- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by beech trees
- Feb 26, 2003, 06:59 PMQuote from: Torpedo on Feb 26, 2003, 06:19 PM
Triple X...my compliments for demonstrating the moral courage on this board in acknowledging their are two sides to a discussion. I salute you, but be aware, you have probably angered the stalwart anti-polygraphers who I would not be surprised to see them attack you for your views.
The Romans had a term for what you're trying to do with that comment, Torpid-o: divide et impera.... divide and conquer. As a member of the more vociferous demographic on this board, I take umbrage of your mischaracterization of what I for one am doing here. I am NOT 'anti-polygrapher'-- that is a skewing designed I believe in an attempt to portray our side as wanting to make things personal (the dreaded ad hominem). I am ANTI-POLYGRAPH, not anti-polygrapher. Where despicable acts by the individual polygraphers who post here merit attention, they are duly noted, commented upon, and generally pointed out by myself or others. Sock puppets*, lying or carefully misleading as to your true profession, specious word games, or just the good 'ol basic 'attack the man, not the argument', these are all common themes from your side of the fence, not ours.
Thank you for this opportunity to clarify 'our' side.
Dave
*an artificial identity created by an individual for the express purpose of deluding others through agreement on that individual's viewpoint or otherwise swaying opinion to that individual's viewpoint.
Posted by Torpedo
- Feb 26, 2003, 06:19 PMTriple X...my compliments for demonstrating the moral courage on this board in acknowledging their are two sides to a discussion. I salute you, but be aware, you have probably angered the stalwart anti-polygraphers who I would not be surprised to see them attack you for your views. I would like to exchange some thoughts with you on this issue but would prefer to do it in a private message format which I understanhd is available on this site. I only say private because I would be concerned that their could be some mudslinging (possibly in both directions) designed at interrupting any exchange of ideas and positions (others would say debate, but I am concerned that some abuse the meaning of that word on this site). I also have some ideas about what might have transpired on your FBI examination. Please advise.
Posted by Seeker
- Feb 26, 2003, 03:13 AMQuote from: Batman on Feb 25, 2003, 04:25 PMOk Batty....did you video tape and record the exam you administered to yourself? If so, I would suggest that you could profit very well off of its sale. Just curious, did you ask yourself if you were going to be truthful, if you believed that you wouldn't ask yourself any question that you had not previously gone over with yourself?
OK let's see if the following experiment puts an end to this issue. Today I pulled out my 8-ball and asked, "Is Triple X a bullshitter whose head is strategically inserted in his lower body cavity?"; gave it a slow rotation (the tried and true technique) and it came up "NO". Well, so much for the accuracy of the 8-ball.
I then attached myself to a polygraph instrument and asked myself "Does Batman have his shit together?",and "Is Batman the best Super Hero ever?" (These would be the relevant issues). I answered "YES" (Ground Truth) to both. I threw in a couple of Probable Lie Comparison questions (nothing too tough mind you), and after the exam I evaluated my physiological responses. Results: NO DECEPTIO INDICATED; and I didn't even have to use countermeasures!
That's 100% accuracy in my book. End of debate, the polygraph is far more accurate than the 8-ball.
Batman
On the real side.....IS the polygraph more accurate than the 8-ball? I mean, doesn't the 8-ball have like 6 sides with 6 different answers? Wouldn't it be more likely that mere "YES" and "NO" answers would not be as accurate as the multiple choices of the 8-ball? I will have to pull down my dreaded statistics book and figure out just which one of these methods would be more accurate -- statistically speaking, of course since they both are invalid measures of truth.
I am also concerned with your research method. I don't need to pull out any of my books to know that your method was terribly flawed -- rings of simblance to your prefered toy of choice.
Boys and their toys.........Regards,
Posted by triple x
- Feb 26, 2003, 01:24 AMTorpedo,
You're right about the guy being a mortgage broker and not an insurance salesman on the ditech.com commercial. I saw it again last night and realized my inaccuracy.
