|
|
Post by therecruit1 on Apr 22, 2003 14:09:29 GMT -5
jamays
I'm with you buddy, Maschke should take his crusade to another thread....Or even better another site all together, where he and his merry band of polygraph haters can whine about it all they want!!!
Maschke has some good insight regarding the polygraph and he could have relayed to you w/o all of the propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Post by journey2cps-redux on Apr 22, 2003 16:32:47 GMT -5
Yeah.....like that would ever happen.... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by lich on Apr 22, 2003 22:01:50 GMT -5
"Can we move this thread to the jokes section."
I don't think it's funny at all. I may disagree with jmays on a number of issues, but I'm highly interested in the development of the thread and the experience he'll have in actually taking the test. I plan on actually becoming a police officer and I know the more insight I have into every stage of the process, the better off I'll be.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Maschke on Apr 22, 2003 23:23:24 GMT -5
...Maschke has some good insight regarding the polygraph and he could have relayed to you w/o all of the propaganda. What, specifically, did I post here that you believe to be "propaganda?" |
|
|
|
Post by journey2cps-redux on Apr 23, 2003 14:13:29 GMT -5
Onedaysoon....
Amen Brother! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by therecruit1 on Apr 23, 2003 14:25:24 GMT -5
Well George, Propganda as defined in the MERRIAM WEBSTER dictionary is, and I "quote" 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. I could quote all of the propaganda you have displayed in this thread, but I really don't want to continue to waste my time reading or particapating in this thread any longer. You seem like a smart guy, I'm sure you will be able to relate this definition to what you have relayed on this thread as well as your web site!! I will not participate in this thread any longer, the polygraph has already proven you a liar I do not want to be subject to your propaganda any longer!!  Have a nice day!  |
|
|
|
Post by George Maschke on Apr 23, 2003 21:01:19 GMT -5
All,
I reject the notion, suggested by John Mays, and echoed by some here, that the person who starts a discussion thread may dictate the terms of the discussion.
I mean no disrespect to Mr. Mays, but I was not (and am not) prepared to let his characterization of antipolygraph arguments as "crap" and "stupid nonsense" (found in his first post in this thread) pass without challenge. I note that Mr. Mays has yet to explain on what basis he made such characterizations.
In posting here, I have attempted to be polite and courteous to all. The information and references I've provided are intended only to help those who may read them, and not to cause harm or offense to anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegee on Apr 23, 2003 23:36:56 GMT -5
Okay Geo ,since you ARE ALWAYS SOOO RIGHT, then what? These candidates here want to know what it takes to get hired , NOT SOME VOODOO POLITICS or how to question a system that makes the standards by which they'll be hired and employed!Like I said before,in a perfect world ,every agency would follow the same procedure and practices ,but thats not the case.If it were the original poster would be provided with the info needed- as it is even the officers like myself on this site, as well as the current applicants and academy recruits here would be able to give more than vague or general info. on what to do when confronted with the poly or any other part of the process. Until "X-files" types like yourself can push legislation to prevent even the most casual questioning of someones past, then the "poly" will be here for a long time .You may indeed have info that "can" help an applicant get hired , but to convince someone applying that any part of the process is "Totally" crap, is blatantly DANGEROUS , and could effect there chances. Most agencies don't allow stringent review of their hiring practices unless it violates their civil service rules,FSLA (Fair LAbor Standards Act here in the US) or basic constitutional rights- AND GUESS WHAT?! the poly is allowed for the purposes of pre-employment Nationwide , and even throughout the provinces of Canada!Unless you can name current names of "crooked " examiners, say like here in L.A. where I am or in some state or Province in which anyone of these "2bes" are applying- and please do so if possible as it will help purge the "system" of hinderences to hiring- then LAY OFF THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES-for every one applicant that fights an issue in vain, hundreds more go forward through the process and get hired! I just want to see these men and women who qualify ,get hired , not get DISGRUNTLED.....
|
|
|
|
Post by journey2cps-redux on Apr 23, 2003 23:40:06 GMT -5
Said it before, say it again...
