Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Calling out LieBabyCryBaby (Read 34531 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ludovico
Senior User
***
Offline


I was cured all right.

Posts: 99
Joined: Sep 29th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #60 - Oct 2nd, 2007 at 4:43pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Lethe,
I'm glad someone said it. Some 65% of American adults are gullible. That grouping is specifically the p/g examiners target market. It is the other 35% that have the guts to tell them they're screwing up and are
indeed screwed up.


Oh, please. Don't you know that "gullible" not even a real word. Its not even in the dictionary.

Lets keep this on topic.

Both Milgram and Zimbardo are important lessons for all.

But tell us, Lethe - o - Lethe, o concealed and forgetful one: about your experience. Or do you only come here only to editorialize?



« Last Edit: Oct 2nd, 2007 at 5:09pm by Ludovico »  

Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well. To what do I owe the extreme pleasure of this surprising visit?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #61 - Oct 2nd, 2007 at 5:04pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pailryder wrote on Oct 1st, 2007 at 1:13pm:
I may be trying your patience, but consider one more aspect of CQ development.  You said, if I understood, that your concern on a poly would be for producing the correct response to the relevant.  You posit that since you know tlbtldt that the CQ would have no pull on your emotions?  But is that really the case?  If, we could return to the drug dealing cousins example, what if you took that test?  Would you not feel at least two seperate threats?  First, the threat that you are a suspect in a murder and second, a threat to your business enterprise, upon which your income depends and which you desire to continue.  Really, lethe, (you know if you put the l at the end you would have ethel,) how likely are you to admit to dealing drugs in a polygraph requested by the police.  Would you by your own admission invite that level of police scrutny?  And regardless of truth of your answer, might not police knowledge of that illegal activity on your part provide a greater threat to you than the murder, which after all you are answering truthfully about?



I can certainly appreciate your attempts at thoughtful discourse, but I believe that you are bargaining with Stone Henge. Lethe is attempting a futile exercise which does nothing but begs a question that isn't a question at all. It is rather a statement that he has a 12" hard-on for polygraph, and no matter how you scoop your response, he will use his intentionally impersonal pseudonyme to further his endeavor----an endeavor which is self serving and circular. It is like talking to an elderly lady in a nursing home that doesn't want you to leave her alone, so she keeps you captive with shallow, spurious, previously answered questions. Who said you can't make perpetual motion?----as Lethe has demonstrated such with his upside down argument.
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #62 - Oct 2nd, 2007 at 9:24pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
pailryder wrote on Oct 1st, 2007 at 1:13pm:
I may be trying your patience, but consider one more aspect of CQ development.  You said, if I understood, that your concern on a poly would be for producing the correct response to the relevant.  You posit that since you know tlbtldt that the CQ would have no pull on your emotions?  But is that really the case?  If, we could return to the drug dealing cousins example, what if you took that test?  Would you not feel at least two seperate threats?  First, the threat that you are a suspect in a murder and second, a threat to your business enterprise, upon which your income depends and which you desire to continue.  Really, lethe, (you know if you put the l at the end you would have ethel,) how likely are you to admit to dealing drugs in a polygraph requested by the police.  Would you by your own admission invite that level of police scrutny?  And regardless of truth of your answer, might not police knowledge of that illegal activity on your part provide a greater threat to you than the murder, which after all you are answering truthfully about?


Excellent.  Let us examine how the control question will appear to both an ignorant and to an informed subject.  We'll continue to use the murder/drug dealing situation so that we have something concrete to talk about. 

Now, as you know, it is not just the question itself, in a vacuum, which is important vis-a-vis producing the correct response.  The tone and circumstances in which it is asked, the polygrapher's body language, the consequences that the polygrapher attaches to both an affirmative and negative response, the rationale given to the question, both explicit and implied, and the reasonable inferences that the examinee can draw from these are all important factors.  So, how will the control question, "did you ever deal drugs with your cousin?" appear to the ignorant examiner?  I think basically like this:

    "Well, Sue, you are suspected of killing your cousin, Regina, and this exam will help tell whether or not you did and will be used by police and prosecutors as they decide how to handle the investigation and case.  I will, of course, ask you if you killed Regina, but I'll also ask some less direct questions.  Because, you see, we know that people who are involved in other crimes, like drug dealing, are much more likely to commit murder, especially against their partners.  So, if you and Regina sold drugs together, Sue, we'll know that there is a very good chance that you killed her.  If you did kill her, the best possible outcome for you, if you take a good plea deal and then get out on parole at the earliest date, will be about 20 years in prison.  So, Sue, did you and Regina sell drugs together?"