With respect to the following excerpt from your post:
"lost another one to those polygraph guys (aka Batman, Torpedo and the rest of the Justice League)"
We may in fact someday be saying that. However, I do not consider that to be the case at all "present day". That's not to say that someday we will not.
My personal polygraph experience is very restricted and limited to only two [my own] FBI pre-employment polygraphs.
To clarify: I employed identical polygraph countermeasures on both polygraph exams. The first polygraph test was a very basic CQT test, no stim test, no post interrogation, and no noted or referenced problems from the polygrapher that administered the exam. The polygrapher personally told me that I did great on the test. He also told me that he did not see any problems with the polygraph charts, and said that I did fine.
I did not lie on any of the questions during the polygraph exam. However, I did believe it was wise to employ polygraph countermeasures to reduce the risk of a false positive result.
There is not a doubt in my mind that the polygrapher did not "see" anything suspicious within the charts. Personally, I feel that he would have challenged me on his suspicions. Also, there was no post test interrogation following the exam. He was very confidant that I had done extremely well. He walked me back to the application coordinator's office, and remarked to all in the room, that I did very well. Those were his words exactly.
The following week, I received a call from the applicant coordinator informing me there was a "problem" with my first polygraph results. Unbeknown to me, the FBI DC polygraph lab "suspected" I had employed polygraph countermeasures during the first polygraph test.
Upon returning for the polygraph retest [at the FBI's request] it was an entirely different story.
It was the same polygraph examiner that had previously administered my first polygraph exam. He definitely was not as friendly as the first time. He informed me the second I arrived, that DC had suspected I employed polygraph countermeasures during the first test. He was very aggressive, hostile, and unfriendly with his line of questioning.
The second test [retest] was R/I with no control questions at all. No stim test. This time, there was an entire set of 10/12 questions dedicated strictly to countermeasures that was not included in the first test.
The first test consisted of drug use/theft, espionage and foreign contacts. The polygrapher asked me 3 sets of questions in random order per each of the two sets of 10/12 questions. [6 charts total]
The second test consisted of the same original two sets of questions [minus control questions] drug use/theft, espionage/foreign contacts and countermeasure questions for a total of 9 charts. I was asked each set of questions in random order three times each on the retest.
At the conclusion of the second test, I was aggressively interrogated and harshly questioned with respect to ONLY the countermeasure questions as they related to the first polygraph test only. I was never asked if I had employed polygraph countermeasures during the retest. The polygrapher was only interested in the first polygraph test. He said I did fine on the drug use questions, he was also convinced I was not a spy during the espionage series of questions... however, he was insistent that I showed deception on the countermeasure questions as they related to the first polygraph test only.
The conclusion of my story is obvious to all on this board:
The result of my second polygraph retest was not within acceptable parameters. I was officially reported to the FBI Field Office to where I had applied as "inconclusive". [Failed result]
Torpedo:
I believe the FBI is studying polygraph countermeasures to learn the "tale - tale signs".
Unlike some on this site, I do believe that unrehearsed, ill prepared and poorly employed countermeasures can be detected. I even put my self in the shoes of a polygrapher, what would I watch for. 1) controlled breathing, 2) visual "obvious" flexing/squeezing of the buttocks, over-responses to ALL control questions, 3) deviation from established baseline breathing pattern on ALL control questions, etc., etc...
Obviously, I did not get a job with the FBI. I was disqualified from further processing and consideration. Thus, driving my interest in this website...
Hindsight is always 20/20... if I had it to do over again, would I do things differently? Without hesitation, I would indeed.
Does the personal experience of failing my FBI pre-employment polygraph exam change my views on the accuracy of polygraph testing, not at all. I still believe polygraph testing is susceptible to countermeasures. I simply made obvious mistakes, perhaps responded to too many control questions, thus, raising suspicion from the DC lab.
