AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

(UTC)

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

News:

You can enhance your privacy when browsing and posting to this forum by using the free and open source Tor Browser and posting as a guest (using a fake e-mail address such as nobody@nowhere.com) or registering with a free, anonymous ProtonMail e-mail account. Registered users can exchange private messages with other registered users and receive notifications.

In addition, check out our live chat server.

AntiPolygraph.org Message Board › Polygraph and CVSA Forums › Polygraph Procedure › Sad Stats

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Add Poll

Send Topic

Sad Stats (Read 21035 times)

digithead Very Senior User Offline Posts: 150 Joined: Apr 11^th, 2006	Re: Sad Stats Reply #30 - Oct 7^th, 2007 at 8:51pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Lethe wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 3:21am: Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 8:29am: Paradiddle wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 4:09am: Common sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster. If I am taking a polygraph exam and I answer all the questions truthfully, and I don't withhold any information at all, aren't I doing everything an ethical person should do? If I recite poetry in my head after each answer, or I do long division in my head after each answer, or if I think of a peaceful beach scene to stay calm throughout the test, would you consider that cheating? Would you consider that to be countermeasures? Sergeant, I think if that behavior was engaged in with the intent of manipulating the results that it would qualify as a countermeasure under any reasonable definition of countermeasure. Anyway, back to the idea that it is okay to "lie" in order to get a job but it is not okay to "cheat", I think we could extend that principle. For instance: Okay: "No officer, I just had two drinks and that was hours ago!" Okay: "No, mom, I'm not going to that party, I'm just going to Billy's house." Okay: "This car will be very reliable and, no, it was never in any accidents." Okay: "If elected, I will lower taxes and improve education and health care." So... is that really what you're saying? That it is perfectly fine to lie to people, it only becomes wrong when you try to manipulate some sort of test? Surely you jest, say it ain't so. Or, perhaps I misunderstand the principle that you are actually elucidating. If so, please correct me. Also, what about deception on one's tax return? Is that lying (and thus okay) or cheating (and thus not okay)? And here lies the crux of the problem, deception itself is neither right or wrong, it is the context in which it occurs which denotes its morality. As a matter of fact, deceit is an adaptive trait common to all species. Viruses fool other species into carrying and replicating them. Other species use camouflage to hide from predators; predators use traps to lure prey. We lie to escape punishment, seduce lovers, secure employment, and prevent hurt feelings. Lying also takes many forms from the simple act of not telling the truth to lies of omission. We also lie to ourselves to rationalize our misfortunes, prevent cognitive dissonance, and externalize blame so that we can feel better about ourselves. We feed our children myths about imaginary beings that bring gifts on certain holidays to good children or bring harm to bad ones. People will even lie and falsely confess to things they didn't do if certain situational factors present themselves. But again, what we are really talking about here is not that lying or deception occurs but the context in which it occurs. Given the prevalence, breadth, and psychology of deceit, it's not surprising that we haven't developed good methods for detecting it. Everyone lies, whether it is for self gain or self protection. But believing that we can reliably detect deceit with a machine is self-deception in its grandest form.


