There's an Old Saying

[Eastwood]

He who complains too much and too often has something to hide.  Complaining is all some of you anti-polygraph guys do - and you do it far too often.  

[George W. Maschke]

Eastwood,

Your "old saying" is new to me. Did you just make that up?

As for your view that all some of us "anti-polygraph guys" do is complain, I think you'll see that we're doing more than that. Among other things, we're working to inform those subject to polygraph "testing" of the fraud that the polygraph community is perpetrating against them, and we're reaching more and more people every day. We're also working to hold those of the polygraph community publicly accountable when they publicly misrepresent polygraphy. And we're working to ban the polygraph from the American workplace. Perhaps it is this (and not our "complaining") that you find disturbing?

[beech trees]

Arbeit macht frei, eh Eastwood?

I think you're confusing 'complaining' with vociferous illustration of the travesty of a sham of a pseudo-science called polygraphy.

The only think I'd like to complain about is the quality of the opposition's posts on this board-- pathetic.

Dave

[Mark Mallah]

I'm amazed at how similar the comments are from Eastwood, Polycop, and a few of the other poly-tools.  From my all too vast experience with post-test interrogations, I am also struck by how similar their comments are to the mentality permeating the post-test interrogation.  There must be some kind of requirement in polygraph school that in order to graduate, you must be able to demonstrate a high level of obnoxiousness.

Studying these people as one would a cult, and there are many parallels, I notice the following:

1) Rather than debate the merits of a particular issue, they always seek to cast aspersions.  In a word (or 2), ad hominem (is that 1 word or 2?)  This attitude infects other quarters of the FBI as well.  Incredibly, I saw a former FBI high official on CNN comment that the Colleen Rowley 13 page memo was attributable to an inter-office spat between HQ and Minneapolis.

2) They rarely answer any questions posed to them.  If they do answer, it is not responsive to the question but a retort against the questioner.

3) Their questions often seek to mock, taunt, or ridicule.

4)  Their underlying goal seems to be to so ridicule and impeach their opponent (and interrogation target), that anything their opponent says must be untenable, regardless of what they are saying.

[George W. Maschke]

Mark,

Your observations are right on target and speak to the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that beset the polygraph "profession."

[Eastwood]

Hmmmm, it appears that you "intellectuals" are the ones who can't pass a test - not us.
 

[Mark Mallah]

Eastwood,

Every time you post something you're proving my point about the ad hominem approach invariably taken.  Why don't you prove me wrong and post something substantive?

You know, I'm wondering whether you are really an anti-polygraph guy masquerading as a pro-polygraph guy, whose purpose is to make the pro-polygraph side look like a bunch of goons.

I'm also wondering whether you and Polycop are the same person, because you both spew the same inanities.

As for your bluster about us being an admission-rich environment, nobody reading the Lie Behind the Lie Detector would be fooled by your act.

I would sum up your position as follows: we're all just a bunch of liars who are disgruntled because we failed a polygraph test, which undermined our ambitions, and now we're pissed off and whining and complaining about it.  

Is that an accurate account of your position, or am I missing something?

[G Scalabr]

Hmmmm, it appears that you "intellectuals" are the ones who can't pass a test - not us.

The individuals who established this site "failed" because the "test" championed by individuals like yourself is an unreliable fraud. Instead of making ad hominem accusations against people you have never met, perhaps you could tell me of any disinterested individual in academia that supports the process of polygraph screening.

Also... If the intellectuals you refer to are the readers of this site.... they have no problems passing this joke of a "test". They are well informed on how to employ polygraph countermeasures to defeat it.  These are the techniques for beating the polygraph that the "intellectuals" who run peer-reviewed scientific studies have told us that experienced polygraphers cannot detect at better than chance levels . Speaking of detecting countermeasures, perhaps you could point us toward some literature purporting to explain how one can detect them on polygraph charts...

[polycop]

Mark,  I would like to comment on some things you said:

Eastwood,

...I'm also wondering whether you and Polycop are the same person, because you both spew the same inanities.

As for your bluster about us being an admission-rich environment, nobody reading the Lie Behind the Lie Detector would be fooled by your act.

I would sum up your position as follows: we're all just a bunch of liars who are disgruntled because we failed a polygraph test, which undermined our ambitions, and now we're pissed off and whining and complaining about it.  

#1:  Eastwood and I are not the same person...

#2:  Regardless of what misguided advice may be found  in "The Lie Behind the Lie Detector", I would suggest that the  vast majority of applicants willingly cooperate with the process for one VERY important reason.  I have something they want.  A JOB!  They must get past me to get that job.  That very fact puts me (and not the applicant) in charge in the polygraph laboratory.   Yes, I do catch a few wiseguys trying to manipulate the process, but most simply do as they are instructed.

#3:  For the most part, I do agree with your summation...     However, I know that in some of your cases, your exposure to polygraph had nothing to do with the applicant process.

I would add that the hard core users (administrators) of this site are true believers in their cause and are definately on a "mission."

