- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by sackett
- May 12, 2008, 01:02 PMLethe,
once again, circular logic seems ineviatable...
You wrote: "Perhaps one would need to be an expert in a number of scientific fields--perhaps all of them that relate in any way to the polygraph--in order to render a reasonable scientific statement about it.
But Sackett implies that even that is not good enough in another post:
sackett wrote on May 5th, 2008, 9:24pm:
Polygraph is a combination of sciences and arts that when applied together, work. To break it down by science or art, it can not necessarily be explained satisfactorily to those thinking in a singular methodology or nature.
So, not only would one need to be qualified in a large number of scientific fields, one would also need to be an artist as well. Only then could one (perhaps) be qualified to express a view on the accuracy of the polygraph."
My point was simplistic even by my standards. Sorry you (again) missed it!
Evaluation of the polygraph process by one specific scientific field will not satisfactorily explain all that polygraph is. I never suggested to understand polygraph one needed to be an expert in ALL scientific fields (as you have wrongly expanded), but simply, that scientists tend to orient themselves to what they know and can prove within their own scientific field, rather than what works (like polygraph) when it contains numerous disciplines.
Sackett
once again, circular logic seems ineviatable...
You wrote: "Perhaps one would need to be an expert in a number of scientific fields--perhaps all of them that relate in any way to the polygraph--in order to render a reasonable scientific statement about it.
But Sackett implies that even that is not good enough in another post:
sackett wrote on May 5th, 2008, 9:24pm:
Polygraph is a combination of sciences and arts that when applied together, work. To break it down by science or art, it can not necessarily be explained satisfactorily to those thinking in a singular methodology or nature.
So, not only would one need to be qualified in a large number of scientific fields, one would also need to be an artist as well. Only then could one (perhaps) be qualified to express a view on the accuracy of the polygraph."
My point was simplistic even by my standards. Sorry you (again) missed it!
Evaluation of the polygraph process by one specific scientific field will not satisfactorily explain all that polygraph is. I never suggested to understand polygraph one needed to be an expert in ALL scientific fields (as you have wrongly expanded), but simply, that scientists tend to orient themselves to what they know and can prove within their own scientific field, rather than what works (like polygraph) when it contains numerous disciplines.
Sackett
Posted by Lethe
- May 07, 2008, 07:47 PMI'd like to make two additional points about Sackett's claim that the National Academy of Sciences is not capable of evaluating the accuracy of the polygraph.
First, there is no reason to think that the NAS members who were on the polygraph evaluation panel were biased (at least none that anyone has brought up). NAS scientists are chosen by their peers (other scientists) for excellence in their fields and for their professionalism and dedication to using the tools of science to discover truths about the way the world works. They gain nothing--and indeed stand to suffer damage to their reputations--by producing an inaccurate report on the polygraph.
Polygraphers, on the other hand, are completely interested in the outcome of the study. Their reputations, livelihoods, and, perhaps, even their sense of value to the community are tied up with the validation of the polygraph. Unlike neutral NAS scientists, polygraphers stand to lose a lot if the polygraph is found to not be accurate enough to justify its use.
Given that, I have more confidence in the scientists to evaluate the polygraph objectively than I do in the ability of interested polygraphers to do so.
Secondly, it takes years of dedicated work in science for a person to even be considered for membership in the NAS. All members are excellent scientists whose work has stood up to rigorous review and has garnered the respect of some of the smartest researchers and thinkers in the country. I imagine that virtually all, if not all, have at least one doctoral degree.
By comparison, the barriers to becoming a polygrapher are much, much lower. Polygraphers typically spend a few months in polygraph school, some time in an apprenticeship, and then the equivalent of probably a few more months of schooling staying current on the literature produced by the polygraph community. This makes them better qualified to evaluate the accuracy of the polygraph (a technology they have a vested interest in proving useful) than someone who has spent decades in higher education and in producing research? I don't think so.
First, there is no reason to think that the NAS members who were on the polygraph evaluation panel were biased (at least none that anyone has brought up). NAS scientists are chosen by their peers (other scientists) for excellence in their fields and for their professionalism and dedication to using the tools of science to discover truths about the way the world works. They gain nothing--and indeed stand to suffer damage to their reputations--by producing an inaccurate report on the polygraph.
