- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by PolyBS
- Apr 20, 2002, 10:37 PMQuote from: JM on Apr 17, 2002, 05:34 PM
Does your anti-polygraph/CVSA stance include other devices such as the 'P' wave monitor - Facial thermal imagine - Etc.?
I would be interested in any accurate statistical data indicating that any individual found to have failed the Polygraph and was indeed innocent suffered any specific consequences.
How about not being hired. I'd say that's a pretty specific consequence you sanctimonious [expletive deleted].
Posted by beech trees
- Apr 18, 2002, 02:03 AMQuote from: D Ngoo on Apr 17, 2002, 05:01 AM
xpmachina. If itz true that you passed the poly test by resorting to CM, I'd say you just got lucky. Thatz about it.
Add me to the 'just got lucky' list you're compiling.
QuoteHope you also have the same luck when you see your doc the next time and he failed to diagnose a cancerous tumor because you failed to co-operate with him.
I sat and reflected on this last passage for quite some time. After much thought, I've concluded this is the most outrageous statement I've seen yet posted to these bulletin boards.
QuoteI understand why you need to make these postings. Those just don't realize that you'll have no chance to do so when the day comes for you to go behind bars.
To those who's voices would be stilled by your threats, I pray your chains rest lightly upon you as you lick the boots of Herr Ngoo.
As the ancient Spartans so magnificently phrased it:
Mo
lon labe
Posted by Twonlock
- Apr 17, 2002, 08:22 PMJM
Evidently you haven't read the numerous posts on this site. If you had you wouldn't have to ask the question.
All of the "truth" devices are bovine poop including "brain wave science". I would volunteer to be a research subject for the validity/invalidity of "all" of these divices if I could be assured that the true results would be plastered in every newspaper and on every TV station in this country. The brain wave science is just another money making scam. If there was anything to this "technology" they could do so much more good turning it toward the medical profession. And make so much more money.
Evidently you haven't read the numerous posts on this site. If you had you wouldn't have to ask the question.
All of the "truth" devices are bovine poop including "brain wave science". I would volunteer to be a research subject for the validity/invalidity of "all" of these divices if I could be assured that the true results would be plastered in every newspaper and on every TV station in this country. The brain wave science is just another money making scam. If there was anything to this "technology" they could do so much more good turning it toward the medical profession. And make so much more money.
Posted by JM
- Apr 17, 2002, 05:34 PMDoes your anti-polygraph/CVSA stance include other devices such as the 'P' wave monitor - Facial thermal imagine - Etc.?
I would be interested in any accurate statistical data indicating that any individual found to have failed the Polygraph and was indeed innocent suffered any specific consequences.
I would be interested in any accurate statistical data indicating that any individual found to have failed the Polygraph and was indeed innocent suffered any specific consequences.
Posted by D Ngoo
- Apr 17, 2002, 05:01 AMxpmachina. If itz true that you passed the poly test by resorting to CM, I'd say you just got lucky. Thatz about it. Hope you also have the same luck when you see your doc the next time and he failed to diagnose a cancerous tumor because you failed to co-operate with him. I understand why you need to make these postings. Those just don't realize that you'll have no chance to do so when the day comes for you to go behind bars.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 29, 2002, 06:47 PMJ.B.,
Among other things, you wrote:
With regard to the scientific community's acceptance of CQT polygraphy, I would remind you of Iacono & Lykken's survey, which is discussed at p. 22 of the 2nd ed. of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
That CQT polygraphy is not unanimously supported has everything to do with its lack of an established (or establishable) accuracy rate and it's lack of grounding in the scientific method.
Among other things, you wrote:
QuoteThe reason CQT polygraph has not been unanimously accepted as a scientific method has nothing to do with its current accuracy rate or its scientific basis.