	IP Logged

Paradiddle Very Senior User Offline Posts: 158 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #31 - Oct 7^th, 2007 at 10:36pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	digithead wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 8:51pm: Lethe wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 3:21am: Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 8:29am: Paradiddle wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 4:09am: Common sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster. If I am taking a polygraph exam and I answer all the questions truthfully, and I don't withhold any information at all, aren't I doing everything an ethical person should do? If I recite poetry in my head after each answer, or I do long division in my head after each answer, or if I think of a peaceful beach scene to stay calm throughout the test, would you consider that cheating? Would you consider that to be countermeasures? Sergeant, I think if that behavior was engaged in with the intent of manipulating the results that it would qualify as a countermeasure under any reasonable definition of countermeasure. Anyway, back to the idea that it is okay to "lie" in order to get a job but it is not okay to "cheat", I think we could extend that principle. For instance: Okay: "No officer, I just had two drinks and that was hours ago!" Okay: "No, mom, I'm not going to that party, I'm just going to Billy's house." Okay: "This car will be very reliable and, no, it was never in any accidents." Okay: "If elected, I will lower taxes and improve education and health care." So... is that really what you're saying? That it is perfectly fine to lie to people, it only becomes wrong when you try to manipulate some sort of test? Surely you jest, say it ain't so. Or, perhaps I misunderstand the principle that you are actually elucidating. If so, please correct me. Also, what about deception on one's tax return? Is that lying (and thus okay) or cheating (and thus not okay)? And here lies the crux of the problem, deception itself is neither right or wrong, it is the context in which it occurs which denotes its morality. As a matter of fact, deceit is an adaptive trait common to all species. Viruses fool other species into carrying and replicating them. Other species use camouflage to hide from predators; predators use traps to lure prey. We lie to escape punishment, seduce lovers, secure employment, and prevent hurt feelings. Lying also takes many forms from the simple act of not telling the truth to lies of omission. We also lie to ourselves to rationalize our misfortunes, prevent cognitive dissonance, and externalize blame so that we can feel better about ourselves. We feed our children myths about imaginary beings that bring gifts on certain holidays to good children or bring harm to bad ones. People will even lie and falsely confess to things they didn't do if certain situational factors present themselves. But again, what we are really talking about here is not that lying or deception occurs but the context in which it occurs. Given the prevalence, breadth, and psychology of deceit, it's not surprising that we haven't developed good methods for detecting it. Everyone lies, whether it is for self gain or self protection. But believing that we can reliably detect deceit with a machine is self-deception in its grandest form. Ladies and germs, I present the official cognitive flatulence of the weekend-----brought to you by Milanta. Jiminy Christmas, what the heck does that have to do with the thread D-Head? Your platitudes and moral relativism plays well in the hash bars, but we are discussing the commoness of people attempting to cheat on tests and getting caught----and how polygraph error rates seem to be overshadowed by people getting goofy ideas of cheating on their polygraph tests based on some advice from an internet based "not-for-profit"company (don't forget to check out our selection of t-shirts!) -----which incidentally has a track record of membership polygraph disasters. Why don't you start your own thread regarding your weed-induced postulations on human deception and how it's vitamin for growth.

	Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
	IP Logged

digithead Very Senior User Offline Posts: 150 Joined: Apr 11^th, 2006	Re: Sad Stats Reply #32 - Oct 7^th, 2007 at 11:08pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Paradiddle wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 10:36pm: digithead wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 8:51pm: Lethe wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 3:21am: Sergeant1107 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 8:29am: Paradiddle wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 4:09am: Common sense Lethe. When you get caught cheating on a test----regardless of how you would have perhaps "aced the test" had you not cheated----you are labeled a "cheater." Cheaters lose. Your pointed insinuation is flawed, but clever as usual. You should have been a defense lawyer-----or an insurance adjuster. If I am taking a polygraph exam and I answer all the questions truthfully, and I don't withhold any information at all, aren't I doing everything an ethical person should do? If I recite poetry in my head after each answer, or I do long division in my head after each answer, or if I think of a peaceful beach scene to stay calm throughout the test, would you consider that cheating? Would you consider that to be countermeasures? Sergeant, I think if that behavior was engaged in with the intent of manipulating the results that it would qualify as a countermeasure under any reasonable definition of countermeasure. Anyway, back to the idea that it is okay to "lie" in order to get a job but it is not okay to "cheat", I think we could extend that principle. For instance: Okay: "No officer, I just had two drinks and that was hours ago!" Okay: "No, mom, I'm not going to that party, I'm just going to Billy's house." Okay: "This car will be very reliable and, no, it was never in any accidents." Okay: "If elected, I will lower taxes and improve education and health care." So... is that really what you're saying? That it is perfectly fine to lie to people, it only becomes wrong when you try to manipulate some sort of test? Surely you jest, say it ain't so. Or, perhaps I misunderstand the principle that you are actually elucidating. If so, please correct me. Also, what about deception on one's tax return? Is that lying (and thus okay) or cheating (and thus not okay)? And here lies the crux of the problem, deception itself is neither right or wrong, it is the context in which it occurs which denotes its morality. As a matter of fact, deceit is an adaptive trait common to all species. Viruses fool other species into carrying and replicating them. Other species use camouflage to hide from predators; predators use traps to lure prey. We lie to escape punishment, seduce lovers, secure employment, and prevent hurt feelings. Lying also takes many forms from the simple act of not telling the truth to lies of omission. We also lie to ourselves to rationalize our misfortunes, prevent cognitive dissonance, and externalize blame so that we can feel better about ourselves. We feed our children myths about imaginary beings that bring gifts on certain holidays to good children or bring harm to bad ones. People will even lie and falsely confess to things they didn't do if certain situational factors present themselves. But again, what we are really talking about here is not that lying or deception occurs but the context in which it occurs. Given the prevalence, breadth, and psychology of deceit, it's not surprising that we haven't developed good methods for detecting it. Everyone lies, whether it is for self gain or self protection. But believing that we can reliably detect deceit with a machine is self-deception in its grandest form. Ladies and germs, I present the official cognitive flatulence of the weekend-----brought to you by Milanta. Jiminy Christmas, what the heck does that have to do with the thread D-Head? Your platitudes and moral relativism plays well in the hash bars, but we are discussing the commoness of people attempting to cheat on tests and getting caught----and how polygraph error rates seem to be overshadowed by people getting goofy ideas of cheating on their polygraph tests based on some advice from an internet based "not-for-profit"company (don't forget to check out our selection of t-shirts!) -----which incidentally has a track record of membership polygraph disasters. Why don't you start your own thread regarding your weed-induced postulations on human deception and how it's vitamin for growth. I'm pretty sure that my post was directly on point but if you're keeping score, give yourself bonus points again for ad hominem and baseless accusations you used in your post... But since you insist, the CQT polygraph procedure requires someone to lie about something they did in their past (e.g., denying past DUIs, lying to get out of trouble, whatever probable lie question you guys use now, etc.) so that it can determine that they're lying about something relevant? Aren't those that use CQT polygraphy tacitly approving that some lies and behaviors are worse than others? Simply put, CQT polygraph relies on lies to find other lies. How's that work in the moral relativism scheme of things?


	IP Logged

Paradiddle Very Senior User Offline Posts: 158 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #33 - Oct 7^th, 2007 at 11:52pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Little boy, have you lost your mommy? Why don't you post your polygraph analysis on well----hmmm.....the post titled Polygraph Analysis .

	Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
	IP Logged

Paradiddle Very Senior User Offline Posts: 158 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #34 - Oct 7^th, 2007 at 11:59pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	D-Head please excuse my ad hom, but your thread is ignoring Mystery Meat's original post. Your musings on polygraph and deception analysis is puffy and belongs in a thread relating to analysis (if you can call your platitudes and musings as such.)

	Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
	IP Logged

digithead Very Senior User Offline Posts: 150 Joined: Apr 11^th, 2006	Re: Sad Stats Reply #35 - Oct 8^th, 2007 at 12:03am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Paradiddle wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 11:52pm: Little boy, have you lost your mommy? Why don't you post your polygraph analysis on well----hmmm.....the post titled Polygraph Analysis . We may well have gotten off-topic but nonetheless... And I'm not going to engage in childish name calling... In this very thread, you guys are the ones who brought up that trying to beat the polygraph was morally corrupt. So I'll ask you again: since CQT polygraph relies on expecting people to lie so it can find other lies, how's that work in the moral relativism scheme of things?


