Hot Topic (More than 15 Replies) I am switching my allegiance… (Read 9565 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Stan_Smith
User
**
Offline



Posts: 38
Joined: Aug 6th, 2007
Re: I am switching my allegiance…
Reply #15 - Aug 15th, 2007 at 7:22pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
" Either way, because polygraph testing is a con, there is at least a 45% chance you will be found to be deceptive.  I don’t consider that favorable odds.  Do you? "

lloyd,

Where do you get your statistics from?

"Your belief system seems oddly skewed."  Another Ad Hom attack.  Typical of those without actual facts to back up their point.

"Sorry if I come off as a bit harsh.  There are good reasons for this. "

And those reasons are.............?

Look Lloyd, if you are truly innocent, than God bless you, and again, I honestly hope you are exonerated of whatever crime you're being accused of.  As far as trying to obtain a postion that requires a polygraph, first off, i have nothing to hide, secondly, I don't think I'd ever apply for such a position.

Stan
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lloyd Ploense
Ex Member


Re: I am switching my allegiance…
Reply #16 - Aug 15th, 2007 at 8:02pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Stan:

I was accused of poisoning my own leftover wedding cake during a polygraph exam.  This was nonsensical since I unknowingly ate the poisoned cake and suffered severely.  Here's the rub pal: Although I told the truth, the polygraph examiner told me his test revealed I lied.

1) Crime victim reports crime to police;
2) Innocent crime victim accused of committing crime during polygraph test;
3) Police claim polygraph test results reinforce false accusation;
4) Therefore, "Something is Rotten in Denmark" and the USA.

I just learned today from LE what the cake was tainted with. 
A Variety Of Bad News Household Chemicals!
I need to wait 3 mo. for more testing to see if my bone marrow is still making enough red blood cells.
Good news: My equilibrium, cognition and other systems are showing improvement though I still cannot walk through a dark room without falling over.

I think the police have figured out why I "failed" the polygraph.  The answer lay not in guilt but in the tendency of a polygraph to give false positives when there is great emotional context to certain questions.  The link below will explain how this can be so.

http://www.bps.org.uk/downloadfile.cfm?file_uuid=9081F97A-306E-1C7F-B65E-570A344...

This is another reason why polygraph testing should be declared unconstitutional by the 4th amendment.

Peace Stan,
Lloyd
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Stan_Smith
User
**
Offline



Posts: 38
Joined: Aug 6th, 2007
Re: I am switching my allegiance…
Reply #17 - Aug 15th, 2007 at 8:18pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Lloyd,

I already got your link in the pm you sent me.  Seems to be evidence in that report to back up both claims.  Although the pshycologists, etc. that were interviewed claimed the CQT test was less accurate, the studies seem to show around an 85% accuracy.

I"m glad you're feeling better and I hope your bone marrow continues to produce those red blood cells.

BTW, if you didn't poison the cake as you claim (I tend to believe you based on your postings), who does LE believe did.  I know you've given your own suspects in past postings, I was just wondering who the police think may have done it.  If it's any one of the suspects you listed, I feel for you, as they all seem to be close to you in one way or another.

Stan

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lloyd Ploense
Ex Member


Re: I am switching my allegiance…
Reply #18 - Aug 15th, 2007 at 10:07pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Stan:

Thank you for your sentiment.  You are certainly correct that in all circumstances I will lose.  I love and cherish all of my family members.  I even feel compassion for that person in CT who suffers from bipolar I that has been threatening my and my children’s lives since last May.  Bipolar Affective Disorder does not necessarily equate with BAD and he is receiving treatment.

During my research following that strange polygraph exam, I’ve learned that there are actually two sets of statistics one must consider regarding the constitutionality of polygraph testing and related detection of deception “technologies”.  The first set considers the percent of guilty correctly detected and the second the percent of innocent correctly detected.  Though I’ve read only 20 or so treatises in which statistics were presented, the percentage of innocent correctly detected was substantially less than the percentage of guilty properly identified.

Now, these studies were in the most part performed with faux guilt and innocence.  In the few field studies available (over the internet) where the consequences of being mislabeled as guilty are great, it is evident that the percentage of innocent persons deemed guilty by a polygraph exam is substantially larger.

