Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3]  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin (Read 51192 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin
Reply #30 - Dec 30th, 2007 at 2:41am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 30th, 2007 at 1:22am:
Donna,

Actually, Mythbusters did not declare the supposed "myth" that the lie detector can be beaten to be "busted." Instead, they pronounced it "plausible." But in fact it's more than simply plausible. As noted in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 26 of the 4th edition), in a survey of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, "members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, 'The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions.' Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph 'tests' can be beaten."



The link provided for this "survey" in your book's bibliography is a dead link.

You fail to point out that this is an opinion poll which is pretty much without value absent information regarding what information was provided in the poll to establish the parameters of the subject matter.

I suppose you would prefer that we believe that any member of the Society for Psychophysiological Research possessed knowledge about polygraph, when in fact Psychophysiology is a broad discipline and many may have no more concept of what it does and doesn't do that the average man on the street. This is especially true since their particular membership requirements are pretty broad to wit:
(a) published scientific research in psychophysiology or related areas;
(b) membership in one of the major scientific associations for psychological, neuroscience, medical, biological, or engineering professions; or
(c) interest in psychophysiology, and sponsorship by two members of the Society.

While it would certainly help your argument if we knew that only persons from category A were polled, it is at least as likely that 2/3 of those polled came from categories B and C. This means that the possible qualifications of the persons polled consisted of "membership in another organization" or a casual interest and 2 buddies who were members.

This does not even take into account the "Student Membership class

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Donna.Taylor
User
**
Offline



Posts: 37
Joined: Oct 23rd, 2007
Re: Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin
Reply #31 - Dec 30th, 2007 at 4:03am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 30th, 2007 at 1:22am:
Donna,

Actually, Mythbusters did not declare the supposed "myth" that the lie detector can be beaten to be "busted." Instead, they pronounced it "plausible." But in fact it's more than simply plausible. As noted in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (at p. 26 of the 4th edition), in a survey of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research, "members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, 'The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions.' Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph 'tests' can be beaten."


GM,
Plausible....but the polygraph correctly identified 3 out of 3! Wink

Research members think the CQT can be beaten.....tell that to the numerous individuals I and other examiners have caught augmenting their responses on the control questions. 

I believe it was Nonombre that said if they would have incorrectly identified the individuals AP would have had it posted in big bold RED letters.  Bottom line is the tests were good and accurate!

I will state on the record that I do not agree with the 'DR' status Mr. Martin uses; however, he doesn't need a PH.D behind his name to run a good exam.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Sergeant1107
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 730
Location: Connecticut, USA
Joined: May 21st, 2005
Gender: Male
Re: Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin
Reply #32 - Dec 30th, 2007 at 9:43am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Donna.Taylor wrote on Dec 30th, 2007 at 4:03am:
GM,
Plausible....but the polygraph correctly identified 3 out of 3! Wink

Research members think the CQT can be beaten.....tell that to the numerous individuals I and other examiners have caught augmenting their responses on the control questions.  


I think that proves that not everyone can beat the CQT, but it hardly proves that no one can.  I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that everyone who uses CM's is successful in beating the polygraph, so proving that some people who use CM's still fail is simply affirming a known fact.

By definition, any successful use of countermeasures goes undetected.  I don't think it is reasonable to assume that no one, in the history of the polygraph, has passed a CQT by using countermeasures.  While that assumption certainly doesn't prove that the CQT can be beaten, neither does the statement that some people who use CM's are caught doing so prove that the CQT cannot be beaten.
  

Lorsque vous utilisez un argumentum ad hominem, tout le monde sait que vous êtes intellectuellement faillite.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Reynold
Guest


Re: Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin
Reply #33 - Sep 13th, 2008 at 1:18pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
I have watched this episode, and I was amazed. I thought that lie detectors were really credulous.


But after reading what you wrote about the phony pHD's and stuff, I am now really confused of how can Mythbusters, one of my favorite shows, dislplay a fraud.


But asking you again,

So, "Is the credibility of lie detectors still a myth?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin
Reply #34 - Sep 13th, 2008 at 1:53pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Reynold,

I, too, am mystified by Mythbusters' decision to deceive the public regarding "Dr." Michael Martin's credentials, and disappointed that the show served to perpetuate the myth of the lie detector. You might want to ask Jamie Hyneman about this. He may be contacted at mythbusters@m5industries.com.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box spanker76
New User
*
Offline



Posts: 1
Joined: Sep 24th, 2008
Re: Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin
Reply #35 - Sep 25th, 2008 at 2:03pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
wow.... just wow.

