Update to poly "Time for the witch hunt to begin"

[G.W.]

If one has made the decision to employ countermeasures, and a polygrapher asks the subject to alter his breathing, as in the above referenced polygraph test, what is the prevailing wisdom on how to respond? Should you stick to your guns and maintain a controled breathing? Or would this piss off the polygrapher and give him/her justification for deeming the test inconclusive?

[Wannabe]

If one has made the decision to employ countermeasures, and a polygrapher asks the subject to alter his breathing, as in the above referenced polygraph test, what is the prevailing wisdom on how to respond? Should you stick to your guns and maintain a controled breathing? Or would this piss off the polygrapher and give him/her justification for deeming the test inconclusive?

Since when does a polygrapher require "justification" to deem a "test" inconclusive?

[Anudder Examiner]

Ray,  I think we met at a "chartgazing" seminar a few years back.  Funny, you didn't seem gullible or even given to respond to the (I'm calling-you-out) name calling attitude of those uninformed people who are disgruntled with our profession. I have not commented (until now) because I don't feel the need to have a battle of wits with unarmed citizens.  

 As you can see, most of their commentary is ignorant and ill advised.  I also find it also self defeating.  If one reads the cr*p on this site, then enters into a test environment, uses what they have "learned", then returns to this site afterwards and complains of the problems in their test because of their own efforts, then they, like the good people of New York who voted Hillary in, "DESERVE IT!"  I always found it amazing that the same people who say it doesn't work, find it necessary to try and CHEAT.  If it doesn't work then you have nothing to fear...One can always rationalize their behavior in their support of their own interests.

P.S.  To all, good examiners read this garbage too, so be careful what you decide to use in a polygraph suite or it may come back to bite you!

[Wannabe]

good examiners? LMAO is that like saying, I've got a really "nice pimple"? lol

sorry I don't mean to throw stones.
I guess it's because I am against this junk science so it must be I have bad genes and can't control myself, I must be scum if I don't think the poly is a miracle truth machine.....

bad me bad me.....

 

[AMM]

Annuder Examiner:

Please indulge us and post the degree(s) you hold and where you work.  You have impugned not only the integrity of those who use this website, but their intelligence as well. As such, I think it is entirely fair to inquire about your formal education.   Since you have nothing to hide from, you should feel free to provide this information.

Ad hominem attacks are not productive and I won't engage in them.  I think having a polygrapher participating in this forum is important and I encourage you to continue to post your views.  You should be attacking the arguments made here, not the authors.

What I see missing in your post, as well as Mr. Latimer's, is evidence supporting the polygraph as scientifically valid.  Can  you provide ANY peer-reviewed scientific studies that would support the accuracy claims made by your community?  Peer-review is essential in determining whether a study is valid or merely fiction.  Anyone can publish a study supporting a particular claim, but the real proof is whether or not that study can stand up to the scrutiny of other disinterested professionals.  The research I've reviewed does not support your community's claims.  I would urge you to review the Federation of American Scientists study on polygraphy.  It is available at "www.fas.org"  

I have posted to other threads on this website and enjoyed reading the posts of LykenD, a retired police polygrapher.  He has not found it necessary to attack the characters of those who post here and I applaud him for it.  I also applaud him for acknowledging that polygraphy has an error rate, and given that error rate,  he probably accused innocent applicants of lying and passed those that were.  His honesty is to be commended.

You mentioned in your post that: "One can always rationalize their behavior in their support of their own interests."  I suppose that could be said about the polygraph community as well.  I find it only natural for you to be upset your chosen profession is called into question. However, you haven't engaged in any constructive argument here.  If you should chose to make another post, please avoid using the oft-cited argument of "utility."  (Let's try to keep this science-based, rather than  emotion-based.)  As I mentioned to LykenD, the argument for using rubber hoses on applicants to stimulate admissions could easily be made based on utility.

R,

AMM

[G Scalabr]

Annuder Examiner,

Like AMM, I, too, appreciate it when polygraph examiners post their points of view on this forum.  

To all, good examiners read this garbage too, so be careful what you decide to use in a polygraph suite or it may come back to bite you!

We made it very clear on page 71 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that polygraphers would be reading the book.  I thank you for reminding everyone.

Nonetheless, I fail to see how knowing about the way in which sophisticated polygraph countermeasures are performed equates to a demonstrated ability to detect them.  I encourage any of the examiners reading this forum to post cites for any peer reviewed studies you know of where polygraph examiners were shown to possess the ability to detect sophisticated polygraph countermeasures (like those described on this site) at better than chance levels.  I know of only one such study, and it showed that experienced polygraph examiners were not able to detect sophisticated countermeasures at better than random levels.  

