nopolycop wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 4:21pm:


OK then, how about some additional rules of decorum nopoly.
I believe all are keenly aware of your hellbent determination to outlaw applicant screening polygraph. So, why don't you snip the cheap shots here and now. One of the reasons why you have been ignored in the past is that you constantly refer to polygraph and polygraph examiners as a "sham, shamartist, fraud, BS, Phony, con, conartist, congame, hokus......you get the picture. If polygraph is a sham, than that makes thousands of loyal practioners "sham artists"------which infers a lower form of life. Not cool. I know that I am far more aware of polygraph, polygraph research, the history of both successes and failures, the nuances, the uses, strengths and limitations, and the personal beliefs of examiners------than you, PERIOD. So, with that, can you treat your debatees as people who are committed to good practices, ethical treatment of people, and lawful investigation? If you want to discuss the law with a lawyer, you don't constantly refer to that person as a weasel. It kinda slams the discussion, eh?



So, knowing your strongly held belief thet there is misuse of polygraph regarding applicant screening, are you capable of not refering to polygraph as pseudoscience? If so, than go ahead and add every other psych test to the "pseudo science" category, and we will agree to end what could be a more informed discussion.

Quote:


How else am I to interpret your flame baiting, high-brow condescention of a test which thousands of more qualified authorities and researchers have concluded as being a most useful tool in indicating the common physiological earmarks of deception.  Thoughtful Examiners do not call the polygraph a "lie detector." It is not a lie detector as you have stated. 

You average what, 20-25 avidly negativistic screeds regarding polygraph per day----at all times of the day. In my village, that's called hellbent. In the psychological circles, it is called fixated/ fixed attention. Whatever.

Quote:


Agreed. No one questions what you believe, with 20 posts or so a day, we get the picture. The problem is that there might be some who believe you are a criminal obstructionist. You bemoan the best investigative device for getting clues when physical evidence is out of view, and you spread negative material to thousands on this site, all because you are penniless, jobeless....oh...wait, you are a successful lawman with 30 years. You seem to be doing alright, aside from the negativistic fixation on an odd yet useful test. I would prefer to elevate the discussion, but it is difficult with even many gentle souls here who keep refering the PEER REVIEWED STUDIES  as non peer-reviewed studies. Ray Nelson tries to explain Bayesian Statistical analysis, Monte Carlo probability tools and the like, but when he does, some here get cross-eyed and claim he is obfuscating. Pseudo science? No, it is called science. There are many peer-reviewed scientific studies on polygraph. The field is so diverse that there is no one single study to cover all aspects----much like the "soft science" of psychometric testing.
Quote:

I am beginning to think that you sir, cannot "see" anything. Google "Inductive Reasoning." 
See, call me and my profession a sham, a fraud, pseudoscience, and the discussion devolves into disfunctionalism.

Quote:


Parroting with a dash of pickeled Inductive Reasoning.

Quote:

The NAS was both encouraging and critical of polygraph. You focus on only the negative (it seems)---whereas most thoughtful examiners take the good with the bad. Hasn't there been some 10 peer-reviewed studies published since that NAS 5 year old study? Apparently the scientific community and the field of polygraph has made up and kissed since then. I and others were willing to cease refering to you as an investigative obstructionist (criminal)---even though the definition is technically true, regardless of what your personal opinion is----but the world is gray, not black and white. Meaningful dialogue begins when you stop "begging the Point/Question"---a debate tactic that puts meaningful discussion into a wheelspin. Google" Begging the point"---it is a passive aggressive tactic used by folks who can't progress mentally past the stage of "stick in the mud." Polygraph isn't pseudoscience any more than any other psychological test which has scoring details not readily available to the public. Try getting the answers to the MMPIand the scoring software, or try geting the precise applicational guidelines for administering a Rorschack (sp?) ink blot test from the proifessionals who administer them. There is no obligation to reveal every detail about a test.  If I gave you a set of polygraph charts, could you score them on the 7 point scale? Could you then Rank order score them? Could you use Bayesian statistical formulas to look at a group of tests and calculate norms? No, and no one at this site cares to reveal that there are standards of chart evaluation, scoring algorythms, and cut-offs. The final call is one of math, not hunch. 

Fact is, your labels indicate that you know 2 things about polygraph. Jack and S____, and Jack left town.

I edited that profanity instantly after typing it. You must have been waiting with bated breath as I hadn't even a minute to flash edit spelling. Pardon the brashness. I am obviously disappointed in your demonstration of ignoring the obvious. 

Additionally, you ignored the pulp of my post.