Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum (Read 54558 times)
getrealalready
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 57
Joined: Oct 6th, 2007
Re: Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum
Reply #60 - Aug 23rd, 2013 at 12:48am
Print Post  
Pailryder,

Can you specifically site an example of something that Mr. Williams has said recently that you believe he could not have said on this site anytime since the creation of this website? If so, can you site an example of where he was prevented or warned about posting such a thing?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 437
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum
Reply #61 - Aug 23rd, 2013 at 7:54pm
Print Post  
getrealalready

I find irony in the fact that Doug and George settled their differences at this particular time when Doug's for profit business is receiving such scrutiny.   I am sure you have followed this board long enough to recall that Doug once posted a glowing review of his own book, under a different name, of course, and once offered a fist fight, with a promise to whip  George's ass, as a way to resolve their issues.
  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
getrealalready
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 57
Joined: Oct 6th, 2007
Re: Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum
Reply #62 - Aug 23rd, 2013 at 9:09pm
Print Post  
Pailryder,

That which you say is true; in times past Mr. Williams has made inappropriate comments on this board and may well have slandered and/or threatened Dr. Maschke. 

That, however, is irrelevant to the point that I was making...which is...I see no evidence whatsoever, that at any time since the inception of AntiPolygraph.org that Dr. Maschke, even while being attacked, would have taken any steps to prevent the posting of anything that Mr. Williams now says on this board.

I believe that is the case because, although that which Mr. Williams says may well be promotional and/or self serving, it is largely true and accurate with regards to his efforts to debunk polygraphy and to warn and assist those who may be victims of this rather crude quackery.
« Last Edit: Aug 23rd, 2013 at 9:26pm by getrealalready »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 437
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum
Reply #63 - Aug 24th, 2013 at 11:15am
Print Post  
getrealalready

I take your point.  Dr Maschke has never, to my knowledge, prevented anyone on the anti side from posting whatever they wished and I did not intend to imply otherwise.  But Dr Maschke has always, it seems to me, taken pride in maintaining the site as source of free information for all, and thus avoided the charge, often made against other sites, that they are all about self promotion and money.

I challenge you to review my postings and cite specific examples where you feel I have engaged in quackery.
« Last Edit: Aug 24th, 2013 at 12:04pm by pailryder »  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
getrealalready
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 57
Joined: Oct 6th, 2007
Re: Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum
Reply #64 - Aug 25th, 2013 at 12:40am
Print Post  
Pailryder,

My reference to quackery has nothing to do with your posts but with the practice of polygraphy (lie detection) which is nothing but quackery in your hands or any other...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 437
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum
Reply #65 - Aug 25th, 2013 at 12:08pm
Print Post  
getrealalready

So, I've practiced crude quackery for more than thirty years, but my posts don't quack?  How could that be?
  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
getrealalready
Senior User
***
Offline



Posts: 57
Joined: Oct 6th, 2007
Re: Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum
Reply #66 - Aug 25th, 2013 at 1:42pm
Print Post  
Pailryder,

Your words on this board may be true or false, relevant or irrelevant, meaningful or not, etc., but in the end they are just words. Your (or anybody else's) practice of lie detection and the representation of same as a valid diagnostic test is unadulterated quackery.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 437
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum
Reply #67 - Aug 26th, 2013 at 11:16am
Print Post  
getrealalready

Are you arguing that all polygraph techniques are quackery?  Do you evaluate David Lykken's GKT as quackery as well?
« Last Edit: Aug 26th, 2013 at 11:32am by pailryder »  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5776
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum
Reply #68 - Aug 26th, 2013 at 11:53am
Print Post  
Pailryder,

With respect to Getrealalready's last post, note that Lykken's Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) is not a lie detection test.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @georgemaschke
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
pailryder
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 437
Joined: Jun 5th, 2006
Re: Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum
Reply #69 - Aug 27th, 2013 at 5:30pm
Print Post  
Dr Maschke

With respect to my last post, I did not refer to Lykken's GKT as a lie detection technique, but simply as a polygraph technique.  So, Dr Maschke perhaps you would be so kind as to my answer, is Lykken's GKT a valid scientific test or is it too quackery?
  

No good social purpose can be served by inventing ways of beating the lie detector or deceiving polygraphers.   David Thoreson Lykken
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
George W. Maschke
Global Moderator
*****
Online


Make-believe science yields
make-believe security.

Posts: 5776
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Joined: Sep 29th, 2000
Re: Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum
Reply #70 - Aug 27th, 2013 at 5:53pm
Print Post  
Although it's not without weaknesses and vulnerabilities, I don't think the GKT is quackery.
  

George W. Maschke
Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp to text or call.)
E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: maschke@antipolygraph.org
Wire: @georgemaschke
PGP Public Key: 316A947C
PGP Public Key (offline): 2BF4374B
Personal Statement: "Too Hot of a Potato"
Back to top
IP Logged
 
Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum
Reply #71 - Aug 28th, 2013 at 5:19am
Print Post  
I think "Peak of Tension" is a more apt name. "Guilty Knowledge" is an implication; POT more correctly describes some shift in psychological stress, the root cause of which cannot be precisely determined.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Drew Richardson
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline



Posts: 427
Joined: Sep 7th, 2001
Re: Polygraph Place Bulletin Board Private Forum
Reply #72 - Aug 28th, 2013 at 11:48am
Print Post  
A Peak of Tension (POT) test is a poorly designed concealed information test (CIT).  Unlike David Lykken's Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) format, the POT involves QUESTION presentation in KNOWN (to the examinee) SEQUENCES, which renders the individual test items NOT independent of one another and therefore having the test results not being amenable to the normal statistical analysis of a properly designed CIT.

A GKT can be poorly constructed and confounded as well by asking questions as opposed to presenting subject areas and alternative answers which are repeated by the examinee.  If a GKT is constructed to involve questions answered with alternative answers repeated by the examinee, in effect, one has created and confounded a CIT with a lie detection test (something which has no validity in its own right and is not made better by confusing/confounding with a CIT).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 
Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo