- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 10, 2006, 02:28 AMEosJ:
It wasn't a slip of any kind, and I don't share that attitude that all are guilty until polygraphed innocent. That saying, "In God we trust and all others we polygraph" is kind of cocky, I know. I think it's a stupid saying that someone thought was smart.
Thanks for the compliments. Likewise.
Regards.
It wasn't a slip of any kind, and I don't share that attitude that all are guilty until polygraphed innocent. That saying, "In God we trust and all others we polygraph" is kind of cocky, I know. I think it's a stupid saying that someone thought was smart.
Thanks for the compliments. Likewise.
Regards.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Dec 10, 2006, 01:53 AMLBCB,
No face saving needed here. But, the common attitudes from polygraphers, quoting the Air Force OSI, In God we trust all others we polygraph !", is an underlying and reacurring theme. Or in other words, Guilty until polygraphed innocent !!. And what I say is never a personal thing, and yes I do treat your chosen vocation with disdain. Its not personal with me, never has been, with the exception of one polygrapher. And I do like your posts, for the most part, as you seem to be a polygrapher with some balls and are willing to debate in open forum. Unlike over at pro site. You are more than welcome to express your views, just as I am in speaking mine. As you have never done we wrong, then let the slip from your previous post be just that, a slip.
Regards ...
No face saving needed here. But, the common attitudes from polygraphers, quoting the Air Force OSI, In God we trust all others we polygraph !", is an underlying and reacurring theme. Or in other words, Guilty until polygraphed innocent !!. And what I say is never a personal thing, and yes I do treat your chosen vocation with disdain. Its not personal with me, never has been, with the exception of one polygrapher. And I do like your posts, for the most part, as you seem to be a polygrapher with some balls and are willing to debate in open forum. Unlike over at pro site. You are more than welcome to express your views, just as I am in speaking mine. As you have never done we wrong, then let the slip from your previous post be just that, a slip.
Regards ...
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 09, 2006, 05:55 PMEosJ,
I like you. Really. You have usually treated me with respect despite treating the polygraph I use with disdain. That's ok, though, because I hate the polygraph too.
But that sentence you highlighted in red can in no way be construed as saying that every examinee or every person is a criminal. I would never say that. All it says is that I have not come across anyone--or at least I didn't know it--who was determined and prepared and who had committed criminal behavior. Most examinees who follow George's countermeasures advice, in my experience, are determined, but they aren't prepared. They just end up looking stupid and feeling embarrassed, as I said.
Because I know you are an intelligent person, I think perhaps you simply tried to save face with that last post about the highlighted part. Don't worry, I sometimes try to save face too. But I don't want anyone who comes to this website to assume something that you want others to assume that I meant when, clearly, that's not what I said.
Regards.
I like you. Really. You have usually treated me with respect despite treating the polygraph I use with disdain. That's ok, though, because I hate the polygraph too.
But that sentence you highlighted in red can in no way be construed as saying that every examinee or every person is a criminal. I would never say that. All it says is that I have not come across anyone--or at least I didn't know it--who was determined and prepared and who had committed criminal behavior. Most examinees who follow George's countermeasures advice, in my experience, are determined, but they aren't prepared. They just end up looking stupid and feeling embarrassed, as I said.
Because I know you are an intelligent person, I think perhaps you simply tried to save face with that last post about the highlighted part. Don't worry, I sometimes try to save face too. But I don't want anyone who comes to this website to assume something that you want others to assume that I meant when, clearly, that's not what I said.
Regards.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Dec 09, 2006, 05:45 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 08, 2006, 04:44 PM
EosJ,
10% collateral damage is not acceptable, you're right. At least not when you are in that 10%. Sometimes I find it unacceptable too, I must confess. Whether passing polygraphs or administrating them, I've never had to face it from the side of the person falsely accused. Regardless of my ego, which I gladly admit, and despite Digithead's contrary opinion, I do feel sympathy for those treated with injustice.