Polygraphers, on the other hand, are completely interested in the outcome of the study. Their reputations, livelihoods, and, perhaps, even their sense of value to the community are tied up with the validation of the polygraph. Unlike neutral NAS scientists, polygraphers stand to lose a lot if the polygraph is found to not be accurate enough to justify its use.
Given that, I have more confidence in the scientists to evaluate the polygraph objectively than I do in the ability of interested polygraphers to do so.
Secondly, it takes years of dedicated work in science for a person to even be considered for membership in the NAS. All members are excellent scientists whose work has stood up to rigorous review and has garnered the respect of some of the smartest researchers and thinkers in the country. I imagine that virtually all, if not all, have at least one doctoral degree.
By comparison, the barriers to becoming a polygrapher are much, much lower. Polygraphers typically spend a few months in polygraph school, some time in an apprenticeship, and then the equivalent of probably a few more months of schooling staying current on the literature produced by the polygraph community. This makes them better qualified to evaluate the accuracy of the polygraph (a technology they have a vested interest in proving useful) than someone who has spent decades in higher education and in producing research? I don't think so.
Posted by Lethe
- May 07, 2008, 07:19 PMQuote from: Dr_Shakalu on May 01, 2008, 10:28 PMAdditionally, hypothetically speaking (meaning that you have a supportive base in the application of polgraph), what exact science and scientists do you feel polygraph should be validated by? Psychology? Biology? Physiology? Sociology/Criminology? Human Sciences?
Before you answer, I submit my belief is that this is the very reason polygraph has such a difficult time being validated and verified by any group of various disciplined scientists. Exactly which accepted discipline will do the verifying?
Polygraph requires a little of each and yet none of the sciences truly accept the practice without some form of qualification or caviat. Not because it doesn't work, but because the variety of disciplines being applied in the process have their own individual understanding, individual within each discipline and their own agendas, supporting their scientific belief systems.
Sackett
I find these statements interesting. Sackett seems to be saying that one major reason the polygraph isn't widely accepted by scientists is that it doesn't neatly fall into any one, single, narrowly defined scientific discipline. Perhaps one would need to be an expert in a number of scientific fields--perhaps all of them that relate in any way to the polygraph--in order to render a reasonable scientific statement about it.
But Sackett implies that even that is not good enough in another post:
Quote from: sackett on May 05, 2008, 09:24 PMPolygraph is a combination of sciences and arts that when applied together, work. To break it down by science or art, it can not necessarily be explained satisfactorily to those thinking in a singular methodology or nature.
So, not only would one need to be qualified in a large number of scientific fields, one would also need to be an artist as well. Only then could one (perhaps) be qualified to express a view on the accuracy of the polygraph.
In my view, this is simply special pleading to disqualify virtually everyone who says anything negative about the accuracy of the polygraph. The only people they want saying anything about the accuracy of the polygraph are other polygraphers. That's sort of like saying scientists can't say anything about the accuracy of psychic predictions because scientists are not psychics. Or that science cannot comment on the validity of faith healing because scientists aren't faith healers. It'd be like Uri Geller telling scientists that they had no basis for saying he wasn't bending spoons with his mind because those scientists couldn't bend spoons wit their minds.
Please, science is not so limited a procedure that it is helpless in the face of unusual claims, and the claims of polygraphers (we can detect deception with such-and-such percent accuracy) are not particularly complicated or difficult to understand. In any event, the National Academy of Sciences includes members from every scientific discipline and members are the cream of the crop, the elite of American scientists.
Like others who dislike scientific findings vis-a-vis their favorite hobby horse (creationists, UFO folks, new agers, and the like), polygraphers are left positing that scientists are either dunces, incapable of doing legitimate research on their topic, or are involved in a conspiracy to cover up accurate information. The only people, they think, able to express an opinion on the accuracy of the polygraph are those whose opinion is that it is sufficiently accurate. How scientific. Or Artistic?
