- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by EJohnson
- Nov 25, 2007, 02:52 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Nov 24, 2007, 11:17 PMWell lets parse this shall we,
As a conviced sex offender that has been in large sex offense groups, i can tell you that 2/3's of them were crap..........most were people who had girlfriends who were underage by the state of West Virginia, (that would be 18, not 16) and some of these kids were just turned 18 and there girlfriends were 16.....As For me, I had a choice, plea out or possibly loose my son to the New York Foster system, at this point i had already gotten a place in west virginia and was a legal resident there, so the judge gave me the ability to go home instead of being in new york as a homeless person...I was asked if i wanted to take a polygraph to proove my innocence......I said YES PLEASE GIVE ME A POLYGRAPH, but i was never given one....Sound like railroading to you......it does to me......It's not a small group of people who have been accused and did nothing...............it's a large group........and i'm waiting for the day when that large group of LOW LEVEL Offenders and in some cases mid and high level offenders have there chance to speak out..................AND THEY WILL.......The Polygraph is just another lie, placed in the hands of this once wonderful country to create more of a police state, wile the true sex offenders get away with it daily.........I can't wait for the revolution !
OK. Let's "parse" this. You have engaged in classic minimizing----the swan song of the American sex offender. Sure there are some sexual misconduct cases---but 2/3rds? BS and you know it. The vast majority of sexual offender populations throughoiut the country are incest cases. "Uncle woody cases" if you will. Barring that your treatment group is/was a "special" sexual misconduct group versus the more numerous child molest, sexually violent types of groups, than you must be stretching the truth.
Also,---in addition to your classic---AND I MEAN CLASSIC---minimizing and distortion, you have even spoken of a "revolution." I can just see it now---a parade of sex offenders marching on Washington, burning their winnie the pooh t-shirts or throwing their rape kits "over the wall." What are you doing on the internet? Are you still on the rope?Your disagreement with polygraph aside, your presence here online shows that you aren't serious about treatment---if you are still on supervision. Lookin at porn are you---or on swinger sights maybe? You aren't in a position to be trusted just yet you know. You need to heal man, and in case ya didn't know, revolutions aren't known for their healing potential------as people get hurt. Pardon my cool tone, but if you had cancer I'd feel very sorry for you---but since your sad tale is as a result of you molesting a child---and you are obviously inteligent based on good penmanship---you knew far better. Screw with kids, and you are F'd. You knew this at the time. Incidentally, did you know that your victim is 30 times more likely to commit suicide before age 30 than the unmolested? Why aren't you fighting for victim charities?
answer; because you might still be in your narcissistic pattern of existance.
good luck
Posted by VeryConfused
- Nov 24, 2007, 11:17 PMWell lets parse this shall we,
As a conviced sex offender that has been in large sex offense groups, i can tell you that 2/3's of them were crap..........most were people who had girlfriends who were underage by the state of West Virginia, (that would be 18, not 16) and some of these kids were just turned 18 and there girlfriends were 16.....As For me, I had a choice, plea out or possibly loose my son to the New York Foster system, at this point i had already gotten a place in west virginia and was a legal resident there, so the judge gave me the ability to go home instead of being in new york as a homeless person...I was asked if i wanted to take a polygraph to proove my innocence......I said YES PLEASE GIVE ME A POLYGRAPH, but i was never given one....Sound like railroading to you......it does to me......It's not a small group of people who have been accused and did nothing...............it's a large group........and i'm waiting for the day when that large group of LOW LEVEL Offenders and in some cases mid and high level offenders have there chance to speak out..................AND THEY WILL.......The Polygraph is just another lie, placed in the hands of this once wonderful country to create more of a police state, wile the true sex offenders get away with it daily.........I can't wait for the revolution !
As a conviced sex offender that has been in large sex offense groups, i can tell you that 2/3's of them were crap..........most were people who had girlfriends who were underage by the state of West Virginia, (that would be 18, not 16) and some of these kids were just turned 18 and there girlfriends were 16.....As For me, I had a choice, plea out or possibly loose my son to the New York Foster system, at this point i had already gotten a place in west virginia and was a legal resident there, so the judge gave me the ability to go home instead of being in new york as a homeless person...I was asked if i wanted to take a polygraph to proove my innocence......I said YES PLEASE GIVE ME A POLYGRAPH, but i was never given one....Sound like railroading to you......it does to me......It's not a small group of people who have been accused and did nothing...............it's a large group........and i'm waiting for the day when that large group of LOW LEVEL Offenders and in some cases mid and high level offenders have there chance to speak out..................AND THEY WILL.......The Polygraph is just another lie, placed in the hands of this once wonderful country to create more of a police state, wile the true sex offenders get away with it daily.........I can't wait for the revolution !
