Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (Read 71316 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #75 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 8:19pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
L72cueak wrote on Apr 28th, 2002 at 7:51pm:
Again, you didn't answer the question.  I didn't ask you if had a rational basis...  I asked that you apply a little common sense and answer the question.  


What you asked was:

Quote:
Do you agree that an examiner trained in CM and CCM is more likely to detect and defeat CM than one who is not?


Again, I have no rational basis for concluding that the former would be able to detect countermeasures better than the latter, or that either would be able to detect countermeasures at better than chance levels. You may not be satisfied with that answer, but so be it.

I am struck by the irony of your remonstrance, "I didn't ask you if had a rational basis...  I asked that you apply a little common sense and answer the question."
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #76 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 8:33pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28th, 2002 at 8:18pm:
You took a middle of the road type position on that one.  Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed?  That makes no sense.  


When London & Krapohl write, "It was clear now that John was practicing Cms, but still there was no sign of any physical movement," they write with 20/20 hindsight. We cannot know what opinion London would have ultimately rendered absent "John's" admission that he employed countermeasures.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box L72cueak
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Mar 5th, 2002
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #77 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 8:38pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I concede you don't have a "rational basis" to conclude that.  By just applying common sense, what do you think?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box L72cueak
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 51
Joined: Mar 5th, 2002
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #78 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 8:43pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George, I asked you: "Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed?"   Once again, you didn't answer that question...   I would not do that - even without a confession.  I'm pretty sure London wouldn't have either.  Why do think saying he passed would have been an option?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #79 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 8:47pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28th, 2002 at 8:38pm:
I concede you don't have a "rational basis" to conclude that.  By just applying common sense, what do you think?  


What is common sense in the absence of reason? The available information about DoDPI's countermeasures course (that provided on DoDPI's webiste) doesn't give me any reason to think that those who matriculate from the course will be any more capable of detecting the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector than they were before the course.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector
Reply #80 - Apr 28th, 2002 at 9:03pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  

L72cueak wrote on Apr 28th, 2002 at 8:43pm:
George, I asked you: "Why would you think that after the examiner strongly believed the examinee engaged in CM he would turn around and say the person passed?"   Once again, you didn't answer that question...   I would not do that - even without a confession.  I'm pretty sure London wouldn't have either.  Why do think saying he passed would have been an option?  


One consideration that may have made London hesitate to accuse John of having employed countermeasures absent his admission is that John was described as a "high-priority candidate for employment with the federal government."

If London were prepared to render a decision that countermeasures were employed absent any admission from John, then he need not have bothered with the post-"test" interrogation. He could have simply rendered his opinion and shown John to the door.

London & Krapohl also place some importance on obtaining an admission when they write:

Quote:
Since this case, London has worked several other confirmed Cms cases and presented them as case studies to various gatherings of PDD examiners. From the feedback received during the conferences, those examiners who have suspected examinees of using Cms were reluctant to probe the issue because they lacked substantial evidence and a suitable interrogation strategy. This suggests a need for practical hands-on training for examiners on detecting Cms, employing validation procedures, and developing effective elicitation and interrogation strategies for handling Cms.


The emphasis on interrogation strategies suggests that admissions are indeed of some importance to rendering a determination that a subject employed countermeasures.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Lies in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X