	IP Logged

V New User Offline Would you prefer a lie or the truth ? Posts: 2 Joined: Oct 7^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #36 - Oct 8^th, 2007 at 12:16am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Paradiddle, I am neither for, or against polygraphy, but all these gyrations to mask not answering the questions. Answer the question, straight up, alot of folks follow this board, and flatly your credibility and your other polygraphers is questionable, against these well thought out people. Do you have some deep dark secret that needs to be hidden. Just my 2 Cents but answer the dam questions. Lethe, Digithead Well done

	It is to Madame Justice that I dedicate this concerto.
	IP Logged

Paradiddle Very Senior User Offline Posts: 158 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #37 - Oct 8^th, 2007 at 12:35am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	digithead wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 12:03am: Paradiddle wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 11:52pm: Little boy, have you lost your mommy? Why don't you post your polygraph analysis on well----hmmm.....the post titled Polygraph Analysis . We may well have gotten off-topic but nonetheless... And I'm not going to engage in childish name calling... In this very thread, you guys are the ones who brought up that trying to beat the polygraph was morally corrupt. So I'll ask you again: since CQT polygraph relies on expecting people to lie so it can find other lies, how's that work in the moral relativism scheme of things? Who on earth ever claims that a person has to lie in order to pass a polygraph exam? Such simplistic characterizations of the CQT method is tiresome, and D-Head, Lethe, and all others know this. An examinee need not lie on a CQT test to pass. V is for vaginitis, not vendetta---in the medical sense----nice try, and you need not use profanity V.

	Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
	IP Logged

digithead Very Senior User Offline Posts: 150 Joined: Apr 11^th, 2006	Re: Sad Stats Reply #38 - Oct 8^th, 2007 at 1:14am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Paradiddle wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 12:35am: digithead wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 12:03am: Paradiddle wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 11:52pm: Little boy, have you lost your mommy? Why don't you post your polygraph analysis on well----hmmm.....the post titled Polygraph Analysis . We may well have gotten off-topic but nonetheless... And I'm not going to engage in childish name calling... In this very thread, you guys are the ones who brought up that trying to beat the polygraph was morally corrupt. So I'll ask you again: since CQT polygraph relies on expecting people to lie so it can find other lies, how's that work in the moral relativism scheme of things? Who on earth ever claims that a person has to lie in order to pass a polygraph exam? Such simplistic characterizations of the CQT method is tiresome, and D-Head, Lethe, and all others know this. An examinee need not lie on a CQT test to pass. V is for vaginitis, not vendetta---in the medical sense----nice try, and you need not use profanity V. Hmm, now that doesn't comport at all with Matte's Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph (1996). On page 324 he defines a control question as a question "designed to offer the threat to the well-being of the examinee who is expected to lie to that question, which is then used for comparison with the neighboring relevant question in the same test." He then goes on to describe three types of control questions - non-current exclusive, current exclusive, and non-exclusive - that all have slightly different purposes but nonetheless each assumes that the subject will lie. He also compares the Bartlett CQT version which uses all three against the Honts CQT version which uses only the non-current exclusive type. So explain to me again how CQT or ZCT or "whatever the heck you're calling it now" doesn't rely on expecting people to lie so it can find other lies...