That said, though, the agencies most polygraphers work for all want to get rid of the bad fish in the net, even if it means killing some of the good fish at the same time. When there are thousands of qualified applicants, and you have a process that you believe--rightly or wrongly--is correct most of the time, you use what you have. Is that unfair? Not to those hired, but it is unfair to those falsely accused, as well as to the rest of us when a truly bad fish escapes the net and swims in our waters. I just don't believe that either the false positive or the false negative happens as often as some of you would like to believe. Just because something may have happened to you doesn't make it a very common occurrence.
You are right about something else, I think: Maybe I haven't come across a truly prepared, determined person in an exam--a truly prepared person determined to beat the test despite past criminal behavior. And if I have, I didn't know it. What I have come across are people who are determined but not prepared, even though they've come here and read all of George's advice. Those people fail, after looking really stupid and being very embarrassed.
LBCB,
Highlighted in red above ... A slip it may be, but still an underlying thought process and assumption.
Regards ...
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 08, 2006, 10:44 PMQuote from: EosJupiter on Dec 08, 2006, 08:52 PMLBCB,
The flaw with your reasoning that everyone has something criminal to hide, is just wrong.
EosJ,
I'm not sure I follow you. When did I ever say that everyone has something criminal to hide? I think that everyone has made some mistakes in their life, but criminal? Please explain your misunderstanding of my reasoning.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Dec 08, 2006, 08:52 PMLBCB,
The flaw with your reasoning that everyone has something criminal to hide, is just wrong. I understand paranoia and caution where positions of authority are concerned, and yes I do not want bad fish swimming in the pool. But the screening net does more damage than its worth. I still seethe from the experience, and won't long forget. From my perspective it doesn't pay to be a boyscout anymore, if your going to be falsely accused and then barbecued by an interrogator. Then only later proven you were telling the truth to begin with. Vindicated I was, Still pissed off I remain.
Regards ....
The flaw with your reasoning that everyone has something criminal to hide, is just wrong. I understand paranoia and caution where positions of authority are concerned, and yes I do not want bad fish swimming in the pool. But the screening net does more damage than its worth. I still seethe from the experience, and won't long forget. From my perspective it doesn't pay to be a boyscout anymore, if your going to be falsely accused and then barbecued by an interrogator. Then only later proven you were telling the truth to begin with. Vindicated I was, Still pissed off I remain.
Regards ....
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 08, 2006, 04:44 PMBill,
I have to admit, that is hilarious, even if I am the target of the joke.
EosJ,
10% collateral damage is not acceptable, you're right. At least not when you are in that 10%. Sometimes I find it unacceptable too, I must confess. Whether passing polygraphs or administrating them, I've never had to face it from the side of the person falsely accused. Regardless of my ego, which I gladly admit, and despite Digithead's contrary opinion, I do feel sympathy for those treated with injustice.
That said, though, the agencies most polygraphers work for all want to get rid of the bad fish in the net, even if it means killing some of the good fish at the same time. When there are thousands of qualified applicants, and you have a process that you believe--rightly or wrongly--is correct most of the time, you use what you have. Is that unfair? Not to those hired, but it is unfair to those falsely accused, as well as to the rest of us when a truly bad fish escapes the net and swims in our waters. I just don't believe that either the false positive or the false negative happens as often as some of you would like to believe. Just because something may have happened to you doesn't make it a very common occurrence.
You are right about something else, I think: Maybe I haven't come across a truly prepared, determined person in an exam--a truly prepared person determined to beat the test despite past criminal behavior. And if I have, I didn't know it. What I have come across are people who are determined but not prepared, even though they've come here and read all of George's advice. Those people fail, after looking really stupid and being very embarrassed.
Finally, Digithead,
Your math makes sense in a purely mathematical world. Your skill with numbers is undeniable and impressive. My esteem for you has risen lately. But there are variables involved in the polygraph that you just can't figure out, no matter how you manipulate the statistics. Why does the polygraph work so well in the real world? I don't have all the answers, but from my experience I have seen time and time again that it does.
I have to admit, that is hilarious, even if I am the target of the joke.