Where do I think I went wrong, what raised the flags in my personal case... consistently responding to ALL of the control questions during the first polygraph test. I also responded to the initial/final statement: "the test has now started" and "the test is now completed".
I simply over-did the countermeasures concept all together. Instead of detracting attention/suspicion, I attracted attention by producing a "perfect chart". If I had only responded to a couple of the controls, not all of them, I think the result would have been quite different.
Bottom line, it took the FBI DC polygraph lab to detect/suspect the countermeasures. The polygrapher that personally administered the 1st CQT polygraph test, absolutely suspected nothing. Furthermore, he did not suspect that I employed countermeasures on the retest. He never asked me if I did, he was only interested in getting a confession that I used countermeasures on the first test. I employed the same polygraph countermeasures exactly as I did during the first test. Seemingly, they went undetected/unsuspected.
In the end, the FBI DC lab deemed my retest results as inconclusive. [failed] based strictly on the first test only. The retest was never even an issue, nor questioned.
Torpedo, Batman, and others; I respect you guys as polygraphers. I understand it's your job. I also think you actually try to do the best that you are capable of doing. There is no doubt in my mind that you mean well, and are probably very professional within your specific career field.
Indeed we do get caught up in little more than insulting post(s), rather than openly sharing and debating reasonable and interesting ideals.
I merely think that polygraph testing is misleading, and unreliable. I continue to believe polygraph testing is susceptible to countermeasures. And yes, I do believe from time to time, that you guys probably catch someone employing ill rehearsed countermeasures.
I employed polygraph countermeasures, and was suspected and interrogated of such. Resulting in being disqualified from further consideration with the FBI.
I still have a great career with the DoD. Although; I would have given it all up for a job with the FBI.
In closing:
I sincerely hope that anyone out there that may be considering the use of polygraph countermeasures; need to seriously consider the potential consequences and downside if things should go wrong.
If countermeasures are properly and successfully employed: you get the job...
If caught or suspected of countermeasures: Permanent disqualification from the agency applied for, failed polygraph result on permanent file, embarrassment, regret, etc.
My final thoughts:
Even if I had NOT used polygraph countermeasures is no absolute guarantee that I still would have passed the polygraph exam.
Simply telling the truth is no guarantee of passing a polygraph exam.
False positive results are not uncommon.
I still very possibly could have failed the [very same] polygraph exam even if I had not employed polygraph countermeasures.
Truely something to ponder...
Triple x
You're right about the guy being a mortgage broker and not an insurance salesman on the ditech.com commercial. I saw it again last night and realized my inaccuracy.
With respect to the following excerpt from your post:
"lost another one to those polygraph guys (aka Batman, Torpedo and the rest of the Justice League)"
We may in fact someday be saying that. However, I do not consider that to be the case at all "present day". That's not to say that someday we will not.
My personal polygraph experience is very restricted and limited to only two [my own] FBI pre-employment polygraphs.
To clarify: I employed identical polygraph countermeasures on both polygraph exams. The first polygraph test was a very basic CQT test, no stim test, no post interrogation, and no noted or referenced problems from the polygrapher that administered the exam. The polygrapher personally told me that I did great on the test. He also told me that he did not see any problems with the polygraph charts, and said that I did fine.
I did not lie on any of the questions during the polygraph exam. However, I did believe it was wise to employ polygraph countermeasures to reduce the risk of a false positive result.
There is not a doubt in my mind that the polygrapher did not "see" anything suspicious within the charts. Personally, I feel that he would have challenged me on his suspicions. Also, there was no post test interrogation following the exam. He was very confidant that I had done extremely well. He walked me back to the application coordinator's office, and remarked to all in the room, that I did very well. Those were his words exactly.
The following week, I received a call from the applicant coordinator informing me there was a "problem" with my first polygraph results. Unbeknown to me, the FBI DC polygraph lab "suspected" I had employed polygraph countermeasures during the first polygraph test.