I would even add this stipulation to the polygraph process:  There are false positives in polygraph.  They do happen and every responsible polygraph examiner understands that... :-/  I, for one believe that polygraph is only part of the process and I believe that a hiring agency must consider the entire applicant and not just his polygraph results.  Would I refuse to hire someone just because his neighbors think he is dishonest, or his ex-wife has a few unpleasant things to say?  However, one must remember that the applicant process is subjective and when all is said and done, the hiring panel either has a positive or negative "feel" for a particular applicant.  All the "objective" tests in the world will never replace this process, nor should it.  I support the use of polygraph as part of the entire hiring situation.  You and the others on this site, do not.  That is the basic difference that all the postings on this site will not change...

Polycop...

                        

[Anonymous]

Polycop,

You state:

...I would even add this stipulation to the polygraph process:  There are false positives in polygraph.  They do happen and every responsible polygraph examiner understands that...   I, for one believe that polygraph is only part of the process and I believe that a hiring agency must consider the entire applicant and not just his polygraph results...

If you truly mean what you say and are intellectually honest about its consequences, then you must be willing to state (as others do on this site) that the FBI and other agencies who disqualify applicants based solely on polygraph results are wrong to do so and completely misguided about how this tool should be used.  This, of course, is completely independent of the differences that we would have regarding the validity of polygraph screening in the first place and the advisability of truthful examinees using countermeasures.

[polycop]

Anonymous,

You asked:
      

...If you truly mean what you say and are intellectually honest about its consequences, then you must be willing to state (as others do on this site) that the FBI and other agencies who disqualify applicants based solely on polygraph results are wrong to do so and completely misguided about how this tool should be used.  This, of course, is completely independent of the differences that we would have regarding the validity of polygraph screening in the first place and the advisability of truthful examinees using countermeasures.

I hold to my statement that polygraph results should not be the SOLE determining factor of the applicant hiring decision.

On the other hand, PLEASE don't get me going on all the advice given to honest police applicants by people on this site, advising them to engage in "countermeasures."  Whether you all believe it or not, I have caught a good number of otherwise honest folks, who because of thier visit to this website and others, engaged in countermeasures in a futile attempt to "help" themselves.  The results were generally disasterous for them and the hiring panel did not look kindly on their attempts to manipulate their test results.  One of the panel members once told me that he equates the attempted use of polgraph countermeasures by an applicant to "cheating" on the police applicant exam...

Polycop...

[polycop]

Anonymous,

You asked:
      

...If you truly mean what you say and are intellectually honest about its consequences, then you must be willing to state (as others do on this site) that the FBI and other agencies who disqualify applicants based solely on polygraph results are wrong to do so and completely misguided about how this tool should be used.  This, of course, is completely independent of the differences that we would have regarding the validity of polygraph screening in the first place and the advisability of truthful examinees using countermeasures.

I hold to my statement that polygraph results should not be the SOLE determining factor of the applicant hiring decision.

On the other hand, PLEASE don't get me going on all the advice given to honest police applicants by people on this site, advising them to engage in "countermeasures."  Whether you all believe it or not, I have caught a good number of otherwise honest folks, who because of thier visit to this website and others, engaged in countermeasures in a futile attempt to "help" themselves.  The results were generally disasterous for them and the hiring panel did not look kindly on their attempts to manipulate their test results.  One of the panel members once told me that he equates the attempted use of polygraph countermeasures by an applicant to "cheating" on the police applicant exam...

Polycop...

[George W. Maschke]

Polycop,

You wrote in part:

Whether you all believe it or not, I have caught a good number of otherwise honest folks, who because of thier visit to this website and others, engaged in countermeasures in a futile attempt to "help" themselves.  The results were generally disasterous for them and the hiring panel did not look kindly on their attempts to manipulate their test results.

Absent an admission on the subject's part, how can you tell if a subject has employed countermeasures of the kind described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?

[Polycop]

George,

You asked:

...Absent an admission on the subject's part, how can you tell if a subject has employed countermeasures of the kind described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector?

I know this sounds like the old argument back and forth, but let me answer you this way:

I will not discuss the specific indicators of countermeasures I look for on a polygraph chart.  However, when an examinee is shown the specific places on a chart in which he clearly attempted to manipulate the polygraph results, he usually acknowledges what he did.  Now I know you advise people who visit this site to make no admissions. However, when the official giving the exam looks that person straight in the eye, points to the specific place on the chart in which countermeasures were attempted, and says, "This is where you attempted to do such and such, isn't it?"  It is REALLY hard for most examinees to deny what they did...

As a student of human nature, I know you understand this...

Polycop...
      

[Anonymous]

Polycop,

I have a solution for your countermeasure problem.  Eliminate its need.  If you and your colleagues were all to publicly decry the use of polygraph screening results as a sole determining basis for stopping an applicant examination (i.e., no applicant process would be terminated unless polygraph results were confirmed through investigative results), agencies were to see the light and protect examinees from false positive polygraph results, then your countermeasure problem (for this group of examinees in this application) would disappear overnight.  Until then, truthful applicants can not possibly listen to those who produce the false positives with the latter telling the former "Trust me, simply tell the truth, and everything will work out fine."