Again, the polygrapher wouldn't be asking precisely that question, but that is what the implications of the question would be.  A yes answer will be tantamount to providing significant evidence against herself to a crime that would earn her decades in jail.  That's a pretty big threat to a person. 

So, how would the question appear to a knowledgeable examinee?  I think something like this:

    "Well, Sue, you say that you didn't kill Regina.  I am here to determine if that claim is a lie or not.  To tell if you are trying to deceive me with that claim or if you feel uncomfortable about it, I need you to attempt to deceive me on another question.  Of course, we have, through our investigation, very good evidence that you and Regina sold drugs together.  I need you to tell me that you two didn't sell drugs together, okay?  Now, when you deny that you were drug dealers, I need you to feel uncomfortable about that answer.  So, just think of how much more difficult it would be to deal drugs if the police were 100% certain that you used to deal drugs with her instead of only 80% certain of that.  Your ability to sell drugs in the community has already been degraded as a result of this investigation, so just imagine that trend continuing.  If you do that, your body will produce the natural response that we need.  Sounds silly?  Well, nevermind that and don't worry about your body producing the correct response on the relevant questions.  Sure, if it doesn't, you'll produce a deceptive result which would carry consequences even greater than admitting that you dealt drugs together but trust me, I'm a professional."

If these characterizations are broadly accurate, as I think they are, then it seems that the knowledgeable examinee will be much less threatened by the control question and a little bit more threatened by the relevant question when compared with the ignorant examinee.  And, pretty much by definition, when you lower someone's response to the CTs and/or raise their response to the RQs, you make it more likely that they will produce a deceptive result.  Thus, a knowledgeable examinee who is truthful is less likely to produce an accurate result than an ignorant and truthful examinee.  Q.E.D.

There are two main ways to attack this particular argument that immediately occur to me:

    (1) You can demonstrate that the ignorant and/or knowledgeable subjects will not understand the control question in question in the ways indicated; OR
    (2) You can argue that the size of the threat to him- or herself that the subject perceives doesn't make any difference, the smallest threat is as useful as the largest threat;


I look forward to your corrections and response.

To my detractors, who flatter me by their number and attentions, your ad hominem attacks and insults will all be read but only the most clever will be responded to.  Originality and wittiness will earn you bonus points and increase the likelihood of a response.  If you wish to join the conversation, note that questioning a person's motivation for making a particular argument does not constitute a valid critique of that argument.
  

Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid?

Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work?

Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #63 - Oct 2nd, 2007 at 9:50pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Lethe wrote on Oct 2nd, 2007 at 9:24pm:
pailryder wrote on Oct 1st, 2007 at 1:13pm:
I may be trying your patience, but consider one more aspect of CQ development.  You said, if I understood, that your concern on a poly would be for producing the correct response to the relevant.  You posit that since you know tlbtldt that the CQ would have no pull on your emotions?  But is that really the case?  If, we could return to the drug dealing cousins example, what if you took that test?  Would you not feel at least two seperate threats?  First, the threat that you are a suspect in a murder and second, a threat to your business enterprise, upon which your income depends and which you desire to continue.  Really, lethe, (you know if you put the l at the end you would have ethel,) how likely are you to admit to dealing drugs in a polygraph requested by the police.  Would you by your own admission invite that level of police scrutny?  And regardless of truth of your answer, might not police knowledge of that illegal activity on your part provide a greater threat to you than the murder, which after all you are answering truthfully about?


Excellent.  Let us examine how the control question will appear to both an ignorant and to an informed subject.  We'll continue to use the murder/drug dealing situation so that we have something concrete to talk about.  

Now, as you know, it is not just the question itself, in a vacuum, which is important vis-a-vis producing the correct response.  The tone and circumstances in which it is asked, the polygrapher's body language, the consequences that the polygrapher attaches to both an affirmative and negative response, the rationale given to the question, both explicit and implied, and the reasonable inferences that the examinee can draw from these are all important factors.  So, how will the control question, "did you ever deal drugs with your cousin?" appear to the ignorant examiner?  I think basically like this:

    "Well, Sue, you are suspected of killing your cousin, Regina, and this exam will help tell whether or not you did and will be used by police and prosecutors as they decide how to handle the investigation and case.  I will, of course, ask you if you killed Regina, but I'll also ask some less direct questions.  Because, you see, we know that people who are involved in other crimes, like drug dealing, are much more likely to commit murder, especially against their partners.  So, if you and Regina sold drugs together, Sue, we'll know that there is a very good chance that you killed her.  If you did kill her, the best possible outcome for you, if you take a good plea deal and then get out on parole at the earliest date, will be about 20 years in prison.  So, Sue, did you and Regina sell drugs together?"

