th, 2008 at 7:22pm:

Ohio9,



regardless of what they say on this board, examiner's DO NOT care who gets hired. They do not make the hiring decision and have no(for the most part) vested interest in who gets the job. They are simply looking for those that can report information, like on the pre-employment process, then test for truthfulness.



People here make it seem that we take pleasure in keeping people out. I am gleefully happy with those who are truthful and pass, rather than fail. I want people to get the job they want, but they will have to be truthful to do so. (Now, be forwarned, my above "I do not care" statement will again be taken out of context as if I "do not care"; period! Not accurately applied to the context in which I made the statement. But, ignorance does begat ignorance...) "See Sackett doesn't care, Sackett doesn't care..."



Jim, what polygraphers evidently do not to care about is the plight of those whom they wrongly brand as liars, or whom they falsely accuse of using countermeasures. I don't think any polygraph examiner wants to make false accusations against innocent persons. But given polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings, it's inevitably going to happen--and more frequently than polygraphers care to acknowledge.



I think that if most polygraph examiners took a candid and critical look at what it is they are doing, they could not in good conscience continue in this line of work. So instead, they delude themselves about it: they dismiss the National Academy of Sciences as a bunch of know-nothing eggheads, they attribute bad motives to polygraph critics, and they avoid critical thinking and the asking of troubling questions about what it is they do for a living.



Quote:

Lethe has a bad habit of assuming he knows what examiners care about or feel; all, because it suits his warped observations of polygraph. Truly a sadly misguided individual...



Lethe exhibits a deeper understanding of polygraphy than any practitioner of this fraudulent profession.



Quote:

George will tell you that we, as examiner's have no proven ability to detect countermeasures, all the while not idetifiying any ability for the readers of his book to use them effectively, then when we are able to identify countermeasurse effectively has to modify his book to avoid those areas which may come back to haunt them.



What you're referring to is the fact that we no longer suggest contraction of the anal sphincter muscle as a countermeasure, in view of the increasing use of pneumatic or, more commonly in recent years, piezo-electric seat pads used in an attempt to detect and deter such countermeasures. While there are no scientific studies regarding the effectiveness of any of such these devices for the detection of countermeasures, it seems plausible that they might work, and given the ready availability of other countermeasure techniques that clearly cannot be detected by such seat pads, it seems prudent to use them, instead.



Quote:

How many readers have successfully employed countermeasures and "beat the examiner" to get what they want? Don't know? NO EXAMINEE HAS EVER PROVEN THE ABILITY TO USE OR EMPLOY COUNTERMEASURES SUCCESSFULLY, AS TAUGHT IN HIS BOOK.



Not so. In peer-reviewed studies by Honts and others, half of test subjects were able to fool the polygraph after a maximum of only 30 minutes of instruction. The countermeasures taught (including tongue-biting and mentally counting backward by 7s timely with the asking of the control/comparison questions) were similar to those outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. Citations and abstracts for these studies are provided in the bibliography of TLBTLD.



Quote:

Cullen, on the other hand is a simple minded angry man who has taken it upon himself to sarcastically attack polygraph whenever the opportunity presents itself. His comments assist polygraph, more than hurt.



It should not surprise you that those who have been falsely accused of deception based on the pseudoscientific quackery that you practice for a living might respond with sarcasm when polygraphers pontificate about such matters as honesty and integrity.



Quote:

Ohio9, you are reading a very slanted board. Take all information put here and consider it from the point of origin (to include mine), then make up you own mind.



You say this is a "very slanted board?!" How about



Of course each individual should make up his or her own mind for him- or herself. And they should do so upon full consideration of the evidence. That's why the AntiPolygraph.org message board, unlike your one, is uncensored. We don't fear debate. We welcome it.



Quote:

Many examiners are sensitive to countermeasures not for any other reason than that they interfere with the process and prevent us from doing our job accurately and for the examinee in the chair, at the time. That job is simply to find the truth of the matter, nothing more.



It seems that some polygraphers are sensitive to countermeasures to the point of seeing them where they don't exist. sackett wrote on Apr 28, 2008 at 7:22pm:Jim, what polygraphers evidently do not to care about is the plight of those whom they wrongly brand as liars, or whom they falsely accuse of using countermeasures. I don't think any polygraph examiner wants to make false accusations against innocent persons. But given polygraphy's lack of scientific underpinnings, it's inevitably going to happen--and more frequently than polygraphers care to acknowledge.I think that if most polygraph examiners took a candid and critical look at what it is they are doing, they could not in good conscience continue in this line of work. So instead, they delude themselves about it: they dismiss the National Academy of Sciences as a bunch of know-nothing eggheads, they attribute bad motives to polygraph critics, and they avoid critical thinking and the asking of troubling questions about what it is they do for a living.Lethe exhibits a deeper understanding of polygraphy than any practitioner of this fraudulent profession.What you're referring to is the fact that we no longer suggest contraction of the anal sphincter muscle as a countermeasure, in view of the increasing use of pneumatic or, more commonly in recent years, piezo-electric seat pads used in an attempt to detect and deter such countermeasures. While there are no scientific studies regarding the effectiveness of any of such these devices for the detection of countermeasures, it seems plausible that they might work, and given the ready availability of other countermeasure techniques that clearlybe detected by such seat pads, it seems prudent to use them, instead.Not so. In peer-reviewed studies by Honts and others, half of test subjects were able to fool the polygraph after aof only 30 minutes of instruction. The countermeasures taught (including tongue-biting and mentally counting backward by 7s timely with the asking of the control/comparison questions) were similar to those outlined inCitations and abstracts for these studies are provided in the bibliography ofIt should not surprise you that those who have been falsely accused of deception based on the pseudoscientific quackery that you practice for a living might respond with sarcasm when polygraphers pontificate about such matters as honesty and integrity.You sayis a "very slanted board?!" How about PolygraphPlace.com , where you serve as a moderator, and where polygraph critics such as myself are not permitted to post?!Of course each individual should make up his or her own mind for him- or herself. And they should do so upon full consideration of the evidence. That's why the AntiPolygraph.org message board, unlike your one, is uncensored. We don't fear debate. We welcome it.It seems that some polygraphers are sensitive to countermeasures to the point of seeing them where they don't exist.