Police pre-employment polys mostly IRrelevant & Relevant?..

[Sergeant1107]

Sarge 1107

My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test.  I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart.   After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know.  If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson?  Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:

A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again.     Alexander Pope (1711)    
 

I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.

In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth.  If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them.  I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will.  I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth.  It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.

I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.  

I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening.  All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.

I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing.  But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.

If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen.  And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies.  Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.

[rice80]

Sarge 1107

My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test.  I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart.   After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know.  If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson?  Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:

A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again.     Alexander Pope (1711)    
 

I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.

In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth.  If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them.  I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will.  I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth.  It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.

I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.  

I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening.  All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.

I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing.  But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.

If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen.  And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies.  Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.

Sergeant1107,

I agree. All of my tests were pre-employment as well. Each one with different outcomes.

[Paradiddle]

Sarge 1107

My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test.  I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart.   After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know.  If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson?  Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:

A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again.     Alexander Pope (1711)    
 

I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.

In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth.  If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them.  I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will.  I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth.  It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.

I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.  

I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening.  All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.

I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing.  But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.

If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen.  And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies.  Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.

Sergeant1107,

I agree. All of my tests were pre-employment as well. Each one with different outcomes.

Classic antipolygraph thread. An examiner attempts some thoughtful discourse---a little food for thought. Than an anti guy writes that he agrees in part, but continues to wash his hands of the fact that this site advocates cheating on tests that it feels are unwarranted and invalid. Then the poster goes on to ask some repeated and previously addressed questions---several questions mind you. Then rice80 comes along and says "I agree." Agree with what....Serge's questions? How do you agree with questions rice? My theory is that you weren't really paying attention and that you were merely clapping your hands out of deferrance----only I must inquire Why? Why would a person post such a rediculous thread----you have already told your oddly suspicious war story (study statement analysis---and yes, it works on the internet boards too Serge.) Have you been instructed to do so in an effort to bury pro-polygraph discourse? Pardon my inquirey, but you Rice80, seem quite disengenuious.

[rice80]

Sarge 1107

My concern is for good people seeking information who come to this site and buy into the belief that they can read tlbtld and help themselves pass their test.  I am not afraid of attempts to mask responses plainly evident on a chart.   After all, a well told lie is still the best cm I know.  If you read The Insiders Guide to Texas Hold'em, would you feel you were ready to set in on a game with Chris Ferguerson or Doyle Brunson?  Anyone reading my posts will recognize that I am a pro knowledge, but beware:

A little learning is a dangerous thing,
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring.
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers us again.     Alexander Pope (1711)    
 

I don't think I have ever counselled someone to read TLBTLD and to use the countermeasures contained therein to "beat" their polygraph.

In fact, if you care to read my prior posts I have always counselled people to tell the truth.  If they choose to use countermeasures that is entirely up to them.  I don't think it is unethical to do so as long as they are telling the truth, and I don't think it will hurt their chances any more than trusting those chances to the polygraph will.  I failed 75% of my polygraph exams while telling the truth.  It is doubtful I could have done much worse by using countermeasures, and likely I could have done better.

I believe that it is important to shed light on the shortcomings of the polygraph, its lack of scientific foundation, and most of all on its inaccuracy.  

I don't see how any reasonable person could go through an experience like mine and not conclude that the polygraph is useless as a detector of deception, at least as far as pre-employment screening.  All of my posts in which I cite my experience have always specified that it was three pre-employment screening polygraphs that I failed.

I have no experience with specific-issue testing, or any other kind of polygraph testing.  But if the polygraph and its operators (three different operators) could so completely wrong about three different subjects on three separate polygraph exams, I don't see how it could be any more accurate in any other circumstance.

