AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

(Moderator: Administrator)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]

Add Poll

Send Topic

FALSE syllogism? (Read 67121 times)

notguilty1 Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 300 Joined: Feb 2^nd, 2008	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #75 - May 26^th, 2008 at 4:26pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	pailryder wrote on May 26^th, 2008 at 12:42pm: notguilty 1 I guess I don't understand your beef. You were a suspect in a theft, you consented to a police polygraph, the police examiner got your result wrong and subjected you to a harsh interrogation. Is that what happened? As Mr Maschke explains in The Lie Behind the Lie the only sure way of protecting against examiner error is to refuse the test. So are you angry because your examiner understated the risk, or because he made an error, or because you didn't exercise your right to refuse? Hi Pail, Yes I was accused of a theft. I was asked to take a Poligraph by the detective I agreed because I knew I had nothing to hide and I as many were under the false impression that Polygraph is very accurate. I was informed that I failed and I was showing "some" deception. My beef is that this test is being used to judge people and is inaccurate. I know this first hand. I know I had the right to refuse but felt I did not need to exercise that right. Today, unfortunatly the gun I was accused to stealing has not been recovered and there are still 3 people that, based on Polygraph beleve me to be a thief. Yes I am getting over it but I value my reputation. The test was designed to clear me since I was being truthfull in ALL and ANY information about the gun. My goal here is to inform people that come here for information not to fall for the BS about Polygraph being 95-98% accurate and that it can infact detect lies two beliefs that the general public has about Polygraph. ( I was told these lies by the Polygrapher ) IF I had it to do over I would have told the detective what to do with his Polygraph machine. Pail, You seem like a reasonable person and you even suggested in your posts that you do not defend Polygraph in all applications ( I am paraphrasing) so I assume you too understand Polygraphs serious limitations.


	IP Logged

pailryder Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 441 Joined: Jun 5^th, 2006	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #76 - May 26^th, 2008 at 5:37pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	ng1 Yes, very serious limitations, but some legitimate applications. A fair assessment of accuracy for most specific (non screening) applications, is significantly above chance, significantly below perfection.
	« Last Edit: May 26^th, 2008 at 6:15pm by pailryder »
	No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers. David Thoreson Lykken
	IP Logged

nopolycop Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 383 Joined: Oct 20^th, 2007	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #77 - May 27^th, 2008 at 2:25pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	pailryder wrote on May 26^th, 2008 at 5:37pm: ng1 Yes, very serious limitations, but some legitimate applications. A fair assessment of accuracy for most specific (non screening) applications, is significantly above chance, significantly below perfection. Pailryder: The above is an interesting statement. I would be interested in hearing your comments regarding what you believe a fair assessment of the accuracy of "screening" tests would be.

	"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
	IP Logged

pailryder Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 441 Joined: Jun 5^th, 2006	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #78 - May 27^th, 2008 at 4:09pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	nopolycop In preemp screening, utility can, probably does, exceed accuracy. Every agency has finite resources and limited time for background investigations. Even a small city police department may have 300 passes on the initial written test with only 20 openings at the academy. To do 300 full background checks, depending on how many applicants were out of state, could tie up every criminal investigator for months. One thing that can be fairly said of polyexs is they usually have good interview skills and extract a fair amount of additional information from people who have already "fully disclosed" on their application. As to accuracy, the best analogy is to target shooting, where with proper training most shooters can hit a single target or know that they missed. But to simultainously shoot at seven different targets, how many hit seven out of seven? That has to be much more difficult. Police departments reason this process is not unfair as long as everyone gets the same test, has the same chance, takes the same risk.
	« Last Edit: May 27^th, 2008 at 6:55pm by pailryder »
	No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers. David Thoreson Lykken
	IP Logged

nopolycop Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 383 Joined: Oct 20^th, 2007	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #79 - May 27^th, 2008 at 5:45pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	I take it from your response then, that you do not view the accuracy of pre-employment screening tests as being particularily accurate.

	"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
	IP Logged

pailryder Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 441 Joined: Jun 5^th, 2006	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #80 - May 27^th, 2008 at 6:29pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	nopoly If APA guidelines are followed, premp accuracy can be acceptable. That guideline requires a single issue follow up for any initial unresolved response. Few agencies to my knowledge go that extra distance.

	No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers. David Thoreson Lykken
	IP Logged

T.M. Cullen God Member Offline Posts: 858 Location: Hawaii Joined: Dec 5^th, 2007 Gender:	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #81 - May 27^th, 2008 at 6:39pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Quote: If APA guidelines are followed, premp accuracy can be acceptable. That guideline requires a single issue follow up for any initial unresolved response. Few agencies to my knowledge go that extra distance. A single issue follow-up polygraph? You can put a tuxedo on a pig, but it will still be a pig. You are still trying to validate the polygraph with another polygraph. Why not a follow-up INVESTIGATION. What do the APA guildelines say about telling the test subject that the test is 95-98% accurate, which they do all the time? TC

	"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...(referring to polygraph)." Dr. Phil Zimbardo, Phd, Standford University
	IP Logged

pailryder Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 441 Joined: Jun 5^th, 2006	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #82 - May 27^th, 2008 at 6:53pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	Mr Cullen Ask the APA.

	No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers. David Thoreson Lykken
	IP Logged

nopolycop Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 383 Joined: Oct 20^th, 2007	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #83 - May 27^th, 2008 at 7:42pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	pailryder wrote on May 27^th, 2008 at 6:29pm: nopoly If APA guidelines are followed, premp accuracy can be acceptable. That guideline requires a single issue follow up for any initial unresolved response. Few agencies to my knowledge go that extra distance. What do you mean by an unresolved response? Verbal or physiological?

	"Although the degree of reliability of polygraph evidence may depend upon a variety of identifiable factors, there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's Conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams." (Justice Clarence Thomas writing in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413, 1998.)
	IP Logged

pailryder Especially Senior User Offline Posts: 441 Joined: Jun 5^th, 2006	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #84 - May 27^th, 2008 at 7:47pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	nopc physiological

	No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers. David Thoreson Lykken
	IP Logged

jcamiller Guest	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #85 - Feb 15^th, 2011 at 3:57am	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	1. singer lose their vioce 2. you just lost your vioce conclusion: your a singer p.s. i'm 11 years old and i'm just learning this so it might be wrong


	IP Logged

smajor82 Guest	Re: FALSE syllogism? Reply #86 - Apr 12^th, 2012 at 9:14pm	Mark & Quote Quote Print Post
	How about this then: if polygraph tests are truly reliable, then what information do we need to identify which of the two tests in question are valid? Provide a complete list and how would measure everything on that list. You seem to be good at dismissing people's questions in a way that prevents you from ever having to provide actual information. If you can't measure everything you need to know in order to effectively evaluate a test, then it's not a very good test, is it? It sounds like the only way to explain the results we have here is with vague, un-quantifiable things like "bias".


	IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]

Add Poll

Send Topic

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

FALSE syllogism?

Name:
E-mail:
Your Verification Code is:	Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Verification Code:
Preview

Message Icon:

Subject:

Message:
You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:

Text size: pt

More Smilies

View All Smilies

Collapse/Expand additional features

Attachments More Attachments

Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB

Attachment 1:

Attachment 2:

Attachment 3:

Attachment 4:

Attachment 5:

Attachment 6:

Attachment 7:

Attachment 8:

Attachment 9:

Attachment 10:

Disable UBBC and Smilies:

Check this if you wish to disable parsing of ubbc tags and smilies.

Return To:

Select where you would like to return to after posting.