With regard to the scientific community's acceptance of CQT polygraphy, I would remind you of Iacono & Lykken's survey, which is discussed at p. 22 of the 2nd ed. of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:
QuoteIn 1994, William G. Iacono and David T. Lykken conducted a survey of opinion of members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR) (Iacono & Lykken, 1997). Members of this scholarly organization constitute the relevant scientific community for the evaluation of the validity of polygraphic lie detection. Members of the SPR were asked, "Would you say that the CQT is based on scientifically sound psychological principles or theory?" Of the 84% of the 183 respondents with an opinion, only 36% agreed.
Moreover, SPR members were asked whether they agreed with the statement, "The CQT can be beaten by augmenting one's response to the control questions." Of the 96% of survey respondents with an opinion, 99% agreed that polygraph "tests" can be beaten.
That CQT polygraphy is not unanimously supported has everything to do with its lack of an established (or establishable) accuracy rate and it's lack of grounding in the scientific method.
Posted by beech trees
- Mar 29, 2002, 06:36 PMQuote from: Propoly on Mar 29, 2002, 05:37 PM
Gino, Beech
Since my replies to messages on this site, I have yet to get a negative reply from the readers who are actually posting comments, looking for answers.
I post comments. I look and have looked for answers. Now that I have become more educated on the subject, I post answers when I feel I have them.
QuoteTo be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe I will. Because if the truth be known, the majority of the individuals who are seeking information about the polygraph examination are hard working honest people, who are seeking unbiased information.
I guess the inference here is that neither Gino or myself are hard working nor are we honest, and that we have posted 'biased' information about the polygraph while you, Mr. 'Propoly', have not. Let's read on and see.
QuoteIt's obvious in your comments, Gino and Beech, no matter what information is provided about polygraphy on this site, you're not going to agree with.
To date, Propoly, I have seen nothing from you except gratuitous assertions and personal opinion. Precious little information. None in fact.
QuoteTherefore, as of this date and time, I will not respond to, or even waste my time replying to one of your comments as it pertains to what I wrote in an attempt to answer the questions of the curious and sincere individuals as it relates to polygraphy.
Well that's a shame. I guess when your polygraph interrogation victims actually have a chance to fight back and speak their minds, as well as bring to light the incredible pantload of BUNK the travesty of a sham of a pseudo-science polygraphy is, you fold like a cheap card table and crawl back to the heavily censored bulletin boards where your particular brand of magic snake oil can be peddled free from the scrutiny of others who know all about you. Take care,
bt
Posted by Propoly
- Mar 29, 2002, 05:37 PMGino, Beech
Since my replies to messages on this site, I have yet to get a negative reply from the readers who are actually posting comments, looking for answers. To be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe I will. Because if the truth be known, the majority of the individuals who are seeking information about the polygraph examination are hard working honest people, who are seeking unbiased information. It's obvious in your comments, Gino and Beech, no matter what information is provided about polygraphy on this site, you're not going to agree with. Therefore, as of this date and time, I will not respond to, or even waste my time replying to one of your comments as it pertains to what I wrote in an attempt to answer the questions of the curious and sincere individuals as it relates to polygraphy.
Since my replies to messages on this site, I have yet to get a negative reply from the readers who are actually posting comments, looking for answers. To be perfectly honest with you, I don't believe I will. Because if the truth be known, the majority of the individuals who are seeking information about the polygraph examination are hard working honest people, who are seeking unbiased information. It's obvious in your comments, Gino and Beech, no matter what information is provided about polygraphy on this site, you're not going to agree with. Therefore, as of this date and time, I will not respond to, or even waste my time replying to one of your comments as it pertains to what I wrote in an attempt to answer the questions of the curious and sincere individuals as it relates to polygraphy.
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Mar 29, 2002, 04:35 PMGeorge,
Again you skirt the issue. There are accepted peer-reviewed field research studies on CQT polygraph and there is a current accuracy rate established by those studies. The reason CQT polygraph has not been unanimously accepted as a scientific method has nothing to do with its current accuracy rate or its scientific basis. It has to do with the squabbling between ideological camps as to who's question format is better. Your reference to an interrogator's ability to render an opinion on truthfulness has nothing to do with CQT polygraph.
