Saidme wrote on Aug 11^th, 2003 at 2:13am:


Saidme,
I see in your attacks on Dr. Richardson's qualifications that you're still maintaining the polygraph is some sort of a mysterious black box that science cannot fathom.  You'll pardon me, I hope, if I find such excuses wholly unsatisfactory, as they've been used too many times by countless charlatans to justify all sorts of snake oil.

That's not to say that I necessarily believe you're being knowingly dishonest.  But I have yet to see any good reason provided here why scientific investigation cannot determine the accuracy of claims regarding the polygraph's validity.  Frankly, I believe your statements along those lines represent little more than self-delusion by a true believer.  And I think your criticisms of Dr. Richardson sound an awful lot like those of a religious fanatic who says those who don't believe as he does and criticize the cult he's in just haven't had the right revelations yet...

As for DoDPI's studies, most of the criticism of their work I've seen has been based upon methodology.  Certainly, the issue of bias does come into the picture, and the fact that DoDPI tried to supress a study that was also contrary to their interests suggests the study deserves extra attention.  However, you're quite correct that the ultimate issue is whether the studies are done well, and that assessment largely needs to be done on a case-by-case basis.

Skeptic

Saidme wrote on Aug 11^th, 2003 at 6:42pm:


If your intent isn't to attack Dr. Richardson, then perhaps referring to him as a "knucklehead" isn't the best way to go about it.

As you've noted, simply having a good education and an impressive title doesn't make one "smart".  However, the three do tend to be correlated, especially at the Ph.D. level, and especially considering the tasks with which Dr. Richardson was charged.

Being an unrepentant polygrapher is, perhaps, another story.  However, I'm sure there are intelligent polygraphers who inexplicably continue to believe in the "test" (you seem to be an example), just as there are intelligent creationists.  If our experience on this message board is at all representative, however, such people are likely in the minority.

With that in mind, I'm not sure what Dr. Richardson's field experience with the polygraph would have to do with his status as a "knucklehead" or a "smart person", to say nothing of his credentials to discuss the "test"'s efficacy from a scientific point-of-view.  

Of course, you're really just saying an indication of intelligence is to have administered polygraph tests and have since seen the error of one's ways, I heartily concur

Skeptic

Saidme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 2:46am:


priceless

Actually they do fall into two groups.  Those who end up believing they're sticking it to the examinees are the examiners who have either lost they're confidence or never had it to begin with.  From a polygraph (or examinee's) perspective, it's best they leave the profession anyway because they probably would stick it to some poor examinee.  It's actually a win-win situation for everyone.   

Saidme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 2:46am:


I can almost picture the studied look of wide-eyed innocence on your face as you wrote the above, Saidme  Oh, have it your way: you're "just curious".

Quote:


Hmmm...I note you've completely excluded the possibility that one might come to a reasoned, logical conclusion through one's experiences that the polygraph is bogus...

Do I gather correctly from the above that you believe any former examiner who now opposes the polygraph is simply "bitter"?  If so, would you be so kind as to provide references to the polling you've conducted on the matter?  

Or is this another one of those infamous Saidme "specifics and evidence are for lesser beings" assertions?

Skeptic

Saidme wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 4:17am:


Sorry to belabor the point, but I'm afraid I'm still not quite clear on what you're saying.  Are you saying that you believe all former examiners who now oppose the polygraph do so because they lost their confidence in administering polygraph examinations, as opposed to doing so because they lost their confidence in the test's accuracy and efficacy itself, period?  The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know -- in fact, the former might be seen as due to the latter.

How can you be sure of this?

Skeptic

orolan wrote on Aug 12^th, 2003 at 4:38am:


Orolan,
A pre-employment screen might result in confessions of all sorts, but hasn't Saidme remarked that he has never done those?

Skeptic