Drew Richardson Never an Actual FBI Polygraph Examiner?

[G Scalabr]

I don't think that anyone on this site denies Dr. Richardson's education or intelligence.

There are posts putting his title in quotes ("Dr.") and alleging that he is a poor student who was barely able to pass the DoDPI Basic Polygraph Examiner Course. Do you not see those as attempts to belittle his education and intelligence?

A good analogy for you is someone who places posts on a golf site disparaging Tiger Woods.

It's one thing to make posts assailing his attitude, character, etc. The poster really could objectively believe that he is an arrogant jerk.

Still, once the person adds posts saying that he has a terrible swing, poor fundamentals, etc, they sort of scream bias (player hater) and call all of the other posts into question as tomfoolery.

Again, one does not have to read thousands of astrology charts or own a crystal ball to be an expert resource for stating that fortune telling is a joke. Nor does one have to have tons of field experience as a polygrapher in order to use academic expertise to render an expert scientific opinion with regard to the validity of polygraphy.

All of your cheerleading doesn't negate the fact that Drew allegedly demonstrated to Mark Johnson that although Drew was seemingly intelligent, he described a type of inexplicable disconnection with the bare minimum understanding of polygraph testing-----which is to say the least, not quite "top expert" material as reported by Mr. Johnson.

Or, he may have "called bullshit" on some or all of the lectures which Mark Johnson and the other Kool Aid drinkers at DoDPI saw as a lack of understanding.

I'm sure if Carl Sagan had attended an 8 week long astrology school, the unanimous opinion of the "professionals" in attendance would have been that he "simply didn't get it" either.

I do see it fit to add this tidbit of information regarding "Hard" vs. "Soft" science, as seen in the quote below.

JB, that was an interesting read.

The only reason for my praise of "hard" science is that my undergrad degrees were in social science. Peers who majored in hard science had an exponentially greater workload.

Although a political science BA and a chemistry BA are equivalent with regard to academia, I'm going to head out on a limb and say that the average hard science major is more intelligent and works a hell of a lot harder than a social science major.

Can we agree that you don't see an awful lot of sociology majors dropping out for pre-med tracks (the curriculum is bio/gen chem/physics/organic chem) due to the difficulty of the sociology curriculum?

[Paradiddle]

Gino, has anyone ever accused you of having ADHD? Your meandering "limb" is a folly indeed. I will agree that putting the Dr. in qoutes was hyperbole, a demonstrative exercise to indicate that perhaps all isn't how it appears in the ranks of anti-polygraph. To make snap judgements on the differences of "difficulty/work load" of hard versus soft science is folly---one need only know a sufferer of one of the yet uncharted varieties of Asberger's Autism to know that some take comfort in cold mechanisms while the same cannot fathom behavioral cognitions-----or even  simplistic probabilities regading nebulous processes of the human psyche. I appreciate your wit, but your attempt at codifying pro-poly lampooning of the bloated and deified Drew Richardson lacks in context. Perhaps you should stand back with a perspective of factional history, and let us have our due scepticism. Rest assured, this thread will expire soon enough as we have other long overdue bones to pick.

[Mysterymeat]

Guys,

Dr. Drew wrote that he has become a "unwitting" and "reluctant" social activist after being contacted by hundreds of polygraph victims!!!! GIVE ME A BREAK DOCTOR!

You have an audio recording on this web-site for God's sake! You are actually out there on the net trolling for "victims". Spin...spin....spin....

MM

[G Scalabr]

Polygraphers, no responses to my point about how you feel Carl Sagan would have been evaluated by his instructors at an astrology seminar? I'll take your silence as agreement.

as•trol•o•gy
n
The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs.

as•tron•o•my
n
The scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.

I have a feeling that Dr. Sagan might have gotten a fairly cool reception once he started to point out just how little the "experts" knew about the peer-reviewed science upon which theirs is purported to be based.

The analogy could not be more apropos.

Polygraphy is a practice which purports to determine credibility based on physiological responses to interrogation. Again, the problem lies within the fact that the "luminaries" are less than knowledgeable about the science (physiology) on which polygraphy purports to be based. I can only imagine the reactions of the "experts" when Dr. Richardson pointed out that their house was built on a foundation of sand.

To make snap judgments on the differences of "difficulty/work load" of hard versus soft science is folly

We'll agree to disagree on this matter.

