AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

As you probably already know, a false syllogism ("Sillygism") draws the wrong conclusion from two premises.  For example:

Premise 1:  People who have just run a marathon sweat profusely.
Premise 2:  You are sweating profusely.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you have just run a marathon.

Not a valid conclusion.  Maybe you just stepped out of a sauna, worked in the yard on a hot day...etc.

The polygraph is based partially on a false Sillygism, which goes something like this:

P1:  People often react nervously when they purposely lie, or are purposely deceptive, when answering relevant questions.
P2:  You are reacting nervously when answering relevant questions.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you must be lying.


Again, not a valid conclusion:  Some people can lie their asses off without getting the least bit nervous   Many truthful people will react nervously by the mere insinuation that they are lying.

Logic 101

TC

And, here comes the pitch!!! T takes a mighty swing and POW, the ball shoots off the bat like a heat seeking missle, straight for the scoreboard!!!

HOME RUN, game over.

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 15, 2008, 05:04 PMAs you probably already know, a false syllogism ("Sillygism") draws the wrong conclusion from two premises.  For example:

Premise 1:  People who have just run a marathon sweat profusely.
Premise 2:  You are sweating profusely.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you have just run a marathon.

Not a valid conclusion.  Maybe you just stepped out of a sauna, worked in the yard on a hot day...etc.

The polygraph is based partially on a false Sillygism, which goes something like this:

P1:  People often react nervously when they purposely lie, or are purposely deceptive, when answering relevant questions.
P2:  You are reacting nervously when answering relevant questions.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you must be lying.


Again, not a valid conclusion:  Some people can lie their asses off without getting the least bit nervous   Many truthful people will react nervously by the mere insinuation that they are lying.

Logic 101

TC

Or perhaps Cullen,

Premise 1:  People who talk in circles are ignorant and can not learn.
Premise 2:  Your commentary linguistics pattern is circular in nature.
Conclusion:  You're an idiot!

Circular Logic 101

Read and learn... ;D

Sackett

P.S.  No home run "n.p.c." wrong field... figures though!

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 15, 2008, 05:04 PMAs you probably already know, a false syllogism ("Sillygism") draws the wrong conclusion from two premises.  For example:

Premise 1:  People who have just run a marathon sweat profusely.
Premise 2:  You are sweating profusely.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you have just run a marathon.

Not a valid conclusion.  Maybe you just stepped out of a sauna, worked in the yard on a hot day...etc.

The polygraph is based partially on a false Sillygism, which goes something like this:

P1:  People often react nervously when they purposely lie, or are purposely deceptive, when answering relevant questions.
P2:  You are reacting nervously when answering relevant questions.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you must be lying.


Again, not a valid conclusion:  Some people can lie their asses off without getting the least bit nervous   Many truthful people will react nervously by the mere insinuation that they are lying.

Logic 101

TC

Hey TC

Well Put! I am sure as you know by now that the pro folks like Sackett will come back at you negating the obvious staing that your no expert and that they, are the only people that can accuratly evaluate thier very inaccurate machine.
And how your logic is way off.

However truth is truth ( Not polygraph established truth) and the non-science of this thing is evident ad obvious to all but the uninitiated as we all were at one point.
;)

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 15, 2008, 06:05 PM

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 15, 2008, 05:04 PMAs you probably already know, a false syllogism ("Sillygism") draws the wrong conclusion from two premises.  For example:

Premise 1:  People who have just run a marathon sweat profusely.
Premise 2:  You are sweating profusely.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you have just run a marathon.

Not a valid conclusion.  Maybe you just stepped out of a sauna, worked in the yard on a hot day...etc.

The polygraph is based partially on a false Sillygism, which goes something like this:

P1:  People often react nervously when they purposely lie, or are purposely deceptive, when answering relevant questions.
P2:  You are reacting nervously when answering relevant questions.
Conclusion:  Therefore, you must be lying.


Again, not a valid conclusion:  Some people can lie their asses off without getting the least bit nervous   Many truthful people will react nervously by the mere insinuation that they are lying.

Logic 101

TC

Or perhaps Cullen,

Premise 1:  People who talk in circles are ignorant and can not learn.
Premise 2:  Your commentary linguistics pattern is circular in nature.
Conclusion:  You're an idiot!

Circular Logic 101

Read and learn... ;D

Sackett

P.S.  No home run "n.p.c." wrong field... figures though!

Wow I gave him way too much credit!! See I knew he would come back with some ingnorant post!!!!!! ;D

Nope!  I believe Cullen IS an expert.  

An expert at propaganda, rote diatribe, insults, sarcasm and as always, thinking and speaking in circles.

He's a wonderful expert in his field!


Sackett

"notguilty1"

give me no credit.  You guys make it easy and taking advantage of the mentally impaired is nothing to be proud of...and, I am not proud!

Successful apparently, but not proud!  :'(

Sackett

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 15, 2008, 06:10 PMNope!  I believe Cullen IS an expert.  

An expert at propaganda, rote diatribe, insults, sarcasm and as always, thinking and speaking in circles.

He's a wonderful expert in his field!


Sackett

Sackett it always amazes me how every time some one here post an intelligent agrument against the validity of your "device" you find nothing but ingnorant high school remarks to prove the opposing view.
BTW how old are you??
You are riding a doomed train and thats why you are on here DAILY protecting and delaying the CRASH!
The thing is most people are smarter than that and can see the truth. :)

You point out an "intelligent" argument and I'll join in.  

I didn't start the name calling, false analogies, disinformative and improper application of so-called "logic." I'm just a sucker to a neandertholic and gutteral desire to defend myself. ;)


Sackett

I figured my post would strike a nerve.  It wasn't even original.  I believe first heard the notion that the polygraph was loosing based on a false syllogism back in the 80's while watching a video made by Dr. Phil Zimbardo during a Psych 101 class.  It was also in that video that Dr. Zimbardo made the quote exhibited in my signature below.

That polygraphers can't or won't show this false syllogism unappropriately applied toward the polygraph SPEAKS VOLUMES!

TC

P.S.

Polygraphers say silly things.
You also say silly things.
You are therefore a polygrapher!

Cullen,

no nerves struck here, just a desire to point out ignorance and misapplied information and disinformative diatribe. For example,

P1:  To tell a joke, one thinks themself witty. :P
P2:  When no-one laughs, gives oneself pity :-[
Conclusion:  Must be a pity party participant who gets laughed at by all. ;D ;D ;D

Sad, sad, sad, :'( :'( :'(


Sackett

P.S.  It doesn't surprise me you would have to resort to plagerism...

Here is another popular false sillygism polygraphers make:

All legitimate, scientifically based tests produce some errors.
The polygraph produces some errors.
The polygraph is a legitimate, scientifically based test.

There are others.  And then there are the Non sequiturs!

TC

Yes, Sackett, but still, no one has given me a satisfactory answer to my very legitimate question.

I had two polygraphs over the same criminal charge.  There was NO objective evidence brought into the trial.  No physical evidence and no eyewitness identification.  Both polygraph exams were given by state licensed and vetted examiners, one private, the other from the state police.

I passed the private polygraph and failed the police polygraph.

If the polygraph is such an effective determinant of Truth and is supposedly reliable enough to do that, how does your profession explain away the dichotomy?

And please, do not hand me that crap about the machines being off or the quality of the examiners...just assume that all things were equal because as far as I could tell, other thna the private examiner having 27 years more exepreince than the police examiner, I found nothing different about the exams themselves to indicate that one was better than the other.

Just try to explain it to me in your best professional fashion, ok?

Take it easy...

Have a nice day.

TheKaisho

I'm certainly no expert, but from what I gather so far is that: If the polygragher is bias, you've already lost the battle before you even entered the fighting grounds.

Personally, I think the test is communist, but that is just my personal opinion.  

I will say, as being a new user also, to this cite, it is informative.

TheKaisho,

your indignation is understandable.  But as your question presents itself my response is this.  With ignorance and indifference to the multitude of variables possible (as you insisted), there should not be a difference in the results of two perfectly equal and balanced tests.  

Bias, as suggested by cat is certainly a possibility, but there are hundreds of others; however, it is a variable that you have insisted I ignore.  For that reason, I nor anyone (with any true knowledge of polygraph) would be able to explain the dichotomy.