Amen Brother ;D
J2D
|
|
|
|
Post by George Maschke on Apr 24, 2003 1:27:50 GMT -5
Okay Geo ,since you ARE ALWAYS SOOO RIGHT, then what? I make no claim to infallibility. What I provided here is information and references on how polygraph "testing" works (and doesn't), and what it takes to pass, and how to protect oneself against a false positive outcome. I never suggested that it was. (In a perfect world, there would be no need for law enforcement agencies.) It is possible to provide more than vague or general information with regard to pre-employment polygraph screening (which is what I have done). On what basis do you suppose me to be an "X-file" type? I have not proposed any conspiracy theories. I don't agree with your suggestion that the end of polygraph screening would require a ban of "even the most casual questioning of someones [sic] past." I think that's a complete non sequitur. Perhaps the truth is danerous. Should we all believe in a lie instead? The National Academy of Sciences has found polygraph screening to be completely invalid. Perhaps it is ignoring the truth about polygraphy -- and not telling it -- that is truly dangerous? Yes, pre-employment polygraph screening by governmental agencies is legal in the United States and in some other places. But that does not mean that law enforcement applicants should not educate themselves about polygraphy. Ignorance is no bliss. I have not offered any conspiracy theories. I want to see qualified applicants get hired, too. What I do not want to see is qualified applicants being falsely branded as liars and wrongly blacklisted by governmental agencies. This is happening to many more than the "one in hundreds" that you suggest. And it is not necessarily the result of any willful misconduct by polygraph examiners. Rather, it is the foreseeable consequence of the improper application of an invalid diagnostic method. The factual information AntiPolygraph.org has made available can help applicants to protect themselves against a false positive outcome. If I have posted anything that you believe to be false or otherwise misleading, please don't hesitate to point it out. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegee on Apr 24, 2003 8:09:06 GMT -5
LOLOLOLOLOL ;D- Geo, you have a right to your opinions, and no doubt have passed examples and studies to conclude(in your opinion) that you are right. Th poly is subjective,no doubt , but I personally know a LARGE # of people that have PASSED it with out any issue(s).To say that you are "just providing objective info." on the polygraph is a blatant LIE as the web site
immediately proclaims the polygraph test as a FRAUD in bold letters . When I was in the same situation as many of these individuals here on this site, I didn't protest the examining portions of the agencies I applied for. I took the poly in (4) different agencies, and passed each ,with subsequent job offers with two, as well as waiting list on the other two .True, knowledge is power ,but then again teaching someone how to make a" bomb"when they really don't need to know how is a USELESS waste of knowledge. If you are going to keep pushing the antipoly web site- and I think it is to sell the info-then at least give a particular agency or dept along with an example of its misuse and how the misuse was resolved .At least some of the "2bes" here can prepare for that agency and know what to expect.And please ,none of those " Jim K. of Madison,WI" type testimonials!The examples must be verifiable .If you have more info. then stop just referring to the webiste-I've been there and to me it reads like those useless STAR and Globe magazines you see at the checkout counters of grocery stores! give your pointers and suggestions(what agency have you worked for or applied to?why didn't you reapply if at first you were unsuccessful?).Also ,if the Nation Academy of Science found that the polygraph to be so unsound,why hasn't there been more legislation to end its use? Certain instances like use of it in criminal cases or in the general questioning of suspects/law enforcement in criminal issues were set to stop poss. viol. of 5th amendment rights( as well as abuse),but other than that it is still in use .As I said before , this is not a perfect world(at least you agreed with me on that ) and Any test can be manipulated to show what that particularly biased person wants it to be (try this argument with creationists vs . Darwinians ). A perfect example of the twisting of the facts is the Mumia Abu-Jamal murder conviction from Philadelphia ,PA (both sides claim infallibility).Lets just leave it alone unless you can give examples to help. And also, the over quoting you do is really "anal", as one can readily remember and view what they've already written . (You remind me of a Poli- Sci instructor that used to try to rip up every opinion by red inking every paper with quotes from the paper) advance the conversation without the quotes by stressing you opinion, not by building your opinion up by attacking portions of some elses argument- while it works in debates , it takes up space here(useless space) .Anyway, I'm through with this issue-anyone taking the poly for an agency in L.A.County or So. Calif give me a "ring" and I'll try to dig up some info for you.... MikeGee
|
|
|
|
Post by George Maschke on Apr 24, 2003 10:07:59 GMT -5
Mike,
With regard to polygraphy being a fraud, let me briefly address that which is explained in much fuller detail in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. (I mentioned some of what follows earlier in this thread.)
The dirty little secret of the polygraph community is that the polygraph "test" depends on trickery, not science. The polygrapher exhorts the examinee to answer all questions truthfully, but secretly assumes that denials to certain questions -- called "control" questions -- will be less than truthful.
One commonly used control question is, "Did you ever lie to get out of trouble?" The polygrapher steers the examinee into a denial, warning that anyone who would do so would be unsuitable for employment. But secretly, it is assumed that everyone -- even those most suitable for hire -- has lied to get out of trouble.
