Lethe

I am sorry that I my answers have not been helpful.  You come at this from an intellectual position with valid thoughtful questions and I can only offer answers based on my observations and experience.  Some time ago, I decided to see how an open approach might effect my practice.  The other examiners who post here will be horrified when they read this, but I fully discuss with my subjects the role of the CQ, how and why I developed the CQ, and how I expect it to use it to evaluate their response to the RQ.  I no longer lie to my subjects and I have observed only positive effects from this change.  I have not seen any evidence that this knowledge helps the guilty or hinders the truthful or adversly effects my ability to discriminate between the two.  True knowledge, I think, seldom works that way.  I know this is not what you want, but it is all that I have.  I am not a reseacher, not a scientist, not a logician.  Just a guy with a job that goes to the office each day and tries to treat others as I would have them treat me and mine if our roles were reversed.   

Thank you for your question and for our discussion.   

Paradiddle wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 3:51am:


Whether it is sophomoric or not I don't know, but I find George's playful verse to evince more talent than anything I could come up with.  As for what you mean by my posts being "intentionally cold and inhuman" I don't know either.  I don't see what would be added to my posts by imitating the insulting, juvenile style that other members of this forum take.

Now.  Will you answer the actual questions about this thread?  In this single thread alone you polygraphers have commented on or asked questions about my avatar, my screen name, my motivations, my background, why I want to know about the polygraph, my opinion of Drew Richardson, whether I interpret Genesis literally, what Richardson's qualifications are or aren't, whether gullible is in the dictionary or not, whether I am pailryder, whether I am George, and on the size of my erect thingy.  In short, you have talked about just about everything except what I started this thread to talk about: whether or not and how the polygraph works on a perfectly knowledgeable subject who knows how it works and can identify the control questions.  And, somehow, Ludovico has it in him to insinuate that I am the one who doesn't want to have a good faith discussion.   

Now, let's set that all aside.  I don't want to talk about talking about the question that I raised.  I want to have it answered.

I must ask. Lethe, why don't you just admit that you are George's alter-ego. Your posts are intentionally cold and inhuman, and George himself never seems to have comment---this being the only long-game thread he has not posted onto---and the diction and rythmic value of your "Lethe" literary style matches that of George's posts and also his sophomoric poetry.

pailryder wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 6:31am:


If you're talking to me, I'm not sure which questions this paltry answer is in response to.  It certainly does nothing to explain how the polygraph can work on a knowledgeable person, which is, after all, the topic of this thread.  Really, I don't know what makes you guys think you can get away with claiming that I don't want to have a serious discussion, if indeed that charge was leveled at me.

Maybe we need to back up a few steps and go through this more slowly.  How about we start simple?  Let's try this one: does the size or magnitude of the threat that the subject feels from either the control and/or the relevant questions have to be taken into account when setting up an exam, or is the magnitude of the threat irrelevant?   

Here are some other questions that you could explore as you talk me through this and try to make your case, assuming you stick to your story:   

(1) Isn't the whole idea that the innocent subject will be more threatened by the controls and the guilty subject will be more threatened by the relevants?    
(2) If so, what would happen if an innocent subject, being knowledgeable of the way the exam works and being able to identify the control questions, felt no more threat or anxiety from them than from the relevant questions?

We stand in readiness to receive the knowledge which you are able to impart to our ignorant minds.  Remember, since you claim that knowing how the exam works doesn't effect its accuracy, you have no reason to not share the information with us.  Also, if you are correct in that, sharing the information won't help rapists and pedophiles pass the exam.  If you cry uncle and admit that knowing how the exam works significantly degrades its accuracy, I'd be happy to bring this thread to a close.

Just so everyone knows, Lethe and I are not confederates, and I'd be willing to take a polygraph test to prove it.  Before you ask, no Ludovico, not from you.

I forgot to answer your questions.

1. it does
2. I did

No, no, go not to Lethe, neither twist
Wolf's-bane, tight-rooted, for its poisonous wine.
 
Keats Ode on Melancholy (1820) st. 1

Damn, maybe I'm not a polyex after all!  Everyone knows they don't read poetry.  As for the Rebel flag avatar, Hoddy Toddy, Ludovico.  Hell boys, I've been a confederate all my life.  If people on this board would stop treating the truth like toilet tissue, maybe, no sorry, ignore that.  Discussion on this board will never rise above the level of clone on clone violence on Jim Rome's sports radio show.   

But that gullible gag was funny.

