|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,390 |
Where would one get a polygraph test? Do you have to go to the police dept?
BS - me 56
XWH - 57
12/25/06 - Dday - WH promised NC. Plan A in effect. Thought we were in recovery.
6-3-07 - Dday#2 Found out NC never took place and A never ended. Found MB NC promised again, but WH would not write NC letter.
9/07 - Dday #3. Still lying and sneaking around. Plan B implemented
WH wants nothing to do with me
Divorced as of 12/09 after 36 years
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
No, you do not go to the police department for a marriage issue.
Do a web search for polygraph examiners in your area. Try to get one with a law enforcement background.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,361
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,361 |
Oh yes, obviously. However, you completely ignored the articles from the National Academies regarding their scientific studies with respect to polygraphs. Who they are, and the communities they advise, make them a very credible authority on issues like this and cannot just be dismissed. Their studies conclude that polygraphs used for counter terrorism and employment screening are not reliable enough for their continued use. This is their quote... "The federal government shouldn't rely on polygraph tests to identify national-security risks among prospective or current employees because results are too inaccurate, says a new National Academies report. Polygraph tests sensitive enough to detect most security violators also mark large numbers of innocent test takers as guilty. Less sensitive polygraph tests, including those used in several federal agencies, don't catch most major security violators and still incorrectly flag truthful people as deceptive."Stephen E. Fienberg testified before congress regarding the unreliability of polygraphs. He's got plenty of credentials which include ... Maurice Falk University Professor of Statistics and Social Science Department of Statistics;
Center for Automated Learning and Discovery;
Center for Computer and Communications Security;
Carnegie Mellon University;
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education;
National Research Council.And he said; "for every such individual identified, hundreds of loyal employees will be misidentified as possible security threats.
Our report make clear that, given DOE’s (Department of Energy) own expected rates of security violations, someone who “fails” the DOE polygraph screening test has over a 99 percent chance of actually being a truthful person.
Unfortunately, the DOE doesn't have any other scientific tool to fall back on to distinguish the security violators from the innocent people falsely accused."So when you say... the FBI, CIA, police departments, national security jobs all consider the polygraph an invaluable tool for screening new hires. I think they would know their accuracy better than most. They may well know their accuracy better than most. When you say "I think they would know"; that tells me that you have relied on what you were told and didn't really check out the studies yourself, or you completely ignored the studies. Now those that read the studies themselves know the accuracy of polygraphs just as well as the FBI, CIA and the others. But my guess is that you will ignore this information and continue to believe that polygraphs are as accurate as you want to believe and keep promoting the lie. I hope not. S&C
No man likes to have his intelligence or good faith questioned, especially if he has doubts about it himself. - Henry Brooks Adams
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
But my guess is that you will ignore this information and continue to believe that polygraphs are as accurate as you want to believe and keep promoting the lie. I hope not. I can show you studies from other sources that cite their accuracy. I am not out to prove my point to you though. I have seen first hand how accurate they are...and will continue to promote them for BS that are dealing with scum bag liars. See, one of the big issues with confirming the accuracy of polygraphs...in any study...is that absent a confession on the part of the "liar" there is no real way to assess the device. Criminal investigations have, in my experience, showed that the information given was very likely accurate. Doing randomized testing with a polygraph is difficult since there needs to be some repercussion for the "liar" for it to register a physiological response. Someone can ask me if the sky is green and I answer yes...that would NOT show up as a lie on the device...WHY, because I don't really give a hoot of the sky is green or not...not change in breathing, pulse rate, perspiration etc. People with their heads stuck in a university or research center are not likely to see the benefit of these devices. Academics come up with all sorts of crazy things. heck, there was a study at Princeton that suggested that children who are sexual assault victims get something positive out of the event. I give a lot more credibility to actual results in the field. I have seen them be very effective here on MB'ers with WS. I have seen them be very effective in screening for employment and in law enforcement. Carnegie Mellon University; LOL....why not just cite something from the ACLU!