Again, the polygrapher wouldn't be asking precisely that question, but that is what the implications of the question would be.  A yes answer will be tantamount to providing significant evidence against herself to a crime that would earn her decades in jail.  That's a pretty big threat to a person.  

So, how would the question appear to a knowledgeable examinee?  I think something like this:

    "Well, Sue, you say that you didn't kill Regina.  I am here to determine if that claim is a lie or not.  To tell if you are trying to deceive me with that claim or if you feel uncomfortable about it, I need you to attempt to deceive me on another question.  Of course, we have, through our investigation, very good evidence that you and Regina sold drugs together.  I need you to tell me that you two didn't sell drugs together, okay?  Now, when you deny that you were drug dealers, I need you to feel uncomfortable about that answer.  So, just think of how much more difficult it would be to deal drugs if the police were 100% certain that you used to deal drugs with her instead of only 80% certain of that.  Your ability to sell drugs in the community has already been degraded as a result of this investigation, so just imagine that trend continuing.  If you do that, your body will produce the natural response that we need.  Sounds silly?  Well, nevermind that and don't worry about your body producing the correct response on the relevant questions.  Sure, if it doesn't, you'll produce a deceptive result which would carry consequences even greater than admitting that you dealt drugs together but trust me, I'm a professional."

If these characterizations are broadly accurate, as I think they are, then it seems that the knowledgeable examinee will be much less threatened by the control question and a little bit more threatened by the relevant question when compared with the ignorant examinee.  And, pretty much by definition, when you lower someone's response to the CTs and/or raise their response to the RQs, you make it more likely that they will produce a deceptive result.  Thus, a knowledgeable examinee who is truthful is less likely to produce an accurate result than an ignorant and truthful examinee.  Q.E.D.

There are two main ways to attack this particular argument that immediately occur to me:

    (1) You can demonstrate that the ignorant and/or knowledgeable subjects will not understand the control question in question in the ways indicated; OR
    (2) You can argue that the size of the threat to him- or herself that the subject perceives doesn't make any difference, the smallest threat is as useful as the largest threat;


I look forward to your corrections and response.

To my detractors, who flatter me by their number and attentions, your ad hominem attacks and insults will all be read but only the most clever will be responded to.  Originality and wittiness will earn you bonus points and increase the likelihood of a response.  If you wish to join the conversation, note that questioning a person's motivation for making a particular argument does not constitute a valid critique of that argument.



Who is us----you? Who are you----not your identity---but your point of vantage? Are you a criminologist, a scientist, a caddy....what? Why do you want to examine polygraph....to what ends? It would be helpful in understanding the context of your question if you shed even a pinpoint light at just what you're attempting---other than your knowledge of test theory. You don't actually believe that you are having new and original thoughts and questions here, do you? We don't need your help in understanding CQ testing.
« Last Edit: Oct 3rd, 2007 at 12:21am by Paradiddle »  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ludovico
Senior User
***
Offline


I was cured all right.

Posts: 99
Joined: Sep 29th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #64 - Oct 2nd, 2007 at 10:55pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Originality and wittiness will earn you bonus points and increase the likelihood of a response.  If you wish to join the conversation, note that questioning a person's motivation for making a particular argument does not constitute a valid critique of that argument.


Oh please. Oh please, oh please, pick me to respond to.

Pick me. Pick me. Pick me.

[I just gotta be picked, I'm sure I know the answer...]

  

Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well. To what do I owe the extreme pleasure of this surprising visit?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Wonder_Woman
Senior User
***
Offline


The magic lasso of truth

Posts: 69
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #65 - Oct 2nd, 2007 at 11:54pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
First off, I would not ask a drug selling question in a murder investigation unless it was a drug deal gone bad..pop pop.  Pailryder was just showing you an example so you could 'understand' the process o'wiseone.  Only you would want to beat this one to death.  Each case is different and I sure as hell won't be sharing this info with you!   You would turn it around, and roll it, roll it, and cut it in two and throw it in the oven for Georgie and you.  Sorry Drew, I would have included you but hey, haven't heard from you in a while. 

So, Lethe, Whats your angle?  Who craped in your cherrios?  I tend to believe Sarge's story, but you....not so much. 

BTW please pick Ludovico.  He is quite original and you know he is witty.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ludovico
Senior User
***
Offline


I was cured all right.

Posts: 99
Joined: Sep 29th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #66 - Oct 2nd, 2007 at 11:58pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Oh! Oh. Oh!

(raises hand)

pick me, please (hoping)
  

Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well. To what do I owe the extreme pleasure of this surprising visit?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Paradiddle
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 158
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #67 - Oct 3rd, 2007 at 12:35am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I would actually rather be stuck in a nursing home.
  

Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ludovico
Senior User
***
Offline


I was cured all right.

Posts: 99
Joined: Sep 29th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #68 - Oct 3rd, 2007 at 1:02am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
There I was waiting anxiously to be picked to discuss this important topic, and I noticed something strange about Lethe's avatar.



  

Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well. To what do I owe the extreme pleasure of this surprising visit?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Lethe
Very Senior User
****
Offline



Posts: 233
Joined: Apr 15th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #69 - Oct 3rd, 2007 at 2:23am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I'm using this as an example because it was provided and since polygraph exams involve asking real questions we can discuss those questions.  Consider this a case study.

If you think my analysis is off, please explain why it is so.  It appears to have some explanatory value so far as I can see and the inability of so many illustrious polygraphers to adequately respond to it seems odd, if one assumes that they possess the ability to do so. 

My puzzlement is not based on the apparent inadequacy of this particular CQ but on the probability that any possible CQ would suffer from the same exact pitfalls.  If you'd like to suggest another CQ and other circumstances surrounding an exam, I would be very happy to discuss that situation instead.
  

Is former APA President Skip Webb evil or just stupid?

Is former APA President Ed Gelb an idiot or does the polygraph just not work?

Did you know that polygrapher Sackett doesn't care about detecting deception to relevant questions?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ludovico
Senior User
***
Offline


I was cured all right.

Posts: 99
Joined: Sep 29th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #70 - Oct 3rd, 2007 at 2:32am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Me. Me. Pick me.

[I know]

(stands up, to raise hand even higher)

[why won't he call on me?]

  

Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well. To what do I owe the extreme pleasure of this surprising visit?
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Wonder_Woman
Senior User
***
Offline


The magic lasso of truth

Posts: 69
Joined: Sep 24th, 2007
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #71 - Oct 3rd, 2007 at 2:34am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Lethe, instead of reiterating your reiteration....pick Ludovico!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 439
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #72 - Oct 3rd, 2007 at 2:36am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Excellent Lethe, a thoughtful reasonable reply.  As you see from WW's comment, poly exs often don't agree on what makes good CQ material, so why should we?  Your presentation to the ignorant subject was not bad.  As to the knowledgeable, well, one small correction.  Again you repete your oft stated error that the knowledgeable subject (KS) must provide a deceptive answer to a CQ and since they are knowledgable, you reason, the response will be diminished.  Flawless logical reasoning, but reread George's earlier post, since you don't seem to believe me.   KS's answer to the CQ doesn't have to be deceptive.  That's as plain as I can say it!  It can be, it usually is, but it is not required.   All that is required is that the CQ produces sufficent emotional response in a truthful KS. 
   
Missing from your logical analysis is one important aspect of the real life, butt on the line, down and dirty polygraph pretest interview.   It is not solely an intellectual excercise, there are considerable emotions involved, and neither the ignorant or the knowledgeable, logical subject is able to completely control or chose the emotions they feel. 

I wish I had an avatar.
  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box 1904
Ex Member


Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #73 - Oct 3rd, 2007 at 8:32am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Ludovico wrote on Oct 2nd, 2007 at 4:43pm:
Quote:
Lethe,
I'm glad someone said it. Some 65% of American adults are gullible. That grouping is specifically the p/g examiners target market. It is the other 35% that have the guts to tell them they're screwing up and are
indeed screwed up.


Oh, please. Don't you know that "gullible" not even a real word. Its not even in the dictionary.

Lets keep this on topic.

Both Milgram and Zimbardo are important lessons for all.

But tell us, Lethe - o - Lethe, o concealed and forgetful one: about your experience. Or do you only come here only to editorialize?


REFER: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

gullible
One entry found for gullible.

Main Entry: gull·ible
Variant(s): also gull·able  /'g&-l&-b&l/
Function: adjective
: easily duped or cheated
- gull·ibil·i·ty  /"g&-l&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- gull·ibly  /'g&-l&-blE/ adverb
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box 1904
Ex Member


Re: Calling out LieBabyCryBaby
Reply #74 - Oct 3rd, 2007 at 8:48am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Ludovico wrote on Oct 2nd, 2007 at 4:43pm:
[quote author=1904 link=1190256832/45#59 date=1191340375]


Both Milgram and Zimbardo are important lessons for all.



Most P/G examiners suffer from the Zimbardo effect.
You Sir are a typical example.
Give a decent man a polygraph and 10 weeks of brainwashing
and he becomes holier than everyone....A do-gooder from hell.
The Power to devastate others simple dreams and hopes feeds
his putrid ego.

Karma will get ya in the end. Wait and see. Your numbers coming
up.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Calling out LieBabyCryBaby

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