Quote:


Digithead offered thoughtful, well-reasoned counterpoints to the material you presented as "evidence" that polygraphic lie detection has an accuracy rate in the mid-to-high 90th percentile. To his criticism you responded, multiple times, saying that you have no interest in debating the matter. Why then did you even bother to post in the first place?

The reason I referred to your offering of such "evidence" as "shoveling shit" is that that both items (by Ansley and Matte) are non-peer reviewed writings by non-scientists whose livelihoods depended on public belief that polygraphy is highly accurate. Indeed, the former study was funded by the American Polygraph Association itself. If you think that these "studies" prove that polygraph results are almost always accurate, you are seriously deluded. The fact that you are unwilling to engage in any discussion of the merits of these "studies" suggests that you are willfully so.

Ecchaste, 

The study referenced by Ansley can be obtained by requesting a copy of the publication from the American Polygraph Association at their website.   

The Study referenced by Matte is in his book and can be reviewed in that manner.   

Mr. Maschke, 

I am neither deluded or ignorant, I care not to debate another individuals research pro or con.  I simply referenced them.  The latest studies by the Department of Defense research persons places accuracy rates below 98%.   I would be more inclined to accept their findings, however I have not obtained my personal copy of the research and findings.  When this occurs I will let you know, then discuss those findings.  I am more comfortable with those studies.   

No where in any postings have I stated the studies were scientific or peer reviewed.  I do have a problem with your insisting they were not peer reviewed, how would you know?  They were reviewed by other persons in the polygraph industry (peer review) and some disagreed with the findings, some agreed with the findings.  They are not in my humble opinion scientific studies.  They do not meet the standards of a "Scientific Study"  for one and they have not been validated by replication from other disinterested sources that I am aware of.   

If this is "Shoveling Shit" then so be it and I will accept your criticisms.  I do not believe that to be the case.   We are in fact off topic of the original post.   

Quote:


Yep...

Drew Richardson provided a great analogy a few years back, describing the situations where polygraphers control all polygraph validity studies as putting big tobacco firms in charge of lung cancer research. 

The DoD studies are a joke.

Very well, I am very deluded and will in all probability remain deluded for life in your context of that word.  Thank you for your diagnoses and I will now rest.

VeryConfused wrote on Nov 25^th, 2007 at 4:17am:


OK. Let's "parse" this. You have engaged  in classic minimizing----the swan song of the American sex offender. Sure there are some sexual misconduct cases---but 2/3rds? BS and you know it. The vast majority of sexual offender populations throughoiut the country are incest cases. "Uncle woody cases" if you will. Barring that your treatment group is/was a "special" sexual misconduct group versus the more numerous child molest, sexually violent types of groups, than you must be stretching the truth. 
Also,---in addition to your classic---AND I MEAN CLASSIC---minimizing and distortion, you have even spoken of a "revolution." I can just see it now---a parade of sex offenders marching on Washington, burning their winnie the pooh t-shirts or throwing their rape kits "over the wall."  What are you doing on the internet? Are you still on the rope?Your disagreement with polygraph aside, your presence here online shows that you aren't serious about treatment---if you are still on supervision. Lookin at porn are you---or on swinger sights maybe? You aren't in a position to be trusted just yet you know. You need to heal man, and in case ya didn't know, revolutions aren't known for their healing potential------as people get hurt. Pardon my cool tone, but if you had cancer I'd feel very sorry for you---but since your sad tale is as a result of you molesting a child---and you are obviously inteligent based on good penmanship---you knew far better. Screw with kids, and you are F'd. You knew this at the time. Incidentally, did you know that your victim is 30 times more likely to commit suicide before age 30 than the unmolested? Why aren't you fighting for victim charities? 
answer; because you might still be in your narcissistic pattern of existance.


good luck