Posted by sackett
- May 04, 2008, 02:38 AMQuote from: 0615020D10630 on May 03, 2008, 06:57 PMJim:
Your comment:
Now for my real response. I used to ask former armored car drivers if they ever thought about stealing the money in the back as an interview (truth) type question. If they said no, I knew they were lying because it would be a natural process to at least contemplate it. Maybe not to plan it, but to think of it in passing, yes. Sort of like suicide..
My question for you:
How do you deal with an applicant for a sensitive job (such as armored car driver) who has a strong upbringing, someone who was taught during childhood that honesty is the best policy and to love thy neighbor? How can such an applicant show an elevated response to the control (comparison) questions?
Regards,
Evan S
Uh, truthfully...
Sackett
Posted by sackett
- May 04, 2008, 02:37 AMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 03, 2008, 05:10 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 02, 2008, 10:00 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 02, 2008, 09:52 PMSarge,
you obviously have an ability to readily discount human nature, all too quickly.
As for polygraph. Doctors hear a cough and assume a cold, then prescribe medications based on certain symptoms, mechanics hear a "ping" and know the vehicle needs to replace the piston, psychologists receive information about a certain number of criteria, they diagnose a disorder. Polygraph is no different. Based on a certain number of principles and applications, when conducted properly, polygraph identifies (through an all to often dismissed numerical evaluation) an examinee is truthful or not. It's really quite simple for some to understand.
Sackett
The polygraph is not purported to be a device which makes assumptions about a person's veracity based on human nature. It is purported to detect deception via scientifically sound methodology.
If the examiner is making assumptions based on their belief that every armored car guard has thought about committing armed robbery, that can hardly be considered science. It's simply a guess based on an assumption, which is going to wrong at least some of the time.
If you as the examiner are taking guesses what is the difference between a polygraph exam and an simple interview? At the end of an interview I can make an educated guess as to the veracity of the subject, and I will be correct some of the time and incorrect some of the time. You seem to be doing the exact same thing with the polygraph, but are calling it science and claiming an accuracy rate in the high nineties.
Sarge! As for Sackett..... There are none so blind than those who will not see.
Here is a guy that makes a living using a machine that is supposed to detect deception (and all the other names for lying that he lists) yet even in this thread he admits ....IT DOESN'T DETECT LIES!!
However if you fail a polygraph for what ever reason you are deemed .............A LYER.
But Sackett and his cronies will come back here day after day to defend the use of this technology and their method of paying their bills!!
First off, it's LIAR, not lyer?!
Yeah, sure, it's all about paying my bills..
Are you that that shallow or just ignorant...?
Sackett
Posted by sackett
- May 04, 2008, 02:34 AMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 04, 2008, 12:35 AMQuote from: Dr_Shakalu on May 01, 2008, 01:59 PMWell Doc,
I see the usual suspects have beaten me to the reponse. That's right, think of a tree when asked about stealing and you'll fail... Did I ever smoke marijuana, no? Not to worry, you'll fail that too. Remember, only the innocent fail and the guilty pass. Polygraph doesn't work... If you keep that in mind, you'll fit right in here.
Now for my real response. I used to ask former armored car drivers if they ever thought about stealing the money in the back as an interview (truth) type question. If they said no, I knew they were lying because it would be a natural process to at least contemplate it. Maybe not to plan it, but to think of it in passing, yes. Sort of like suicide..
Thinking about something you haven't done and have no memory of will NOT cause you to fail, regardless of the propaganda you read here. Full disclosures (without minimization, rationalization, avoidance and lying) to ensure no residual threats exist during testing is the only way to pass. Of course, the "anti-trolls" have already given you my answer...
Be completely honest and good luck,
Sackett
So let me get this straight Mr. Sacket. When you asked armored car drivers if they've ever thought about stealing money and they answered "no", then you knew they were lying. Why bother using the polygraph machine then? I guess human beings are better judges than machines. The Doctor.
OK, you're right, then why use it...?
Sackett
Oh, because they have to..
Posted by Dr_Shakalu
- May 04, 2008, 12:35 AMQuote from: Dr_Shakalu on May 01, 2008, 01:59 PMWell Doc,
I see the usual suspects have beaten me to the reponse. That's right, think of a tree when asked about stealing and you'll fail... Did I ever smoke marijuana, no? Not to worry, you'll fail that too. Remember, only the innocent fail and the guilty pass. Polygraph doesn't work... If you keep that in mind, you'll fit right in here.
Now for my real response. I used to ask former armored car drivers if they ever thought about stealing the money in the back as an interview (truth) type question. If they said no, I knew they were lying because it would be a natural process to at least contemplate it. Maybe not to plan it, but to think of it in passing, yes. Sort of like suicide..
Thinking about something you haven't done and have no memory of will NOT cause you to fail, regardless of the propaganda you read here. Full disclosures (without minimization, rationalization, avoidance and lying) to ensure no residual threats exist during testing is the only way to pass. Of course, the "anti-trolls" have already given you my answer...
Be completely honest and good luck,
Sackett
So let me get this straight Mr. Sacket. When you asked armored car drivers if they've ever thought about stealing money and they answered "no", then you knew they were lying. Why bother using the polygraph machine then? I guess human beings are better judges than machines. The Doctor.
Posted by Evan S
- May 03, 2008, 06:57 PMJim:
Your comment:
Now for my real response. I used to ask former armored car drivers if they ever thought about stealing the money in the back as an interview (truth) type question. If they said no, I knew they were lying because it would be a natural process to at least contemplate it. Maybe not to plan it, but to think of it in passing, yes. Sort of like suicide..
My question for you:
How do you deal with an applicant for a sensitive job (such as armored car driver) who has a strong upbringing, someone who was taught during childhood that honesty is the best policy and to love thy neighbor? How can such an applicant show an elevated response to the control (comparison) questions?
Regards,
Evan S
Your comment:
Now for my real response. I used to ask former armored car drivers if they ever thought about stealing the money in the back as an interview (truth) type question. If they said no, I knew they were lying because it would be a natural process to at least contemplate it. Maybe not to plan it, but to think of it in passing, yes. Sort of like suicide..
My question for you:
How do you deal with an applicant for a sensitive job (such as armored car driver) who has a strong upbringing, someone who was taught during childhood that honesty is the best policy and to love thy neighbor? How can such an applicant show an elevated response to the control (comparison) questions?
Regards,
Evan S
Posted by notguilty1
- May 03, 2008, 05:10 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 02, 2008, 10:00 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 02, 2008, 09:52 PMSarge,
you obviously have an ability to readily discount human nature, all too quickly.
As for polygraph. Doctors hear a cough and assume a cold, then prescribe medications based on certain symptoms, mechanics hear a "ping" and know the vehicle needs to replace the piston, psychologists receive information about a certain number of criteria, they diagnose a disorder. Polygraph is no different. Based on a certain number of principles and applications, when conducted properly, polygraph identifies (through an all to often dismissed numerical evaluation) an examinee is truthful or not. It's really quite simple for some to understand.
Sackett
The polygraph is not purported to be a device which makes assumptions about a person's veracity based on human nature. It is purported to detect deception via scientifically sound methodology.
If the examiner is making assumptions based on their belief that every armored car guard has thought about committing armed robbery, that can hardly be considered science. It's simply a guess based on an assumption, which is going to wrong at least some of the time.
If you as the examiner are taking guesses what is the difference between a polygraph exam and an simple interview? At the end of an interview I can make an educated guess as to the veracity of the subject, and I will be correct some of the time and incorrect some of the time. You seem to be doing the exact same thing with the polygraph, but are calling it science and claiming an accuracy rate in the high nineties.
Sarge! As for Sackett..... There are none so blind than those who will not see.
Here is a guy that makes a living using a machine that is supposed to detect deception (and all the other names for lying that he lists) yet even in this thread he admits ....IT DOESN'T DETECT LIES!!
However if you fail a polygraph for what ever reason you are deemed .............A LYER.
But Sackett and his cronies will come back here day after day to defend the use of this technology and their method of paying their bills!!