Quote
The reason I haven't stated the "current accuracy rate" is that an unscientific procedure like polygraphy can not have a meaningful accuracy rate. It would be rather like attempting to state the accuracy rate of the opinions rendered by police interrogators regarding the truthfulness of those they interrogate.
Again you skirt the issue. There are accepted peer-reviewed field research studies on CQT polygraph and there is a current accuracy rate established by those studies. The reason CQT polygraph has not been unanimously accepted as a scientific method has nothing to do with its current accuracy rate or its scientific basis. It has to do with the squabbling between ideological camps as to who's question format is better. Your reference to an interrogator's ability to render an opinion on truthfulness has nothing to do with CQT polygraph.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Mar 29, 2002, 04:31 AMJ.B.,
You refer, of course, to the message thread, The Scientific Validity of Polygraph. My assertions regarding the validity of CQT polygraphy are that it has not been proven by peer-reviewed scientific research to differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels under field conditions, and that because it lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity. I think enough has been said about this in that discussion thread that critically thinking readers can draw their own conclusions about these arguments. The reason I haven't stated the "current accuracy rate" is that an unscientific procedure like polygraphy can not have a meaningful accuracy rate. It would be rather like attempting to state the accuracy rate of the opinions rendered by police interrogators regarding the truthfulness of those they interrogate. Even if an accuracy rate could be determined for a sampling of interrogations, that rate would have no predictive validity for the opinion rendered in any particular interrogator's interrogation of any particular person on any particular day.
I'd also like to make a fine point about what Gino wrote above: it's not the case that CQT polygraphy has been proven by peer-reviewed research to be no more accurate than chance, but rather that CQT polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to be more accurate than chance (under field conditions). There is an important difference between the two propositions.
You refer, of course, to the message thread, The Scientific Validity of Polygraph. My assertions regarding the validity of CQT polygraphy are that it has not been proven by peer-reviewed scientific research to differentiate between truth and deception at better than chance levels under field conditions, and that because it lacks both standardization and control, it can have no validity. I think enough has been said about this in that discussion thread that critically thinking readers can draw their own conclusions about these arguments. The reason I haven't stated the "current accuracy rate" is that an unscientific procedure like polygraphy can not have a meaningful accuracy rate. It would be rather like attempting to state the accuracy rate of the opinions rendered by police interrogators regarding the truthfulness of those they interrogate. Even if an accuracy rate could be determined for a sampling of interrogations, that rate would have no predictive validity for the opinion rendered in any particular interrogator's interrogation of any particular person on any particular day.
I'd also like to make a fine point about what Gino wrote above: it's not the case that CQT polygraphy has been proven by peer-reviewed research to be no more accurate than chance, but rather that CQT polygraphy has not been proven by peer-reviewed research to be more accurate than chance (under field conditions). There is an important difference between the two propositions.
Posted by J.B. McCloughan
- Mar 29, 2002, 02:42 AMGeorge,
You still amaze me. You have virtually dropped out of a debate that was started on your assertions of polygraph validity. Too date you have never presented any credible peer-reviewed research to support any of your assertions. You haven't even said what the current accuracy rate.
Gino,
You say chance. What does the current peer-reviewed research say of polygraph accuracy?
You still amaze me. You have virtually dropped out of a debate that was started on your assertions of polygraph validity. Too date you have never presented any credible peer-reviewed research to support any of your assertions. You haven't even said what the current accuracy rate.
Gino,
You say chance. What does the current peer-reviewed research say of polygraph accuracy?
Posted by G Scalabr
- Mar 29, 2002, 02:09 AMQuotePropoly: If you were confident that you didn't do anything, then why use counter measures?Perhaps xpmachina used countermeasures for the reason that he stated--that [the]POLYGRAPH TEST HAS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS VALIDITY.
QuoteWell there is one good thing about your admission(using counter measures that is), you knew that the polygraph instrument would detect your lies
To deduce that those who employ countermeasures believe that the polygraph instrument is an accurate lie detector is a non sequitur. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that these individuals do not wish to chance their futures on the outcome of a "test" shown to be no more accurate than chance.