Lethe-Argic,

Where the HAALE are you coming from?? Your posts continue to deteriorate in intelligence! Speak to a topic or find another cause!

MM

Ludovico wrote on Oct 5^th, 2007 at 12:31am:


And what, precisely, was his gag?  He was simply responding to the questions that I was posing to him.  I deny that he and I were in collusion, nor do I see what either of us would gain thereby.   

But regardless of whether we were colluding or not, his responses were either accurate, inaccurate, or a combination of both accurate and inaccurate responses.  If inaccurate, was he attempting to mislead me?  Or were both he and I trying to mislead people?  If the later, why would I not just create another account--it would be simple enough--and run both sides of the conversation?  That would ensure consistency and that the point that I wanted to get across would prevail; involving a confederate would simply make carrying any plot into execution more difficult with no gain.   

And if the information that he was giving was accurate, wherein lies the gag?  Really, that is simply too much violence for even polygraphers to do to the truth, to call accurate answers to meaningful and important questions a gag.  But the logic of the polygraph demands that, doesn't it?  You must cover up the truth in order for the lie detector to work with any degree of accuracy.  In your own minds, you are helping people by attacking those who are spreading the truth and, to be sure, there is some accuracy to these claims; ignorant people are more likely to produce accurate results than informed people.  Polygraphers are perforce anti-education.

Your confederate started to realize we are on to his gag.

pailryder wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 11:11am:


No, none.  Except to wonder why you do not either (1) admit frankly that the polygraph doesn't work well on people who know how it works, thus the necessity of keeping such information from the masses or (2) explaining how the knowledgeable person will be sufficiently anxious about the control questions to produce a chart not significantly inferior in accuracy to that of an ignorant subject.

It seems that you are now goose stepping in line with the rest of your profession.  What took you so long?

Lethe

I have been advised not to twist Wolf's-bane, tight-rooted, for its poisonous wine.  Any comment?

Quote:


Abuse.

(where's a moderator when you need one.)

"confederate" is the planted audience member, who's in on the gag - the crying girl for Sangya, and PailRyder for you.

Ludovico wrote on Oct 4^th, 2007 at 12:09am:


Yeah, he may not be.  For one, he's much more loquacious than you are and for a second thing he's not so much of a dick.

Anyway, what, if anything, that he has said would you say is inaccurate or deficient?  If everything that he has said is accurate a conversation with him suits my purposes just fine, since I want to learn about the polygraph, not just talk with people who are practicing polygraphers.   

Anyway, is "confederate" a term used in polygraph circles to refer to folks who give up too much info on the polygraph?  Or were you just using it of your own initiative?  I'm guessing that the Confederate Naval Ensign was your own device.

Hmm.  Maybe LieBabyCryBaby will come out of hiding now and pitch in here.  After all, we still have zero sensical explanations for how the polygraph doesn't lose accuracy with a knowledgeable subject.

Quote:


No thanks, you're having a fine conversation with the confederate (whom I don't believe is a polygraph examiner - call me suspicious like that)

Ludovico wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2007 at 10:29pm:


If by GM you mean George Maschke then no, I am not GM.  And, offhand, I cannot think of any GM that I would be.  I am, however, glad that you like my avatar.

Now, would you care to join the real conversation in this thread, or do you just enjoy throwing off the sorts of comments which we have come to expect of you?  Do you maintain that the knowledgeable subject will produce charts just as accurate as the ignorant one?  If so, please explain to us why the CQ will produce more anxiety in the innocent subject than the RQ.

I have seen no one who has yet been able to explain this to me.  If you were to be the first, I would be quite greatful.  Sadly, these conversations all start out with the polygrapher swearing that what the subject knows can't effect the accuracy of the exam.  He then proceeds to conceal as much as he can, though by his own claim there is no reason for him to be doing so, while mainly ignoring the real argument.  He then falls back on a reserve position, usually something that amounts to "the polygraph isn't perfect but it's still awesome," or "if you keep asking questions, you're helping the rapists and pedophiles."  There are other varieties as well, including personal attacks, but almost always my motivations are called into question, as if it is curiosity and not the exercise of power over others that must continually be justified.   