EosJ,
10% collateral damage is not acceptable, you're right. At least not when you are in that 10%. Sometimes I find it unacceptable too, I must confess. Whether passing polygraphs or administrating them, I've never had to face it from the side of the person falsely accused. Regardless of my ego, which I gladly admit, and despite Digithead's contrary opinion, I do feel sympathy for those treated with injustice.
That said, though, the agencies most polygraphers work for all want to get rid of the bad fish in the net, even if it means killing some of the good fish at the same time. When there are thousands of qualified applicants, and you have a process that you believe--rightly or wrongly--is correct most of the time, you use what you have. Is that unfair? Not to those hired, but it is unfair to those falsely accused, as well as to the rest of us when a truly bad fish escapes the net and swims in our waters. I just don't believe that either the false positive or the false negative happens as often as some of you would like to believe. Just because something may have happened to you doesn't make it a very common occurrence.
You are right about something else, I think: Maybe I haven't come across a truly prepared, determined person in an exam--a truly prepared person determined to beat the test despite past criminal behavior. And if I have, I didn't know it. What I have come across are people who are determined but not prepared, even though they've come here and read all of George's advice. Those people fail, after looking really stupid and being very embarrassed.
Finally, Digithead,
Your math makes sense in a purely mathematical world. Your skill with numbers is undeniable and impressive. My esteem for you has risen lately. But there are variables involved in the polygraph that you just can't figure out, no matter how you manipulate the statistics. Why does the polygraph work so well in the real world? I don't have all the answers, but from my experience I have seen time and time again that it does.
Posted by EosJupiter
- Dec 08, 2006, 04:22 PMBill & Digithead,
LBCB actions and responses are typical of those that have no other options but to support their group or organizations. This dedication to supporting fallacy is very similar to those that support cults. The similarities to this mindset are discussed in a book called,
"Combatting Cult Mind Control",
by Steve Hassan.
Link: http://www.freedomofmind.com/
A great read by the way ... alot of insight into countering mind control and counter interrogation techniques.
Even though he has freedom of thought and viable alternate options, LBCB still sticks steadfast to his polygraph cult.
LBCB,
A 10% Collateral Damage rate is not acceptable under any circumstances, if we use your (highly doubtful) 90% accuracy rate. Especially when peoples lifes are being destroyed. But again its not the tool but the technician that must accept the consequences of their action. I still believe you have never run up against a dedicated and prepared person, and if you have you were beaten. And you never even knew it.
Regards ...
LBCB actions and responses are typical of those that have no other options but to support their group or organizations. This dedication to supporting fallacy is very similar to those that support cults. The similarities to this mindset are discussed in a book called,
"Combatting Cult Mind Control",
by Steve Hassan.
Link: http://www.freedomofmind.com/
A great read by the way ... alot of insight into countering mind control and counter interrogation techniques.
Even though he has freedom of thought and viable alternate options, LBCB still sticks steadfast to his polygraph cult.
LBCB,
A 10% Collateral Damage rate is not acceptable under any circumstances, if we use your (highly doubtful) 90% accuracy rate. Especially when peoples lifes are being destroyed. But again its not the tool but the technician that must accept the consequences of their action. I still believe you have never run up against a dedicated and prepared person, and if you have you were beaten. And you never even knew it.
Regards ...
Posted by Bill Crider
- Dec 08, 2006, 03:04 PMLBCB's predicted response of 90% is 90% reminds me of a scene from an old movie called "This is Spinal Tap"
The guitar player for a band is trying to explain how their amps are louder because their volume knob is marked 1-11 instead of the usual 1-10 so they can crank it up an extra notch. When he is told that having 11 increments instead of 10 doesnt mean your amps are any louder, the guitar player goes blank with a dumb look on his face, pauses for a moment and says....
"these go to 11."
http://members.aol.com/chiprowe/gotoeleven.wav
http://members.aol.com/chiprowe/gotoeleven2.wav
The guitar player for a band is trying to explain how their amps are louder because their volume knob is marked 1-11 instead of the usual 1-10 so they can crank it up an extra notch. When he is told that having 11 increments instead of 10 doesnt mean your amps are any louder, the guitar player goes blank with a dumb look on his face, pauses for a moment and says....
