notguilty1 wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 6:01am:


"notguilty1"

I recognize that I can never change your opinion but for the purpose of "friendly" discussion, I will try to revisit my point.

Polygraph does not detect lies, period! No (informed) examiner, in a technical discussion of how polygraph works would say so.  Now, if after the examination, your examiner says "you're lying", it is said for the reason of simplicity and steamlining the conversation, NOT as a technical discussion of the results! The technical discussion of how it works should have already been engaged in during the pre-test interview.  I will assume you received that as well.

When I made the comment of not caring what your examiner said, I don't!  Many examiners say and do things during their examination which I disagree with.  Some of which I read on this board (if honestly beng reported).  I have my training and stick to it.  Some do not.  Sorry, I can't help that, but I will not be held responsible for what someone else said or did.  Nor can I explain everything someone else did.  Furthermore, I certainly will not be held responsible to the misrepresentation of the polygraph process you present here, for the convenience of trying to prove your point.  

You see, no flip-flopping by me.  

Sackett

Hey Nonpoly don't confuse Sackett with facts even if they come from his own organizations.
Read his posts he's all over the place with his statements. 
Maybe he should log on to the APA's web site and see what his teams game plan is before he gets out on the field.

The words “deception” and “lie” are not automatically transposable.  A person can be deceptive without actually lying.  But, if you are lying, you are most definitely being deceptive.  I know it may be difficult to grasp the concept, but give it a try.  Think of it as interviewing a person who is beating around the bush when you ask a question.  This is a common occurrence to experienced law enforcement professionals.  The person may not be lying to you, but they are being deceptive.   (You alleged law enforcement types on this board should know what I am talking about)  An experienced law enforcement professional who conducts detailed and thorough interviews of victims, witnesses and suspects will understand.  A person like this would have difficulty in “passing” a polygraph examination.  That is to say, a deceptive result would be expected and certainly not surprising.  That is where a highly skilled and professional examiner, such as Sackett, would conduct a post-test interview in an attempt to resolve the issue.  It may seem as though this is “splitting hairs”, but that is a part of the sophistication of the polygraph profession.    

“Lie detector” is a term of convenience utilized by lay people who do not understand the complexity of the discipline of Forensic Psychophysiological Detection of Deception.

And yes, it works, and works very well.  Which is why I use it almost daily.  Give me a better mouse trap and I’ll be glad to use it.  Until then, I will continue to use what has shown to be successful, effective and legal.   

de•cep•tion  –noun 
1. the act of deceiving; the state of being deceived
2. something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud; artifice.
Synonyms 2. trick, stratagem, ruse, wile, hoax, imposture.

Lie  -noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood
2.  something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.  an inaccurate or false statement. 
4.  the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
5.  to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6.  to express what is false; convey a false impression.
7.  to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.

"n.p.c.".

you wrote:  "First, I am not making you look like a liar,  you are doing a pretty good job of that yourself. 

Yeah?!  How so?  What have I stated here that has been nothing  more than a difference of your opinion..?

In none of the three polygraphs I have taken, was the techno-babble explained, just the lie that the polygraph can detect if I was lying."

Once again, you're asking me to explain something outside my responsibility.  What can I answer for you that I could possibly be responsible for...?

Sackett

sackett wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2008 at 3:52am:


Since my polygraphs were outside your responsibility, it is also outside your responsibility to make generalizations about the polygraph industry, since any polygraph exam you don't personally give you have no control over.

So, when you make these statements, you are lying, misleading, deceiving, etc.   

I frankly find your whole argument here stupid, and simply proffered to confuse uninformed readers.

EJohnson wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2008 at 1:47am:


No, not at all. your analogy is quite silly actually.
But it does illustrate the subconscious hierarchy to which you have assigned the polygraph - and i agree with you. It has no more status than a garage tool.

Poisons save lives.
Lies save lives.
Criminal activity also saves lies.

Your point has no steam feller.

Quote:


LALE, you are clearly having fun, eh? Antipolygraph activists are trying to change the industry, pro-polygraph activists are advocating the positive uses and both parties come here to debunk one another. And LALE is after something altogether different.

My anology of using computerized Scantools on modern automobiles---which by the way are more technologically advanced than the first space shuttle----fits quite well. The Scantool doesn't detect malfunctions nor does it claim to (see your point here little man), as many a consumer has assumed. The Scantool pulls a code from the vehicles' computer system. The code doesn't merely tell the technician "fix the suspension actuators"---but instead, the code aids the technician by "indicating" (i.e."problem indicated")a system gliche, but the code does not pinpoint precisely what the malfunction is.

So one could not call the computerized scantool a diagnostic computer in the true sense of the word----but it is more properly labeled a "diagnostic aid." Techs love them, but do not worship them.

Similarly, the polygraph is short-hand called a lie detector, although it really is a tool to aid investigaters in "pulling a code" from individuals. It is imperfect, and when an error occurs, troublesome to say the least. Like in the analogy, Scantool does not work as well with some "types" of systems. As demonstrated by the site author's Bell's Palsy type ticks [see You Tube videos], and another poster who comes to mind who suffers from debilitating panic attacks, the instrument is not ideal for pulling good data on certain types of individuals. Such limitations do not make something unscientific, it merely makes it's use limited, period. 

Perhaps LALE is a sufferer of some form of degenerative disease or neurological ailment. He certainly has demonstrated a degree of decompensation.