Video and/or Sound Recording of Polygraphs

[notguilty1]

I'm interested in intelligent discussions not hearing about the whining and complaining about how bad my profession is.  

Then the following might be of interest to you:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369

TC

Hey Sackett,
You may want to click on the above link and read what they have to say about "your profession" and us "whiners"
Here is a little bit of it to get you started:

Polygraph Accuracy,
Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test

[sackett]

Mr Cullen,

I have now read it.  Interesting information, but what point are you trying to make?


Sackett

[notguilty1]

Mr Cullen,

I have now read it.  Interesting information, but what point are you trying to make?


Sackett

Yes, very interesting isn't it?  I think all that read it can see the point even if you can't or.... won't  

[T.M. Cullen]

Polygraph Accuracy,
Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test

POPPYCOCK!

Those are the ravings of lunatic scientific researchers hell bent on the destruction of this country!  They know nothing!

The results of polygraph testing, if subjected to the rigors of the industries "statement analysis" algorithms, are highly accurate.  Accuracy is even higher, when the results are then run through statistical screens which are corelational to the standard deviation of a cow's rectum.

TheNoLieGuy4U???

[nopolycop]

The results of polygraph testing, if subjected to the rigors of the industries "statement analysis" algorithms, are highly accurate.  Accuracy is even higher, when the results are then run through statistical screens which are corelational to the standard deviation of a cow's rectum.

Excuse me...But,  you forgot about the holy grail of polygraph research validation,  PEER REVIEW!  In order for any study to have validity, a bunch of trade school graduates must read the study whilst having a beer and deem it worthy.  Of course, forget about replicating any polygraph study, because there are too many variables to replicate any polygraph study.  Forgot about real live Ph.D. scientists scrutinizing the study, it is PEER REVIEW that is important!

[Sergeant1107]

Statement analysis, just like body language and other nonverbal indicators, are improperly given entirely too much weight by some people.  None of them should be deciding factors in determining a person's guilt or innocence; none of them should even be the deciding factor in making an arrest or eliminating someone as a suspect.  They are simply indicators and nothing more.

Some things are simply not quantifiable.  You can analyze a person's written statement up and down and come to the conclusion they are lying, but that doesn't mean they are.  And it certainly doesn't mean that they are lying about the matter under investigation.

Polygraph, CVSA, and to a lesser extent, statement analysis (SCAN), all attempt to lend an air of scientific credibility to what is essentially the examiner's feeling as to whether the subject is being truthful or not.  The end result is no more scientific than that of the patrol officer who interviews someone on the street and decides they are lying because their eyes looked this way, their body position was that way, and their story could only be told in one direction without any pauses.  But because of the pseudoscientific trappings surrounding the polygraph and other forms of "deception detection" the opinion of the polygraph examiner is incorrectly deemed more accurate.

[Lethe]

If recording exams is so great, why don't government agencies do it?  Just curious.

[sackett]

If recording exams is so great, why don't government agencies do it?  Just curious.

Many do!  What government agencies are you talking about?

Sackett

[Lethe]

If recording exams is so great, why don't government agencies do it?  Just curious.

Many do!  What government agencies are you talking about?

Sackett

The APA recommends that all polygraph exams be audio recorded.  Many polygraphers use that fact to argue that the organization supports very rigorous standards and claim the same for themselves when they record their own exams.  Well, if it is good to record exams, it follows that it is not good to not record exams.  It's hard to argue against recording exams since without such a record it's hard to figure out when the polygrapher wasn't following proper procedures or was conducting an exam that was shoddy by even official standards.

As for which government agencies don't record exams, the one HQed at the Hoover Building, for one.  I also am given to understand that several others also don't record their exams.  Why not?

To possibly save some time let me point out the following.  If someone asks "Why did party A do action X?" you usually can't answer that with "Well, Party B did action Z!"  Or with "I like pretzels", for that matter.  (Note: This isn't a criticism of Sackett's last post; it's to head off what appears to be a common discussion technique often employed by polygraphers who are--for our own good, I'm sure--trying to manipulate others.  Another technique is to try and make this discussion about me and to parse my own statements instead of simply answering the question: Why do many gov't agencies not record their poly sessions when no less a body than the august APA says they should?)

[Tarlain]

FairChance,
Just a little over 2 years ago, I proposed (on this site) recording polygraphs without the knowledge of the polygraph/interogator.  I have since...applied for an le job, took the civil service test, physical exam, polygraph, psych eval, completed the training and am happily employed (best career change ever).  

I have very strong opinions against polygraph use as a hiring tool.  Myself and others had very little problems "passing."  I have yet to meet anyone from my academy who claims to have been 100% honest.  And on a side note, many instructors made many jokes about the "honest" people who made damning admissions because of their belief in the poly.  

But in regards to this thread.  A cell phone and memory card is all you need to get a recording of your polygraph.  Only one party has to be aware of the recording...and since you are one of the persons involved, you can record anything you say or do.

The polygraph is a sham.  I lied about completely irrelevant stuff just to amuse myself over the course of many hours.  I was happily employed and considered most of the hiring process a "fun" diversion from my normal job.  My polygrapher was extremely abrasive, deceiving, almost abusive, etc...and I just laughed at him until he finally told me that everything turned out ok and "they'd let me know..."

I truly wish I could post my poly...just so everyone could hear how ridiculous the whole thing was.  I am completely certain that many people experience the same thing I did...but for whatever reason, the tea leaves did not turn out the same fate.

