Ludovico wrote on Oct 3
rd, 2007 at 10:29pm:
If by GM you mean George Maschke then no, I am not GM. And, offhand, I cannot think of any GM that I would be. I am, however, glad that you like my avatar.
Now, would you care to join the real conversation in this thread, or do you just enjoy throwing off the sorts of comments which we have come to expect of you? Do you maintain that the knowledgeable subject will produce charts just as accurate as the ignorant one? If so, please explain to us why the CQ will produce more anxiety in the innocent subject than the RQ.
I have seen no one who has yet been able to explain this to me. If you were to be the first, I would be quite greatful. Sadly, these conversations all start out with the polygrapher swearing that what the subject knows can't effect the accuracy of the exam. He then proceeds to conceal as much as he can, though by his own claim there is no reason for him to be doing so, while mainly ignoring the real argument. He then falls back on a reserve position, usually something that amounts to "the polygraph isn't perfect but it's still awesome," or "if you keep asking questions, you're helping the rapists and pedophiles." There are other varieties as well, including personal attacks, but almost always my motivations are called into question, as if it is curiosity and not the exercise of power over others that must continually be justified.
At this phase in the discussion, pailryder is suffering from cognitive dissonance. Due to his training and socialization, he "knows" that the polygraph's accuracy isn't undermined by one's knowledge of it. It is, for several reasons, necessary that he himself believe this and great trouble is taken to make sure that the lesson takes. He would swear that my knowledge of the poly couldn't make it inaccurate vis-a-vis myself and he has been told all the correct things to say and do, many of which are mentioned above, in order to counter arguments against this noble lie. He is not accustomed to having these challenged, since he's usually ensconced behind his black box facing a helpless subject when the matter comes up. Thus, the way he has always convinced people in the past that their knowledge can't hurt them has served to make him even more certain of that "fact." But now, on this forum, his arguments are exhausted and cannot stand up to logic, which he has also been told to understand and respect. Logic indicates that, given what we appear to agree on in this thread about how the polygraph works, it will not work very well, if at all, with a knowledgeable subject. If pailryder were a large, clanking robot from a 1950s science fiction movie, at this point smoke and sparks would be pouring forth from his head and his arms would be wildly flailing about as he mechanically said "Does not compute! Does not compute!"
Now, do you want to keep blowing smoke up each other's asses, or do you want to explain to us (us being anyone reading this thread) how it is that the polygraph's accuracy is not degraded by knowing how it works?