The polygrapher scores the test by comparing physiological reactions to these probable-lie control questions with reactions to relevant questions (e.g., "Did you ever use an illegal drug?") If the former reactions are greater, the examinee passes; if the latter are greater, he fails. This simplistic methodology has absolutely no grounding in the scientific method. Unlike genuine diagnostic tests, polygraph "testing" lacks true standardization and is fraught with uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) confounding variables. Its sensitivity and specificity cannot be determined by experimental means; the "test" has no diagnostic value.
Polygraph tests also include irrelevant questions like "Is today Thursday?" The polygrapher falsely explains that such questions provide a "baseline for truth," but in reality, they are not scored at all and merely serve as buffers between sets of relevant and control questions.
Perversely, the test is biased against the truthful because the more candidly one answers the control questions, and as a consequence feels less stress when answering them, the more likely one is to fail.
Conversely, liars can beat the test by augmenting their physiological reactions to the control questions. This can be done by constricting the anal sphincter muscle, biting the side of the tongue, or merely thinking exciting thoughts. (Truthful applicants can use these same techniques to protect themselves against a false positive outcome.) Although polygraphers frequently claim they can detect such countermeasures, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to do so, and peer-reviewed research suggests that they can't.
As I've briefly explained here, the polygraph process is fundamentally dependent on deception by the polygrapher and the ignorance of the person being "tested." I believe "fraud" is a fair characterization of it.
As for why polygraph screening has not yet been banned in light of the National Academy of Sciences report, it seems that federal agencies continue to value the polygraph because of the admissions that it continues to elicit from those employees and applicants who don't (yet) know that it's a fraud.
|
|
|
|
Post by guest on Apr 24, 2003 12:26:09 GMT -5
George,
As you can probably already tell, the only people arguing against you and your anti poly stance are either those who are not intelligent enough to absorb and disect your verifiable, antipoly information or law enforcement officers that know full well the limitations and unscientific nature of the poly yet feel it is a necessary and effective interogation tool for weeding out the nieve, unsuitable candidate.
Noone here would be argueing this poly debate if the poly, as it works now or even if it could scientifically prove if someone was lieing (which it can't), was weeding out only the unsuitable candidates. The problem arises when a truthful candidate is deferred for life because some polygrapher took it upon himself to lable the applicant as deceptive. Any officer (and candidate who has not been deferred based on the illegal, unscientific nature of the poly) on this site would attest to the fact that those type of appliacnts are just collateral damage. They are filling their quotas and putting officers on the street. They may or may not be the best for the job but they, for the most part, are getting the job done. Those candidates still have hope they will one day get hired.
I implore any legitimate, truthful candidate here to come back after getting deferred for life based on false polygrapher claims to still take their stance that the polygraph is a legitimate, infalluable, scientific tool that works. The poly works on pure deception not science. The only science is the fact that it can detect sweat, heart rates and breathing rates. Putting all that together and claiming that physiological responses, detected after asking candidates certain questions is absolutely scientific and has positive merit is as intelligent as saying one could make a machine that detects dog barks or baby gurgles and translates them into human words.
There is no basis or proof that the poly works scientifically to detect when a person is lieing. There is proof that the poly works by deception and scaring the nieve candidate into "confessing" past activities.
If the scientific community and the law enforcment community would come to that agreement there would be no debate. Police could use the poly knowing that it is only an interogation tool no more scientific than a good club or thumb screw. If the candidate confesses to something then you have weeded out that undesirable candidate. If no confessions are forthcoming the "data" and subsoquent "interpretation" of the polygrapher, are thrown out and the candidate passes.
|
|
jmays
Full Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by jmays on Apr 24, 2003 14:27:32 GMT -5
Hey guys, I am looking for information on the anti-polygraph debate. OH WAIT! Its all right here! Right where I requested it not be. And Georgio, I can kinda ask for you to not post your "voodoo" if I want, since I am the one who asked the question. If I start another thread asking people their favorite color, I can ask them not to tell me what their favorite food is as well, because it doesn't serve my origional goal in learning what everyones favorite color is. Same way with this discussion; I told you I read the information, and I was seeking advise on the polygraph itself. Not your political views. Jackass.
|
|
|
|
Post by journey2cps-redux on Apr 24, 2003 14:46:27 GMT -5
I was wondering when "guest" would be back...So glad to see that he's "not bitter" about the whole polygraph issue ;D....wish I could find that post....  |
|