Last edited by medc; 09/14/08 03:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,361
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,361 |
The fact that there is conflicting studies regarding your opinion, from highly acclaimed sources; show that there is not sufficient evidence to say that a polygraph test will tell whether or not someone is telling the truth about something. I can show you studies from other sources that cite their accuracy. But you haven't. I am not out to prove my point to you though. You haven't proved any point. And until you prove your point, all you have stated is your opinion. I have seen first hand how accurate they are...and will continue to promote them for BS that are dealing with scum bag liars. I have no problem with polygraphs being promoted. My problem is promoting them without also telling the truth about their accuracy. Yes they can be used as a tool, but in and of themselves are not proven to be accurate enough and should be used with skepticism, instead of complete confidence. Doing randomized testing with a polygraph is difficult since there needs to be some repercussion for the "liar" for it to register a physiological response. Did you even read the articles? That is one of the reasons it isn't accurate. When used to screen employees for the Dept. Of Energy to work in nuclear plants; the employees were nervous about losing their jobs and failed the test. Even when they were innocent of any wrong doing. Yet, like you said, if they feel like they are not doing anything wrong, there is no change in breathing, pulse rate or perspiration. And they will pass. They continue to use the test only because there is nothing else out there. They continue to be used by government agencies because it gives them the result that they are looking for not necessarily because they are accurate. I give a lot more credibility to actual results in the field. I have seen them be very effective here on MB'ers with WS. I have seen them be very effective in screening for employment and in law enforcement. Carnegie Mellon University; LOL....why not just cite something from the ACLU! The fact is, you will argue against any study that differ from your opinion. Even this document from the state of Mass. that legally prohibits the use of polygraph tests used for employment purposes. Including law enforcement personnel. http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/149-19b.htmS&C
No man likes to have his intelligence or good faith questioned, especially if he has doubts about it himself. - Henry Brooks Adams
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
Massachusetts? Are you kidding me???? The most LIBERAL place in the country...the land of Kennedy and Kerry. You have me laughing my asss off now. As I said before, I do not need to take the time to provide studies for you. You are just as capable of doing a search. Again, I am not trying to convince YOU of anything. You seem to think I will throw away my experience, that of the law enforcement community I worked in and of those that I know...I won't. To me, and to the people that actually use this tool...we KNOW it works. BTW, nervousness in a test will show up on all questions...not just some. A baseline is attained by asking some questions. I don't see why any person would be nervous over certain questions and not others. As I have told you, I have experience with these tests...other people have have been helped by them as well. YOU cite someone from Carnegie Mellon and Mass.... excuse me for not taking that seriously. I appreciate that you have a different view...it is not proof though. Massachusetts. The day will never come when I give any concern or credibility to what is happening in a state that proudly elects a murderer for office. When you have extensive experience with polygraph exams I will decide to listen a bit more intently. BTW, based on my time here at MB, I have been exploring becoming certified to do exams.  Massachussets!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,361
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,361 |
You have me laughing my asss off now. Medc, I'm sorry you lost your a$$. But like I said, The fact is, you will argue against any study that differs from your opinion. As I said before, I do not need to take the time to provide studies for you. I'm not asking for you to supply me with any kind of studies. I'm saying that your opinion of polygraphs has been challenged and you don't seem to have an adequate answer to that challenge. All you can do is ridicule and make fun of the sources. You don't respond to the question. That's what children do medc. I don't believe you're a child. And BTW, the study came from the National Academy of Sciences not Carnegie Mellon University. Sort of think of them as the "Consumer Reports" for the Science, Engineering and Medicine communities in our nation. S&C
No man likes to have his intelligence or good faith questioned, especially if he has doubts about it himself. - Henry Brooks Adams
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,361
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,361 |
I appreciate that you have a different view...it is not proof though. If it were just my POV, I would not have backed it up with the studies from an impartial group. But you on the other hand, you have not backed up anything you've said so therefore it is just a POV.  S&C
No man likes to have his intelligence or good faith questioned, especially if he has doubts about it himself. - Henry Brooks Adams
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