"these go to 11."
http://members.aol.com/chiprowe/gotoeleven.wav
http://members.aol.com/chiprowe/gotoeleven2.wav
Posted by digithead
- Dec 08, 2006, 01:59 PMOne final thing before I completely discharge this topic.
Lost in this discussion of hypothetical accuracy and arguments about the true base rate of deception are these indisputable facts:
If the base rate of true positives is less than 50%, your false positive rate goes up. In other words, the rarer true positives are, the greater the number of false positives.
Conversely, if the base rate of true positives is greater than 50%, your false negative rate goes up. In other words, the more common true positives are, the greater the number of false negatives.
Simply put in our context, the rarer the rate of the deception, the greater the number of falsely accused. The more common the rate of the deception, the greater the number of falsely exonerated.
And unless someone here has the skill to rewrite the laws of probability, these are indisputable facts.
Lost in this discussion of hypothetical accuracy and arguments about the true base rate of deception are these indisputable facts:
If the base rate of true positives is less than 50%, your false positive rate goes up. In other words, the rarer true positives are, the greater the number of false positives.
Conversely, if the base rate of true positives is greater than 50%, your false negative rate goes up. In other words, the more common true positives are, the greater the number of false negatives.
Simply put in our context, the rarer the rate of the deception, the greater the number of falsely accused. The more common the rate of the deception, the greater the number of falsely exonerated.
And unless someone here has the skill to rewrite the laws of probability, these are indisputable facts.
Posted by lane99
- Dec 08, 2006, 11:58 AMQuote from: digithead on Dec 08, 2006, 05:49 AM
Similar stubborness exists in believers in other pseudosciences such as dowsers,...
So you're going to try and tell us dowsing isn't real, either? Now you've gone too far!
Posted by digithead
- Dec 08, 2006, 05:49 AMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PMThis well-known saying is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the U.S. by Mark Twain:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
The semi-ironic statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and succinctly describes how even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments.
And my retort to people who don't understand the difference between the field of Statistics (the science of describing uncertainty) and a statistic (a scalar resulting from a function) is this: Tell me why is lying with numbers is worse than lying with words?
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PM
Your statistics aren't that difficult to understand, so don't flatter yourself. But you are indeed making a simple concept difficult.
If I have a process that is correct 90% of the time, I am not looking at PPVs or NPVs or MVPs or VIPs. I'm not assuming anything about the sample of examinees we're talking about--not how many are truly deceptive or how many are not. What I do assume, based on studies used by "pro-polygraph" people and that support my own experience, is that the polygraph is correct almost all of the time. Set that "almost" at 90% or 80% or even 70%, and we can manipulate the statistics, playing with the theoretical base rates ad infinitum. But if I'm talking about 100 examinees and throwing out the inconclusives that we can't count as anything, what we have left is a 90% accuracy rate for all of those examinees, regardless of how many are actually false positives or false negatives. Why make it more complicated? Whether the examinees are all truthful or they're all a bunch of liars, I'm right 9 out of 10 times. Ooooh, I just converted that 90% to 9 out of 10, follow me? I can't assume that 99% of all child molesters are liars any more than I can assume that only 1% of job applicants are liars. If I start to make those assumptions, I can manipulate the statistics in . . . well, you figure how many ways.
Simply stated, if I test 100 examinees, throwing out any inconclusives, what I'm left with is 9 out of 10 correct.
Simple question - if you don't know how many people are deceptive in your population, how can you estimate any accuracy?
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PM
Throw up all the smoke and mirrors you want, but underneath and behind it all, things are what they are, and I maintain that the polygraph, while imperfect, is almost always right.
You can maintain it all you want, but to paraphrase Richard Feynman - nature cannot be fooled...
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PM
I do sympathize with those people who are truly false positives.
Given your prior postings regarding others' honesty on this board, you're being disengenuous...