	IP Logged

Ludovico Senior User Offline I was cured all right. Posts: 99 Joined: Sep 29^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #39 - Oct 8^th, 2007 at 1:22am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	digithead wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 8:51pm: And here lies the crux of the problem, deception itself is neither right or wrong, it is the context in which it occurs which denotes its morality. As a matter of fact, deceit is an adaptive trait common to all species. Viruses fool other species into carrying and replicating them. Other species use camouflage to hide from predators; predators use traps to lure prey. We lie to escape punishment, seduce lovers, secure employment, and prevent hurt feelings. Lying also takes many forms from the simple act of not telling the truth to lies of omission. We also lie to ourselves to rationalize our misfortunes, prevent cognitive dissonance, and externalize blame so that we can feel better about ourselves. We feed our children myths about imaginary beings that bring gifts on certain holidays to good children or bring harm to bad ones. People will even lie and falsely confess to things they didn't do if certain situational factors present themselves. But again, what we are really talking about here is not that lying or deception occurs but the context in which it occurs. Given the prevalence, breadth, and psychology of deceit, it's not surprising that we haven't developed good methods for detecting it. Everyone lies, whether it is for self gain or self protection. But believing that we can reliably detect deceit with a machine is self-deception in its grandest form. D-Head, you'r philosophizing about lying is as underwhelming as your vacant assessment of the mathematical and empirical complexities of polygraph. No. Its more underwhelming. Too bad some people are impressed with simple pompousness. The only logical conclusion that could result from your statements is some version of "don't bother." Hardly an expression of scientific curiosity, wouldn't you say? Your one-sided conversation is more evidence that you are not the scientist you claim to be. To suggest that it is self-deception to attempt to detect deceit with a machine is a transparent straw-man argument. Polygraph is a test. The thing about tests, as you should know, is that there may never be any form of perfect test - for IQ, personality, cholesterol, heart disease, HIV, anthrax or anything else. They are just tests. They have there usefulness and their limitations. Your statements imply that you doubt there are any useful or reliable physiological, behavioral, or psychological indicators of deception. How could that be? Do people not know when they are deceiving? Your own statements indicate they might be aware of their motivation for doing so. Do you really think those motivational states and and behavioral choices have no correlated features in physiology? If so, how do you explain the NRC study which conceded "well above chance" levels of accuracy. That hardly sounds like accepting the null hypothesis to me. Your statements reflect your desperation about the need for the polygraph not to work. All I can surmise is that you must have some need to think of yourself as a really good liar, and that your deception will go undetected due either to your masterful skills or the utter futility of any attempt to determine your true credibility. Though you seem not much of a scientist, neither are you any type of philosopher. Conversations about "moral relativism" are a dodge. They are a cudgel with which to beat one's opponent, when your argument is weak and when you are ill-prepared to understand complex discussions about ethics and overlapping philosophical questions like how should people live and behave in communities. Its convenient in the field to assume that deceit and honesty, or lying and truthtelling, are uniform and dichotomous opposites. In both linguistics and behavior they are often neither. But as you indicated, people generally know when and why the lie. That is exactly why we can expect the act of lying to produce physiological changes that can in fact be measured with a "machine." Scary thought huh? So, if you're going to get all puffed up and beat your intellectual chest about how common, normal and adaptive deceit may be, then you also owe it to consider that adaptive and positive attributes of truthtelling. Or you could simply have another glass of wine and pontificate some more - o great wearer of stained sweatpants and holder of the intellectual cards.

	Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well. To what do I owe the extreme pleasure of this surprising visit?
	IP Logged