Sackett

Kaisho,

The test is NOT reliable, and is very subjective.

 My experience bears that out.  Your experience bears that out.  The personal experience of many other people bear that out.  The evaluation of the scientific community bears that out.  Test results are generally not admissible in court for that reason.  It is against the law to require an employee or job applicant to submit to the test (except for LE and Fed).

So what more is there to know?  Do you still need confirmation from a practicing polygrapher?   Then again, your question to sackett was probably meant as a challenge and not as a real question.

TC

P.S.  And the test IS based on the FALSE syllogism in my original post.

Yes, Yes, TheKaisho,  you don't know what you meant to say.  Ask Cullen, he knows what you meant to suggest or ask...

My point to you is that the possibilities of the variables influencing the test are emmense and should not be dismissed.


Sackett

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 16, 2008, 05:09 PMTheKaisho,

your indignation is understandable.  But as your question presents itself my response is this.  With ignorance and indifference to the multitude of variables possible (as you insisted), there should not be a difference in the results of two perfectly equal and balanced tests.  

Bias, as suggested by cat is certainly a possibility, but there are hundreds of others; however, it is a variable that you have insisted I ignore.  For that reason, I nor anyone (with any true knowledge of polygraph) would be able to explain the dichotomy.


Sackett

Kaisho,

Fortunatly we have another member of the "initiated and soon to be informed club" with us. Welcome. Unfortunatly for you though you had to suffer being accused of a crime you didn't commit.
You posed a very good question to Sackett, who fancies himself as the "house expert" on Polygraph.At this point I don't know if he is or not you be the judge from his posts.
But you see Sackett does not have a good answer to your question because the truthfull answer does not serve his cause, so he is left with no other tool but to put down, critisze and demean anyone who oppses his "psydo-scince" in an attempt to discount you as a lier who is just whinning.
The fact is that you were given 2 equal Polygraph tests and got 2 entirely different results. I am not surprized!
This is the acual reliabilty of Polygraph, pretty much the toss of a coin. Sackett knows this. He has often gone on about the importance of Polygraph and how there are so many "accurate" charts and that one cannot for the most part fool the machine. He has often been know to contradict his own logic and does so again with you.
If the Polygraph is, as they claim 95-98% accurate then how can examiner bias possibly alter the results!
I was given a Polygraph when I was accused of a crime and failed in spite of telling the FULL truth.
I like you was looking for some explaination of how this could happen and once I discovered what was going on with Polygraphs I decided to stay on here and help eliminate Poly's.
Because they DON"T work. ;)

Quoteif the Polygraph is, as they claim 95-98% accurate then how can examiner bias possibly alter the results!

And how can there be, as Sackett suggests, an immense number of factors involved?  

For example, examiners would have people believe that the simple physiological readings the machine measures can tell if a person is being DECEPTIVE, even though the person is telling the truth.  Very simple and straight forward, not as complicated as Sackett makes it out to be.  "It's very simple Mr. Applicant.  The machine says you are lying.  SO FESS UP!"

But when questioned, polygraphers say the process is so very complicated.  Many factors involved.  You're mind is just to small to comprehend the process.  Only the ORDAINED can fathom the complexity!

Modern day "witch doctors", if you will.

TC

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 16, 2008, 05:09 PMWith ignorance and indifference to the multitude of variables possible (as you insisted), there should not be a difference in the results of two perfectly equal and balanced tests.

It is precisely this argument, (the number of variables which cannot be controlled) which renders the results of any given polygraph test an unscientific guess.

Well, well, well, I see the whole gang is awake and has come around to attack the poor, lonely examiner...

Anyway, yes, it is true.  I believe the polygraph process is about 90+% accurate; however, the accuracy, viability and utility of the polygraph rests with numerous factors.  These factors, otherwise called variables, which the "anti's" now discount as possibilities effecting the entire process and outcome, is a very important factor for consideration.  

Everything you can imagine can affect the process, and while we can assume many things, it is up to the examiner to ensure those factors are as minimized as much as possible to ensure the results will be accurate.  Sometimes, variables are minimized and lied about by the examinee, which the examiner has no knowledge or control over.  This could certainly have an impact on the examination.

Sometimes this (control over variables) does not happen (for a variety of reasons) and the results are less than accurate.  Of course, this is where the "anti's" take exception with the entire process and would throw it all out, rather than try to improve it; because it suits their agenda.

TheKaisho,  you can make up your mind what is right and what is wrong.  I hope this (all) has helped in some way to explain your question.

Sackett

It certainly seems logical to say that if the "variables" are neither quantifiable nor fully controllable, then you can never have an accurate test.

Claiming that the test is more than 90% accurate as long as a bunch of unquantifiable, uncontrollable variables are set up properly is nonsense.

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 17, 2008, 01:19 AMWell, well, well, I see the whole gang is awake and has come around to attack the poor, lonely examiner...

Anyway, yes, it is true.  I believe the polygraph process is about 90+% accurate; however, the accuracy, viability and utility of the polygraph rests with numerous factors.  These factors, otherwise called variables, which the "anti's" now discount as possibilities effecting the entire process and outcome, is a very important factor for consideration.  

Everything you can imagine can affect the process, and while we can assume many things, it is up to the examiner to ensure those factors are as minimized as much as possible to ensure the results will be accurate.  Sometimes, variables are minimized and lied about by the examinee, which the examiner has no knowledge or control over.  This could certainly have an impact on the examination.

Sometimes this (control over variables) does not happen (for a variety of reasons) and the results are less than accurate.  Of course, this is where the "anti's" take exception with the entire process and would throw it all out, rather than try to improve it; because it suits their agenda.

TheKaisho,  you can make up your mind what is right and what is wrong.  I hope this (all) has helped in some way to explain your question.

Sackett

Now please note folks that Sackett on numerous occasions has come on here to say that there are just a few of us "antis" as he puts it.

And of course he has no explaination on how these "factors otherwise know has variables" can possibly make a truthfull examinee into a lier.
Other than to say ........... your simply not being fully truthfull. Any other explaination would not bolster his agenda.
He does however at times say that the need for a deception detection device is very much needed and since we have no other device....... well ....... we just use this and make people believe that it accually works.
:o

An he doesn't even give examples of these "variables".  

And again, examiners claim there is only a 2-5% chance that a reaction means something other than deception.

All these pesky little "variables" to control, lest they "effect the entire process and outcome".  Yet the test is 95% accurate.  Seems counterintuitive.

QuoteClaiming that the test is more than 90% accurate as long as a bunch of unquantifiable, uncontrollable variables are set up properly is nonsense.

That all these variables exist is quite shocking.  My NSA polygrapher Mr. lingenfelcher, assured me that the there was only a 2% chance a reaction on the machine meant anything other than "deception".  Dirty rotten fibber!

TC

By referring to the whole gang, I meant the four of you... Don't get carried away "notguilty1"!

Anyway, TheKaisho (and others), you do see what I mean?  

You asked me a specific question with directed qualifications for the answer and I answered it directly and as requested.  Of course now, the congregation attacks me for following your instructions (by adhearing to, "all else being equal") and accuses me of hiding or misleading my response by withhlding information about what you asked me not to consider.  

No wonder they can't get off their merry-go-round of disinformation and the term "circular logic" seems to apply so accurately... Go figure?!  

Anyway, I hope this answers your inquiry.


Sackett

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 17, 2008, 07:00 PMBy referring to the whole gang, I meant the four of you... Don't get carried away "notguilty1"!

Anyway, TheKaisho (and others), you do see what I mean?  

You asked me a specific question with directed qualifications for the answer and I answered it directly and as requested.  Of course now, the congregation attacks me for following your instructions (by adhearing to, "all else being equal") and accuses me of hiding or misleading my response by withhlding information about what you asked me not to consider.  

No wonder they can't get off their merry-go-round of disinformation and the term "circular logic" seems to apply so accurately... Go figure?!  

Anyway, I hope this answers your inquiry.


Sackett

The fact is that you are the lonely examiner here, the only one that continuely come here and posts messages that contradict others that you post and that fly in the face of the supposed "accuracy" and "validity" of your "science"
The other "examiners" are wise enough to keep quiet when the facts are against them....... Not you Sackett, you continue thae mantra no matter the facts and evidence. Thanks for your valuable contribution to the casue.
VARIABLES ..... a new factor to consider .......... I.E. ( if the examiner AKA wizard of oz believes you)  ;D

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 19, 2008, 11:26 AM

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 17, 2008, 07:00 PMBy referring to the whole gang, I meant the four of you... Don't get carried away "notguilty1"!

