The Polygraph Place

Thanks for stopping by our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register link


Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
Professional Issues - Private Forum for Examiners ONLY
The Subjectivity of Truth

Post New TopicPost A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic: The Subjectivity of Truth
stat
Member
posted 12-13-2007 02:18 PM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Click Here to Email stat Edit/Delete Message
Sancho wrote on anti the following;
"Where I disagree with you is your supposition that the truth can be owned. Truth is not yours or mine, it is simply the truth. This concept of "your truth" presupposes that Your truth can be different from "the truth" and that is fallacy.

Sancho Panza"


I was taught in psychology that truth is in fact a subjective entity. There are two seperate concepts---Fact and Truth. We as a profession often use the two terms interchangeably---and in doing so, fall short of the semantic fact of seperation. I will spare readers here the anecdotes as to one person's truth versus another, as we are all familiar with the notions that ---for example an eye-witness may be telling the truth, but be giving faulty facts regarding an incident as it was perceived versus as it happened.
So in polygraph research the term of "ground truth" , by the above caveat, is an empty concept, which doesn't efficiently describe whether something is a fact.
Of course, we don't instruct people to "tell me the fact" , we tell them to "tell the truth." But in my mind, there are infinite truths, but limited facts. On an aside, this is one of the psych components that make sex offender testing so challenging as they almost always have a set of their own truths which to them are concrete, but to us are absurd---and stating such (that a person "has their own truths") is perfectly acceptable within the field of psychology.

Interestingly enough, polygraph school and the field in general may be lacking in possessing the philosophical concepts of truth, despite the fact that we are alleged to be professional handlers of such. Polygraph school should have 3 days of basic philosophy training, as I don't think that the concept of truth stops at psycho-physiological perception.

I swear I am not smoking weed.

------------------
".....cause it has electrolites" --Idiocracy


[This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-13-2007).]

IP: Logged

ebvan
Member
posted 12-13-2007 02:42 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ebvan Click Here to Email ebvan Edit/Delete Message
In response to stat I would like to quote the following:
" There were six men of Hindustan,
to learning much inclined,
Who went to see an elephant,
though all of them were blind,
That each by observation
might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant,
and happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
at once began to bawl,
"This mystery of an elephant
is very like a wall."

The second, feeling of the tusk,
cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an elephant
is very like a spear."

The third approached the elephant,
and happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
thus boldly up and spake,
"I see," quoth he,
"the elephant is very like a snake."

The fourth reached out an eager hand,
and felt above the knee,
"What this most wondrous beast
is like is very plain" said he,
"'Tis clear enough the elephant
is very like a tree."

The fifth who chanced to touch the ear
said, "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
deny the fact who can;
This marvel of an elephant
is very like a fan."

The sixth no sooner had begun
about the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
that fell within his scope;
"I see," said he, "the elephant
is very like a rope."

So six blind men of Hindustan
disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
exceeding stiff and strong;
Though each was partly in the right,
they all were in the wrong!"


While all six proclaimed their own truth each posessed significantly less than the whole truth.

Stat I believe you when you say you aren't smoking weed, but are you remembering to take the rest of the stuff the Doctor ordered. besides that Sancho fellow is a devious cur and his broad statements might be an attempt to draw someone out.

[This message has been edited by ebvan (edited 12-13-2007).]

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 12-13-2007 02:48 PM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Click Here to Email stat Edit/Delete Message
I too love the game of chess.
When you are ready young jedi, I will instruct you on the virtues of multiple username posting and tee-ball forum triangulation----if you so seek to be a dark arts practitioner. Sancho doesn't seem to need the extra wizardry though.

------------------
".....cause it has electrolites" --Idiocracy

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 12-13-2007 03:06 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
Great discussion.

I agree stat. More training.

We have a tendency to make the same mistake with truth that Frued made with psychology - perceiving our mental models in a materialistic way, as if truth were a substance or thing.

A common mistake is to assume equivariance of truth and deception.

We can be mistaken and incorrect without being dishonest.

The fable of the elephant is an example of empirical truth, but is also an example of subjective truth.

If we are going to have a philosophical conversation about truth (which would be very interesting), we have to start with a broader understanding of our foundational answer to two questions.

  • What kinds of things can be true?


and
  • What does it mean to say that something is true?

Another common mistake, which I've even heard from polygraph trainers is to replace the construct of truth with "belief." Religious people sometimes also interchange these, and I've heard polygraph trainers

Only psychotic people (out of touch with reality) believe things that are not real.

Non-psychotic persons know when they lie and why they lie.

For fun, look up Bertrand Russel and the correspondence theory of truth. Also look up the modified correspondence theory of truth.

Also lookup rationalist philosophy arguements re truth, and post-modern/deconstructionist truth. You'll find some of religious types (not that there's anything wrong with that) who act on impulse to refute post-modern ideas, but make the same mistake they accuse others of, in that they do not really endorse rationalist ideas but also replace the concept of truth with belief - goes back to the questions above.