digithead Very Senior User Offline Posts: 150 Joined: Apr 11^th, 2006	Re: Sad Stats Reply #40 - Oct 8^th, 2007 at 2:29am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Ludovico wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 1:22am: D-Head, you'r philosophizing about lying is as underwhelming as your vacant assessment of the mathematical and empirical complexities of polygraph. No. Its more underwhelming. Too bad some people are impressed with simple pompousness. Thanks, your lengthy response to what you claim is pompous must mean that I've hit on something... Ludovico wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 1:22am: The only logical conclusion that could result from your statements is some version of "don't bother." Hardly an expression of scientific curiosity, wouldn't you say? Your one-sided conversation is more evidence that you are not the scientist you claim to be. Yes, the evidence shows that mechanical ability to detect deception from physiological signs is limited. What's not limited is the mechanical ability to detect guilty knowledge... Since you're responding to me, that would suggest something more than one-sided conversation... Ludovico wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 1:22am: To suggest that it is self-deception to attempt to detect deceit with a machine is a transparent straw-man argument. Polygraph is a test. The thing about tests, as you should know, is that there may never be any form of perfect test - for IQ, personality, cholesterol, heart disease, HIV, anthrax or anything else. They are just tests. They have there usefulness and their limitations. You really should take a course in logic or read something on logical fallacies. A straw man is when you caricature a position to make it easier to attack. I've done no such thing... And you keep mixing constructs such as intelligence, cholesterol, IQ and personality which everyone has with testing for the presence or absense of a condition, which is what polygraphy is trying to do. You need to compare apples to apples... Ludovico wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 1:22am: Your statements imply that you doubt there are any useful or reliable physiological, behavioral, or psychological indicators of deception. How could that be? Do people not know when they are deceiving? Your own statements indicate they might be aware of their motivation for doing so. Do you really think those motivational states and and behavioral choices have no correlated features in physiology? If so, how do you explain the NRC study which conceded "well above chance" levels of accuracy. That hardly sounds like accepting the null hypothesis to me. Because the NRC quote - which is about specific issue exams and not screening applications - can be understood in terms that specific issue testing is related to cognition or guilty knowledge and therefore is more closely related to the scientific GKT... And yes, I do think there are motivational states and behavioral choices that are correlated in physiology. What I don't believe is that there is any evidence that the mere presence or absence of these features can distinguish truth from deception with any degree of reliability... Ludovico wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 1:22am: Your statements reflect your desperation about the need for the polygraph not to work. All I can surmise is that you must have some need to think of yourself as a really good liar, and that your deception will go undetected due either to your masterful skills or the utter futility of any attempt to determine your true credibility. Glad you're psychoanalyzing my motives but I have no desperate need for the polygraph to not work. I wish it did work but the preponderance of the evidence leads me to a different conclusion... In the end, my true credibility will be written by my colleagues and their measure of my influence on our discipline. Until then, I just try to do my best... Ludovico wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 1:22am: Though you seem not much of a scientist, neither are you any type of philosopher. You're entitled to your opinion... Ludovico wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 1:22am: Conversations about "moral relativism" are a dodge. They are a cudgel with which to beat one's opponent, when your argument is weak and when you are ill-prepared to understand complex discussions about ethics and overlapping philosophical questions like how should people live and behave in communities. Actually, I think ethics and normative behavior are appropriate discussions... As for you repeatedly stating that my argument is weak without corroborative evidence does not make your statement true. Ludovico wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 1:22am: Its convenient in the field to assume that deceit and honesty, or lying and truthtelling, are uniform and dichotomous opposites. In both linguistics and behavior they are often neither. But as you indicated, people generally know when and why the lie. That is exactly why we can expect the act of lying to produce physiological changes that can in fact be measured with a "machine." Scary thought huh? You need to read more about evolutionary adaptive traits and how deception - in the real sense of the word - works. Additionally, my statement that the breadth, depth, and prevalence of deception in all its forms make it hard to detect. How does that comport to a belief that it is dichotomous? Ludovico wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 1:22am: So, if you're going to get all puffed up and beat your intellectual chest about how common, normal and adaptive deceit may be, then you also owe it to consider that adaptive and positive attributes of truthtelling. There is a ton of research on altruism and its evolutionary purposes. You should look some of it up, it's fascinating. I've found E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology text to most informative. Additionally, Dawkin's The Selfish Gene has a lot of great material in it... But since we are talking about detecting deception, I apologize for focusing solely on that side of human existence... Ludovico wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 1:22am: Or you could simply have another glass of wine and pontificate some more - o great wearer of stained sweatpants and holder of the intellectual cards. Again, why do you feel the need to insult people? I'd speculate on the reasons but I'll just assume that you also have deep-seated reasons... Anyhow, I'll be off the board for a week or so while I travel for job talks as I'm wrapping my Ph.D. up and I need to start earning real money again. But until then, I'll be waiting for the next round of invictive, vitriol, ad hom, and snarkiness from you guys...