Posted by sackett
- May 03, 2008, 01:08 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 03, 2008, 09:33 AMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 02, 2008, 09:52 PMPolygraph is no different. Based on a certain number of principles and applications, when conducted properly, polygraph identifies (through an all to often dismissed numerical evaluation) an examinee is truthful or not. It's really quite simple for some to understand.
Sackett
What is simple to understand, is Sackett's lying. In this thread, he said?
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3864.msg28599#msg28599
Polygraph does not detect lies, period! No (informed) examiner, in a technical discussion of how polygraph works would say so. Now, if after the examination, your examiner says "you're lying", it is said for the reason of simplicity and steamlining the conversation, NOT as a technical discussion of the results! The technical discussion of how it works should have already been engaged in during the pre-test interview. I will assume you received that as well.
Nice try! Once again you, nopolycop, have taken my statement and twisted it to support your perverted opinions with a maniacal desire to "catch me" saying something different or in an outright lie. I will repeat what I have said in the past, as I am CONSISTENT in my message.
Polygraph does not detect lies. However, in the polygraph process and when discussing polygraph, the term "lie" also equates to distortions, minimizations, lies, rationalization, embellishment, avoidances, underestimating, etc, etc! The use of the term "lie" and/or non-truths, etc, are a convenient shorthand for all those processes or actions which are intentionally performed in order to avoid responsibility or detection.
I hope this repeated explanation get through to you;this time..!
Sackett
Posted by nopolycop
- May 03, 2008, 09:33 AMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 02, 2008, 09:52 PMPolygraph is no different. Based on a certain number of principles and applications, when conducted properly, polygraph identifies (through an all to often dismissed numerical evaluation) an examinee is truthful or not. It's really quite simple for some to understand.
Sackett
What is simple to understand, is Sackett's lying. In this thread, he said?
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3864.msg28599#msg28599
Polygraph does not detect lies, period! No (informed) examiner, in a technical discussion of how polygraph works would say so. Now, if after the examination, your examiner says "you're lying", it is said for the reason of simplicity and steamlining the conversation, NOT as a technical discussion of the results! The technical discussion of how it works should have already been engaged in during the pre-test interview. I will assume you received that as well.
Posted by sackett
- May 02, 2008, 11:25 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 02, 2008, 10:00 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 02, 2008, 09:52 PMSarge,
you obviously have an ability to readily discount human nature, all too quickly.
As for polygraph. Doctors hear a cough and assume a cold, then prescribe medications based on certain symptoms, mechanics hear a "ping" and know the vehicle needs to replace the piston, psychologists receive information about a certain number of criteria, they diagnose a disorder. Polygraph is no different. Based on a certain number of principles and applications, when conducted properly, polygraph identifies (through an all to often dismissed numerical evaluation) an examinee is truthful or not. It's really quite simple for some to understand.
Sackett
The polygraph is not purported to be a device which makes assumptions about a person's veracity based on human nature. It is purported to detect deception via scientifically sound methodology.
If the examiner is making assumptions based on their belief that every armored car guard has thought about committing armed robbery, that can hardly be considered science. It's simply a guess based on an assumption, which is going to wrong at least some of the time.
If you as the examiner are taking guesses what is the difference between a polygraph exam and an simple interview? At the end of an interview I can make an educated guess as to the veracity of the subject, and I will be correct some of the time and incorrect some of the time. You seem to be doing the exact same thing with the polygraph, but are calling it science and claiming an accuracy rate in the high nineties.
Sarge,
it continues to amaze me that while I am accused of NOT READING all posts and their meaning (which is sometimes true), here you are doing the same thing...
Your first paragraph is incorrect and you combined my statements, inappropriately.
Your second paragraph completely ignores common, human nature. If you live in a polyanna world where everyone is good and decent, and never have improper or criminal thoughts, then OK. But, I know, through the continuous study of human nature that if you or anyone were sitting in a mobile vehicle or room with a million dollars under your absolute and immediate control, the thought of, what if? Would occur. If you disagree, then.. oh well... your world is a lot better than mine.
