- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 26, 2016, 10:31 AM"Never tell a lie when you can bullshit your way through it"
Eric Ambler, Dirty Story
Eric Ambler, Dirty Story
Posted by pailryder
- Apr 26, 2016, 07:46 AMYes Ark
But not random noise, the spin doctor strives for truthy noise.
I don't recall the attribution but father advises son, "Never tell a lie when you can get by with bullshit."
But not random noise, the spin doctor strives for truthy noise.
I don't recall the attribution but father advises son, "Never tell a lie when you can get by with bullshit."
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Apr 25, 2016, 12:54 PMQuote from: pailryder on Apr 20, 2016, 02:33 PMHis eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
This is a most apt description of your garden variety sex offender.
In my PCSOT experience, it's not so much white noise as it is a smokescreen.
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 25, 2016, 11:43 AMQuote from: pailryder on Apr 20, 2016, 02:33 PMHis eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.Interesting, so the bullshitter is not so much as liar as he is a random noise generator.
Posted by pailryder
- Apr 20, 2016, 02:33 PMIt is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshiter, however, all bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Harry G. Frankfort On Bullshit
Harry G. Frankfort On Bullshit
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 19, 2016, 12:15 PMThanks Pailryder, I was hoping you were still around. That's an interesting twist, to detect spin, the most cunning deception, as well as the absolute truth.
Brave Helios, wake up your steeds
Bring the warmth the countryside needs
Brave Helios, wake up your steeds
Bring the warmth the countryside needs
Posted by pailryder
- Apr 18, 2016, 07:35 PMArk
It is the quality, not the quantity, of your posting that impresses me.
The Truth Verifier would need to detect bullshit as well as deceptive misrepresentation.
Coldhearted orb that rules the night
removes the colors from our sight
red is gray and yellow white
but We decide which is right
and which is an illusion.
Moodys Days of Future Past
It is the quality, not the quantity, of your posting that impresses me.
The Truth Verifier would need to detect bullshit as well as deceptive misrepresentation.
Coldhearted orb that rules the night
removes the colors from our sight
red is gray and yellow white
but We decide which is right
and which is an illusion.
Moodys Days of Future Past
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Apr 18, 2016, 09:47 AMNo sweat, Ark.
BTW, I've been wondering...
Is there any chance you could encourage someone in the APA to run for president-elect? I'd like to see at least three people in the race this year, as it would give me a distinct advantage.
BTW, I've been wondering...
Is there any chance you could encourage someone in the APA to run for president-elect? I'd like to see at least three people in the race this year, as it would give me a distinct advantage.
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 16, 2016, 12:16 PMOkay Dan, I've calmed down. Sorry about the profanity.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Apr 15, 2016, 12:49 PMArk, I'm sorry. It was not my intent to rain on your parade.
As for The Truth Verifier, it is my view that such technology would ultimately turn out to be -- ironically enough -- a most pernicious curse, spawning levels of abuse that would dwarf the victimization that occurs under the current crop of "lie detectors." It would also usurp much of the wonderment that makes life the long strange trip that it is.
In the words of Robert Louis Stephenson, "To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive."
As for The Truth Verifier, it is my view that such technology would ultimately turn out to be -- ironically enough -- a most pernicious curse, spawning levels of abuse that would dwarf the victimization that occurs under the current crop of "lie detectors." It would also usurp much of the wonderment that makes life the long strange trip that it is.
In the words of Robert Louis Stephenson, "To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive."
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 15, 2016, 04:26 AMArkhangelsk,
I don't know of any prominent polygraph critics who oppose real scientific research into the detection of deception (as opposed to the drivel that the polygraph community has produced). I agree with Lykken that if such a technology were developed, there would be a compelling case for its use.
For the record, I believe that Cleve Backster was a crackpot, just like his fellow polygraph pioneer, William Moulton Marston was.
I don't know of any prominent polygraph critics who oppose real scientific research into the detection of deception (as opposed to the drivel that the polygraph community has produced). I agree with Lykken that if such a technology were developed, there would be a compelling case for its use.
For the record, I believe that Cleve Backster was a crackpot, just like his fellow polygraph pioneer, William Moulton Marston was.
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 14, 2016, 11:26 PMThe theme of this thread, The Truth Verifier, meant a lot to me. I put a lot of work and thought into it. You are an asshole for shitting on it. Fuck you Dan!
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Apr 14, 2016, 11:16 PMDon't give me that crap. How about backing up your claim that Cleve's "spontaneity was short of an epiphany"?
When it comes to polygraph, you're the guy who claims to be what a space shuttle commander is as compared to a Piper Cub jockey.
For us lowly hoi polloi, please explain how you arrived at your findings about Cleve Backster, who you never even met.
When it comes to polygraph, you're the guy who claims to be what a space shuttle commander is as compared to a Piper Cub jockey.
For us lowly hoi polloi, please explain how you arrived at your findings about Cleve Backster, who you never even met.
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 14, 2016, 10:55 PMWhy is it that you turn into Eddy Haskell and hijack a thread every time someone says something affront to one of your mentors? Go start a "Sir Galahad Mangan to the Rescue" thread and pout over there.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Apr 14, 2016, 10:36 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Apr 14, 2016, 10:10 PMI do not need to personally know historical figures to formulate an opinion.
Sure, Ark, sure. But even as a newly designated God Member -- as you yourself put it, most befitting for an angel -- you dodged the question.
Let's try it again.
Upon what do you base your assertion that Cleve's "spontaneity was short of an epiphany"?