“Never tell a lie when you can bullshit your way through it” 

Eric Ambler, Dirty Story

Yes Ark

But not random noise, the spin doctor strives for truthy noise.

I don't recall the attribution but father advises son, "Never tell a lie when you can get by with bullshit."

pailryder wrote on Apr 20^th, 2016 at 6:33pm:


This is a most apt description of your garden variety sex offender. 

In my PCSOT experience, it's not so much white noise as it is a smokescreen.

pailryder wrote on Apr 20^th, 2016 at 6:33pm:

Interesting, so the bullshitter is not so much as liar as he is a random noise generator.

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth.  Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.  A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it.  When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false.  For the bullshiter, however, all bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false.  His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his getting away with what he says.  He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly.  He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

Harry G. Frankfort    On Bullshit

Thanks Pailryder, I was hoping you were still around. That's an interesting twist, to detect spin, the most cunning deception, as well as the absolute truth. 

Brave Helios, wake up your steeds
Bring the warmth the countryside needs

Ark

It is the quality, not the quantity, of your posting that impresses me.

The Truth Verifier would need to detect bullshit as well as deceptive misrepresentation.



Coldhearted orb that rules the night
removes the colors from our sight
red is gray and yellow white
but We decide which is right
and which is an illusion.


Moodys Days of Future Past

No sweat, Ark.   

BTW, I've been wondering... 

Is there any chance you could encourage someone in the APA to run for president-elect? I'd like to see at least three people in the race this year, as it would give me a distinct advantage.

Okay Dan, I've calmed down. Sorry about the profanity.

Ark, I'm sorry. It was not my intent to rain on your parade.

As for The Truth Verifier, it is my view that such technology would ultimately turn out to be -- ironically enough -- a most pernicious curse, spawning levels of abuse that would dwarf the victimization that occurs under the current crop of "lie detectors." It would also usurp much of the wonderment that makes life the long strange trip that it is.

In the words of Robert Louis Stephenson, "To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive."

Arkhangelsk,

I don't know of any prominent polygraph critics who oppose real scientific research into the detection of deception (as opposed to the drivel that the polygraph community has produced). I agree with Lykken that if such a technology were developed, there would be a compelling case for its use.

For the record, I believe that Cleve Backster was a crackpot, just like his fellow polygraph pioneer, William Moulton Marston was.

The theme of this thread, The Truth Verifier, meant a lot to me. I put a lot of work and thought into it. You are an asshole for shitting on it. crappity smack you Dan!

Don't give me that crap. How about backing up your claim that Cleve's "spontaneity was short of an epiphany"?

When it comes to polygraph, you're the guy who claims to be what a space shuttle commander is as compared to a Piper Cub jockey.

For us lowly hoi polloi, please explain how you arrived at your findings about Cleve Backster, who you never even met.

Why is it that you turn into Eddy Haskell and hijack a thread every time someone says something affront to one of your mentors? Go start a "Sir Galahad Mangan to the Rescue" thread and pout over there.

Ex Member wrote on Apr 15^th, 2016 at 2:10am:


Sure, Ark, sure.  But even as a newly designated God Member -- as you yourself put it,  most befitting for an angel -- you dodged the question.

Let's try it again.

Upon what do you base your assertion that Cleve's "spontaneity was short of an epiphany"?

I do not need to personally know historical figures to formulate an opinion.

What is your input on the Truth Verifier?

In that case, upon what do you base your assertion that Cleve's "spontaneity was short of an epiphany"?

Never had the pleasure.

Ark... Did you ever meet Cleve? Talk with him at some length?  Get to know him somewhat?

I did not mean that as a cheap shot about Cleve, but only to highlight that their spontaneity was short of an epiphany. I have not seen his laboratory. However, I must confess that I ordered some Venus Flytrap seeds from Singapore to try some similar experiments.

Ex Member wrote on Apr 14^th, 2016 at 4:02pm:


Ark, did you ever see Cleve's laboratory?

For my 500th post, which should make me a God Member, most befitting for an angel, it seemed that I should pause and measure the field. I envy Doc Richardson for having had the fortune to interact with David T. Lykken. It would have been such an enlightening experience to speak with him, despite the required patience on his part regarding my sophomoric insight into psychology.

In his book “Tremor in the Blood”, he writes about the “Truth Verifier.” He ponders that if such a device existed, it could change the course of mankind forever; trials by jury, would be obsolete—even so for judges, as a computer would be capable of calculating a just and unbiased sentence. The veracity of every politicians' utterances could be immediately determined, so would world leaders' commitments to treaties, leading to verifiable disarmament agreements. 

But, would this new course of mankind be something better? Will relinquishing our private domain of attitudes and prejudices make us more or less human? Maybe it is better to abandon the quest for the Truth Verifier?

Since its inception, the polygraph was the craft of investigators and lawyers, with minuscule scientific interest for a half a century. Are investigators good at detecting deception? Astonishingly, most of the police manuals' cues of deception are contrary to research by Aldert Vrij and Bella DePaulo. It appears that even seasoned police officers are unable to detect deception better than laymen.

So, from the onset, the CQT, although having face validity, has lacked construct validity. It's true that most people are uncomfortable telling lies and this discomfort can be measured via psychophysiological indices. The problem put simply is: there are other things that make us feel uncomfortable, not just lying. Sorting out the nebulous reasons for such discomfort would be impossible.

Enter the Utah group. While I respect these fellows significantly, David Raskins' enlightenment regarding the polygraph was more of a downgraded “Road to Damascus” episode after 6 weeks with Cleve Backster, rather than a career spanning evolution. Before anyone becomes too impressed, let's use Cleve's plants and Raskins' rats as a reality check for our perspectives. Fortunately, we have the likes of William Iacono to balance the scales. 

So what about all this antipolygraph stuff? What's the beef? From what I've read over the years in this forum, it is twofold:

1. The CQT should not be used in crucial areas of hiring and monitoring because it lacks construct validity.

2. Endeavoring to find out what is in somebody's mind is ethically wrong, regardless of the accuracy. This would include both the CQT and the GKT.

George's position is that the truth about polygraphy and countermeasures cannot be made public without simultaneously providing it to those with nefarious intentions. On one side, having the tools to avoid a false positive would be ethical, but circumventing monitoring during sex offender treatment which could inhibit their recovery would be ethically questionable. I suppose the argument could be made that polygraphy should not be used in PCSOT and monitoring of parolees—that another way should be found.

Are we on the threshold of finding a Lykken's Truth Verifier? The research into the neurocognitive approach to PDD is nascent and immature. However, I believe that it may eventually be possible by combining the temporal data from ERP and the spatial information from hemodynamic imaging, combined with the power of a super computer. Moreover, it could be possible to make such a procedure impervious to countermeasures by focusing on the primordial parts of the brain such as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) which cannot be manipulated. 

Do we want a Truth Verifier? Will it serve mankind or open a Pandora's box?

First Man: I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think.

Establishment: Of course you are my bright little star,
I've miles
And miles
Of files
Pretty files of your forefather's fruit
and now to suit our
great computer,
You're magnetic ink.

First Man: I'm more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be.

Inner Man: There you go man, keep as cool as you can.
Face piles
And piles
Of trials
With smiles.
It riles them to believe
that you perceive
the web they weave
And keep on thinking free. 

Moody Blues, On the Threshold of a Dream.