Furthermore, you gentlemen may wish to explain how physiological changes caused by muscle contraction, pain, or stressful thoughts differ from those you equate with deception when recorded by the polygraph instrument.  Once again, any cites (polygraph journals, etc) would be greatly appreciated.  

I always found it amazing that the same people who say it doesn't work, find it necessary to try and CHEAT.  If it doesn't work then you have nothing to fear...One can always rationalize their behavior in their support of their own interests.

I'm not following your logic here.  The polygraph "test" has not been shown by peer-reviewed scientific research to reliably distinguish truth from deception.  In other words, it doesn't work.  If one submits to a polygraph and tells the truth, there is a still a substantial chance that this individual will fail, be denied employment, and have absolutely no recourse.  More simply put, even if you are truthful, you have something to fear.  On the other hand, simple techniques exist that, if properly performed, will ensure that a truthful individual will "pass" the test and escape with his reputation unscathed.   I don't understand why you find it amazing that we suggest that truthful people may wish to manipulate the outcome of a "test" with odds worse than Russian Roulette.  One can either "roll the dice" or be assured of "passing."

And, as far as "cheating" and "rationalizing behavior in support of one's own interests," I am curious as to how you justify the deception and trickery by the polygrapher on which these "tests" depend.  I may be misinterpreting you here—I apologize in advance if I am—but it appears that you are insinuating that employing countermeasures when truthful is unethical behavior, yet your chosen profession involves a procedure that relies on providing the person being "tested" with false and misleading explanations.   Perhaps you can explain how you rationalize this dichotomy.  

[Pseudo Relevant]

Ray,  I think we met at a "chartgazing" seminar a few years back.  

 "Chartgazing"? And you went to an accredited polygraph school? Is that what your instructors called it? I suppose you never had to put money in the "jar" when you called it a "machine", right? I wonder, oh great intrepreter, you gazer of the charts, can you read my thoughts right now? What a load...

I don't feel the need to have a battle of wits with unarmed citizens.  

Citizens? What are you... leader of the storm troopers? Ohhhh, I get it... you're the American Gestapo. You only wish the citizens will stay "unarmed" because if enough become educated to your sorcery, you're toast and you know it. Ask Renzelman...
 

As you can see, most of their commentary is ignorant and ill advised.  I also find it also self defeating.  If one reads the cr*p on this site, then enters into a test environment, uses what they have "learned", then returns to this site afterwards and complains of the problems in their test because of their own efforts, then they, like the good people of New York who voted Hillary in, "DESERVE IT!"

 Kinda like the Jews in Germany during WW II. They deserved what they got too, didn't they? I wonder how loud you'll squeal when the people take action and remove you from your pedestal. Oh, we'll treat you according to your education level. You'll qualify for a burger flipping job at McDonalds, if they lower their standards far enough.

If it doesn't work then you have nothing to fear...

We don't "fear" the polygraph. What we do fear is the numbers of people who are going to be wrongly labeled as liars. Being a people of ethics, it is wrong for us to sit back and watch people like you make a living by fraud at the expense of the truthful.

P.S.  To all, good examiners read this garbage too, so be careful what you decide to use in a polygraph suite or it may come back to bite you!

Hey Sparky... You should heed your own warning. We know you can be sued. That's why you pay a bond to hold your license every year. Your release form is not worth the paper it's written on. Get your wallets out those who call yourselves polygraphists... your money is going to change hands, your to ours... tick, tick, tick, goes the clock. Your time is short. Now, go and enjoy the rest of your day!

[Fred F.]

We don't "fear" the polygraph. What we do fear is the numbers of people who are going to be wrongly labeled as liars. Being a people of ethics, it is wrong for us to sit back and watch people like you make a living by fraud at the expense of the truthful.

Pseudeo Revelant,

Your quote is heaven sent. If you remove the "fear" factor from the polygraph you relegate it to basically the decision of the person at the key board.

I believe that many of the polygraphers who visit this site don't want to understand that HONEST PEOPLE have been victimized by this pseudo-science. If they read the personal statements of Captain Jones, and Mark Mallah, who had promising careers destroyed by an exam that has never been proven to be as accurate as those who purvey it want you to believe.

These men have INTEGRITY and when their dreams were shattered by a person with 8-10 weeks of "training", chose to fight back and with the help of those of us who have joined in here on this site. We will get the attention of the powers that be that polygraph testing is a FRAUD!

Hey Sparky... tick, tick, tick, goes the clock. Your time is short. Now, go and enjoy the rest of your day!

This is why the polygraphers are very defensive of their jobs.....They have a new enemy, the sister pseudo-science called CVSA....the polygraph industry has jumped all over the "accuracy" of the CVSA in an attempt to keep their own profession untouched.....like you said......

Tick....Tick....Tick


Fred F.