At this phase in the discussion, pailryder is suffering from cognitive dissonance.  Due to his training and socialization, he "knows" that the polygraph's accuracy isn't undermined by one's knowledge of it.  It is, for several reasons, necessary that he himself believe this and great trouble is taken to make sure that the lesson takes.  He would swear that my knowledge of the poly couldn't make it inaccurate vis-a-vis myself and he has been told all the correct things to say and do, many of which are mentioned above, in order to counter arguments against this noble lie.  He is not accustomed to having these challenged, since he's usually ensconced behind his black box facing a helpless subject when the matter comes up.  Thus, the way he has always convinced people in the past that their knowledge can't hurt them has served to make him even more certain of that "fact."  But now, on this forum, his arguments are exhausted and cannot stand up to logic, which he has also been told to understand and respect.  Logic indicates that, given what we appear to agree on in this thread about how the polygraph works, it will not work very well, if at all, with a knowledgeable subject.  If pailryder were a large, clanking robot from a 1950s science fiction movie, at this point smoke and sparks would be pouring forth from his head and his arms would be wildly flailing about as he mechanically said "Does not compute!  Does not compute!"

Now, do you want to keep blowing smoke up each other's asses, or do you want to explain to us (us being anyone reading this thread) how it is that the polygraph's accuracy is not degraded by knowing how it works?

Its uncanny.

Almost like you two (Lethe and PailRyder) are reading each other's thoughts...

Lethe, are you GM in disguise?????

I was studying your avatar for clues and I noticed some things.

***[deleted bad taste photoshop of Lethe's avatar with a drag fest pic - sorry Lethe]***

pailryder wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2007 at 1:51pm:


Are you admitting that someone who knows how the test works and knows, or can easily determine, the control questions will produce significantly less accurate results on a poly?  I can think of no other valid reason for you to make that statement.

But we are not just dealing with a security system that many burglars can undermine.  What we are dealing with is more along the lines of a security system that goes off when someone who knows how it works walks by.  It is not just that the system doesn't stop all of the burglars, but that it results in harm to innocent people.   

Please do check your private messages.  I'm sure that Paradiddle has some good advice for you.  Probably along the lines of "shut the hell up, will ya?"  Doing so would be a rational choice for someone in your situation; you really are giving away far too much, both by what you say and what you refuse to say.  The more people know about the polygraph, the less accurate it will be.  That is unfortunate, I myself would wish it otherwise, but it is the way things are.  Out of curiosity, where did you receive your polygraph training, and how long ago?  And were you ever with the feds?

Anyway, it seems fairly likely that this shit won't work for me.  This shit being, of course, a PLCQ exam.    So, for me, the rational choice is simply not to take such an exam and suffer the reduced opportunities that I will then face.  This is, perhaps, a pity.  With my keen sense of humor, I could have made an excellent federal employee.

Clearly, you are working on a book, eh GM?

pailryder wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2007 at 2:36am:


I understand that the response to the CQ need not be a lie, that the subject must simply be more uncertain and anxious about the response than she is about her responses to the RQs.  I don't think anything in my prior post betrays the opposite belief.  (However, I don't see how the subject in our case study here could be uncertain about whether or not she dealt drugs with her cousin, that seems like an all-or-nothing, clear cut situation to me.)

In any event, why will the knowledgeable subject be more anxious about the CQs than the RQs?  It seems to me that the possibility of losing a source of income is only a minor annoyance compared with the threat of decades in prison.  The threat posed by the CQ in question is much, much lower to the informed subject than to the ignorant subject.  So, does the size of the threat not matter?  If not, then perhaps getting them to believe that they'll be charged $5 more for the exam if they lie would be sufficient?  Or if it is simply uncertainty that is desired, why not get the person to estimate how many times he or she exceeds the speed limit during the average week, or for every 1000 miles they drive?  No one could have great confidence in his or her answer to that, you've got instant uncertainty if that is all you need.

So, does the size of the threat matter?  Why would I be significantly more anxious and concerned about the CQ than the RQ here?

Hey "Pailryder", look up at the top of your screen in the grey stripe and you should see that you have private messages. Click on the word "messages" and read and respond to your mail.

Lethe
        If a burglar understands how to disarm an intruder detection alarm, is the scientific validity of the system effected or is it the system's utility that is effected?

Quote:


Lemme get this straight.

You though I was stupid,

and you looked up "gullible" to verify it is actually in Merriam Webster Online????


bzzzzt.

Ludovico wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2007 at 1:02pm:


Yes Rasputin,
I did acquire new mind reading skills.
So can you. But first you have to throw away your snake-oil box.
Read the following authors:
Aldert Vrij; Undeutsch; Steller; Trankell - to name but a few - just to whet yr appetite.
It will also make you feel better about yourself.
Peace.

Ludovico wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2007 at 12:57pm:


No you didn't.
I truly thought you were stupid.
But you cant blame me for thinking in that direction.