Anyway, TheKaisho (and others), you do see what I mean?  

You asked me a specific question with directed qualifications for the answer and I answered it directly and as requested.  Of course now, the congregation attacks me for following your instructions (by adhearing to, "all else being equal") and accuses me of hiding or misleading my response by withhlding information about what you asked me not to consider.  

No wonder they can't get off their merry-go-round of disinformation and the term "circular logic" seems to apply so accurately... Go figure?!  

Anyway, I hope this answers your inquiry.


Sackett

The fact is that you are the lonely examiner here, the only one that continuely come here and posts messages that contradict others that you post and that fly in the face of the supposed "accuracy" and "validity" of your "science"
The other "examiners" are wise enough to keep quiet when the facts are against them....... Not you Sackett, you continue thae mantra no matter the facts and evidence. Thanks for your valuable contribution to the casue.
VARIABLES ..... a new factor to consider .......... I.E. ( if the examiner AKA wizard of oz believes you)  ;D

"notguilty1"

I can't answer why other examiners do not post here.  I know a LOT of examiners read this board, but someone has to present a balanced side of realty because you guys have really missed the boat.  That's OK, I remain entertained.

Your suggestion that I am simply posting contrary thoughts and opinions here and can't really remember my own lies is baseless and pathetic.  While I conflict with many posters on this board, my ideology and beliefs are constant because it is what I believe, based on my experience, training, education and past.

Besides, where exactly have I posted "one thing" then contradicted myself?  I post what I believe, nothing more, nothing less and think readers can make up their own mind.  BTW, I would appreciate a specific example and now that you have made the accusation, please do not nitpick, it makes you look petty.

Sackett

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 19, 2008, 12:07 PM

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 19, 2008, 11:26 AM

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 17, 2008, 07:00 PMBy referring to the whole gang, I meant the four of you... Don't get carried away "notguilty1"!

Anyway, TheKaisho (and others), you do see what I mean?  

You asked me a specific question with directed qualifications for the answer and I answered it directly and as requested.  Of course now, the congregation attacks me for following your instructions (by adhearing to, "all else being equal") and accuses me of hiding or misleading my response by withhlding information about what you asked me not to consider.  

No wonder they can't get off their merry-go-round of disinformation and the term "circular logic" seems to apply so accurately... Go figure?!  

Anyway, I hope this answers your inquiry.


Sackett

The fact is that you are the lonely examiner here, the only one that continuely come here and posts messages that contradict others that you post and that fly in the face of the supposed "accuracy" and "validity" of your "science"
The other "examiners" are wise enough to keep quiet when the facts are against them....... Not you Sackett, you continue thae mantra no matter the facts and evidence. Thanks for your valuable contribution to the casue.
VARIABLES ..... a new factor to consider .......... I.E. ( if the examiner AKA wizard of oz believes you)  ;D

"notguilty1"

I can't answer why other examiners do not post here.  I know a LOT of examiners read this board, but someone has to present a balanced side of realty because you guys have really missed the boat.  That's OK, I remain entertained.

Your suggestion that I am simply posting contrary thoughts and opinions here and can't really remember my own lies is baseless and pathetic.  While I conflict with many posters on this board, my ideology and beliefs are constant because it is what I believe, based on my experience, training, education and past.

Besides, where exactly have I posted "one thing" then contradicted myself?  I post what I believe, nothing more, nothing less and think readers can make up their own mind.  BTW, I would appreciate a specific example and now that you have made the accusation, please do not nitpick, it makes you look petty.

Sackett

OK this following is a quote from a post of yours right on this very thread:

"Sometimes this (control over variables) does not happen (for a variety of reasons) and the results are less than accurate.  Of course, this is where the "anti's" take exception with the entire process and would throw it all out, rather than try to improve it; because it suits their agenda."
You have made remarks that, the overwhelming results of a Polygraph are accurate at detecting deception and added that they are too many accurate chartes to ignore that ( leading the uneducated to believe that you accually know for sure that any chart is accurate) now, on this thread ( as well as others) there are, ........ this time you call them "variables".
"The fact is that "sometimes the control over variables does not happen"[/highlight as you point out.
Because, the vairables are that the machine is simply inacapable of detecting deception for the practical purpose of testing an indvidual that may or may not be lying.

Also, you mention that we want to "[highlight]throw it all out,rather to try to improve it".
You have a machine that is said to detect deception.....it fails as you conceed, and your logic is, since this is all we've got to use we need to continue using it dispite logical and evidentiary evidence to the contrary because, ........... those of us that have proof that is does not work AKA antis cannot come up with a better mouse trap!!
Talk about circular logic!!!
There is no "improving Polygraph's. The research shows that it's flawed technology for the application. You know it, we know it, the courts know it. The only ones that don't know it are the people who buy into (as I did) that it is effective and it's unbeatable.
When a scientist comes up with a vuable way to detect lies I will be in favor of it 100% since my intent was never to beat the machine by lying.

"notguilty1", the following was cut/pasted to reduce a simple "quote" which would take half a page and is superfulous to this discussion.

You wrote:  "OK this following is a quote from a post of yours right on this very thread:

"Sometimes this (control over variables) does not happen (for a variety of reasons) and the results are less than accurate.  Of course, this is where the "anti's" take exception with the entire process and would throw it all out, rather than try to improve it; because it suits their agenda."

You have made remarks that the overwhelming results of a Polygraph are accurate at detecting deception and added that they are too many accurate chartes to ignore that ( leading the uneducated to believe that you accually knowfor sure that a chrat is accurate) now on this thread ( as well as others) there are ........ well this time you call them "variables".
The fact is that "sometimes the control over variables does not happen" as you point out because the vairables are that the machine is simply inacapable of detecting deception for the practical purpose of testing an indvidual.

Also, you mention that we want to "throw it all out,rather to try to improve it".
Well, You have a machine that is said to detect deception.....it fails as you conceed, and your logic is, since this is all we got to use we need to continue using it dispite logical and evidentiary evidence to the contrary because ........... those of us that have proof that is does not work cannot come up with a better mouse trap!!
Talk about circular logic!!!
There is no "improving Polygraph's. The research shows that it's flawed technology for the application. You know it, we know it, the courts know it. The only ones that don't know it are the people who buy into (as I did) that it is effective and it's unbeatable.
When a scientist comes up with a vuable way to detect lies I will be in favor of it 100% since my intent was never to beat the machine by lying."

I suppose you need to be reminded that "the machine" does nothing more than collect and record physiological and biological data.  "The machine" is never inaccurate (unless broken) as it simply receives information and tranfers it to a computerized program (or energy in the case of the analog instrument) which in turn places it onto a chart.  

The variables of which I mentioned which effect the process (though not asked for by the original poster to discuss; as you guys have hijacked this conversation) were all the other factors that have a consideration in polygraph.

Therefore, I am still waiting for you to support your assertion or provide any example that I have conflicted myself in any way shape or form!

Finally, I do not believe it is talking in circles (i.e. circular logic) to suggest that if someone, such as yourself is to crusade against something that works, despite your assertion it is enternally and completely flawed, that perhaps having an idea of something else to take it's place is unnatural or uncalled for!  I think it makes common sense.  

Besides, eyewitness testimony is perpetually flawed and innaccurate (estimated at 60-70% innaccurate) .  Do we now discard all witness testimony unless tied fastly to technical or scientific evidence?  Based on what you (and others) suggest, eyewitness testimony or opinions should never be allowed in court or in civil proceedings; because of it's inherent flaw and lack of accuracy.  So much for a witness box...


Sackett

Quote from: PhilGainey on May 19, 2008, 06:49 PM"notguilty1", the following was cut/pasted to reduce a simple "quote" which would take half a page and is superfulous to this discussion.

You wrote:  "OK this following is a quote from a post of yours right on this very thread:

"Sometimes this (control over variables) does not happen (for a variety of reasons) and the results are less than accurate.  Of course, this is where the "anti's" take exception with the entire process and would throw it all out, rather than try to improve it; because it suits their agenda."