If you can explain to me how the polygraph can be completely, totally incorrect in my experience, but good, useful, and accurate in others, I would certainly be willing to listen.  And I am not referring to its use as an interrogation intimidator - my past posts have always acknowledged that it is effective in that capacity provided the subject actually believes it will detect lies.  Of course, if the subject believes a deck of Tarot cards will detect lies then the Tarot cards will be just as effect as the polygraph, and just as incapable of detecting deception.

Sergeant1107,

I agree. All of my tests were pre-employment as well. Each one with different outcomes.

Classic antipolygraph thread. An examiner attempts some thoughtful discourse---a little food for thought. Than an anti guy writes that he agrees in part, but continues to wash his hands of the fact that this site advocates cheating on tests that it feels are unwarranted and invalid. Then the poster goes on to ask some repeated and previously addressed questions---several questions mind you. Then rice80 comes along and says "I agree." Agree with what....Serge's questions? How do you agree with questions rice? My theory is that you weren't really paying attention and that you were merely clapping your hands out of deferrance----only I must inquire Why? Why would a person post such a rediculous thread----you have already told your oddly suspicious war story (study statement analysis---and yes, it works on the internet boards too Serge.) Have you been instructed to do so in an effort to bury pro-polygraph discourse? Pardon my inquirey, but you Rice80, seem quite disengenuious.

Well it seems you, Paradiddle, aren't that smart either. My comment was for Sarge. At no time did it say "Hey Paradiddle, please feel free to interject with your non-sense comments and self suspect theories!"

I wonder why a person like you who "swears" by the polygraph would be on a "anti" polygraph site trying to defend its vaildity. Maybe it's because you feel the need to sway the newcomers into thinking that it really and truely does detects lies. Well guess what? I'm one up on ya, I know better   You don't know me or my educational background. All you see is "Oh shit another one who is against the polygraph. I better attack him cuz our numbers are few and I need to make a statement!" Well, you need not make a statement to me or even try for that matter. I know what this "so-called" machine is all about and it really doesn't detect shit. It only monitors and records the body's vital signs. I have seen first hand how "valid" it is. It's good for interrogations and making the guilty criminal think he has been caught in a lie. That's it. As for anything else, its just a bunch of squigly lines on chart paper.

[rice80]

O I amost forgot, Paradiddle since your so smarter then everyone, show me in Sarge's above comment where there is a question??    :-?  All I see is statements. Now who is "disengenuious"?  :-/

[Mysterymeat]

rice80

I don't know about your educational background either but it sure as hell does not include any education in polygraph! First of all, the polygraph is not a machine and it does not "monitor vital signs".

Based on your last post, I think your knowledge about polygraph rates right up there with Brittany Spear's parenting skills! Have another shot and go back to bed! Why are you here tonight? Was the NAMBL web site down?

MM

[rice80]

rice80

I don't know about your educational background either but it sure as hell does not include any education in polygraph! First of all, the polygraph is not a machine and it does not "monitor vital signs".

Based on your last post, I think your knowledge about polygraph rates right up there with Brittany Spear's parenting skills! Have another shot and go back to bed! Why are you here tonight? Was the NAMBL web site down?

MM

MM,

Doesn't monitor vital signs you say? So what are ,blood pressure, breathing rate, and sweat activity? You might want to educate yourself before you answer becuase I was a medic before becoming a cop. You also say its not a machine? then what would you call it? Please enlighten me? O wait I know A 'crude reaction recorder". You sir should go back to bed and also seems your polygraph knowledge isn't very good either!

[Paradiddle]

Polygraph is an instrument---an instrument measures and a "machine" moves/works things. You wouldn"t (or maybe you would) call a thermometer a temperature machine.  Go back to school rice80.

[1904]

First of all, the polygraph does not "monitor vital signs".

MM

For someone who is blind and apparently quite stupid, you type rather well.

[rice80]

Polygraph is an instrument---an instrument measures and a "machine" moves/works things. You wouldn"t (or maybe you would) call a thermometer a temperature machine.  Go back to school rice80.

ok instument/machine whatever.