In my opinion, in rank order with the most difficult academic disciplines listed first...

1. Hard Science
Examples: chemistry, physics

2. Soft Science
Examples: sociology, political science, communications

Oh, wait. There's one more...

3. Non-Science
Examples: astrology, phrenology, polygraphy

That being said... Polygraphers, I tremendously value your participation on this board.

Without you, the discussion would be completely one-sided. Please consider continuing to participate here and encouraging your fellow polygraphy operators to do the same.

Best,
Gino (Gino who?, the Mystery Man, etc)

[Paradiddle]

Polygraphers, no responses to my point about how you feel Carl Sagan would have been evaluated by his instructors at an astrology seminar? I'll take your silence as agreement.

Your point is stretched like taffy on a puller. If Cornell U assigned Carl to be an astrology student and to research astrology---only to have Carl be a lethargic student who a leading expert in that field states in a legal declaration that Carl has the single worst grasp of the fundemental priciples of astrology that said professional has seen in a career lifetime----then Carl would indeed be worthy of being called "not an expert on astrology---much less a "superior expert." Knowing Carl, he would have been a superb astrology student and researcher, regardless of what his opinions and/or merits of the field relied.

as•trol•o•gy
n
The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs.  

as•tron•o•my
n
The scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.

To further debunk your comparison, Carl Sagan was tasked (similarly as J. Allen Hynek) to explore the possibility for otherworldly visitation (ufo's) and Carl, although a great skeptic--having said " [paraphrased]great claims require great evidence"----delved into the study relentlessly---even the silly stuff. He was a man among men and a scientists scientist------fact of the matter, I am insulted that you would dare breath the name Carl Sagan in the same breath as Drew Richardson.

I have a feeling that Dr. Sagan might have gotten a fairly cool reception once he started to point out just how little the "experts" knew about the peer-reviewed science upon which theirs is purported to be based.

The analogy could not be more apropos.  

Polygraphy is a practice which purports to determine credibility based on physiological responses to interrogation. Again, the problem lies within the fact that the "luminaries" are less than knowledgeable about the science (physiology) on which polygraphy purports to be based. I can only imagine the reactions of the "experts" when Dr. Richardson pointed out that their house was built on a foundation of sand.

There you go again with "I have a feeling"which explains why you worship anyone claiming to pass under and grad college science courses.More on that later.----Carl would have been worshipped by astrologers---besides, your comparison of Carl attending a seminar and Drew attending an intensive school and training in field conditions for preparitory research is way off the mark. Are you drinking alcohol? A seminar?
Jesus H Christ you are so wrong Gino I don't know where to begin. 1st--to interrogate, means to Accuse. "Polygraphy is a practice which purports to determine credibility based on physiological responses to interrogation"---is wrong. Since when does a polygraph chart administration contain interrogation (accusation)? Any accusation come after the test is administrated. While "luminaries" may not all be psychologists and physiologists, neither are polysomnographers---people who conduct sleep studies with multiple component instrumentation and make critical analysis of circadian and physiological maladies involved with sleep problems. Dr. Richardson did not point anything out to us, other than the fact that he was disgruntled----now I hear he is involved in an allegedly sketchy private venture with an allegedly irreputable attorney in the business of FMRI lie and memory detection. Gee, funny when a guy leaves coca cola badmouthing the place and the industry and folly---then goes over to RC cola for work. Regardless, if you want to be nit picky, last I checked Drew wasn't a neurologist or a neuro-linguistics expert----important areas of expertise when studying the brain and how it processes language and images. I do wish him luck, and if fMRI makes my kids safer from predators, than I will gladly change careers to something that actually pays a living wage and doesn't have a group of "anti-anything" critisizing every professional misstep.

In my opinion, in rank order with the most difficult academic disciplines listed first...

1. Hard Science
Examples: chemistry, physics

2. Soft Science
Examples: sociology, political science, communications

Oh, wait. There's one more...

3. Non-Science
Examples: astrology, phrenology, polygraphy

I have a brother who would agree with you and one that would disagree with you. Who asked you what you think is acedemically hard and what is easy? Are you in high school Gino, cause study hall really sucks---let's go to the mall for pizza.

Your #3 is venom without substance. Polygraph is both hard science and higher art. Boy, those gung-ho hard-ons at the secret service poly mill must have really ruffled your feathers.

niters

[Sergeant1107]

I think Gino's points seem a lot more reasonable and logical than Paradiddle's.