As someone who just got a PhD in molecular biology from a top 5 university I am incredulous.
The extent of my knowledge about polygraphs is that they are considered to be a pseudoscience.  I had no idea, however, that it was such an incestuous little world.
As an impartial observer who stumbled across this page (I don't even remember how) I will tell you that I just downgraded my opinion substantially.  Any profession who knowingly lets its members falsely pass themselves off as "doctors" is simply bogus.
I worked in the molecular biology field for 10 years before starting my PhD program.  Seven years and one degree later I have realized that there is no way that I would have learned the appropriate application of the scientific method or how to properly design and assess experiments without attending grad school.  It is a real bitch, and that is why jokers like this "Dr." Mike guy are worse than pretenders, they are downright charlatans.
This is the first I have ever heard of the APA, but I am already spreading the word about this completely bogus association run by wannabes who either don't have the inclination or the brains to put in the real work to become a doctor.
Oh, and about that nonombre poster... don't even bother.  I've been arguing with idiots on message boards for years, and guys like that will never address your question or even read your full response.  They'll just keep posting the same ALL CAPS, HAHAHA!  Cool  responses over and over.  Don't waste your time on fools.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Offline


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 6060
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin
Reply #36 - Sep 25th, 2008 at 2:28pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
spanker76,

Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org and congratulations on completing your doctoral degree. I agree that the American Polygraph Association's tolerance of members who falsely hold themselves out as Ph.D.s is disgraceful. The APA has also declined to sanction a polygraph school that reportedly shortchanged students on hours and a member who defamed me in a polygraph examination that was video recorded for evidentiary purposes.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: antipolygraph.org@protonmail.com
Wire: @ap_org
Threema: A4PYDD5S
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box SanchoPanza
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 8th, 2007
Re: Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin
Reply #37 - Sep 25th, 2008 at 5:05pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Spanker76   Congratulations on your Phd. This is a bit off topic but would you use your knowledge of molecular biology to address a discussion that is occurring off of this board.

The argument asks the question: What is the potential of cross contamination or identification error regarding a forensic sample of blood if the sample donor had received a recent transfusion of two pints of whole blood from a non-relative during a surgery? Assume for the sake of this argument that the sample will require polymerase chain reaction to provide a suitable comparison. If it is possible, can you predict how long the contamination or identification error might be possible after the surgery. Would it be hours? days? weeks?

In other words, in the context of a novel, would it be possible for the donor blood to result in a CODIS "hit" on someone who was not at the scene of the crime?

I realize that these circumstances are pretty unlikely to occur in real life, but is the possibility supportable by science?

Thanks

Sancho Panza
  

Quand vous citez des langues que vous ne parlez pas afin de sembler intellegent, vous vous avérez seulement que votre tête est gonflée mais videz.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box polytek
User
**
Offline



Posts: 28
Joined: Jul 30th, 2008
Re: Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin
Reply #38 - Sep 26th, 2008 at 2:51pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dear Spanker 76

You have quite aptly pigeonholed the APA and blusterers like SP.
The APA ethos produces megalomaniacs who deem it acceptable to festoon themselves with phony titles.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box puck
Guest


Re: Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin
Reply #39 - Nov 10th, 2008 at 4:49am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Why on earth would a polygraph "expert"  require, much less need to misrepresent, a PhD, to begin with? Philip Scala, the man who headed the team that infiltrated and eventually brought down the Gambino crime family, only had his Masters in psychology. What am I missing?

And yeah I do find it mind-numbingly underhanded, for an "expert" to ignore the very protocol that challenges the premise they're upholding as fact.  Thereby neither proving their case, nor disproving yours. These shows are always skewed toward predetermined results. You'd hope they'd drop a segment in a case like this, but alas, I don't think this is the first time they've opted for shoddy methodology to obtain a desired conclusion.

btw there is an account of a woman whose escape from a cult, depended on fooling a crude lie detector, which the cult used for a technique called audit councilling. It's believed that it's purpose is to control people's behavior, attitudes, etc... She was terrified because the needle did seem to reflect a difference in calm and emotionally agitated  states (these sessions often lasted between 1 - 2.5 hours.)  She successfully beat the machine by thinking intensely, about things that made her happy (too bad she didn't know about tongue biting technique etc...). So it does seem possible.

Cheers
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box guest
Guest


Re: Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin
Reply #40 - Feb 11th, 2009 at 6:25pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
hello can you tell me the difference between controled and relevant questionns.  And give me some examples of some of those questions still not getting the diffence..  Thanks alot.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box hratli
Guest


Re: Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin
Reply #41 - May 27th, 2021 at 6:03am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
The problem with polygraph, even though if it wasn't "exposed", there will be people who secretly knows/trained how to beat it. This is why people shouldn't rely on this machine. Imagine, people letting their guard down to someone who has passed the polygraph, earning their trust, but in reality has done heinous crimes. The harm it may do outweighs the good in this scenario.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Mythbusters Beat the Lie Detector Episode Featuring Phony Ph.D. "Dr." Michael Martin

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