Posted by Lienot
- Mar 09, 2007, 10:11 PMVery well, I am very deluded and will in all probability remain deluded for life in your context of that word. Thank you for your diagnoses and I will now rest.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 09, 2007, 01:19 PMQuote from: Lienot on Mar 09, 2007, 02:52 AMMr. Maschke,
I am neither deluded or ignorant, I care not to debate another individuals research pro or con. I simply referenced them. The latest studies by the Department of Defense research persons places accuracy rates below 98%. I would be more inclined to accept their findings, however I have not obtained my personal copy of the research and findings. When this occurs I will let you know, then discuss those findings. I am more comfortable with those studies.
You are indeed deluded, to the extent that you believe, as you seemingly do, that the polygraph is capable of detecting lies or deception. As Dr. Drew Richardson has vividly put it, polygraphers who administer lie tests are involved in the detection of deception in the same way that a person who jumps from a tall building is involved in flying. See How Polygraphers Become Deluded About Accuracy for relevant observations by the late Dr. David Lykken.
QuoteNo where in any postings have I stated the studies were scientific or peer reviewed. I do have a problem with your insisting they were not peer reviewed, how would you know? They were reviewed by other persons in the polygraph industry (peer review) and some disagreed with the findings, some agreed with the findings. They are not in my humble opinion scientific studies. They do not meet the standards of a "Scientific Study" for one and they have not been validated by replication from other disinterested sources that I am aware of.
It is common knowledge that the American Polygraph Association's newsletter is a trade publication, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Neither is the APA's quarterly journal Polygraph, which also published Ansley's "The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing" in Vol. 26 (1997), No. 4, pp. 215-39. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that Ansley was Polygraph's editor-in-chief when it published his article.
QuoteIf this is "Shoveling Shit" then so be it and I will accept your criticisms. I do not believe that to be the case. We are in fact off topic of the original post.
If you wish to persuade critically thinking people that polygraphy has an accuracy rate as high as the 90th percentile, you'll have to come up with something better than the citations you provided.
Posted by G Scalabr
- Mar 09, 2007, 01:11 PMQuoteClassic case: fox - hen house.
Yep...
Drew Richardson provided a great analogy a few years back, describing the situations where polygraphers control all polygraph validity studies as putting big tobacco firms in charge of lung cancer research.
The DoD studies are a joke.
Posted by meangino
- Mar 09, 2007, 02:58 AMQuote from: Lienot on Mar 09, 2007, 02:52 AMEcchaste,
The study referenced by Ansley can be obtained by requesting a copy of the publication from the American Polygraph Association at their website.
Classic case: fox - hen house.
Posted by Lienot
- Mar 09, 2007, 02:52 AMEcchaste,
The study referenced by Ansley can be obtained by requesting a copy of the publication from the American Polygraph Association at their website.
The Study referenced by Matte is in his book and can be reviewed in that manner.
Mr. Maschke,
I am neither deluded or ignorant, I care not to debate another individuals research pro or con. I simply referenced them. The latest studies by the Department of Defense research persons places accuracy rates below 98%. I would be more inclined to accept their findings, however I have not obtained my personal copy of the research and findings. When this occurs I will let you know, then discuss those findings. I am more comfortable with those studies.
No where in any postings have I stated the studies were scientific or peer reviewed. I do have a problem with your insisting they were not peer reviewed, how would you know? They were reviewed by other persons in the polygraph industry (peer review) and some disagreed with the findings, some agreed with the findings. They are not in my humble opinion scientific studies. They do not meet the standards of a "Scientific Study" for one and they have not been validated by replication from other disinterested sources that I am aware of.
If this is "Shoveling Shit" then so be it and I will accept your criticisms. I do not believe that to be the case. We are in fact off topic of the original post.
The study referenced by Ansley can be obtained by requesting a copy of the publication from the American Polygraph Association at their website.
The Study referenced by Matte is in his book and can be reviewed in that manner.
Mr. Maschke,
I am neither deluded or ignorant, I care not to debate another individuals research pro or con. I simply referenced them. The latest studies by the Department of Defense research persons places accuracy rates below 98%. I would be more inclined to accept their findings, however I have not obtained my personal copy of the research and findings. When this occurs I will let you know, then discuss those findings. I am more comfortable with those studies.
No where in any postings have I stated the studies were scientific or peer reviewed. I do have a problem with your insisting they were not peer reviewed, how would you know? They were reviewed by other persons in the polygraph industry (peer review) and some disagreed with the findings, some agreed with the findings. They are not in my humble opinion scientific studies. They do not meet the standards of a "Scientific Study" for one and they have not been validated by replication from other disinterested sources that I am aware of.