Upon returning for the polygraph retest [at the FBI's request] it was an entirely different story.
It was the same polygraph examiner that had previously administered my first polygraph exam. He definitely was not as friendly as the first time. He informed me the second I arrived, that DC had suspected I employed polygraph countermeasures during the first test. He was very aggressive, hostile, and unfriendly with his line of questioning.
The second test [retest] was R/I with no control questions at all. No stim test. This time, there was an entire set of 10/12 questions dedicated strictly to countermeasures that was not included in the first test.
The first test consisted of drug use/theft, espionage and foreign contacts. The polygrapher asked me 3 sets of questions in random order per each of the two sets of 10/12 questions. [6 charts total]
The second test consisted of the same original two sets of questions [minus control questions] drug use/theft, espionage/foreign contacts and countermeasure questions for a total of 9 charts. I was asked each set of questions in random order three times each on the retest.
At the conclusion of the second test, I was aggressively interrogated and harshly questioned with respect to ONLY the countermeasure questions as they related to the first polygraph test only. I was never asked if I had employed polygraph countermeasures during the retest. The polygrapher was only interested in the first polygraph test. He said I did fine on the drug use questions, he was also convinced I was not a spy during the espionage series of questions... however, he was insistent that I showed deception on the countermeasure questions as they related to the first polygraph test only.
The conclusion of my story is obvious to all on this board:
The result of my second polygraph retest was not within acceptable parameters. I was officially reported to the FBI Field Office to where I had applied as "inconclusive". [Failed result]
Torpedo:
I believe the FBI is studying polygraph countermeasures to learn the "tale - tale signs".
Unlike some on this site, I do believe that unrehearsed, ill prepared and poorly employed countermeasures can be detected. I even put my self in the shoes of a polygrapher, what would I watch for. 1) controlled breathing, 2) visual "obvious" flexing/squeezing of the buttocks, over-responses to ALL control questions, 3) deviation from established baseline breathing pattern on ALL control questions, etc., etc...
Obviously, I did not get a job with the FBI. I was disqualified from further processing and consideration. Thus, driving my interest in this website...
Hindsight is always 20/20... if I had it to do over again, would I do things differently? Without hesitation, I would indeed.
Does the personal experience of failing my FBI pre-employment polygraph exam change my views on the accuracy of polygraph testing, not at all. I still believe polygraph testing is susceptible to countermeasures. I simply made obvious mistakes, perhaps responded to too many control questions, thus, raising suspicion from the DC lab.
Where do I think I went wrong, what raised the flags in my personal case... consistently responding to ALL of the control questions during the first polygraph test. I also responded to the initial/final statement: "the test has now started" and "the test is now completed".
I simply over-did the countermeasures concept all together. Instead of detracting attention/suspicion, I attracted attention by producing a "perfect chart". If I had only responded to a couple of the controls, not all of them, I think the result would have been quite different.
Bottom line, it took the FBI DC polygraph lab to detect/suspect the countermeasures. The polygrapher that personally administered the 1st CQT polygraph test, absolutely suspected nothing. Furthermore, he did not suspect that I employed countermeasures on the retest. He never asked me if I did, he was only interested in getting a confession that I used countermeasures on the first test. I employed the same polygraph countermeasures exactly as I did during the first test. Seemingly, they went undetected/unsuspected.
In the end, the FBI DC lab deemed my retest results as inconclusive. [failed] based strictly on the first test only. The retest was never even an issue, nor questioned.
Torpedo, Batman, and others; I respect you guys as polygraphers. I understand it's your job. I also think you actually try to do the best that you are capable of doing. There is no doubt in my mind that you mean well, and are probably very professional within your specific career field.
Indeed we do get caught up in little more than insulting post(s), rather than openly sharing and debating reasonable and interesting ideals.
I merely think that polygraph testing is misleading, and unreliable. I continue to believe polygraph testing is susceptible to countermeasures. And yes, I do believe from time to time, that you guys probably catch someone employing ill rehearsed countermeasures.
