Hyocrite. A true politician.

Bill Richardson has won the New Mexico governor's race by a landslide. With 1,470 of 1,506 precincts reporting (98%), Richardson had captured 58% of the vote. His Republican challenger, John Sanchez, had 36% while Green party candidate David Bacon had 6%.

Batman wrote on Nov 12^th, 2002 at 12:16am:


Dear Batman,

Get Batgirl, get into the Batmobile, and drive back to the Batcave.  I love reruns but enough is enough!

Things were quite boring around here but I do not want to encourage you to come back!

Regards.

Quote:


I note in passing you did not move to exclude yourself from that demographic.

Quote:


Reads as if you're quite the authority on Adventures in Showering.

Quote:


And yet you keep coming back for more. 'Round these here parts, when a dawg gets spanked he has enough sense to stay on the porch. Are we to presume you have less sense than a cringing beat-down porch dog? Respond to this post and prove me right.

Dave

Never tell the truth to people who are not worthy of it.- Mark Twain

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

How I love to read these posts!  Before you read further, I don't have any "peer reviewed research" to share and I don't have the time to take on Dr. Drew's challenge. Batman, you are my hero! Can't we all just get along? Actually, I love the interchange just the way it is. A good laugh is hard to come by. (No, I'm not laughing at a false postive examinee's expense, but it is the dialogue found here.)

George and the gang keep complaining. I (we) keep getting confessions...pre-test and post-test confessions.  All of these fine examinees had been interviewed at least once and perhaps many times in the past before arriving for their polygraph examination. They all initially professed that they were telling the truth, but most later confessed that they had committed the offense AND that they had deliberately provided false statements during the course of the investigation. George and his disciples like to state that these were naive and gullible people. I like to think that they had seen the errors of their ways and wanted to confess. The time had come to lift the burden off their shoulders. I took the time to listen and for that moment, I cared. Maybe it was the polygraph instrument on the desk, maybe I simply had a lucky day, maybe it was because I was willing to listen, but at the end of the day - a confession was received in writing. (Before anyone goes on the attack, I am referring to examinees whose exam results were DI or who confessed during the pre-test interview.  There are examinees whose test results are NDI. Regardless of what others might think, I don't manipulate the results and I don't coerce confessions from innocent people.)       

Folks, I hate to say it, but I do believe that the polygraph's demise is not in the immediate future.  Its utility is too convincing.  Take on a real worthy cause.  Perhaps the SPCA is looking for a few good men and women.  Take the time to save a beaten dog.  According to Beach Trees AKA Dave, it sounds as if they are getting beat far too often in his neck of the woods.   

mriddle6 wrote on Nov 13^th, 2002 at 4:40pm:


Wasn't it the NAS study that just reported specific issue polygraph examinations discriminated between truthful and untruthful at rates SIGNIFICANTLY above chance?  So much for the claims of yourself and others on this site that polygraph is "invalid."  Hmm, I suspect polygraph examiners will be gainfully employed for a long time to come...

Polycop...

Quote:

 
Polycop,

I think it's appropriate to repeat here a post I made earlier in the discussion thead, NAS Polygraph Report:

What the NAS Report Says About the Accuracy of Specific-Incident Polygraph Testing

The following is an excerpt from the conclusions of the NAS polygraph report (p. 168 of the HTML version):

Quote:


Note that:

1) This estimate of accuracy does not specify what kind of polygraph tests, e.g., CQT vs. R/I vs. GKT "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance."

2) The authors' conclusion that polygraph tests "can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance" is conditioned upon the subject population being similar to "those represented in the polygraph research literature," that is, ignorant of polygraph procedure and countermeasures. Such ignorance cannot be safely assumed, especially with information on both polygraph procedure and countermeasures readily available via the Internet.

3) If the authors' conclusion that "the evidence does not allow any precise quantitative estimate of polygraph accuracy..." is correct, then it (a fortiori) follows that software algorithms peddled by polygraph manufacturers such as Axciton and Stoelting that purport to determine with mathematical precision the probability that a particular individual is lying or telling the truth are worthless.

4) The authors conclude that "the evidence does not provide confidence that polygraph accuracy is robust against potential countermeasures."  It is not safe to assume that anyone passing a polygraph "test" has told the truth.

5) The last sentence of the above-cited paragraph is the key one with regard to polygraph validity (as opposed to accuracy): "There is essentially no evidence on the incremental validity of polygraph testing, that is, its ability to add predictive value to that which can be achieved by other methods." What this means is that there is no evidence that polygraph "testing" provides greater predictive value than, say, interrogating a subject without the use of a polygraph, or with a colandar-wired-to-a-photocopier that is represented to the subject as being a lie detector.

The NAS's conlusion that "specific-incident polygraph tests for event-specific investigations can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection" with naive subject populations is hardly a vindication for the validity of CQT polygraphy, and those in the polygraph community are formally cautioned against publicly misrepresenting it as such, as you can expect to be publicly called out on it.

Batman wrote on Nov 13^th, 2002 at 9:50pm:


No, but lying sacks of excrement like Florida Polygraph Association past president George Slattery gets damn close. In fact, most profesisonally-lying polygraphers boast anywhere from 100% to the mid 90%-- statistics that we (the informed) know are pure unadulterated crap.

Get back on the porch, whiner.