Paradiddle wrote on Sep 25^th, 2007 at 3:04pm:


As I stated earlier, a detailed critique of the methodological shortcomings of the Honts & Alloway will be forthcoming. You'll have to be patient.

Quote:


What I'm arguing is that the polygraph community has provided no evidence that polygraphic lie detection is robust against countermeasures. In particular, no polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect countermeasures. We're not asking polygraphers to prove a negative. Rather, we insist that they prove that which they claim to be able to do, including most importantly: 1) lie detection (or detection of deception, or truth verification, or whatever euphemism you may prefer) and 2) countermeasure detection.

Paradiddle,

No, I was not referring specifically to Dr. Richardson's unanswered polygraph countermeasure challenge when I mentioned that we are not calling on the polygraph community to prove any negative (as you wrongly asserted), but rather to prove its claimed ability to detect 1) lies and 2) countermeasures.

Polygraph techniques have not been proven through peer-reviewed research to reliably detect deception at better-than-chance levels under field conditions. And no polygrapher has ever demonstrated an ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, nor are there any articles or book chapters in the polygraph literature that even purport to explain how to do so.

Perhaps you would care to answer the question Lethe raised in starting this discussion thread:

Quote:


Ciao.

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 24^th, 2007 at 6:43pm:


Why would I have a significant response if I'm told to say "no" when asked if I've ever said a lie to anyone?  I know that I have.  The examiner knows that I have.  We both know that everybody has and that they are only playing make believe when they claim that anyone who has ever told even a single lie would probably sell out both his country and his own mother for a dime and thus wouldn't be hired.   

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 26^th, 2007 at 12:26pm:


Why won't you reveal any specifics?  If the tests are so great, you should tell us about them so that we may have the confidence that you do in the process.  I can see no reason for not sharing information about these new and improved techniques unless it is that doing so would lessen their accuracy.  This proves my main point: knowledge of how the exam works lessens it's accuracy.  Thanks for helping me demonstrate that!

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 26^th, 2007 at 10:47pm:


One of my basic claims is that having knowledge about how a particular exam works makes it less likely that you will produce accurate results if subjected to that type of test.  You seem to agree with this--to a point.  You appear to be saying that this is true only of certain types of exams and that you simply use a different type of exam to overcome this defect.  However, I think the new and improved test is subject to the same fault: if the subject knew how it really worked, it wouldn't work very well either.  Do you deny this?  If you do deny it, why not tell us how the exam works so that we will be less ignorant?   

So, either tell us how these great tests work or tell us why you can't tell us how they work.  I think that's a fair question.  If you need to be paid to answer it, why are you trolling around here?

Paradiddle wrote on Sep 27^th, 2007 at 2:07am:


If having knowledge of the exam decreases its accuracy then, insofar as preserving the accuracy of the exam is important, that knowledge should be preserved from dissemination.  So, does knowledge of even the other types of polygraph lessen their accuracy?  Is there any sort of polygraph exam where the accuracy cannot be diminished by the subject having certain knowledge of the exam?

If telling us how the exam would work would help bad people then, sure, don't tell us.  But do tell us that giving out that information would help bad people so that we can understand your position.  Acting secretive and almighty is lots of fun (what kid didn't get a kick out of starting a secret and exclusive club, however short-lived?) but it's bad policy when you need the public to trust you so that you can protect society from bad people.

So, would me having knowledge of how the exam works lessen it's accuracy vis-a-vis myself?

If telling us how the exam works won't impact the accuracy thereof, then why not just tell us how it works and enhance our knowledge?  Why all the secrecy and insults?  Why are you trying to tie me to George W. Bush and to young Earthers?  If this exam is so good, tell us how it works so that we'll know it's really good.  Otherwise, your refusal to disclose information which you claim to have no reason for concealing is quite puzzling indeed.   

Since you sure as hell aren't going to answer my questions, your next insult?

Lethe wrote on Sep 27^th, 2007 at 4:28am:


You; So, Iam interested in large retail store security.

Me; Cool, that's my business, my specialty---it is quite interesting how sytems have advanced to address the growing numbers of secure-savvy interlopers.

You; Could you tell me if your state of the art security apparatus works, even if the customers and/or potential criminals are aware of it's workings?

Me; Well, since we installed the systems, we have caught more thieves, assaults, and sex crimes both in the store and in the parking lots----even though we have posted signs everywhere in and out of the stores.

You; Great...but can you tell me how it works? 

Me; Yeah sure...we use motion sensors, magnetic tag detectors, infrared cameras with 18 phase autozoom with audio, and axis points of manned 2-way mirrors.

You; huh. Interesting. But can you tell me how they are managed and how do you know they work?

Me; Sure. They work very well as we have seen a substantial increase in crimes caught, and a dramatic decrease in inventory shrinkage. If you go to the technical school which teaches you the basics, then get employed with a secretive and/or elite institution---you will learn many of the nuanced tricks of the trade. 

You; Right, but can you tell me why this incredible system works even if the criminals see the cameras, the doorway magnetics, the motion detectors and the two-way mirrors?

Me; Well, they just work very well. I hope that was helpful.

You; OK, but how can you catch the bad guys if they know about the stuff-----and how do you monitor the good guys too----what kinds of software do you use----how many security staff----what kinds of hours do you security staff work-----who holds the combination to the cash safes....

Me; Hey buddy, I answered your questions----there is the aspect of business trade secrets here and...

You: Oh, if they are such secrets, than they must be weak. Tell us oh retail giant how you run this super de duperdy new security apparatus?

Me; Uh hang on a second. You are beginning to seem well...kinda put off. What is it that you do? Are you a forensics or security specialist---we could use good people.

You; I don't want to work in the field of security---it's not my business----I just want to know details and trade secrets of the security apparatus.

Me; As you have indicated, it is none of your business sir, literally and figuratively speaking.