So, please reconsider the usefulness of polygraph testing as a tool:
1)      Would you use a hammer that smashed your thumb every second or third strike?
2)      Would you use that hammer to drive in a screw?
3)      Would you use a motor vehicle that injured you every couple of times you drove it?
4)      Would you let your wife, mother, father or children borrow that car?

Please forgive me if I seem impertinent or disrespectful.  I really do come from a different planet.  In my world of chemical engineering, we must perform rigorous failure mode analysis to ensure no innocent is harmed.  We must be certain to a vanishingly small percentage that no Bhopal type disaster can occur.  We must not use o-rings to seal against o-rings even though NASA engineer confidence in their construction was calculated at 99.44%.  We face huge legal liability if we fail in our duties, as we should.

Presently, there are no such rational constraints in the deployment of detection of detection “technologies”.  Could this be due to the fact that they are so unreliable?

When insurance companies underwrite the results of polygraph testing I might begin to believe they have merit.

Lloyd Ploense
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Brettski
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 22
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Joined: Jul 13th, 2007
Gender: Male
Re: I am switching my allegiance…
Reply #19 - Aug 16th, 2007 at 4:25am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Stan,

Hi, I'm Brett. I'm a 4th year accounting student. I only started reading about polygraphs about 2 months ago, after watching an episode of Dr. Phil with my sister. It was about a guy who was being accused of molesting his own daughter by his mother in law. There was a whole lot of talk about how accurate the polygraph was at detecting deception. After that, I began reading about polygraphs. I mention this only because you've reffered to memebers of this site as hysterical. I would have to admit that the first time I made a post here, I caught a whiff of the same zealotry you did. On the other hand, I found the personal statement section quite moving, and since were talking about innocent lives being ruined, strong feelings are hardly unexpected, non?

Quote:
Stan:
During my research following that strange polygraph exam, I’ve learned that there are actually two sets of statistics one must consider regarding the constitutionality of polygraph testing and related detection of deception “technologies”.  The first set considers the percent of guilty correctly detected and the second the percent of innocent correctly detected.  Though I’ve read only 20 or so treatises in which statistics were presented, the percentage of innocent correctly detected was substantially less than the percentage of guilty properly identified.


Lloyd is bang on with this point. The polygraph's accuracy can't be combined into one, all encompassing statistic because there is a disturbingly large difference between the false positive and false negative rate. False positives are the number of truthful people deemed dishonest, and false negative is rate at which dishonest people pass the test, erroneously found to be truthful.

John Furedy, a law professor at the University of Toronto, also lists compelling evidence against the use of the polygraph in any setting. He posts one study that reflects the issues of false positives. In this study [found under "The Forensic Use of the Polygraph: A Psychophyiological Analysis of Current trends and Future Prospects"]. There is one study performed by Barland and Raskin where Barland did the test, and raskin scored the charts. This test at first states that Raskin made the correct decision in 86% of the cases, and to his credit, he correctly identified 98% of the guilty subjects as deceptive. However, at the same time, he falsely classified 45% of innocent people as deceptive!

False Negative: 2%
False Positive: 45%
YIKES!!

The problem with polygraphs is that even when the overall accuracy seems high, such numbers disguise the true issue with polygraph testing: a disgustingly high false positive rate.

And for the record, 86% is not high.

DNA is correct in 1/10,000 cases, or 99.99%. As Lloyd already pointed out, this level of reliability is EXPECTED by scientiffic tests.

In one of my business classes we were shown a video discussing effiency, the host had a panel of business owners sitting in front of him. He asked if they thought 99% was a good level of effeciency, and of course they all nodded their heads and said yes, 99% would be very good. Then the host makes his point: if airports around the world all operated at 99% effeciency, there would be multiple plane crashes at every airport, every day. 99% means a failure in 1/100 cases, and there's a whole lot of planes in the sky.

Or how about Gastric Bypass surgery, a procedure intended to help the obese lose weight. We live in a society where 1/6 people are obese, and at the same time, there are girls suffering from anorexia under the media pressure to be as thin as possible. So why aren't millions singing up for Gastric-ByPass? Well, it has a survival rate of 99%: 1% of the people who get Gastric Bypass die. It's considered one of most dangerous surgeries in the world.

Small wonder the American Medical Association testified before congress to warn against the use of polygraphs: the best the APA can claim is 90%, which disguises a false positive rate, is actually quite low, and critics doubt the number is anywhere near this high.

Yikes, stan, yikes.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
I am switching my allegiance…

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