I'm saying that your opinion of polygraphs has been challenged and you don't seem to have an adequate answer to that challenge. The experience of the law enforcement community is certainly a response to your challenge. Once again, since you obviously have a hard time reading...I do not feel the need to post information that you can locate on the web as easily as I have. Then it just becomes a tit-for-tat with studies(sort of like the issue with PROOF of God's existence versus faith...I refuse to debate things where experts on both sides can make a strong case..thereby cancelling one another out). You KNOW there are studies out there that show polygraphs are reliable. You KNOW the law enforcement community has real life experience with this technology. But for some reason you think I need to waste my time providing examples to refute what you stated. Get over yourself. As for the source criticism...I ALWAYS look at a person's background for any red flags that might indicate a prejudice. Obviously a more liberal source...and we do not divorce ourselves from our backgrounds...will likely yield a more liberal outcome. When you cite Massachusetts..I laugh...when you cite a liberal institution (in order to give someone some measure of credentials)..I chuckle. BTW...you cite Mass...what about the other 49 states....the federal government, etc. I guess they are all just spinning their wheels huh? Perhaps people with a lot more knowledge (than you, me or your "consumer report" agency) have seen enough empirical evidence to know what works and what doesn't. There is a reason that the police use the terms "us" when referring to those with a "hands-on" law enforcement background...and "them" for those that don't. So, S & C...what is your personal experience with polygraphs?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,361
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,361 |
The information isn't for me. It's to give adequate information to those people that are advised to seek out and use a polygraph for "proof" to determine whether or not someone is lying. If polygraphs are not as reliable is some say they are, then people need to be very care regarding their use. The experience of the law enforcement community is certainly a response to your challenge. What study or test results that can be verified by the readers of this forum, have you provided from law enforcement community? Again you have only offered your bias opinion. I could give you my personal experience polygraphs, but you'd just say that I am bias and reject that as well. S&C
No man likes to have his intelligence or good faith questioned, especially if he has doubts about it himself. - Henry Brooks Adams
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
I could give you my personal experience polygraphs, but you'd just say that I am bias and reject that as well. well, your bias has already been shown. I have an obvious bias based on personal and professional experience. So, what's yours?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,361
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,361 |
No man likes to have his intelligence or good faith questioned, especially if he has doubts about it himself. - Henry Brooks Adams
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,449
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 7,449 |
Part II will be on today. The slide show is already up on oprah.com. Looks like they discuss more about the use of a polygraph. Very interesting. http://www.oprah.com/slideshow/oprahshow/20080917_tows_cheating/6 In Gary's research, he found that 93 percent of husbands would not voluntarily tell their wives if they'd had an affair. What's a wife to do? Gary suggests suspicious wives should ask their husbands to take a lie detector test—also called a polygraph.
When searching for a company to give the test, Gary suggests you consult the American Polygraph Association. "Make sure the person is licensed, insured and a member of that organization," he says. "Even though they're not admissible in court, they're 95 to 98 percent accurate. There are a lot of court prosecutors who will make a decision whether to prosecute or not based on a polygraph test, even though it's not used for court. They are much more sound than people tend to think."
Last summer, Jennifer discovered e-mails from another woman to her husband, Bryan, which she considered inappropriate and evidence that the woman was pursuing him. After an argument, Bryan agreed to end his communication with the woman.
But in January, Jennifer got a phone call from a man she assumed was the other woman's husband. And she learned Bryan had met up with the other woman while he was on business in Florida—where he and the woman both grew up. Bryan denies ever having any sexual contact with the other woman, but Jennifer remains skeptical. "In my head I'm thinking, 'You've lied to me every step of the way,'" she says. "'Why wouldn't you lie about this piece of it?'"
Bryan agreed to take a lie detector test. While hooked up to the lie detector, Bryan was asked the four questions Jennifer wanted him to answer.
1. Did you ever have sexual intercourse with the other woman while you were married to your wife?
2. Did you or the other woman ever perform oral sex on each other while you were married to your wife?
Bryan answered no to both questions, which the lie detector says is true.
3. Are you still in communication with the other woman?
Bryan said no. "According to the lie detector, Bryan had slight inconsistent physiological reactions, but there were initial indications of truthfulness," Oprah says. "Bryan told the examiner that the other woman had initiated one-way communication via e-mails and phone calls, but you did not respond."
4. Did you ever kiss the other woman on the lips while married to your wife?
Bryan answered no again. "According to the lie detector, there was a presence of inconsistent physiological reactions and the result was inconclusive," Oprah says. "Bryan told the examiner, 'I cannot remember 100 percent if the other woman had kissed me on the cheek while at the Orlando Airport, but no kissing on the lips ever took place.'"
Jennifer is relieved to get these results. "What happened wasn't good—that he saw her without me knowing about it, and he hid that for so many months. But it's good news that it didn't go beyond that," she says. "I've invested so much energy into worrying about what really happened. Now I can focus maybe on other things."
Gary says this is exactly what the test is meant to do. "She doesn't have to be investigating anymore and use all that mental energy to worry about what's happened," he says. "She moves forward now."
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
692
guests, and
89
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums67
Topics133,625
Posts2,323,525
Members72,042
| |
Most Online6,102
Jul 3rd, 2025
|
|
|
|