Astronomers study the matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.  That sounds like a field of endeavor with definite scientific foundation.

Astrologers believe that the movements and location of stars and planets can and do influence human behavior, and that they can predict the future of human affairs by reading the influence of heavenly bodies.  That sounds like guesswork, even though it is linked to a scientific field.

A polygraph examiner studies physiological reactions, which is certainly a credible field.  If you record that the subject's respirations were twelve per minute at 2:05PM and by 2:07PM they had increased to 18 per minute, that certainly seems like valid data you are recording.

The polygraph examiner then assumes that the physiological reactions he or she has been studying correspond to thoughts of truth or deception.  I don't see any more reason to believe that is true than I do to believe that the current position of Jupiter and its moons will have an effect on my investments this month.

Gino, I think that's an excellent analogy that both professionals and laymen can understand.

[Paradiddle]

I think Gino's points seem a lot more reasonable and logical than Paradiddle's.

Astronomers study the matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy, and evolution of celestial bodies and phenomena.  That sounds like a field of endeavor with definite scientific foundation.

Astrologers believe that the movements and location of stars and planets can and do influence human behavior, and that they can predict the future of human affairs by reading the influence of heavenly bodies.  That sounds like guesswork, even though it is linked to a scientific field.

A polygraph examiner studies physiological reactions, which is certainly a credible field.  If you record that the subject's respirations were twelve per minute at 2:05PM and by 2:07PM they had increased to 18 per minute, that certainly seems like valid data you are recording.

The polygraph examiner then assumes that the physiological reactions he or she has been studying correspond to thoughts of truth or deception.  I don't see any more reason to believe that is true than I do to believe that the current position of Jupiter and its moons will have an effect on my investments this month.

Gino, I think that's an excellent analogy that both professionals and laymen can understand.

The only thing missing is Smokey Robinson's first solo album, a rose, and a single pink candle. Sarge's post is perhaps the single greatest stroke fest I have yet seen from one anti-poster to another. Any crisp human can plainly see that the anti activists on this site would do well to let go of their man crush with Drew. To compare him with Carl Sagan is like comparing steak to bologna-----and the bologna's "use by" date expired last month. peeyooo. :-/

[G Scalabr]

I have a brother who would agree with you and one that would disagree with you. Who asked you what you think is acedemically hard and what is easy?

When proponents of a non-science (one where fraudulent PhDs abound) make personal attacks on the academic ability against a man with a PhD in a field like physiology, this information was quite relevant to put things in perspective.

We will agree to disagree on how a luminary in astronomy would have been evaluated if sent for training in a pseudoscience purporting to be based on it.

Since when does a polygraph chart administration contain interrogation (accusation)?

The whole entire polygraph process is an interrogation by definition.

Sarge's post is perhaps the single greatest stroke fest I have yet seen from one anti-poster to another.

You want to see posters cheering each other on, visit polygraphplace.com or 911jobforums.com (or whatever they are calling it this month).

Boy, those gung-ho hard-ons at the secret service poly mill must have really ruffled your feathers.

Trust me, my feathers are pretty tough to ruffle.

From the e-mails that we get, this is apparently not so with regard to US Secret Service polygraph operators. The agency appears to be at the top of the list when it comes to unprofessional conduct with regard to interrogation tactics after "deception indicated" charts have been produced. We've received reports of shouting, use of profanity, physically aggressive posturing, good-cop/bad cop routine, and my favorite--pounding of fists on tables.

That's what I call having one's feathers ruffled.

[Paradiddle]

The whole entire polygraph process is an interrogation by definition.

Gino, it doesn't matter how many times you say this, it still doesn't make it true. You don't have to believe in the efficacy of polygraph to know that a polygraph test is not an interrogation, it is an investigational interview. If on the other hand a person such as yourself fails a polygraph---than yes, expect an ACCUSATION (INTERROGATION). Trust me, I am an examiner, not a sideline activist.

We will agree to disagree on how a luminary in astronomy would have been evaluated if sent for training in a pseudoscience purporting to be based on it.  

Your analogy is completely flawed, but your fans will ignore the flat notes as they are rabid loyalists of your tunes---much like core John Lennon fans supported during the "Yoko" years.