You have made remarks that the overwhelming results of a Polygraph are accurate at detecting deception and added that they are too many accurate chartes to ignore that ( leading the uneducated to believe that you accually knowfor sure that a chrat is accurate) now on this thread ( as well as others) there are ........ well this time you call them "variables".
The fact is that "sometimes the control over variables does not happen" as you point out because the vairables are that the machine is simply inacapable of detecting deception for the practical purpose of testing an indvidual.

Also, you mention that we want to "throw it all out,rather to try to improve it".
Well, You have a machine that is said to detect deception.....it fails as you conceed, and your logic is, since this is all we got to use we need to continue using it dispite logical and evidentiary evidence to the contrary because ........... those of us that have proof that is does not work cannot come up with a better mouse trap!!
Talk about circular logic!!!
There is no "improving Polygraph's. The research shows that it's flawed technology for the application. You know it, we know it, the courts know it. The only ones that don't know it are the people who buy into (as I did) that it is effective and it's unbeatable.
When a scientist comes up with a vuable way to detect lies I will be in favor of it 100% since my intent was never to beat the machine by lying."

I suppose you need to be reminded that "the machine" does nothing more than collect and record physiological and biological data.  "The machine" is never inaccurate (unless broken) as it simply receives information and tranfers it to a computerized program (or energy in the case of the analog instrument) which in turn places it onto a chart.  

The variables of which I mentioned which effect the process (though not asked for by the original poster to discuss; as you guys have hijacked this conversation) were all the other factors that have a consideration in polygraph.

Therefore, I am still waiting for you to support your assertion or provide any example that I have conflicted myself in any way shape or form!

Finally, I do not believe it is talking in circles (i.e. circular logic) to suggest that if someone, such as yourself is to crusade against something that works, despite your assertion it is enternally and completely flawed, that perhaps having an idea of something else to take it's place is unnatural or uncalled for!  I think it makes common sense.  

Besides, eyewitness testimony is perpetually flawed and innaccurate (estimated at 60-70% innaccurate) .  Do we now discard all witness testimony unless tied fastly to technical or scientific evidence?  Based on what you (and others) suggest, eyewitness testimony or opinions should never be allowed in court or in civil proceedings; because of it's inherent flaw and lack of accuracy.  So much for a witness box...


Sackett

I know I know. Polygraph is more accurate than any thing else out there. That must be why eye witness testimony IS admissable in court and Polygraph is not!
If this was only so, what a great machine it would be at detecting lies which I remember you saying that it does not yourself. ( don't have the time to find it it your post. I accually work for a living.)
What you say though is true the "machine" does nothing more than collect and record data. It is the polygraph industries contention that somehow that means it can accurately detect deception is what's in question in this........very successfull web site.
If it wasen't and we were all full of it ........... we all would not be here.

Okay, Sackett, I'll bite.

What variables would have to be "off kilter" in order to achieve the results I received?

If the polygraph is accurate, than how come I received two different results?

Is it the test itself OR the belief in the test that makes me out to be either a liar or honest?

To my mind, therein lies the rub; if the polygraph exam is valid, then the ONLY conclusion that one can get from the results of my tests is, at best, "inconclusive."  As to my honesty or deception, this means to me a tactical draw.   Should there be yet another polygraph that would serve as a tie breaker?  Should I get that one from yet a different examiner?

If I pass it, does that validate my first polygraph?  If I fail it, does that validate the second one?

What if the result of that polygraph is, as I have heard is possible, "inconclusive?"

Do I take yet another one? Will it wind up being a never ending loop of polygraph after polygraph until I get the results I want or what the authorities want?

And everyone here, including the naysayers, talk about circular logic.

Now, to my mind, when you have a tactical draw, one must look to the strategic ends to determine an outcome.  Strategically, Sackett, you must admit that the "science," if you will, of polygrapher is, at best suspect.  You basically state that when you say that this is the best weapon we have at the moment and that the science can and must get better.  To me, this suggests that you admit there is an inherent weakness in not just the testing, but the philosophy of its use.

That said, what happened to me makes no sense.  Logic theory dictates that if one has a True Statement (I am guilty) AND a False Statement, then there is a FALSE conclusion.  It is the same if the statements are reversed.

BTW, either I am guilty OR I am not.  Either I am a liar or I am not.

I have a very hard time trying to reconcile what you say is a valid science in the face of what happened to me.

I cannot explain it, and apparently, neither can you.

If i am wrong, please explain it to me now.

Quote from: samurai351 on May 20, 2008, 09:50 AMOkay, Sackett, I'll bite.

What variables would have to be "off kilter" in order to achieve the results I received?

If the polygraph is accurate, than how come I received two different results?

Is it the test itself OR the belief in the test that makes me out to be either a liar or honest?

To my mind, therein lies the rub; if the polygraph exam is valid, then the ONLY conclusion that one can get from the results of my tests is, at best, "inconclusive."  As to my honesty or deception, this means to me a tactical draw.   Should there be yet another polygraph that would serve as a tie breaker?  Should I get that one from yet a different examiner?

If I pass it, does that validate my first polygraph?  If I fail it, does that validate the second one?

What if the result of that polygraph is, as I have heard is possible, "inconclusive?"

Do I take yet another one? Will it wind up being a never ending loop of polygraph after polygraph until I get the results I want or what the authorities want?

And everyone here, including the naysayers, talk about circular logic.

Now, to my mind, when you have a tactical draw, one must look to the strategic ends to determine an outcome.  Strategically, Sackett, you must admit that the "science," if you will, of polygrapher is, at best suspect.  You basically state that when you say that this is the best weapon we have at the moment and that the science can and must get better.  To me, this suggests that you admit there is an inherent weakness in not just the testing, but the philosophy of its use.

That said, what happened to me makes no sense.  Logic theory dictates that if one has a True Statement (I am guilty) AND a False Statement, then there is a FALSE conclusion.  It is the same if the statements are reversed.

BTW, either I am guilty OR I am not.  Either I am a liar or I am not.

I have a very hard time trying to reconcile what you say is a valid science in the face of what happened to me.

I cannot explain it, and apparently, neither can you.

If i am wrong, please explain it to me now.

Kaisho,
What a very logical and intelligent post! However don't expect a simlar response from Sacektt.
Though I admitt he seems to be intelligent ( from the way he writes) he MUST continue the illusion of the Polygraph being accurate.
He will continue his mantra and through is "spices" as needed to bloster his contention that Polygraph can accuratly detect deception. You may have noticed that I say "deception" and not lies becasue Sackett himself has stated that Polygraph does not detect lies. And according to him NO  competemt polygrapher would claim that it does.
So as I see it to answer you logical question. Every Polygraph you take would yeild about a 50/50 chance of either result comng up. If my odds are off then the odds are against getting an accurate detection of deception from the machine. I think as many of us here have learned you have proof of this and are just as we were looking for a possible explaination for the results.

Quote from: samurai351 on May 20, 2008, 09:50 AMOkay, Sackett, I'll bite.

What variables would have to be "off kilter" in order to achieve the results I received?

If the polygraph is accurate, than how come I received two different results?

Is it the test itself OR the belief in the test that makes me out to be either a liar or honest?

To my mind, therein lies the rub; if the polygraph exam is valid, then the ONLY conclusion that one can get from the results of my tests is, at best, "inconclusive."  As to my honesty or deception, this means to me a tactical draw.   Should there be yet another polygraph that would serve as a tie breaker?  Should I get that one from yet a different examiner?

If I pass it, does that validate my first polygraph?  If I fail it, does that validate the second one?

What if the result of that polygraph is, as I have heard is possible, "inconclusive?"

Do I take yet another one? Will it wind up being a never ending loop of polygraph after polygraph until I get the results I want or what the authorities want?

And everyone here, including the naysayers, talk about circular logic.

Now, to my mind, when you have a tactical draw, one must look to the strategic ends to determine an outcome.  Strategically, Sackett, you must admit that the "science," if you will, of polygrapher is, at best suspect.  You basically state that when you say that this is the best weapon we have at the moment and that the science can and must get better.  To me, this suggests that you admit there is an inherent weakness in not just the testing, but the philosophy of its use.

That said, what happened to me makes no sense.  Logic theory dictates that if one has a True Statement (I am guilty) AND a False Statement, then there is a FALSE conclusion.  It is the same if the statements are reversed.

