Yes, Yes, TheKaisho,  you don't know what you meant to say.  Ask Cullen, he knows what you meant to suggest or ask...

My point to you is that the possibilities of the variables influencing the test are emmense and should not be dismissed.


Sackett

Quote:


And how can there be, as Sackett suggests, an immense number of factors involved?   

For example, examiners would have people believe that the simple physiological readings the machine measures can tell if a person is being DECEPTIVE, even though the person is telling the truth.  Very simple and straight forward, not as complicated as Sackett makes it out to be.  "It's very simple Mr. Applicant.  The machine says you are lying.  SO FESS UP!"

But when questioned, polygraphers say the process is so very complicated.  Many factors involved.  You're mind is just to small to comprehend the process.  Only the ORDAINED can fathom the complexity!

Modern day "witch doctors", if you will.

TC

Well, well, well, I see the whole gang is awake and has come around to attack the poor, lonely examiner...

Anyway, yes, it is true.  I believe the polygraph process is about 90+% accurate; however, the accuracy, viability and utility of the polygraph rests with numerous factors.  These factors, otherwise called variables, which the "anti's" now discount as possibilities effecting the entire process and outcome, is a very important factor for consideration.   

Everything you can imagine can affect the process, and while we can assume many things, it is up to the examiner to ensure those factors are as minimized as much as possible to ensure the results will be accurate.  Sometimes, variables are minimized and lied about by the examinee, which the examiner has no knowledge or control over.  This could certainly have an impact on the examination.

Sometimes this (control over variables) does not happen (for a variety of reasons) and the results are less than accurate.  Of course, this is where the "anti's" take exception with the entire process and would throw it all out, rather than try to improve it; because it suits their agenda.

TheKaisho,  you can make up your mind what is right and what is wrong.  I hope this (all) has helped in some way to explain your question.

Sackett

sackett wrote on May 17^th, 2008 at 5:19am:


Now please note folks that Sackett on numerous occasions has come on here to say that there are just a few of us "antis" as he puts it.

And of course he has no explaination on how these "factors otherwise know has variables" can possibly make a truthfull examinee into a lier.
Other than to say ........... your simply not being fully truthfull. Any other explaination would not bolster his agenda.
He does however at times say that the need for a deception detection device is very much needed and since we have no other device....... well ....... we just use this and make people believe that it accually works.

By referring to the whole gang, I meant the four of you... Don't get carried away "notguilty1"!

Anyway, TheKaisho (and others), you do see what I mean?   

You asked me a specific question with directed qualifications for the answer and I answered it directly and as requested.  Of course now, the congregation attacks me for following your instructions (by adhearing to, "all else being equal") and accuses me of hiding or misleading my response by withhlding information about what you asked me not to consider.   

No wonder they can't get off their merry-go-round of disinformation and the term "circular logic" seems to apply so accurately... Go figure?!   

Anyway, I hope this answers your inquiry.


Sackett

notguilty1 wrote on May 19^th, 2008 at 3:26pm:


"notguilty1"

I can't answer why other examiners do not post here.  I know a LOT of examiners read this board, but someone has to present a balanced side of realty because you guys have really missed the boat.  That's OK, I remain entertained.

Your suggestion that I am simply posting contrary thoughts and opinions here and can't really remember my own lies is baseless and pathetic.  While I conflict with many posters on this board, my ideology and beliefs are constant because it is what I believe, based on my experience, training, education and past. 

Besides, where exactly have I posted "one thing" then contradicted myself?  I post what I believe, nothing more, nothing less and think readers can make up their own mind.  BTW, I would appreciate a specific example and now that you have made the accusation, please do not nitpick, it makes you look petty.

Sackett

"notguilty1", the following was cut/pasted to reduce a simple "quote" which would take half a page and is superfulous to this discussion.

You wrote:  "OK this following is a quote from a post of yours right on this very thread:

"Sometimes this (control over variables) does not happen (for a variety of reasons) and the results are less than accurate.  Of course, this is where the "anti's" take exception with the entire process and would throw it all out, rather than try to improve it; because it suits their agenda."

You have made remarks that the overwhelming results of a Polygraph are accurate at detecting deception and added that they are too many accurate chartes to ignore that ( leading the uneducated to believe that you accually knowfor sure that a chrat is accurate) now on this thread ( as well as others) there are ........ well this time you call them "variables". 
The fact is that "sometimes the control over variables does not happen" as you point out because the vairables are that the machine is simply inacapable of detecting deception for the practical purpose of testing an indvidual.

Also, you mention that we want to "throw it all out,rather to try to improve it".
Well, You have a machine that is said to detect deception.....it fails as you conceed, and your logic is, since this is all we got to use we need to continue using it dispite logical and evidentiary evidence to the contrary because ........... those of us that have proof that is does not work cannot come up with a better mouse trap!!
Talk about circular logic!!!
There is no "improving Polygraph's. The research shows that it's flawed technology for the application. You know it, we know it, the courts know it. The only ones that don't know it are the people who buy into (as I did) that it is effective and it's unbeatable.
When a scientist comes up with a vuable way to detect lies I will be in favor of it 100% since my intent was never to beat the machine by lying."

I suppose you need to be reminded that "the machine" does nothing more than collect and record physiological and biological data.  "The machine" is never inaccurate (unless broken) as it simply receives information and tranfers it to a computerized program (or energy in the case of the analog instrument) which in turn places it onto a chart.   

The variables of which I mentioned which effect the process (though not asked for by the original poster to discuss; as you guys have hijacked this conversation) were all the other factors that have a consideration in polygraph.

Therefore, I am still waiting for you to support your assertion or provide any example that I have conflicted myself in any way shape or form!

Finally, I do not believe it is talking in circles (i.e. circular logic) to suggest that if someone, such as yourself is to crusade against something that works, despite your assertion it is enternally and completely flawed, that perhaps having an idea of something else to take it's place is unnatural or uncalled for!  I think it makes common sense.   

Besides, eyewitness testimony is perpetually flawed and innaccurate (estimated at 60-70% innaccurate) .  Do we now discard all witness testimony unless tied fastly to technical or scientific evidence?  Based on what you (and others) suggest, eyewitness testimony or opinions should never be allowed in court or in civil proceedings; because of it's inherent flaw and lack of accuracy.  So much for a witness box...


Sackett