	IP Logged

V New User Offline Would you prefer a lie or the truth ? Posts: 2 Joined: Oct 7^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #41 - Oct 8^th, 2007 at 4:54am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Paradiddle wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 12:35am: digithead wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 12:03am: Paradiddle wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 11:52pm: Little boy, have you lost your mommy? Why don't you post your polygraph analysis on well----hmmm.....the post titled Polygraph Analysis . We may well have gotten off-topic but nonetheless... And I'm not going to engage in childish name calling... In this very thread, you guys are the ones who brought up that trying to beat the polygraph was morally corrupt. So I'll ask you again: since CQT polygraph relies on expecting people to lie so it can find other lies, how's that work in the moral relativism scheme of things? Who on earth ever claims that a person has to lie in order to pass a polygraph exam? Such simplistic characterizations of the CQT method is tiresome, and D-Head, Lethe, and all others know this. An examinee need not lie on a CQT test to pass. V is for vaginitis, not vendetta---in the medical sense----nice try, and you need not use profanity V. paradiddle, You and the rest of your polygraph friends more and more prove why these people on here are angry. You act like a bunch of thugs. If the information on here is just so wrong, why do you fight so hard to mock and insult people. I will not be coming back here but let me just say, I fully understand that if you act this way on here, god help anyone one taking a polygraph test. This site has quite the following on many campuses too. Keep proving the anti people right. V

	It is to Madame Justice that I dedicate this concerto.
	IP Logged

1904 Ex Member	Re: Sad Stats Reply #42 - Oct 8^th, 2007 at 12:13pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 1:13am: Again, this site is a dis-service to honest people. Quantum in ura hora imputas?


	IP Logged

Paradiddle Very Senior User Offline Posts: 158 Joined: Sep 24^th, 2007	Re: Sad Stats Reply #43 - Oct 8^th, 2007 at 12:19pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	V wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 4:54am: Paradiddle wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 12:35am: digithead wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 12:03am: Paradiddle wrote on Oct 7^th, 2007 at 11:52pm: Little boy, have you lost your mommy? Why don't you post your polygraph analysis on well----hmmm.....the post titled Polygraph Analysis . We may well have gotten off-topic but nonetheless... And I'm not going to engage in childish name calling... In this very thread, you guys are the ones who brought up that trying to beat the polygraph was morally corrupt. So I'll ask you again: since CQT polygraph relies on expecting people to lie so it can find other lies, how's that work in the moral relativism scheme of things? Who on earth ever claims that a person has to lie in order to pass a polygraph exam? Such simplistic characterizations of the CQT method is tiresome, and D-Head, Lethe, and all others know this. An examinee need not lie on a CQT test to pass. V is for vaginitis, not vendetta---in the medical sense----nice try, and you need not use profanity V. paradiddle, You and the rest of your polygraph friends more and more prove why these people on here are angry. You act like a bunch of thugs. If the information on here is just so wrong, why do you fight so hard to mock and insult people. I will not be coming back here but let me just say, I fully understand that if you act this way on here, god help anyone one taking a polygraph test. This site has quite the following on many campuses too. Keep proving the anti people right. V D-Head---lies are evolutionary defense mechanisms, rather like memetic viruses of the mind..blah blah blah Ludovico----well, the polygraph does utilize mathmatics and probabilities, and philosophy doesn't really play so much. Paradiddle----D-head, this thread is titled Sad stats---not the evolution of the bicameral mind and memetic propensities V---hey paradiddle---answer the damn question Paradiddle----hey V---go fly a kite--- V---you guys are so mean boohoohooo.

	Cheats and the Cheating Cheaters who try to Cheat us.
	IP Logged

Sergeant1107 God Member Offline Posts: 730 Location: Connecticut, USA Joined: May 21^st, 2005 Gender:	Re: Sad Stats Reply #44 - Oct 8^th, 2007 at 12:44pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Wonder_Woman wrote on Oct 6^th, 2007 at 1:13am: Again, this site is a dis-service to honest people. I am an honest person, and this site has been nothing more than a source of reasonable, logical information for me. On the other hand, the inaccuracy of the polygraph was responsible for me being dropped from the applicant list for three separate police departments. In my experience, the polygraph is a disservice to honest people.

	Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
	IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Sad Stats

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview

Message Icon:

Subject:

Message:
You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:

Text size: pt

More Smilies

View All Smilies

Collapse/Expand additional features

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:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Attachment 4:

Attachment 5:

Attachment 6:

Attachment 7:

Attachment 8:

Attachment 9:

Attachment 10:

Disable UBBC and Smilies:

Check this if you wish to disable parsing of ubbc tags and smilies.