When proponents of a non-science (one where fraudulent PhDs abound) make personal attacks on the academic ability against a man with a PhD in a field like physiology, this information was quite relevant to put things in perspective.

Fraudulent PhD's "abound?" What, 5 or 6 phony doctorates and you call that "abound/ bountiful?" If I have 5-6 bucks in my wallet, does that mean to Gino my money/wallet is bountiful? Get off the bong.

You want to see posters cheering each other on, visit polygraphplace.com or 911jobforums.com (or whatever they are calling it this month).

Again you sound like a high schooler who poo poos the kids that sit at the other lunch table----cause of their smug faces and their stupid hair cuts----let's go girls and smoke behind the gym! sigh

From the e-mails that we get, this is apparently not so with regard to US Secret Service polygraph operators. The agency appears to be at the top of the list when it comes to unprofessional conduct with regard to interrogation tactics after "deception indicated" charts have been produced. We've received reports of shouting, use of profanity, physically aggressive posturing, good-cop/bad cop routine, and my favorite--pounding of fists on tables.

OK, now I'm interested---grown up time. Shouting?----super loud shouting or the type of "shouting" that is mere crescendo volumunous emphaticisms? Profanity?---are we talking "shit, goddamn, piss, fuck, pussy, dick,asshole" (the big network 7)?  Physically aggressive posturing?----grabbing collar or karate stance or what? Pounding fists?---that one is self explanatory.  Sounds like another Abu Graib.
Gino, I take it you were never in the US Marines. Well, ya just described the first week of basic training---a sort of part art/part science applicant screening process if you will. The Secret Service protects the President of the United States among other entities such as the Department of Treasury ---and so they are truly a bunch of strict, gung ho "hard ons" if there ever were such. I wouldn't be suprised if the Secret Service asked applicants to endure sexual humiliation in an attempt to break the narcisism of cocky rooks or the facade of cloaked cowardice----much less 1 day of possible verbal abuse that makes the marine corp look like a year in gulag. I am an admitted left leaner, but when it comes to the essential US Fed LE and Intel services, I expect a degree of ego shattering psychological abuse on some level. Protectors of our country need to have thick enough skin to protect their own fragilities in order to protect those of our countrymen and women. In the old US Cavelry, they called it "breaking the man before the horse." Don't like it? Get a job with Microsoft----it pays better and no one gets "microscoped" or "broken."

[Sergeant1107]

Gino, it doesn't matter how many times you say this, it still doesn't make it true. You don't have to believe in the efficacy of polygraph to know that a polygraph test is not an interrogation, it is an investigational interview.

If you have a subject in custody and you want to give them a polygraph, you are required to Mirandize them.

Since Miranda is only required when there is custody and interrogation, that seems to indicate that the polygraph is in fact an interrogation.

[Mysterymeat]

Sergeant,

DAMN ! And just when I thought you had a brain. A polygraph examination is no more of an interrogation than an Cat is a Dog. There are two separate things. I hope your agency never lets you near an academy or any other teaching position.

Regards,

MM

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Paradiddle,

You are definitely the most entertainment on this forum in a long time.  I thought I was good, but you, my friend, are OUTSTANDING.  I can see you are having fun, so please keep it up.  Remember, though, that whenever you are bored here--as I eventually became--George and Drew and their cronies will have the last word, no matter how much sense there was in your arguments.  Anyway, thanks for the fun.  

[digithead]

Sergeant,

DAMN ! And just when I thought you had a brain. A polygraph examination is no more of an interrogation than an Cat is a Dog. There are two separate things. I hope your agency never lets you near an academy or any other teaching position.

Regards,

MM

I go away for a few days and you guys redefine the term interrogation. Wow!

Let's see, my Webster's Dictionary defines the word interrogate as a verb that means "to question formally and systematically." Interrogation is the noun version and which means a "process of questioning formally and systematically."

So the polygraph examination isn't formal and the questions aren't asked systematically? I had no idea...

[Mysterymeat]

D-Head,

You are correct....you have no idea.

Thank you your for your insight and taking the time to learn how to use the dictionary.

Regards,

MM

[digithead]

D-Head,

You are correct....you have no idea.

Thank you your for your insight and taking the time to learn how to use the dictionary.

Regards,

MM

You might check it out yourself, you could learn something new...

But please explain how a polygraph examination is not an interrogation...