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PM
I know they must be out there even if I haven't come across many, if any, in actual exams. And I also agree that a failed polygraph with one agency should not follow a person around.
Even if another agency does not know about a prior failed polygraph, the person does and is hopelessly compromised for future polygraphs. You cannot deny this...
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PM
If agencies are so confident in the process that is claimed to be 90% accurate when conducted by a competent examiner, I say let them run their own exam without prejudice.
And I've explained to you the concept of wishful thinking yet you ignore it. You also fail to recognize many of your cognitive biases including:
- Confirmation bias - you only include information that supports your preconceived notions.
- Selective perception - you let your expectations dictate what you perceive.
- Self-serving bias - you claim more responsibility for your successes than your failures.
LBCB, no amount of evidence can persuade you of the folly of CQT because you are so entrenched in the field of polygraphy that you cannot admit that you're wrong. Similar stubborness exists in believers in other pseudosciences such as dowsers, psychic detectives, and homeopaths. Yet these people still find followers despite the evidence against it. Unfortunately, some of our species have a desperate willingness to embrace wishful and magical thinking. So I'll politely end our discussion because you're hopeless. I only hope that your willing credulity regarding the polygraph does not extend into other parts of your life...
Regards...
Posted by LieBabyCryBaby
- Dec 07, 2006, 11:23 PMQuote from: Sergeant1107 on Dec 07, 2006, 10:51 PM
If you believe this you have never had to interview any child molesters. All of them lie. Without exception.
Some of them mix in a very few truthful statements with their lies, and others mix in a great many truthful statements with their lies. But all of them lie.
Sergeant,
Good point. I mis-stated. I meant accused child molesters, not proven child molesters. Sorry, my mistake.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Dec 07, 2006, 10:51 PMQuote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 07, 2006, 10:19 PMI can't assume that 99% of all child molesters are liars...If you believe this you have never had to interview any child molesters. All of them lie. Without exception.
Some of them mix in a very few truthful statements with their lies, and others mix in a great many truthful statements with their lies. But all of them lie.
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Dec 07, 2006, 10:47 PMI have a very simple question:
Where do polygraph examiners get their percentages from when they claim, "The polygraph is 90% accurate"?
If an examinee fails the polygraph and there is no overwhelming evidence to prove they were actually being truthful does that result become part of the 90% figure? Is the assumption in such a case that the polygraph was accurate since no one can prove otherwise?
Or is that the assumption all the time? That the polygraph is always accurate unless there is overwhelming proof that it wasn't accurate?
I suppose there are rare cases where, after an individual is scored as "DI" on a polygraph, some persuasive evidence comes to light to prove that he was actually telling the truth during the test that resulted in the "DI" score.
I would imagine that there are far more cases similar to my first three polygraph exams, where the examiner says it is crystal clear to them that I am lying about a particular subject, and it is virtually impossible for me to prove otherwise. How can a person prove that they never used cocaine or sold cocaine? How can you prove that something didn't happen? And why should you have to if the only "proof" it did happen is the guesstimate of a polygraph examiner?
Where do polygraph examiners get their percentages from when they claim, "The polygraph is 90% accurate"?
If an examinee fails the polygraph and there is no overwhelming evidence to prove they were actually being truthful does that result become part of the 90% figure? Is the assumption in such a case that the polygraph was accurate since no one can prove otherwise?
Or is that the assumption all the time? That the polygraph is always accurate unless there is overwhelming proof that it wasn't accurate?
I suppose there are rare cases where, after an individual is scored as "DI" on a polygraph, some persuasive evidence comes to light to prove that he was actually telling the truth during the test that resulted in the "DI" score.
I would imagine that there are far more cases similar to my first three polygraph exams, where the examiner says it is crystal clear to them that I am lying about a particular subject, and it is virtually impossible for me to prove otherwise. How can a person prove that they never used cocaine or sold cocaine? How can you prove that something didn't happen? And why should you have to if the only "proof" it did happen is the guesstimate of a polygraph examiner?