RELIABLE method of discovering the truth.  I'm actually beginning to form an opinion that it's mental abuse...purely because of the amount of lying you guys do.

Why should I be prepared to be responsibile for another person's actions?  Should I really worry that if I teach my children that anti freeze is deadly...that they might use it to hurt someone?  Educate people and then hold them responsible for THEIR ACTIONS.  I will never feel guilty because of what someone else does.  

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GROWN ADULTS HERE.  If it is a child, then the parental units are responsible.  But there is no reason to censor information...unless you are in the field of the polygraph.  

[nonombre]

Should I really worry that if I teach my children that anti freeze is deadly...that they might use it to hurt someone?...I will never feel guilty because of what someone else does....

Tarlain,

I feel really sorry for you....

and I feel especially sorry for your children

[Wallerstein]

Tarlain,

I feel really sorry for you....

and I feel especially sorry for your children

Talk about a non sequitir.  Your reasoning in this thread is full of logical fallacies and absurd arguments.  I suggest you have it copywritten for publishing in a logic 101 textbook under the heading "common fallacies".  

Let me ask you something:  if you do believe that countermeasures can affect the outcome of a polygraph test, why are you so sure that myriad other variables could not also affect it?  Say, a nervous or anxious person, someone who is overly "responsive" to judgments regarding his/her character, etc.?  In other words, if the polygraph is limited in its effectiveness by some idiot sitting there flexing his sphincter muscle or biting his tongue, doesn't it naturally follow, arguendo, that its effectiveness could also be limited by other factors?

[nonombre]

Talk about a non sequitir.  Your reasoning in this thread is full of logical fallacies and absurd arguments.  I suggest you have it copywritten for publishing in a logic 101 textbook under the heading "common fallacies".  

Let me ask you something:  if you do believe that countermeasures can affect the outcome of a polygraph test, why are you so sure that myriad other variables could not also affect it?  Say, a nervous or anxious person, someone who is overly "responsive" to judgments regarding his/her character, etc.?  In other words, if the polygraph is limited in its effectiveness by some idiot sitting there flexing his sphincter muscle or biting his tongue, doesn't it naturally follow, arguendo, that its effectiveness could also be limited by other factors?

Uh uh, don't change the subject Hombre,

Am I to understand that if you were to explain to your children the lethality of antifreeze, and they then used that information to deliberately poison somebody, you would feel NO sense of responsibility for their actions?

I guess that is what they mean by the "me" generation... :-/

Regards,

Nonombre