BTW, either I am guilty OR I am not.  Either I am a liar or I am not.

I have a very hard time trying to reconcile what you say is a valid science in the face of what happened to me.

I cannot explain it, and apparently, neither can you.

If i am wrong, please explain it to me now.

I have previously said that I could not explain your test results since I have no knowledge of the testing, other than what you have reported here.  "I took a test and passed, then took a test and failed" is not enough information to give you an answer.  

It is unfortunate you don't like it, but neither do I.  When two tests are administered and there are opposing results, this disturbs me since somebody did something wrong, somewhere.  BUT, you asking me (or any outside examiner without benefit of all information or knowledge of both tests) is unrealistic.

Variables in a polygraph test range everything from the examinee to the examiner, test administered, health and distractions of both participants, etc.  There are hundreds to consider.  As I have stated,  it is the examiners job to try to control or refocus some of these variables to obtain a more accurate test result.  If the examiner fails in his task, or the examinee fails to cooperate then a bad test is ineviatable.  This has nothing to do with your belief in the test, or not.  It works when done properly.  

As for your pressumption that I belive the philosophy in the polygraph is suspect; you are putting words in my mouth.  I believe it has an appropriate use and application in today's society.  Is it misused by some? Yes, I am sure it is.  Is it used by those who should not be using it?  Yes.  But there is no manner to control the "hacks" and "chart rollers" out there unless they live in a licensing state and one is willing to make the effort to get them out of the business.  While I maintain polygraph has it's uses, I have never said there were no deficiencies in polygraph.

Back to your issue, without all information available, no-one can answer your question regarding your results and/or the reason for the dichotomy.

Sackett

All these hard to control variables, hack polygraphers...etc., yet the polygraphers routinely claim the test is 95-98% accurate.

A more logical conclusion would be that because of these variables, the test is no where near that accurate as polygraphers publically claim.

Check out the following from the website reading room to get a better insight into the predictive value of the polygraph:

http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-051.pdf

TC

Quote from: samurai351 on May 20, 2008, 11:52 AMVariables in a polygraph test range everything from the examinee to the examiner, test administered, health and distractions of both participants, etc.  There are hundreds to consider.  As I have stated,  it is the examiners job to try to control or refocus some of these variables to obtain a more accurate test result.  If the examiner fails in his task, or the examinee fails to cooperate then a bad test is ineviatable.  This has nothing to do with your belief in the test, or not.  It works when done properly.  

Sackett

If there are hundreds of variables to consider, please list one hundred or so.  Since the polygraph is purportedly a scientific test, it should be ridiculously simple to list all of them (since any scientific test without controlled variables would be worthless, therefore there must be a specific list of such variables freely available to each and every examiner on the planet) but one hundred will do for starters.  Feel free to pick the hundred most controllable variables so as to present the most "scientific" face possible for the polygraph.

It certainly appears that you are merely dissembling.  Any claims that a poster told the truth and failed are responded to by saying that one or more of the variables must have been off, because if all the variables are as they should be the polygraph is a very accurate test.

Logically, it seems difficult if not impossible to accurately control "hundreds" of variables in such an inexact setting as an interview with a person you met an hour ago.  If the polygraph's accuracy is dependent upon the control of such ephemeral and feeble variables then the polygraph is simply incapable of any sort of consistent accuracy.

Quote from: samurai351 on May 20, 2008, 09:20 PM

Quote from: samurai351 on May 20, 2008, 11:52 AMVariables in a polygraph test range everything from the examinee to the examiner, test administered, health and distractions of both participants, etc.  There are hundreds to consider.  As I have stated,  it is the examiners job to try to control or refocus some of these variables to obtain a more accurate test result.  If the examiner fails in his task, or the examinee fails to cooperate then a bad test is ineviatable.  This has nothing to do with your belief in the test, or not.  It works when done properly.  

Sackett

If there are hundreds of variables to consider, please list one hundred or so.  Since the polygraph is purportedly a scientific test, it should be ridiculously simple to list all of them (since any scientific test without controlled variables would be worthless, therefore there must be a specific list of such variables freely available to each and every examiner on the planet) but one hundred will do for starters.  Feel free to pick the hundred most controllable variables so as to present the most "scientific" face possible for the polygraph.

It certainly appears that you are merely dissembling.  Any claims that a poster told the truth and failed are responded to by saying that one or more of the variables must have been off, because if all the variables are as they should be the polygraph is a very accurate test.

Logically, it seems difficult if not impossible to accurately control "hundreds" of variables in such an inexact setting as an interview with a person you met an hour ago.  If the polygraph's accuracy is dependent upon the control of such ephemeral and feeble variables then the polygraph is simply incapable of any sort of consistent accuracy.

Hey Sarge,
Sackett and the polygraphy industry know this well. However their exsistance depends on explaining away any evidence of polygraph being inaccurate.
Sackett is a lone wolf here and is trying to hold up the house of cards and failing miserably. I do give him thumbs up for his committment to keep the lie alive. But ......... he can't because it is no more than that a lie. Anyone can read no one but Sacketts posts and come to that realization. ;D

Quote from: samurai351 on May 20, 2008, 09:20 PM

Quote from: samurai351 on May 20, 2008, 11:52 AMVariables in a polygraph test range everything from the examinee to the examiner, test administered, health and distractions of both participants, etc.  There are hundreds to consider.  As I have stated,  it is the examiners job to try to control or refocus some of these variables to obtain a more accurate test result.  If the examiner fails in his task, or the examinee fails to cooperate then a bad test is ineviatable.  This has nothing to do with your belief in the test, or not.  It works when done properly.  

Sackett

If there are hundreds of variables to consider, please list one hundred or so.  Since the polygraph is purportedly a scientific test, it should be ridiculously simple to list all of them (since any scientific test without controlled variables would be worthless, therefore there must be a specific list of such variables freely available to each and every examiner on the planet) but one hundred will do for starters.  Feel free to pick the hundred most controllable variables so as to present the most "scientific" face possible for the polygraph.

It certainly appears that you are merely dissembling.  Any claims that a poster told the truth and failed are responded to by saying that one or more of the variables must have been off, because if all the variables are as they should be the polygraph is a very accurate test.

Logically, it seems difficult if not impossible to accurately control "hundreds" of variables in such an inexact setting as an interview with a person you met an hour ago.  If the polygraph's accuracy is dependent upon the control of such ephemeral and feeble variables then the polygraph is simply incapable of any sort of consistent accuracy.

Sarge,

why does a doctor expect you fast for 24 hours before a blood test?  Because otherwise, it skews the test results.  Why get a good night sleep before a physical fitness test?  Because fatigue skews your performance the next day. Duh!? How many examples do YOU need?

Polygraph is the same.  I know, you know the answer to your own question.  Seems silly to ask it again!  Most variables are natural and controlled by cooperative examinees and responsible, professional examiners.  But of course, you knew that too!

So exactly why ARE you asking it again?  Seeking a different answer?

Sackett  

Quote from: samurai351 on May 20, 2008, 10:29 PM

Quote from: samurai351 on May 20, 2008, 09:20 PM

Quote from: samurai351 on May 20, 2008, 11:52 AMVariables in a polygraph test range everything from the examinee to the examiner, test administered, health and distractions of both participants, etc.  There are hundreds to consider.  As I have stated,  it is the examiners job to try to control or refocus some of these variables to obtain a more accurate test result.  If the examiner fails in his task, or the examinee fails to cooperate then a bad test is ineviatable.  This has nothing to do with your belief in the test, or not.  It works when done properly.  

Sackett

If there are hundreds of variables to consider, please list one hundred or so.  Since the polygraph is purportedly a scientific test, it should be ridiculously simple to list all of them (since any scientific test without controlled variables would be worthless, therefore there must be a specific list of such variables freely available to each and every examiner on the planet) but one hundred will do for starters.  Feel free to pick the hundred most controllable variables so as to present the most "scientific" face possible for the polygraph.

It certainly appears that you are merely dissembling.  Any claims that a poster told the truth and failed are responded to by saying that one or more of the variables must have been off, because if all the variables are as they should be the polygraph is a very accurate test.