Its a lot easier to define deception than truth, and the two are not inverse in a simple mathematical way.

Look up pragmatic truth - which is more like what we use in polygraph, legal and science settings - in which we assume truth when we are reasonably sure that information is not misleading or deceptive.

'nuff, or I'll never get anything done.

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 12-13-2007).]

IP: Logged

ebvan
Member
posted 12-13-2007 03:33 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ebvan Click Here to Email ebvan Edit/Delete Message
Sancho might quote Harry Truman if asked about his experience at AP.org

"I don't give them hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's hell"

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

IP: Logged

ebvan
Member
posted 12-14-2007 04:57 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ebvan Click Here to Email ebvan Edit/Delete Message
Ray, I am always trying to educate myself and at the present time I am wrapping my brain around the Correspondance Theory in conjunction with the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction. Once I feel I have it in my grasp I will move onto competing and supporting theory. At the present time the discussion over whether truth can be "owned" in the context of my exchange with Jesper seems to be well served by the stuff I am digesting now. I will be somewhat surprised if he can mount a cogent argument to my last post.

On a slightly different subject. Does anyone have any ideas regarding why Sancho's question "Why would a polygrapher care whether someone passed or failed their polygraph?" is receiving no responses from the FOG crowd?

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 12-14-2007 09:09 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C Click Here to Email Barry C Edit/Delete Message
I think Jesper has issues. What, I don't know yet, but Jesper's yet another great character to make the face of the AP site.

IP: Logged

Bill2E
Member
posted 12-14-2007 09:19 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Bill2E Edit/Delete Message
Celts to Aryan. I believe he is Iraninan to be truthful and would fit his discription of truth well if that is the case. Possibly Afganistan but I lean more to Iraninan. Any thoughts?

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 12-14-2007 10:20 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
ebvan,

I think they are shying away because they have observed Sancho will NOT be easily defeated or bullied. Puppy got its nose whacked a few times, and is now shy.

Be patient, and the right adversary will appear. If not, then you've squelched their efforts a little for now.

Good work.

Iv'e wondered if Jesper is just a troll, or a real whack-job. That "Deutschland uber alles" stuff in his signature is probably still offensive to some.

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 12-14-2007).]

IP: Logged

ebvan
Member
posted 12-14-2007 02:38 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ebvan Click Here to Email ebvan Edit/Delete Message
RNELSON "SANCHO WILL BE EASILY DEFEATED" ???
__________________
WTF over.

_____________________________________

as to the "care question I was concerned that maybe that on had been hammered out once and I missed it.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

[This message has been edited by ebvan (edited 12-14-2007).]

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 12-14-2007 02:45 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
Sorry Ebvan,

One little word can make a difference.

Hopefully, the error was obvious.

Sancho will NOT be easily defeated - to suggest otherwise is absurd.

r

IP: Logged

ebvan
Member
posted 12-14-2007 03:45 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ebvan Click Here to Email ebvan Edit/Delete Message
No problem LOL I was just trying to get a good ego stroking and besides I can never whip you in a math fight so I pick out little insignificant issues and blow them way out of proportion trying to inflate my self worth.
_____________________________________________
Guess where I learned how to do that?
---------------------------------------------
AP.ORG .... as my friend Gordon Moore is fond of saying That's Riiiight.

------------------
Ex scientia veritas

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 12-15-2007 12:25 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
Just to keep it real...

The math involved in most stats problems is basic stuff. Statistics is really about conceptual problems. Plus, there are people that know a whole lot more than I about all of this.

I'm absolutely sure I'm NOT the smartest person who reads this forum, in the room with me at present, on my block, or even in my family. Its just fun to solve problems.

Stay warm everyone. I'm out for a few days.

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 12-16-2007 10:44 AM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Click Here to Email stat Edit/Delete Message
I am absolutely sure that I AM the smartest person who reads this board. I am also the most modest. Now, excuse me while I watch Naked Gun III.

------------------
"I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the mother in me." --G.W. Bush, Washington D.C., April 14, 2005


IP: Logged

ebvan
Member
posted 12-16-2007 12:47 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ebvan Click Here to Email ebvan Edit/Delete Message
Why Cletus Del Roy Spuckler I woulda never figgured you an Stat wuz the same feller.
Whut in the name o muskrat stew wood Brandeen say?

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 12-16-2007 12:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
stat,

you have my vote.

--------------------

The only thing we need is a forum upgreydd, so we can create polls.

----------

speaking of votes, don't forget.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22087628/

Vote early. Vote often. Just vote.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

IP: Logged

All times are PT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New TopicPost A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Polygraph Place

copyright 1999-2003. WordNet Solutions. All Rights Reserved

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.39c
Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.