I could care less if they used polygraph to interrogate people...but it should be criminal to use it in a hiring process of a public service job.  It is basically a legalized way to discriminate against people.


edit:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3082.msg21405#msg21405

^^^
the post from 2 years ago...i would have never guessed how much life could change.  it is so funny to me that people actually believe they can hook a piece of picture frame wire to my finger, a garden hose to my chest, and become a god of my brain.  it's all a sham.  flip a coin...for those that must suffer this fate...just go in and have fun with them...you'll probably pass with flying colors.

[nopolycop]

When I was a young man, my best friend applied for and was hired by the Idaho State Police.  They had just instituted the polygraph requirement, and up until that time, he regularily smoked dope.  But, he passed the poly anyway, and when I asked him about it, (I had by that time, already failed my first one, despite telling the truth), he said he just lied.  He has smoked dope as little as one week prior.

Of course, I knew that it was bogus, but his experience certainly confirmed it.

Gary Ridgway also said he just lied, didn't do anything special, just lied.

[T.M. Cullen]

I could care less if they used polygraph to interrogate people...but it should be criminal to use it in a hiring process of a public service job.  It is basically a legalized way to discriminate against people.

It IS illegal except for LE and TS jobs with the federal government.

My polygrapher was extremely abrasive, deceiving, almost abusive, etc...and I just laughed at him until he finally told me that everything turned out ok and "they'd let me know..."

Can you elaborate a little.  Did he lie about the accuracy of the test?  How was he abusive?  One of the purposes of this forum is to expose this type of crap.

Thanks.

TC

[sackett]

Tarlain,

be careful suggesting people secretly record their examination.  That activity is covered by state laws and they vary, state to state.   If caught in violation, or try it in a state that requires BOTH parties, YOU the examinee go to jail.

Did you record your exam?  If so, please post it.  I'd love to hear this supposed "abrasive, deceiving, almost abusive, etc.." behavior and how you simply and brazenly "laughed at him..."

Your post is a fantasy.  But, please; do go on.....

Sackett

[Tarlain]

T.M. Cullen,
The interrogator that did my polygraph had without question read all of my background information, reference letters, etc.  He almost immediately bombarded me with the supposed accuracy of the polygraph equipment. I'm sure I appeared unconvinced.  He tried to tell me about how the Mayos Clinic has studies proving blah blah blah...I informed him it was Mayo...not Mayos.  I also encouraged him to show me the "definitive" study...I was never shown one.  He moved on to outstanding debt I "may" have.  I have no debt...no credit cards, no loans...i own my car and rent my house.  After a while I got mad and told him to just run the damn credit report...I refuse to argue about something he could figure out on his own...and he responded..."have you ever felt attracted to animals?"  The whole thing was incredibly ignorant.  All this occurs with the "examiner" leaving, returning, leaving, returning.  One time, he ripped my book out of my hand because I was COMMANDED to stop reading the book when he left the room...he'd put it in the corner...I'd get up (how dare me)...and go get it when he left.  blah blah...it went on for many hours...and then the conclusion was I seemed ok and I never heard from them again.  I just received a letter for the next stage of the application process.  If the damn thing worked it wouldn't take over 3 hours of interrogation before the 10 minute game on the laptop.  You would also think the machine would catch the fact that I admitted to a small theft as a child...which never occurred.  At the time, it just seemed like I better throw something out there before I had to go down a new road of poly-wrath.  Anyhow, I have no interest in arguing with the pro-poly group here.  I'm sure it is scary to have people attack your livelihood.   The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.  Mind reading...with a laptop    


sackett,
you must be right...i am all about fantasy.  i have completely no idea what you do or who you are...but apparently you know me.  if i post the mp3 of my poly, it would take about 2 seconds to figure out who I am and what agency hired me.  you don't really expect me to do that?  The examiner felt the need to use my name (usually first name) far far more times than I care to count....and when he used my last name...he would purposely mis-pronounce it.  It is simple and phonetic...you have to "try" to screw it up.  Keep in mind...I interrogate people everyday.  Every person I talk to lies to the police.  I understand why these techniques work.  I just don't agree with doing it to applicants as a way to discriminate against them without cause.  I understand the value of having an honest and talented applicant pool to pick from.  I also understand why and how the poly is successful...and it is without a doubt very good at convincing people to tell the truth.  It just is not FAIR.  I'm always told to just "do the right thing."  But polygraphs are inherantly dishonest...and not the right thing.  Not to mention, they brand good, honest people as liars because of various reasons totally unrelated to the truth.  Either way, good luck to you.  I sleep well at night with my "fantasy."  It is sad to watch the pro-poly people attack every one around in a hope to defend the profession.  I will only ask one thing of you...please do something constructive for us...and post the states that make it criminal for a person to record their own conversation.  There is not a state anywhere around me that has a law that you stated.  Instead of trying to scare people (I realize this is a hard habit to break), why don't you just inform them.  Until then, I will do as I please and encourage people to live as if they still have the right to record their own conversations without obtaining permission from the state government (I know it isn't a federal code...and I'm sure it is unconstitutional if it is a state code).  

"Brazenly,"
Tarlain

[George W. Maschke]

Tarlain,

Sackett is correct about state laws varying on the consent requirement for the taping of conversations. See the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press article "Can We Tape? A Practical Guide to Taping Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations in the 50 States and D.C."