Logically, it seems difficult if not impossible to accurately control "hundreds" of variables in such an inexact setting as an interview with a person you met an hour ago.  If the polygraph's accuracy is dependent upon the control of such ephemeral and feeble variables then the polygraph is simply incapable of any sort of consistent accuracy.

Hey Sarge,
Sackett and the polygraphy industry know this well. However their exsistance depends on explaining away any evidence of polygraph being inaccurate.
Sackett is a lone wolf here and is trying to hold up the house of cards and failing miserably. I do give him thumbs up for his committment to keep the lie alive. But ......... he can't because it is no more than that a lie. Anyone can read no one but Sacketts posts and come to that realization. ;D

"notguilty1"

someone has to present a balance of truth.  It ain't coming from you regular posters...  But of course, you're missing the most important excuse for failing or not passing.  Maybe they are lying! Wow!  What a possible concept?

FYI, not everyone is as honest as you purport to be.  Many simply failed and don't want to take responsibility... No way! That couldn't be possible...huh?!

Sackett

Quote from: samurai351 on May 21, 2008, 12:07 AMSarge,

why does a doctor expect you fast for 24 hours before a blood test?  Because otherwise, it skews the test results.  Why get a good night sleep before a physical fitness test?  Because fatigue skews your performance the next day. Duh!? How many examples do YOU need?

Polygraph is the same.  I know, you know the answer to your own question.  Seems silly to ask it again!  Most variables are natural and controlled by cooperative examinees and responsible, professional examiners.  But of course, you knew that too!

So exactly why ARE you asking it again?  Seeking a different answer?

Sackett  

What exactly do you think I am asking again?  I don't recall asking about blood tests or physical fitness tests, but that is what you chose to respond with.  Even so, I don't see how your response, containing a single variable in each of two separate tests, is in any way an answer to my logical, polite question.  The "Duh!" was uncalled for, as well.

I thought I made it clear how many examples I need.  One hundred would be sufficient.  You said there were hundreds, and as variables in a purportedly scientific test they must be listed and detailed, and that list must be as familiar to examiners as the motor vehicle statutes are to a traffic cop.  Why would such a simple request for clarification of your statement that there are "hundreds" of variables elicit such a hostile response?  

It seems clear that the idea of hundreds of variables exist so that anytime a polygraph exam doesn't wind up the way you think it should you can claim that one or more of the variables must not have been properly set up.  If you can't even list half of the variables that must be precisely controlled during a polygraph exam what hope could anyone have that such an exam be scientifically sound?

If these variables are as important as you claim they are to the accuracy of the polygraph then wouldn't it simply make sense that every polygraph examiner be completely familiar with them and be able to easily list them?

During my polygraph exams I don't remember discussing hundreds of variables with the examiners.  Certainly I was asked about any medications I was taking, and I was asked if I slept the night before, and I'm sure there were three or four other questions of similar type.  But hundreds of questions?  Certainly not.

You are claiming that there are hundreds of variables that need to be controlled in order for the polygraph to be accurate, and you hint that "cooperative examinees" control some number of them naturally.  If they are never even discussed with the examinee how could you possibly know the status of all of them?  I'm sure some can be observed by the examiner, but what about the rest?    

If there are hundreds of variables that must be accounted for in order for the polygraph to be accurate, as you claim, then those variables must be clearly defined.  How else could you conduct a scientific test?

Sarge,

It is very simple.  

There are a variety of variables, each varying with regard to the various polygraph exam settings.  Sometimes they be controlled, sometimes not, depending on what variation the polygrapher in question choses.

Why are you having so much trouble grasping this?!!  

You must be one of those "human rights lemmings" Sackett mentioned.
TC

Quote from: samurai351 on May 21, 2008, 12:19 AM

Quote from: samurai351 on May 20, 2008, 10:29 PM

Quote from: samurai351 on May 20, 2008, 09:20 PM

Quote from: samurai351 on May 20, 2008, 11:52 AMVariables in a polygraph test range everything from the examinee to the examiner, test administered, health and distractions of both participants, etc.  There are hundreds to consider.  As I have stated,  it is the examiners job to try to control or refocus some of these variables to obtain a more accurate test result.  If the examiner fails in his task, or the examinee fails to cooperate then a bad test is ineviatable.  This has nothing to do with your belief in the test, or not.  It works when done properly.  

Sackett

If there are hundreds of variables to consider, please list one hundred or so.  Since the polygraph is purportedly a scientific test, it should be ridiculously simple to list all of them (since any scientific test without controlled variables would be worthless, therefore there must be a specific list of such variables freely available to each and every examiner on the planet) but one hundred will do for starters.  Feel free to pick the hundred most controllable variables so as to present the most "scientific" face possible for the polygraph.

It certainly appears that you are merely dissembling.  Any claims that a poster told the truth and failed are responded to by saying that one or more of the variables must have been off, because if all the variables are as they should be the polygraph is a very accurate test.

Logically, it seems difficult if not impossible to accurately control "hundreds" of variables in such an inexact setting as an interview with a person you met an hour ago.  If the polygraph's accuracy is dependent upon the control of such ephemeral and feeble variables then the polygraph is simply incapable of any sort of consistent accuracy.

Hey Sarge,
Sackett and the polygraphy industry know this well. However their exsistance depends on explaining away any evidence of polygraph being inaccurate.
Sackett is a lone wolf here and is trying to hold up the house of cards and failing miserably. I do give him thumbs up for his committment to keep the lie alive. But ......... he can't because it is no more than that a lie. Anyone can read no one but Sacketts posts and come to that realization. ;D

"notguilty1"

someone has to present a balance of truth.  It ain't coming from you regular posters...  But of course, you're missing the most important excuse for failing or not passing.  Maybe they are lying! Wow!  What a possible concept?

FYI, not everyone is as honest as you purport to be.  Many simply failed and don't want to take responsibility... No way! That couldn't be possible...huh?!

Sackett

Yes many MAY have failed because they were lying since polygraph collects data from the examinee including the nervous reaction that MAY come from deception as well as from MANY other sources.
The point being made ( that you refuse to accept and admit) is that the results of the polygraph do not nessisarily for the most part mean deception The OP here, my and many other posters experiences show this. WE CANNOT ALL BE LYING even though it would make most sense to you.
BTW Sackett, you have shown that you would know truth if it hit you in the head.

Also, yes I agree that many are not as honest as I am and in fact are lying. But that does not explain to me and others that were truthfull and failed, believed in the machine, how this could happen with a machine that was supposed to detect lies and be 95-98% accurate.
And your posts and my research have only reassured me that this whole system is a scam as it has for the others here :P ;D

Sarge,

you asked the question, what variables?  I answered with a couple of examples. This is not enough apparently and you need more.  OK.  To clarify it better for you, it involves everything from about 5-10 psychological disorders which could affect the accuracy of the test.  For example, clinical depression, psychotic behavior, schizophrenia, etc,.  Physically, I'm referring to well rested, appropriate hygeine, no mental distrators (which could be numerous), etc.

If you think I'm gunna sit here and type out every possible variable because you think you deserve to know, then you are mistaken.  Get over yourself, thinking you deserve an answer. I gave you several examples of variables.  Use your imagination for the rest.

Of course you don't remember discussing them all during your examination.  They are observed in your behaviors, the pre-test interview and direct questioning and answers.  It is the "abnormal" which sticks its ugly head up and causes alarms to go off; not normalacy.  Just because you weren't asked the question related to variables, doesn't mean they were not assessed.

Sackett

P.S.  I thought the "duh" was very appropriate since you already know the answer to the questions you're asking.

Quote from: samurai351 on May 21, 2008, 02:13 PMSarge,

you asked the question, what variables?  I answered with a couple of examples. This is not enough apparently and you need more.  OK.  To clarify it better for you, it involves everything from about 5-10 psychological disorders which could affect the accuracy of the test.  For example, clinical depression, psychotic behavior, schizophrenia, etc,.  Physically, I'm referring to well rested, appropriate hygeine, no mental distrators (which could be numerous), etc.

If you think I'm gunna sit here and type out every possible variable because you think you deserve to know, then you are mistaken.  Get over yourself, thinking you deserve an answer. I gave you several examples of variables.  Use your imagination for the rest.

Of course you don't remember discussing them all during your examination.  They are observed in your behaviors, the pre-test interview and direct questioning and answers.  It is the "abnormal" which sticks its ugly head up and causes alarms to go off; not normalacy.  Just because you weren't asked the question related to variables, doesn't mean they were not assessed.

