Sergeant1107 wrote on May 22
nd, 2008 at 12:37am:
sackett wrote on May 21
st, 2008 at 6:13pm:
Sarge,
you asked the question, what variables? I answered with a couple of examples. This is not enough apparently and you need more. OK. To clarify it better for you, it involves everything from about 5-10 psychological disorders which could affect the accuracy of the test. For example, clinical depression, psychotic behavior, schizophrenia, etc,. Physically, I'm referring to well rested, appropriate hygeine, no mental distrators (which could be numerous), etc.
If you think I'm gunna sit here and type out every possible variable because you think you deserve to know, then you are mistaken. Get over yourself, thinking you deserve an answer. I gave you several examples of variables. Use your imagination for the rest.
Of course you don't remember discussing them all during your examination. They are observed in your behaviors, the pre-test interview and direct questioning and answers. It is the "abnormal" which sticks its ugly head up and causes alarms to go off; not normalacy. Just because you weren't asked the question related to variables, doesn't mean they were not assessed.
Sackett
P.S. I thought the "duh" was very appropriate since you already know the answer to the questions you're asking.
It is interesting that you seem to believe I already know what the “hundreds” of variables are that you referred to in your earlier post. Why do you believe I already know what the hundreds of variables are to which you refer?
In fact, I don’t know what they are and I believe that there simply cannot be “hundreds” of variables in a polygraph exam that can all be accurately assessed and controlled. That is why I wanted you to list some.
Based on the defensiveness of your replies, it appears I am treading in a sensitive area. I completely understand. It makes no logical sense that there would be hundreds of variables in what is already a very imprecise process (i.e. – an interview with someone you met an hour ago), and that each of those variables is accurately assessed, controlled, and quantified in every single polygraph exam.
You wish for me to believe that there are hundreds of variables, but that you either cannot or will not list more than six. And, of that six, you claim that polygraph examiners are able to accurately diagnose clinical depression, psychotic behavior, and schizophrenia in a one-hour interview when psychiatrists with thirteen years of post-graduate education would hesitate to claim they are able to reliably do the same. Considering that schizophrenia, for example, is never diagnosed without blood tests to rule out physical disorders such as hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism, it seems unlikely that polygraph examiners can accurately diagnose schizophrenia during their interview with the examinee.
I think the more you post on this topic the clearer it is that your claim of hundreds of variables is nothing more than dissembling so that any time a polygraph exam turns out to be incorrect you can fall back on the feeble excuse that one or more of the variables must have been improperly set up or controlled. If the test turns out the way you believe it should then you assume all the variables were correctly set up and controlled.
Doesn't this sound like specious reasoning to you?
"I know this test was done properly because it generated a result with which I agree. I know that test was done improperly because I don't agree with the result. How do I know which test was done properly? Because the test is very accurate when all the variables are properly assessed and controlled. How do I know it is very accurate? Just look at the results - whenever they make sense I assume it must be because the variables were all properly set up and assessed." Maybe that is more along the lines of begging the question.
"I know the polygraph is accurate when all the variables are correctly assessed and controlled because when all the variables are correctly assessed and controlled the polygraph is very accurate." Also, anytime you resort to ad hominem attacks (such as “Duh!”) that is a very strong indication that you are not arguing from a position of strength.
Sarge,
I have come to the conclusion that you are not looking for an answer but fuel for an argument. I am not being defensive in my responses, I getting anoyed at your pretend ignorance and simplemindedness. How do I know you already know many answers to your questions? becaus I have read many of your previous postings and you are not as stupiod as you are pretending to be. If I thought you were truly confused or ignorant, I might spend more than this response to clarify it. But, as it seems, this is not about examples and answers but looking for definable answers from me, you can turn into an argument.
A recap: I mention variables having impact on a test. You ask what are they. I replied there are hundreds. You say name each and every one of them. I give you some examples. You say, well, that's only a couple. I explain a little better, with more examples, so that not only you but others can understand. You reply, well see, you haven't answered my questions and have failed to provide hundreds of examples, therefore there are no answers and I must be misleading. You asked, how can an examiner possibly evaluate and control hundreds of variables. I replied, because they come up during the intervew. Examiners need to ensure the examinee is physically and psychologically fit for testing, they need not be qualified to formally diagnose disorders and f=physical fitness levels. I'll break here for another example.
If an examiner asks an examinee what his address is and the examinee replies Pluto. With a little digging, he insists he lives on Pluto. No-one needs a PhD or MD to determine he's probably not fit for testing and somewhere, something is missing or wrong. You didn't get that? Well, that doesn't surprise me, and I'm not real sure I can make it any clearer for you. The examinee that properly replies with the correct address and has proper responses to normative general questions can easily be determined not to be suffering from a dellusional or psychotic disorder or many other potential problems. No-one needs a degree to determine suitability, most of it is obvious to interviewers with common sense and we certainly do not need a blood test.
You continue to quibble with me over this issue. It seems petty. You continue to demand answers and I gave examples of them. Not good enough. Too bad. I've made my point, deal with it. Besides, "duh" is not an ad hominem attack, it's simple sarcasm...
Sackett