Barry_C wrote on Dec 20
th, 2007 at 12:19am:
Quote: Question. Where the report says that some of the subjects had the control questions "explained" and others didn't, is that talking about the nomal, B.S., deceptive "explanation" that polygraphers normally give? Or is it talking about a real, truthful, and in line with reality explanation on how the control questions really work?
If the former, that is very strong evidence that the subject needs to be deceived in order to produce accurate results (and thus that people who know the truth will produce charts that are little better than chance). If the later, it should convince you polygraphers to cut the crap and be truthful with people since it won't harm accuracy and will lead fewer innocent people to try countermeasures.
What you'd find if you were to read the study is that your "BS" approach does nothing for the truthful, which is why I've told you time and again, it's unnecessary. Don't mistake that with useless, however, as they found that it does help better identify the deceptive. Now that your house of cards has fallen, will you be honest or will you continue spewing your unsupported theories (that are contradicted by Dr. Rovner's work)?
By the way, why do you have such a problem with the way some examiners introduce the CQTs? You act as if you are the ethics police. Is is wrong when researchers "mislead" their subjects during an experiment?
Good grief. It's been, like, two years that I've been trying to get this thing to answer my question, does the deception used by polygraphers have a purpose? It's a simple yes or no question and, apparently, Chaplain Barry has finally, after numerous personal insults, indicated that the answer is yes. Thank you.
According to the chaplain, the deception does not improve the accuracy of the exam itself but it "help[s] better identify the deceptive" in some unspecified manner. Now, why would it take two years to get that answer? I wonder.
In any event,
how does it help identify the deceptive? Simply claiming that it does is hardly an answer at all, one would hardly expect the practice to help identify a good place to have lunch.
Additionally, I'm sure that thinking the practice is benign to the innocent helps you sleep at night, but it seems unlikely to be true. Think about it. Is the average person more or less likely to be honest when someone is actively trying to trick her?
Maybe I'll have an answer before the start of the next decade! Oh, and Barry, I hate to break it to you, but I'm not going to be sending you a Christmas present this year. (That doesn't bode well for me getting an answer before the next presidential administration, Barry only answers questions from his good buddies and not from people who don't uncritically accept whatever answer he grudgingly proffers)
If you want to find out where I'm going with this, answer the questions. Thanks.