Posted by beech trees
- Mar 28, 2002, 11:52 PMQuote from: Propoly on Mar 28, 2002, 03:48 PMWell there is one good thing about your admission(using counter measures that is), you knew that the polygraph instrument would detect your lies
But not, apparently, his use of countermeasures.
Posted by Propoly
- Mar 28, 2002, 03:48 PMAnswer something for me, xpmachina? If you were confident that you didn't do anything, then why use counter measures? Were you afraid that you couldn't pass the polygraph examination by just telling the truth. Well there is one good thing about your admission(using counter measures that is), you knew that the polygraph instrument would detect your lies
Posted by G Scalabr
- Mar 10, 2002, 07:09 AMDuc 748,
The information we provide is also likely being used by sexual assault victims in the numerous jurisdictions where the alleged victim of a sex offense must "pass" a polygraph "test" before the police deem the allegation credible and begin a serious investigation.
There is a great deal of legitimate information in our society that is also exploited by criminals. The fact that something can be used by criminals is hardly a reason for suppressing it.
Take, for example, rights and protections present in our justice system. These are frequently taken advantage of by guilty individuals. Under your logic, perhaps we should eliminate the right to remain silent. After all, criminals who confess are much easier to convict. While were at it, let's toss the Miranda decision. Many criminals may be ignorant of their rights--let's keep them that way, right? I could go on ad nauseam.
The information we provide on this website has an indisputable legitimate purpose--to help those forced to submit to polygraph "tests" protect themselves against false allegations.
Instead of blaming those who provide support for victims of polygraph "tests," you should be directing your energy toward those in the polygraph profession who routinely mislead the press and elected officials about the infallibility of polygraph "tests." The fact is that these "tests" are easily beaten by the guilty. They also tend to falsely accuse many innocent people. If criminals are going unpunished because they are beating polygraph "tests," the blame rests with anyone foolish to rely on these "tests."
Lastly, your comparison of polygraphy to modern medicine is ludicrous. The medical diagnostic process is supported (and shaped by) the best universities in our nation. The faculty at these institutions represents the best and brightest in our society. Polygraphy, on the other hand, receives nearly no respect from top tier academics. I'll leave it up to you to flesh out the argument that the level of intelligence among the faculty at polygraph schools compares favorably to the level of intelligence of those who teach medical doctors their diagnostic skills.
The information we provide is also likely being used by sexual assault victims in the numerous jurisdictions where the alleged victim of a sex offense must "pass" a polygraph "test" before the police deem the allegation credible and begin a serious investigation.
There is a great deal of legitimate information in our society that is also exploited by criminals. The fact that something can be used by criminals is hardly a reason for suppressing it.
Take, for example, rights and protections present in our justice system. These are frequently taken advantage of by guilty individuals. Under your logic, perhaps we should eliminate the right to remain silent. After all, criminals who confess are much easier to convict. While were at it, let's toss the Miranda decision. Many criminals may be ignorant of their rights--let's keep them that way, right? I could go on ad nauseam.
The information we provide on this website has an indisputable legitimate purpose--to help those forced to submit to polygraph "tests" protect themselves against false allegations.
Instead of blaming those who provide support for victims of polygraph "tests," you should be directing your energy toward those in the polygraph profession who routinely mislead the press and elected officials about the infallibility of polygraph "tests." The fact is that these "tests" are easily beaten by the guilty. They also tend to falsely accuse many innocent people. If criminals are going unpunished because they are beating polygraph "tests," the blame rests with anyone foolish to rely on these "tests."
Lastly, your comparison of polygraphy to modern medicine is ludicrous. The medical diagnostic process is supported (and shaped by) the best universities in our nation. The faculty at these institutions represents the best and brightest in our society. Polygraphy, on the other hand, receives nearly no respect from top tier academics. I'll leave it up to you to flesh out the argument that the level of intelligence among the faculty at polygraph schools compares favorably to the level of intelligence of those who teach medical doctors their diagnostic skills.