I employed polygraph countermeasures, and was suspected and interrogated of such. Resulting in being disqualified from further consideration with the FBI.
I still have a great career with the DoD. Although; I would have given it all up for a job with the FBI.
In closing:
I sincerely hope that anyone out there that may be considering the use of polygraph countermeasures; need to seriously consider the potential consequences and downside if things should go wrong.
If countermeasures are properly and successfully employed: you get the job...
If caught or suspected of countermeasures: Permanent disqualification from the agency applied for, failed polygraph result on permanent file, embarrassment, regret, etc.
My final thoughts:
Even if I had NOT used polygraph countermeasures is no absolute guarantee that I still would have passed the polygraph exam.
Simply telling the truth is no guarantee of passing a polygraph exam.
False positive results are not uncommon.
I still very possibly could have failed the [very same] polygraph exam even if I had not employed polygraph countermeasures.
Truely something to ponder...
Triple x
Posted by steincj
- Feb 25, 2003, 10:37 PMAll,
The Magic 8-ball is not an issue to be taken lightly. I always had one in my office, and took it to all of my combat training exercises. He was donned with green tape to camoflague his shiny black exterior. And his name tag read, "the REAL intelligence officer."
Anytime I was in a jam, and I wasn't sure of my own decision, I would confer with him. He was a trusted source, knowledgeable in the ways of battlefield terrain analysis, enemy tactics, and enemy weapons, organization and equipment. He was a true student in the art of war.
We had a strong relationship. Sometimes, I had a feeling what he would tell me. Other times, I had no clue. When I was truly unsure of myself, I'd give him a big shake, get his juices flowing, and let him do all the work. Many times, his analysis surprised me. Other times, when I had an idea on my own but was looking for reassurance, I'd see what his last statement was and if I liked it, I'd give him a gentle stir, hoping he'd tell me what I wanted to hear. Many times, he was just that voice of reason and confidence, telling me exatly waht I needed to hear.
I miss the days of working with my assistant. I just hope that he's off doing wonderful things for our nation, as I sit back and pray he's advising others like he used to advise me.
Chris
Posted by triple x
- Feb 25, 2003, 10:30 PMBatman,
Since you actually threw in a couple of Probable Lie Comparison questions on yourself, I simply have no definitive argument prepared for such a convincing, "case-closed", closing argument...
Skeptic:
Perhaps your theory with the "shake" vs. "stir" requires further study. I must research this probability without further delay.
Seeker:
I strongly suspect your children may have already had this "shake" and "stir" theory figured out.
Boston Blackie:
You may be on to something there with that profound analysis...
Triple x
Since you actually threw in a couple of Probable Lie Comparison questions on yourself, I simply have no definitive argument prepared for such a convincing, "case-closed", closing argument...
Skeptic:
Perhaps your theory with the "shake" vs. "stir" requires further study. I must research this probability without further delay.
Seeker:
I strongly suspect your children may have already had this "shake" and "stir" theory figured out.
Boston Blackie:
You may be on to something there with that profound analysis...
Triple x
Posted by Torpedo
- Feb 25, 2003, 10:22 PMHey Trip X....just for info, the guy on the ditech.com commercial is a mortgage broker, not an insurance salesman. He ends his commercials with the lament "lost another loan to ditech.com"....much like the the anti-polygraphers will realize...sooner or later.....and they will be exclaiming....."lost another one to those polygraph guys (aka Batman, Torpedo and the rest of the Justice League)".....Hey Batman, you were right.....this poking the stick through the fence IS fun.....can't wait for the reply to this post.
Posted by Seeker
- Feb 25, 2003, 10:05 PMQuote from: Boston Blackie on Feb 25, 2003, 09:54 PMWell Batman, my dear, there is one for your "stir" methodology argument. LMAO
: :PP
I always heard that if you shake it more than once, your playing with it!!
