- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Marty
- Jul 11, 2003, 10:38 PMI recently have been reviewing some other professions that exhibit similar traits. Cold reading, mentalism, Tarot readings, and such. There are some true talents in these areas in the sense that their audience comes to highly believe that the performer has extra-normal powers. There is also a syndrome widely discussed where the performer comes to believe it himself. This effect was seen in spades in the once touted but now debunked pseudo-science, "Facilitated Communication" where the facilitators really believed in what they were doing and didn't realize they were subconciously manipulating their impaired patients. The psychology of all this is fascinating. I've ordered Ian Rowland's Cold Reading text - there is a section on application to sales and interrogation (really!). Should be interesting in comparison to the Compliance Psych. master, Cialdini.
-Marty
-Marty
Posted by Canadian Crusader
- Jul 11, 2003, 04:02 PMAnother interesting qoute from the paper.
"Polygraphers very predictable hostility to any suggestion of procedures (other than the polygraph) that might be employable to detect deception and/or the presence of special/guilty knowledge actually represents another clue that their perception of their own deployment of polygraphs is one that is not scientifically well grounded and that the polygraph, as a detector of deception, is factually not overly defendable. "
This quote sure lends strength to the stance we see taken by the polygraphers that frequent this site. They appear to have brainwashed themselves into thinking the poly is infaluable. Sort of a self preservation response when their livelyhood is attacked. This response tells me that they are not scientifically minded enough to objectively look at both sides of the poly debate.
Great find George.
CC
"Polygraphers very predictable hostility to any suggestion of procedures (other than the polygraph) that might be employable to detect deception and/or the presence of special/guilty knowledge actually represents another clue that their perception of their own deployment of polygraphs is one that is not scientifically well grounded and that the polygraph, as a detector of deception, is factually not overly defendable. "
This quote sure lends strength to the stance we see taken by the polygraphers that frequent this site. They appear to have brainwashed themselves into thinking the poly is infaluable. Sort of a self preservation response when their livelyhood is attacked. This response tells me that they are not scientifically minded enough to objectively look at both sides of the poly debate.
Great find George.
CC
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jul 11, 2003, 01:31 PMRetired NSA senior clinical psychologist Dr. LeRoy A. Stone has written an interesting article titled, "Using the Polygraph to Detect Lying and Deception: The Hoax of the Century." Here's an excerpt describing part of his experience at the NSA:
QuoteAs I suggested in some of the above paragraphs, when I was employed by the Federal intelligence agency, I had considerable contact with many of that agency's polygraphers, many of whom became 'at-work' friends. With most of these associations, I usually was able to, at least once, ask whether they thought they might be able to obtain the results they were after, even without ever turning on the machine (i.e., the polygraph). Almost all, admitted that not only that they believed that any good polygrapher could be successful even with a machine that was never turned on, but that in some cases they had actually proven to themselves that one could successfully carry off such a charade. To me this could be considered that the polygraphers themselves were fully aware that what they were doing was interrogation and that the polygraph merely was a prop that could be used to encourage the subject individual to confess.