posted 12-06-2007 10:18 AM            

Eric

posted 12-06-2007 12:12 PM            

The seminar this week just had a four hour block on countermeaures. Good Stuff.

posted 12-06-2007 01:48 PM            

However, George will beat us up over the "doctor" issue as well as the statement that the two liars only used CMs on the questions to which they were being truthful, which means the neutrals.

They didn't show much of the charts, so I couldn't see where physical CMs were being done. Does anybody know Michael Martin to ask if they knew to try CMs on the CQs?

One liar tried physical CMs (tack in the foot tongue biting - the former was quickly abandoned when Michael told him he was moving) and the other used mental CMs.

They didn't say polygraph was 99% accurate, but rather showed the Polyscore results for the three people tested. The two liars showed a 99% probability of deception, and the truthful showed a less than 1% probability of deception.

Overall, it was a win for polygraph, but a debate with the anti-crowd. If somebody can find out if CMs were used on the CQs we'll be armed and ready for the AP site attacks. We could use this to our favor if we dot our i's and cross our t's.

posted 12-06-2007 02:00 PM            

I could not find a clip, but here is a forum at discovery.com
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9401967776/m/6611962049

There is a user called Chris Rhoades who claims to be a co-founder of the anti site.

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

posted 12-07-2007 10:30 AM            

I'm a little bugged that Martin would create this exposure (as if I've never done foolish things at anti).

We should deafen them with silence on this.

That twit, nopoly is a full blown rabble-rowser. The less we interact with him the better.

Do you suppose its possible to increase the dialog on other topics, perhaps soon would be a good day for another discussion about some very interesting research - that would re-expose their bias against data and fill the void a little.

r

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

posted 12-07-2007 12:32 PM            

A polygraph test of the defendant in a criminal trial in Ohio is admitted in open court, the innocent defendant goes free, and Georgie uses that as an indictment of polygraph.

There are two psychological diagnoses that adequately describe Georgie's problem:

1. He's not playing with a full deck.

2. He's one taco shy of a combination plate.

Dr. Lou

posted 12-07-2007 12:43 PM            

We can debate scoring and question formats and formulation as gentleman/ladies, but when a colleague jeopardizes ever aspect of credibility with selfish and fraudelent ordainment, we need to call a spade a spade,
and stop chumming with chum.

posted 12-07-2007 01:05 PM            

With all due respect (and I mean that), I don't think it does us any good to take Georgie's side on ANYTHING.

There's no point in eating our own, especially when the Jackass In The Netherlands is being fed information from this board.

posted 12-07-2007 04:38 PM            

Nopoly is regurgitating George's drivel. (What a tasty concoction that must be!) Sarge has lost his mind. The NAS was "neutral"? Give me a break. How many of them hated us before they got paid by the anti crowd employees to make their conclusions?

The beautiful thing is, George was so predictable. It's as if he read my post - or did he?

posted 12-07-2007 06:16 PM            

I think the article that you were referring to is "Informed Scientists Support Polygraph Testing." This was a column I wrote for the APA Magazine, July/August, 2007 issue. I cited several surveys in the article.

The reality is that scientists who have read some of the research literature have a very favorable view of polygraph testing.

posted 12-07-2007 10:45 PM            

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 12-07-2007).]

posted 12-08-2007 07:46 AM            

I don't know Mike, he may be a good guy and a quality examiner. He does come to the New Jersey seminars.

However, he would make it easier on himself and all of us if he dropped the Dr. title. Especially after all of the mileage George got out of the last one(Maybe Gelb?). Mike does admit that his Phd is honorable on his site.

I am surprised he(Mike) doesn't come to this board.

Nate has a 20/20 about voice stress and one of the first things the reporter does is attack the VSA owner's Phd. He admitted he went to 6 hours of classes for his Phd. Six hours? That was one night of my Masters classes. 6 hours is hilarious.

6 hours? I have had sex longer then that. Ok, not even close but still. He definitely lost credibility with the audience on that stunt.