Regards,
Posted by Boston Blackie
- Feb 25, 2003, 09:54 PM : :PP
I always heard that if you shake it more than once, your playing with it!!
I always heard that if you shake it more than once, your playing with it!!
Posted by Batman
- Feb 25, 2003, 04:25 PMOK let's see if the following experiment puts an end to this issue. Today I pulled out my 8-ball and asked, "Is Triple X a bullshitter whose head is strategically inserted in his lower body cavity?"; gave it a slow rotation (the tried and true technique) and it came up "NO". Well, so much for the accuracy of the 8-ball.
I then attached myself to a polygraph instrument and asked myself "Does Batman have his shit together?",and "Is Batman the best Super Hero ever?" (These would be the relevant issues). I answered "YES" (Ground Truth) to both. I threw in a couple of Probable Lie Comparison questions (nothing too tough mind you), and after the exam I evaluated my physiological responses. Results: NO DECEPTIO INDICATED; and I didn't even have to use countermeasures!
That's 100% accuracy in my book. End of debate, the polygraph is far more accurate than the 8-ball.
Batman
I then attached myself to a polygraph instrument and asked myself "Does Batman have his shit together?",and "Is Batman the best Super Hero ever?" (These would be the relevant issues). I answered "YES" (Ground Truth) to both. I threw in a couple of Probable Lie Comparison questions (nothing too tough mind you), and after the exam I evaluated my physiological responses. Results: NO DECEPTIO INDICATED; and I didn't even have to use countermeasures!
That's 100% accuracy in my book. End of debate, the polygraph is far more accurate than the 8-ball.
Batman
Posted by Seeker
- Feb 25, 2003, 12:28 AMQuote from: Skeptic on Feb 24, 2003, 09:37 PMSkeptic:
I, for one, would like to see you give it a try.
Skeptic
P.S. I'm thinking this "shake" vs. "stir" debate is a matter of preference. I haven't read any research on the topic, it's true, but I'm betting that both techniques have long and honored history.
A survey of my children and their friends today proved that indeed the "shake" and "stir" debate is one that is quite profound.
Upon questioning the youngsters, it was suggested the "shake" was used for urgent desires to acquire knowledge, while the "stir" is reserved for sensitive information hoped to be gleaned from the ball -- this was particularly important in matters of childhood romance questions.
Posted by Skeptic
- Feb 24, 2003, 09:37 PMQuote from: Batman on Feb 24, 2003, 08:01 PMAs for comparing the accuracy of the 8-ball with polygraph, it sounds like you have already come to a conclusion so is there any real reason for me to try and convince you otherwise?
I, for one, would like to see you give it a try.
Skeptic
P.S. I'm thinking this "shake" vs. "stir" debate is a matter of preference. I haven't read any research on the topic, it's true, but I'm betting that both techniques have long and honored history.
Posted by Batman
- Feb 24, 2003, 08:01 PMTriple X,
I'm telling ya bud, you don't shake the 8-ball. Maybe if you shake it once or twice you'll still be able to read the answer, but when you continue to shake it, those bubbles wreak havoc. A slow rotation of the wrist allows for longer wear and tear, not only on the 8-ball, but on the wrist as well. Plus a frantic shaking leads the examinee to believe you don't really know what to expect. That's the last thing any good examiner wants. We always want to have the examinee believe in the results. A slow and deliberate rotation most always instills confidence.
As for comparing the accuracy of the 8-ball with polygraph, it sounds like you have already come to a conclusion so is there any real reason for me to try and convince you otherwise?
Batman
I'm telling ya bud, you don't shake the 8-ball. Maybe if you shake it once or twice you'll still be able to read the answer, but when you continue to shake it, those bubbles wreak havoc. A slow rotation of the wrist allows for longer wear and tear, not only on the 8-ball, but on the wrist as well. Plus a frantic shaking leads the examinee to believe you don't really know what to expect. That's the last thing any good examiner wants. We always want to have the examinee believe in the results. A slow and deliberate rotation most always instills confidence.
