|
Author
|
Topic: Answering Lethe's Question
|
stat
Member
|
posted 01-10-2008 09:09 AM
  
So the aggressive, taunting, self flatulating Lethe is back from fat camp. How do we handle this guy? He asks repeatedly "Is the polygraph better served by the ignorance of the examinee's. I think yes, but only in the anecdotal sense. The examinee's who informed me that they read "Tremor in the Blood" (2 examinee's admitted as much up front out of hundreds)--I can't lie, it made me feel slightly disadvantaged. "Feel" is the operative word. Is it possible to come to some consensus on this topic and answer his question without too many caveats?
It's a genuine question by genuine P__ck.I don't trust anyone but one of the intellectual heavy hitters to answer him. Question, what if we treat Lethe with showers of love and respect? I am curious as to how he would respond if he found it difficult to demonize us. He lives for the obfuscation and avoidance of his loaded inquirey (for 2 years now), and I wonder what he'd do without it.
IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 01-10-2008 09:32 AM
Lethe was going after LBCB for a while. Now he's targeting Barry.Lethe want's to lawyerize (new word) the conversation, and control the flow of discussion with simple questions. This is not a person who is interested in an answer or seeking a discussion. Its gratuitous predation. His tone has become slightly more irate and grandiose than it was several months ago. He's still a completely remote and impersonal, and wants to be perceived as invulnerable. I like the idea of ignoring him. It'll drive him nuts, because he needs to be recognized for being right. He might escalate, but to what? He's already aggressive with us. He got so bored with LBCB's non-response that he had a conversation with his make-believe confedera/alter-ego PaleRyder. Why don't we consider limiting our interactions to persons who are human and personal. We know nothing about nope, and Lethe, and they the guys who seem to want to be the most persistent gadflys. .02
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 01-10-2008 10:12 AM
If you say so. I think he is just well written and straight forward enough to make us look like cowards if we avoid him. His question, from a public standpoint, is valid. We need to remember that the debate is public. Nopoly was good for ignoring as he was a light weight dungslinger. Lethe is a different animal, and I can't in any rational way compare the two. Is Lethe asking the impossible---regardless of what his ultimate "predation" is? I think Barry or Ebvan might have interesting input---as with Lethe, one must think several moves ahead. Perhaps a pro/con process should be looked at. Lethe won't be going away soon----as he hates when examiners start looking good, and being actually helpful.It would be an interesting contest of logic to be sure. 
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 01-10-2008).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 01-10-2008 10:37 AM
stat,Its certainly NOT up to me. If you, Barry or Ebvan want to have at him, then more power to ya'. Whatever I provide is simply my .02, and worth probably only half that. It would be satisfying to watch Barry or Ebvan dispatch him. However, I think he will not be deterred. He's pressing for an admission about deception of the examine in CQ setting. Perhaps the broader and more important issues are the ethical, practical, and scientific concern involving whether the developers, and administrators of various tests have some kind of obligation to be publically transparent about how the test works. Would the MMPI be as informative if everyone understood the validity indices? How about the MCMI-III, or the CPA? What happens if we study the Exner book on the Rorschach test and then try and not look crazy? How about SAT and ACT college entry and achievement tests? Should we publish the questions online? What happens to our diagnostic abilities if we let people study for the Wechsler, Kaufman, and Woodcock IQ tests? Test holders are under no ethical obligation to be publically transparent. To provide information publically, which depleats and interferes with professional investigation and diagnostic work is unethical. (Of course, the argument to anticipate from anti is that polygraph is in accurate to begin with...) I still think it'd be fun to let him escalate, and it would be fun to provoke or taunt him. We still know little about him.
.02
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
[This message has been edited by rnelson (edited 01-10-2008).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 01-10-2008 12:00 PM
Not a bad answer for Mr. Lethargic himself. Maybe you should be the one to break the "nun ya bizness" reply and then posta silly graphic.
------------------
"This is our hill and these are our beans."----
Leslie Nielsen as Lt. Frank Drebin, Naked Gun 1988
IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 01-10-2008 12:37 PM
I'm watching an intern run a test right now, but I looked over there and didn't see the post. I've answered him a hundred times, and I think I asked who made him the ethics police. He seems to be stuck believing that the use of "deception" or failing to fully disclose info is morally wrong. He also thinks if a person is aware of the "deception" that he then is unsuitable for the test - regardless of the research. Stan Abrams sets up a theft CQ in his handbook very well, and there's no "deception" whatsoever. The examinee walks himself down the road all by himself. I'm not going to lead them to Stan's book though. I'm getting tired of the same old arguments. I looked for his post, but didn't see it. His mind can't be changed. He's got too much pride invested in his error at this point. I see we all got reduced to a one-line character description. Thanks for defending us. But, when you're losing an argument, then attack the opponent's character.... IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 01-10-2008 12:38 PM
Sancho fired a small shot across his bow with a question reversal. Let's see if his ego will allow him to ignore it.------------------
Ex scientia veritas IP: Logged |
ebvan
Member
|
posted 01-10-2008 01:59 PM
Isn't it amazing how a simple direct question or two can flush the people they consider to be clean-up hitters out of the dugout?
Dr Drew returns. I think he is attempting to remove Lethes foot from his mouth as we speak.Oh well off to earn some money for an hour or two.
BTW if someone has the time could they slip over and ask Dr Drew if he intends to answer Sanchos last question about GMs suitability for sensitive assignments The post was from several days ago when Drew was online last challenging Sancho about the ames case
------------------
Ex scientia veritas
[This message has been edited by ebvan (edited 01-10-2008).] IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
