RCMP polygraph... wow you were right.

[TheNoLieGuy4U]

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.  

[TheNoLieGuy4U]

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 !

[sackett]

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

[nopolycop]

Chris,

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."

[T.M. Cullen]

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.  

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.

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!

[T.M. Cullen]

Do 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

[T.M. Cullen]

Hey, let's start a NEW THREAD.

This one has gotten old.

And our young "Mountie" candidate seems to be long gone.

[sackett]

Chris,

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

[sackett]

Do 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.

[T.M. Cullen]

most 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.  

I 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!

[pailryder]

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.

[sackett]

"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?

I 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

[George W. Maschke]

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?

[T.M. Cullen]

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?

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...".

[T.M. Cullen]

Not 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?

Now I'm not a scientist, but I believe there are in fact methods in research which identify potential weaknesses in a particular methodology.

DODGE!!

With 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.

Probabilities, 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?

"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.