As for comparing the accuracy of the 8-ball with polygraph, it sounds like you have already come to a conclusion so is there any real reason for me to try and convince you otherwise?
Batman
Posted by triple x
- Feb 23, 2003, 06:44 PMBatman,
You openly and publicly criticized me elsewhere on this board for lacking in the proper operational knowledge of the "magic 8-ball". However, I dare challenge your operational instructions of not to shake the magic 8-ball.
I arrived at this juncture of debate while sitting and watching CNN live. During a commercial on CNN, a "ditech.com" commercial aired precisely demonstrating the proper use of the magic 8-ball.
In the commercial, it depicts an insurance salesman feeling somewhat threatened by ditech.com beating his insurance rates.
It "clearly" shows the insurance salesman "shaking" the magic 8-ball, as he poses questions to the "magic device", much like a polygraph exam. As the insurance salesman poses his questions to the 8-ball, he "shakes" the magic 8-ball, and then pauses while holding it gently in his hands, as the magic 8-ball offers up the mystical answer to his questions... again, strikingly similar to a test subject being questioned while connected to the polygraph machine.
My point being:
1) Lets compare and study the scientific "chance accuracy" of asking a specific yes/no question to a test subject while connected to a polygraph machine...
As compared to:
2) Asking a specific yes/no question to a test subject while relying on the magic 8-ball to determine the definitive yes/no response.
Would the accurateness of the magic 8-ball, not be interpreted as the same "chance accuracy" reliability as with the subject polygraph exam?
My apologies here caped crusader; I'm merely curious with regards to the untrustworthy differences between the two devices of supposedly "great wisdom". If asked the same specific polygraph subject test questions, how do you dismiss one device(s) accuracy from the other.
Both "mysterious" devices are considered to "know all".
Granted, one is a $5.00 toy, the other a relatively expensive device that significantly effect peoples lives. However, when asking either of the two [polygraph/magic 8-ball] a basic yes/no question, it's merely "chance accuracy" as to whether the answer will be a yes or no.
Triple x
You openly and publicly criticized me elsewhere on this board for lacking in the proper operational knowledge of the "magic 8-ball". However, I dare challenge your operational instructions of not to shake the magic 8-ball.
I arrived at this juncture of debate while sitting and watching CNN live. During a commercial on CNN, a "ditech.com" commercial aired precisely demonstrating the proper use of the magic 8-ball.
In the commercial, it depicts an insurance salesman feeling somewhat threatened by ditech.com beating his insurance rates.
It "clearly" shows the insurance salesman "shaking" the magic 8-ball, as he poses questions to the "magic device", much like a polygraph exam. As the insurance salesman poses his questions to the 8-ball, he "shakes" the magic 8-ball, and then pauses while holding it gently in his hands, as the magic 8-ball offers up the mystical answer to his questions... again, strikingly similar to a test subject being questioned while connected to the polygraph machine.
My point being:
1) Lets compare and study the scientific "chance accuracy" of asking a specific yes/no question to a test subject while connected to a polygraph machine...
As compared to:
2) Asking a specific yes/no question to a test subject while relying on the magic 8-ball to determine the definitive yes/no response.
Would the accurateness of the magic 8-ball, not be interpreted as the same "chance accuracy" reliability as with the subject polygraph exam?
My apologies here caped crusader; I'm merely curious with regards to the untrustworthy differences between the two devices of supposedly "great wisdom". If asked the same specific polygraph subject test questions, how do you dismiss one device(s) accuracy from the other.
Both "mysterious" devices are considered to "know all".
Granted, one is a $5.00 toy, the other a relatively expensive device that significantly effect peoples lives. However, when asking either of the two [polygraph/magic 8-ball] a basic yes/no question, it's merely "chance accuracy" as to whether the answer will be a yes or no.
Triple x