Sackett

P.S.  I thought the "duh" was very appropriate since you already know the answer to the questions you're asking.

It is interesting that you seem to believe I already know what the "hundreds" of variables are that you referred to in your earlier post.  Why do you believe I already know what the hundreds of variables are to which you refer?  

In fact, I don't know what they are and I believe that there simply cannot be "hundreds" of variables in a polygraph exam that can all be accurately assessed and controlled.  That is why I wanted you to list some.  

Based on the defensiveness of your replies, it appears I am treading in a sensitive area.  I completely understand.  It makes no logical sense that there would be hundreds of variables in what is already a very imprecise process (i.e. – an interview with someone you met an hour ago), and that each of those variables is accurately assessed, controlled, and quantified in every single polygraph exam.

You wish for me to believe that there are hundreds of variables, but that you either cannot or will not list more than six.  And, of that six, you claim that polygraph examiners are able to accurately diagnose clinical depression, psychotic behavior, and schizophrenia in a one-hour interview when psychiatrists with thirteen years of post-graduate education would hesitate to claim they are able to reliably do the same.  Considering that schizophrenia, for example, is never diagnosed without blood tests to rule out physical disorders such as hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism, it seems unlikely that polygraph examiners can accurately diagnose schizophrenia during their interview with the examinee.

I think the more you post on this topic the clearer it is that your claim of hundreds of variables is nothing more than dissembling so that any time a polygraph exam turns out to be incorrect you can fall back on the feeble excuse that one or more of the variables must have been improperly set up or controlled.  If the test turns out the way you believe it should then you assume all the variables were correctly set up and controlled.
 
Doesn't this sound like specious reasoning to you?  
"I know this test was done properly because it generated a result with which I agree.  I know that test was done improperly because I don't agree with the result.  How do I know which test was done properly?  Because the test is very accurate when all the variables are properly assessed and controlled.  How do I know it is very accurate?  Just look at the results - whenever they make sense I assume it must be because the variables were all properly set up and assessed."

Maybe that is more along the lines of begging the question.  "I know the polygraph is accurate when all the variables are correctly assessed and controlled because when all the variables are correctly assessed and controlled the polygraph is very accurate."

Also, anytime you resort to ad hominem attacks (such as "Duh!") that is a very strong indication that you are not arguing from a position of strength.

Quote from: samurai351 on May 21, 2008, 02:13 PMSarge,

you asked the question, what variables?  I answered with a couple of examples. This is not enough apparently and you need more.  OK.  To clarify it better for you, it involves everything from about 5-10 psychological disorders which could affect the accuracy of the test.  For example, clinical depression, psychotic behavior, schizophrenia, etc,.  Physically, I'm referring to well rested, appropriate hygeine, no mental distrators (which could be numerous), etc.

If you think I'm gunna sit here and type out every possible variable because you think you deserve to know, then you are mistaken.  Get over yourself, thinking you deserve an answer. I gave you several examples of variables.  Use your imagination for the rest.

Of course you don't remember discussing them all during your examination.  They are observed in your behaviors, the pre-test interview and direct questioning and answers.  It is the "abnormal" which sticks its ugly head up and causes alarms to go off; not normalacy.  Just because you weren't asked the question related to variables, doesn't mean they were not assessed.

Sackett

P.S.  I thought the "duh" was very appropriate since you already know the answer to the questions you're asking.

No!! God forbid we should expect an answer from you ......
Of course there is no answer cause the variables are unknown and uncontrolable. THATS WHY POLYGRAPHS DO NOT WORK AT DETECTING DECEPTION! ;D

Quote from: samurai351 on May 21, 2008, 08:37 PM

Quote from: samurai351 on May 21, 2008, 02:13 PMSarge,

you asked the question, what variables?  I answered with a couple of examples. This is not enough apparently and you need more.  OK.  To clarify it better for you, it involves everything from about 5-10 psychological disorders which could affect the accuracy of the test.  For example, clinical depression, psychotic behavior, schizophrenia, etc,.  Physically, I'm referring to well rested, appropriate hygeine, no mental distrators (which could be numerous), etc.

If you think I'm gunna sit here and type out every possible variable because you think you deserve to know, then you are mistaken.  Get over yourself, thinking you deserve an answer. I gave you several examples of variables.  Use your imagination for the rest.

Of course you don't remember discussing them all during your examination.  They are observed in your behaviors, the pre-test interview and direct questioning and answers.  It is the "abnormal" which sticks its ugly head up and causes alarms to go off; not normalacy.  Just because you weren't asked the question related to variables, doesn't mean they were not assessed.

Sackett

P.S.  I thought the "duh" was very appropriate since you already know the answer to the questions you're asking.

It is interesting that you seem to believe I already know what the "hundreds" of variables are that you referred to in your earlier post.  Why do you believe I already know what the hundreds of variables are to which you refer?  

In fact, I don't know what they are and I believe that there simply cannot be "hundreds" of variables in a polygraph exam that can all be accurately assessed and controlled.  That is why I wanted you to list some.  

Based on the defensiveness of your replies, it appears I am treading in a sensitive area.  I completely understand.  It makes no logical sense that there would be hundreds of variables in what is already a very imprecise process (i.e. – an interview with someone you met an hour ago), and that each of those variables is accurately assessed, controlled, and quantified in every single polygraph exam.

You wish for me to believe that there are hundreds of variables, but that you either cannot or will not list more than six.  And, of that six, you claim that polygraph examiners are able to accurately diagnose clinical depression, psychotic behavior, and schizophrenia in a one-hour interview when psychiatrists with thirteen years of post-graduate education would hesitate to claim they are able to reliably do the same.  Considering that schizophrenia, for example, is never diagnosed without blood tests to rule out physical disorders such as hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism, it seems unlikely that polygraph examiners can accurately diagnose schizophrenia during their interview with the examinee.

I think the more you post on this topic the clearer it is that your claim of hundreds of variables is nothing more than dissembling so that any time a polygraph exam turns out to be incorrect you can fall back on the feeble excuse that one or more of the variables must have been improperly set up or controlled.  If the test turns out the way you believe it should then you assume all the variables were correctly set up and controlled.
 
Doesn't this sound like specious reasoning to you?  
"I know this test was done properly because it generated a result with which I agree.  I know that test was done improperly because I don't agree with the result.  How do I know which test was done properly?  Because the test is very accurate when all the variables are properly assessed and controlled.  How do I know it is very accurate?  Just look at the results - whenever they make sense I assume it must be because the variables were all properly set up and assessed."

Maybe that is more along the lines of begging the question.  "I know the polygraph is accurate when all the variables are correctly assessed and controlled because when all the variables are correctly assessed and controlled the polygraph is very accurate."

Also, anytime you resort to ad hominem attacks (such as "Duh!") that is a very strong indication that you are not arguing from a position of strength.

Sarge,

I have come to the conclusion that you are not looking for an answer but fuel for an argument.  I am not being defensive in my responses, I getting anoyed at your pretend ignorance and simplemindedness.  How do I know you already know many answers to your questions?  becaus I have read many of your previous postings and you are not as stupiod as you are pretending to be.  If I thought you were truly confused or ignorant, I might spend more than this response to clarify it.  But, as it seems, this is not about examples and answers but looking for definable answers from me, you can turn into an argument.

A recap:  I mention variables having impact on a test.  You ask what are they.  I replied there are hundreds.  You say name each and every one of them.  I give you some examples.  You say, well, that's only a couple.  I explain a little better, with more examples,  so that not only you but others can understand.  You reply, well see, you haven't answered my questions and have failed to provide hundreds of examples,  therefore there are no answers and I must be misleading.  You asked, how can an examiner possibly evaluate and control hundreds of variables.  I replied, because they come up during the intervew.  Examiners need to ensure the examinee is physically and psychologically fit for testing, they need not be qualified to formally diagnose disorders and f=physical fitness levels.  I'll break here for another example.

If an examiner asks an examinee what his address is and the examinee replies Pluto.  With a little digging, he insists he lives on Pluto.  No-one needs a PhD or MD to determine he's probably not fit for testing and somewhere, something is missing or wrong.  You didn't get that?  Well, that doesn't surprise me, and I'm not real sure I can make it any clearer for you.  The examinee that properly replies with the correct address and has proper responses to normative general questions can easily be determined not to be suffering from a dellusional or psychotic disorder or many other potential problems.  No-one needs a degree to determine suitability, most of it is obvious to interviewers with common sense and we certainly do not need a blood test.