BTW, I never made mention of armed robbery I simply inferred taking or keeping the money would be a natural passing thought. Not planning it out or doing it, just thinking about it. It is sort of like being at a funeral and considering your own mortality (i.e. what will my funeral look like, who will be there, etc). It's natural to think about it and it's not guessing, it's common sense!
Sackett
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 02, 2008, 10:00 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on May 02, 2008, 09:52 PMSarge,
you obviously have an ability to readily discount human nature, all too quickly.
As for polygraph. Doctors hear a cough and assume a cold, then prescribe medications based on certain symptoms, mechanics hear a "ping" and know the vehicle needs to replace the piston, psychologists receive information about a certain number of criteria, they diagnose a disorder. Polygraph is no different. Based on a certain number of principles and applications, when conducted properly, polygraph identifies (through an all to often dismissed numerical evaluation) an examinee is truthful or not. It's really quite simple for some to understand.
Sackett
The polygraph is not purported to be a device which makes assumptions about a person's veracity based on human nature. It is purported to detect deception via scientifically sound methodology.
If the examiner is making assumptions based on their belief that every armored car guard has thought about committing armed robbery, that can hardly be considered science. It's simply a guess based on an assumption, which is going to wrong at least some of the time.
If you as the examiner are taking guesses what is the difference between a polygraph exam and an simple interview? At the end of an interview I can make an educated guess as to the veracity of the subject, and I will be correct some of the time and incorrect some of the time. You seem to be doing the exact same thing with the polygraph, but are calling it science and claiming an accuracy rate in the high nineties.
Posted by sackett
- May 02, 2008, 09:52 PMSarge,
you obviously have an ability to readily discount human nature, all too quickly.
As for polygraph. Doctors hear a cough and assume a cold, then prescribe medications based on certain symptoms, mechanics hear a "ping" and know the vehicle needs to replace the piston, psychologists receive information about a certain number of criteria, they diagnose a disorder. Polygraph is no different. Based on a certain number of principles and applications, when conducted properly, polygraph identifies (through an all to often dismissed numerical evaluation) an examinee is truthful or not. It's really quite simple for some to understand.
Sackett
you obviously have an ability to readily discount human nature, all too quickly.
As for polygraph. Doctors hear a cough and assume a cold, then prescribe medications based on certain symptoms, mechanics hear a "ping" and know the vehicle needs to replace the piston, psychologists receive information about a certain number of criteria, they diagnose a disorder. Polygraph is no different. Based on a certain number of principles and applications, when conducted properly, polygraph identifies (through an all to often dismissed numerical evaluation) an examinee is truthful or not. It's really quite simple for some to understand.
Sackett
Posted by Sergeant1107
- May 02, 2008, 02:51 AMQuote from: Dr_Shakalu on May 01, 2008, 01:59 PMNow for my real response. I used to ask former armored car drivers if they ever thought about stealing the money in the back as an interview (truth) type question. If they said no, I knew they were lying because it would be a natural process to at least contemplate it. Maybe not to plan it, but to think of it in passing, yes. Sort of like suicide..
Someone already commented on this, but I think it is an important point.
There is no possible way for you to know that the armored car drivers were lying if they said they hadn't thought about stealing the money. You guessed that they were lying, and you equate that with knowing. You were almost certainly right some of the time, and almost certainly wrong some of the time.
How is that any different from the polygraph process? You ask questions and then you make a judgment based on what you think. You are almost certainly right some of the time, and almost certainly wrong some of the time.
Why do you believe the polygraph is any more or less scientific and/or accurate than a simple interview followed by a guess? You could also conduct an interview and flip a coin afterwards. You would be right some of the time and wrong some of the time, and it would be only slightly less reliable than taking a guess based on the examiner's assumptions. Depending on the examiner, I imagine it could be even more reliable.
How many polygraph examiners make similar assumptions during pre-employment tests? How many times do their assumptions screw over an applicant who is answering all the questions honestly?
Of the two people involved in any polygraph examination, the only one who truly knows if the answers given are truthful or not is the examinee. The examiner can only make guesses.
It is discouraging to see how such guesses are not even recognized as such, but are rather mistaken for science.