If this is "Shoveling Shit" then so be it and I will accept your criticisms. I do not believe that to be the case. We are in fact off topic of the original post.
Posted by ecchasta
- Mar 08, 2007, 09:58 PMThis forum has gotten off topic, but it is really the only topic of importance. I for one would like to see the full study to which LIENOT refers, not simply paraphrased results.
Can LIENOT obtain a copy for review, please?
Can LIENOT obtain a copy for review, please?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 08, 2007, 06:34 PMQuote from: Lienot on Mar 08, 2007, 02:00 PMHow accurate is the polygraph?
Researchers conducted twelve validity studies based on 3,174 real cases. Polygraphist's decisions in those cases were compared to other results such as confessions, factual evidence and judicial dispositions. The results, assuming every disagreement was a polygraph error, indicated a validity of 98% when polygraphists score their own polygraph charts.
What is there to debate in this post? Validity? Method used for the study? It is not a published study in journals other than polygraph journals?
I did not participate in the studies, have only read them and believe you should read them before making the statement you made.
I really don't like debating in this format, I prefer face to face debate and deiscussion.
I will not return your insult Mr. Maschke. Your ad hominem attack deserves no return or retribution.
Digithead offered thoughtful, well-reasoned counterpoints to the material you presented as "evidence" that polygraphic lie detection has an accuracy rate in the mid-to-high 90th percentile. To his criticism you responded, multiple times, saying that you have no interest in debating the matter. Why then did you even bother to post in the first place?
The reason I referred to your offering of such "evidence" as "shoveling shit" is that that both items (by Ansley and Matte) are non-peer reviewed writings by non-scientists whose livelihoods depended on public belief that polygraphy is highly accurate. Indeed, the former study was funded by the American Polygraph Association itself. If you think that these "studies" prove that polygraph results are almost always accurate, you are seriously deluded. The fact that you are unwilling to engage in any discussion of the merits of these "studies" suggests that you are willfully so.
Posted by Lienot
- Mar 08, 2007, 02:00 PMQuote from: Lienot on Dec 31, 1969, 07:00 PMHow accurate is the polygraph?
Researchers conducted twelve validity studies based on 3,174 real cases. Polygraphist's decisions in those cases were compared to other results such as confessions, factual evidence and judicial dispositions. The results, assuming every disagreement was a polygraph error, indicated a validity of 98% when polygraphists score their own polygraph charts.
What is there to debate in this post? Validity? Method used for the study? It is not a published study in journals other than polygraph journals?
I did not participate in the studies, have only read them and believe you should read them before making the statement you made.
I really don't like debating in this format, I prefer face to face debate and deiscussion.
I will not return your insult Mr. Maschke. Your ad hominem attack deserves no return or retribution.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 08, 2007, 03:08 AMQuote from: nonombre on Mar 07, 2007, 09:52 PM
My, my. Isn't that an articulate statement...
I chose my words carefully. I think that ridicule is the only appropriate response to one who advocates a viewpoint while refusing to discuss or debate it, as if that were somehow a virtue.
Posted by nonombre
- Mar 07, 2007, 09:52 PMQuote from: George W. Maschke on Mar 07, 2007, 04:59 PM
Perhaps the reason you're not interested in debate or further discussion is that you know you're shoveling shit?
My, my. Isn't that an articulate statement...
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 07, 2007, 04:59 PMQuote from: Lienot on Mar 07, 2007, 04:47 PMThank you so much for your "Amendment". Still no debate or further discussion. That post was for information only and is only supported by proponents of Polygraph, conducted by Polygraphists, and used by polygraphists. Thought you might find it of interest. Sorry to have disappointed you.
Perhaps the reason you're not interested in debate or further discussion is that you know you're shoveling shit?
Posted by Lienot
- Mar 07, 2007, 04:47 PMThank you so much for your "Amendment". Still no debate or further discussion. That post was for information only and is only supported by proponents of Polygraph, conducted by Polygraphists, and used by polygraphists. Thought you might find it of interest. Sorry to have disappointed you.
Posted by digithead
- Mar 07, 2007, 03:35 PMQuote from: Lienot on Mar 06, 2007, 09:56 PMAs stated before, not looking for an argument or really a discussion relating to any studies or validity of studies. Simply posted two from the polygraph community.
Then why bother posting at all? Is it merely a rebuttal to my claim that the literature does not support the notion of such an absurdly high accuracy rate? Then I stand corrected and amend my claim to say that independently peer-reviewed literature published in academic journals do not support the notion that the CQT polygraph can have any high degree of accuracy...