Okay, Sackett, I'll bite.

What variables would have to be "off kilter" in order to achieve the results I received?

If the polygraph is accurate, than how come I received two different results?

Is it the test itself OR the belief in the test that makes me out to be either a liar or honest?

To my mind, therein lies the rub; if the polygraph exam is valid, then the ONLY conclusion that one can get from the results of my tests is, at best, "inconclusive."  As to my honesty or deception, this means to me a tactical draw.   Should there be yet another polygraph that would serve as a tie breaker?  Should I get that one from yet a different examiner?

If I pass it, does that validate my first polygraph?  If I fail it, does that validate the second one?

What if the result of that polygraph is, as I have heard is possible, "inconclusive?"

Do I take yet another one? Will it wind up being a never ending loop of polygraph after polygraph until I get the results I want or what the authorities want?

And everyone here, including the naysayers, talk about circular logic.

Now, to my mind, when you have a tactical draw, one must look to the strategic ends to determine an outcome.  Strategically, Sackett, you must admit that the "science," if you will, of polygrapher is, at best suspect.  You basically state that when you say that this is the best weapon we have at the moment and that the science can and must get better.  To me, this suggests that you admit there is an inherent weakness in not just the testing, but the philosophy of its use.

That said, what happened to me makes no sense.  Logic theory dictates that if one has a True Statement (I am guilty) AND a False Statement, then there is a FALSE conclusion.  It is the same if the statements are reversed.

BTW, either I am guilty OR I am not.  Either I am a liar or I am not.

I have a very hard time trying to reconcile what you say is a valid science in the face of what happened to me.

I cannot explain it, and apparently, neither can you.

If i am wrong, please explain it to me now.

TheKaisho wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 1:50pm:


I have previously said that I could not explain your test results since I have no knowledge of the testing, other than what you have reported here.  "I took a test and passed, then took a test and failed" is not enough information to give you an answer.   

It is unfortunate you don't like it, but neither do I.  When two tests are administered and there are opposing results, this disturbs me since somebody did something wrong, somewhere.  BUT, you asking me (or any outside examiner without benefit of all information or knowledge of both tests) is unrealistic.

Variables in a polygraph test range everything from the examinee to the examiner, test administered, health and distractions of both participants, etc.  There are hundreds to consider.  As I have stated,  it is the examiners job to try to control or refocus some of these variables to obtain a more accurate test result.  If the examiner fails in his task, or the examinee fails to cooperate then a bad test is ineviatable.  This has nothing to do with your belief in the test, or not.  It works when done properly.   

As for your pressumption that I belive the philosophy in the polygraph is suspect; you are putting words in my mouth.  I believe it has an appropriate use and application in today's society.  Is it misused by some? Yes, I am sure it is.  Is it used by those who should not be using it?  Yes.  But there is no manner to control the "hacks" and "chart rollers" out there unless they live in a licensing state and one is willing to make the effort to get them out of the business.  While I maintain polygraph has it's uses, I have never said there were no deficiencies in polygraph.

Back to your issue, without all information available, no-one can answer your question regarding your results and/or the reason for the dichotomy.

Sackett

sackett wrote on May 20^th, 2008 at 3:52pm:


If there are hundreds of variables to consider, please list one hundred or so.  Since the polygraph is purportedly a scientific test, it should be ridiculously simple to list all of them (since any scientific test without controlled variables would be worthless, therefore there must be a specific list of such variables freely available to each and every examiner on the planet) but one hundred will do for starters.  Feel free to pick the hundred most controllable variables so as to present the most “scientific” face possible for the polygraph.

It certainly appears that you are merely dissembling.  Any claims that a poster told the truth and failed are responded to by saying that one or more of the variables must have been off, because if all the variables are as they should be the polygraph is a very accurate test.

Logically, it seems difficult if not impossible to accurately control “hundreds” of variables in such an inexact setting as an interview with a person you met an hour ago.  If the polygraph’s accuracy is dependent upon the control of such ephemeral and feeble variables then the polygraph is simply incapable of any sort of consistent accuracy.

Sergeant1107 wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 1:20am:


Sarge,

why does a doctor expect you fast for 24 hours before a blood test?  Because otherwise, it skews the test results.  Why get a good night sleep before a physical fitness test?  Because fatigue skews your performance the next day. Duh!? How many examples do YOU need?

Polygraph is the same.  I know, you know the answer to your own question.  Seems silly to ask it again!  Most variables are natural and controlled by cooperative examinees and responsible, professional examiners.  But of course, you knew that too!

So exactly why ARE you asking it again?  Seeking a different answer?

Sackett  

sackett wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 4:07am:


What exactly do you think I am asking again?  I don’t recall asking about blood tests or physical fitness tests, but that is what you chose to respond with.  Even so, I don’t see how your response, containing a single variable in each of two separate tests, is in any way an answer to my logical, polite question.  The “Duh!” was uncalled for, as well.

I thought I made it clear how many examples I need.  One hundred would be sufficient.  You said there were hundreds, and as variables in a purportedly scientific test they must be listed and detailed, and that list must be as familiar to examiners as the motor vehicle statutes are to a traffic cop.  Why would such a simple request for clarification of your statement that there are “hundreds” of variables elicit such a hostile response?  

It seems clear that the idea of hundreds of variables exist so that anytime a polygraph exam doesn’t wind up the way you think it should you can claim that one or more of the variables must not have been properly set up.  If you can’t even list half of the variables that must be precisely controlled during a polygraph exam what hope could anyone have that such an exam be scientifically sound?

If these variables are as important as you claim they are to the accuracy of the polygraph then wouldn’t it simply make sense that every polygraph examiner be completely familiar with them and be able to easily list them?

During my polygraph exams I don’t remember discussing hundreds of variables with the examiners.  Certainly I was asked about any medications I was taking, and I was asked if I slept the night before, and I’m sure there were three or four other questions of similar type.  But hundreds of questions?  Certainly not.

You are claiming that there are hundreds of variables that need to be controlled in order for the polygraph to be accurate, and you hint that “cooperative examinees” control some number of them naturally.  If they are never even discussed with the examinee how could you possibly know the status of all of them?  I'm sure some can be observed by the examiner, but what about the rest?    

If there are hundreds of variables that must be accounted for in order for the polygraph to be accurate, as you claim, then those variables must be clearly defined.  How else could you conduct a scientific test?

sackett wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 4:19am:



Yes many MAY have failed because they were lying since polygraph collects data from the examinee including the nervous reaction that MAY come from deception as well as from MANY other sources. 
The point being made ( that you refuse to accept and admit) is that the results of the polygraph do not nessisarily for the most part mean deception The OP here, my and many other posters experiences show this. WE CANNOT ALL BE LYING even though it would make most sense to you.
BTW Sackett, you have shown that you would know truth if it hit you in the head.

Also, yes I agree that many are not as honest as I am and in fact are lying. But that does not explain to me and others that were truthfull and failed, believed in the machine, how this could happen with a machine that was supposed to detect lies and be 95-98% accurate.
And your posts and my research have only reassured me that this whole system is a scam as it has for the others here

sackett wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 6:13pm:


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.

Sergeant1107 wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 12:37am:


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