You continue to quibble with me over this issue.  It seems petty.  You continue to demand answers and I gave examples of them.  Not good enough.  Too bad.  I've made my point, deal with it.  Besides, "duh" is not an ad hominem attack, it's simple sarcasm...

Sackett

Quote from: samurai351 on May 21, 2008, 09:18 PM

Quote from: samurai351 on May 21, 2008, 02:13 PMSarge,

you asked the question, what variables?  I answered with a couple of examples. This is not enough apparently and you need more.  OK.  To clarify it better for you, it involves everything from about 5-10 psychological disorders which could affect the accuracy of the test.  For example, clinical depression, psychotic behavior, schizophrenia, etc,.  Physically, I'm referring to well rested, appropriate hygeine, no mental distrators (which could be numerous), etc.

If you think I'm gunna sit here and type out every possible variable because you think you deserve to know, then you are mistaken.  Get over yourself, thinking you deserve an answer. I gave you several examples of variables.  Use your imagination for the rest.

Of course you don't remember discussing them all during your examination.  They are observed in your behaviors, the pre-test interview and direct questioning and answers.  It is the "abnormal" which sticks its ugly head up and causes alarms to go off; not normalacy.  Just because you weren't asked the question related to variables, doesn't mean they were not assessed.

Sackett

P.S.  I thought the "duh" was very appropriate since you already know the answer to the questions you're asking.

No!! God forbid we should expect an answer from you ......
Of course there is no answer cause the variables are unknown and uncontrolable. THATS WHY POLYGRAPHS DO NOT WORK AT DETECTING DECEPTION! ;D

"notguilty1",

you or your few buddies here could ask me a simple question, like what time is it?  I might reply with, well, you posted at 1325hrs, today, but it is 1125hrs here at the time I am posting, therefore it is 1125hrs.  Your reponse would be SEE Sackett can't even answer a simple question like what time it is.

I will never answer any question to your satisfaction.  That's OK.  I'll keep trying to post appropriately and honestly and you'll keep attacking and disecting and trying to find some way to discredit my posts. I get it.  

But remember, I'm not here to change your mind.  It is closed like a steel trap.  I'm hoping to alert those misguided and ignorant examinees of the threats this site presents to their processing and testing, should they choose to believe the diatribe being spilled here.

Sackett  

P.S.  No-one has ever proven to the satisfaction of anyone, the ability of TLBTLD to teach and beat a polygraph examination.  Not even George has used his own teachings to beat a test.  What "student" follows the teaching of an unproven teacher?  Theory, is not proven information and George only hurts those he purports to try to help.  You see, George's intent is to make polygraph obsolete, not help people "protect" themselves.  He will be long deceased before a change in this county's attitude towards polygraph occurs and all this effort will be in vain.  Post on...

 

Quote from: sackett on May 21, 2008, 09:55 PM

Quote from: samurai351 on May 21, 2008, 09:18 PM

Quote from: samurai351 on May 21, 2008, 02:13 PMSarge,

you asked the question, what variables?  I answered with a couple of examples. This is not enough apparently and you need more.  OK.  To clarify it better for you, it involves everything from about 5-10 psychological disorders which could affect the accuracy of the test.  For example, clinical depression, psychotic behavior, schizophrenia, etc,.  Physically, I'm referring to well rested, appropriate hygeine, no mental distrators (which could be numerous), etc.

If you think I'm gunna sit here and type out every possible variable because you think you deserve to know, then you are mistaken.  Get over yourself, thinking you deserve an answer. I gave you several examples of variables.  Use your imagination for the rest.

Of course you don't remember discussing them all during your examination.  They are observed in your behaviors, the pre-test interview and direct questioning and answers.  It is the "abnormal" which sticks its ugly head up and causes alarms to go off; not normalacy.  Just because you weren't asked the question related to variables, doesn't mean they were not assessed.

Sackett

P.S.  I thought the "duh" was very appropriate since you already know the answer to the questions you're asking.

No!! God forbid we should expect an answer from you ......
Of course there is no answer cause the variables are unknown and uncontrolable. THATS WHY POLYGRAPHS DO NOT WORK AT DETECTING DECEPTION! ;D

"notguilty1",

you or your few buddies here could ask me a simple question, like what time is it?  I might reply with, well, you posted at 1325hrs, today, but it is 1125hrs here at the time I am posting, therefore it is 1125hrs.  Your reponse would be SEE Sackett can't even answer a simple question like what time it is.

I will never answer any question to your satisfaction.  That's OK.  I'll keep trying to post appropriately and honestly and you'll keep attacking and disecting and trying to find some way to discredit my posts. I get it.  

But remember, I'm not here to change your mind.  It is closed like a steel trap.  I'm hoping to alert those misguided and ignorant examinees of the threats this site presents to their processing and testing, should they choose to believe the diatribe being spilled here.

Sackett  

P.S.  No-one has ever proven to the satisfaction of anyone, the ability of TLBTLD to teach and beat a polygraph examination.  Not even George has used his own teachings to beat a test.  What "student" follows the teaching of an unproven teacher?  Theory, is not proven information and George only hurts those he purports to try to help.  You see, George's intent is to make polygraph obsolete, not help people "protect" themselves.  He will be long deceased before a change in this county's attitude towards polygraph occurs and all this effort will be in vain.  Post on...
 

Sackett,  
The reason you can't change anyones mind here (or anywere else) is that I (and we) have had the direct experience that Polygraph des not work as cliamed. Any rambling to the contrary from you Sackett will not change that.
As for the P.S. in your post. I never have been on here suggesting that anyone go into a Polygraph and use counter measures to beat the test with the intent of lying.
I am not aware that George suggests that either but, George has a mind of his own and can make his own decisions on that.
Personally, if I had something to hide I would have simply not have taken the test.
Also, if I was applying for a job that reqired me to lie in any part of the process I would not apply for the job. But thats me.
That still however does not explian all the false positives and negatives out there many more than just the "proven" ones, Gary Ridgeway come to mind as one.
Some elusive list of hunders of "variables" that cannot be found anywhere for anyone does not bolster your postion.

QuoteNo-one has ever proven to the satisfaction of anyone, the ability of TLBTLD to teach and beat a polygraph examination.

No-one had ever proven the ability of the polygraph to detect deception.

TC

P.S.  Unfortunately, many of the country's biggest spies and worst psychopathic killers have beaten the test.  Ironically, precisely the type of characters the test was suppose to catch!

Quote from: sackett on May 21, 2008, 09:55 PMP.S.  No-one has ever proven to the satisfaction of anyone, the ability of TLBTLD to teach and beat a polygraph examination.  Not even George has used his own teachings to beat a test.  What "student" follows the teaching of an unproven teacher?  Theory, is not proven information and George only hurts those he purports to try to help.  You see, George's intent is to make polygraph obsolete, not help people "protect" themselves.  He will be long deceased before a change in this county's attitude towards polygraph occurs and all this effort will be in vain.  Post on...

The countermeasure information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) is based in large measure on peer-reviewed research wherein half of test subject who received a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction in such techniques were successful in fooling the polygraph, and even experienced polygraph operators could not detect their countermeasures. Citations with abstracts are provided in TLBTLD, and skeptical readers are encouraged to check these for themselves.

DoDPI/DACA instructor Paul Menges was so satisfied that the countermeasures described in TLBTLD are effective that he went so far as to seriously and publicly suggest that making such information available to the public should be criminalized (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029.shtml).

And American Polygraph Association past president Skip Webb was so satisfied that such countermeasures are effective against DACA's new Port-A-Poly (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3910.msg29179#msg29179) that he accused me of treason (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3922.msg29268#msg29268) for publicly explaining how it can be beaten (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3911.msg29181#msg29181).

Quote from: sackett on May 22, 2008, 05:54 AM

Quote from: sackett on May 21, 2008, 09:55 PMP.S.  No-one has ever proven to the satisfaction of anyone, the ability of TLBTLD to teach and beat a polygraph examination.  Not even George has used his own teachings to beat a test.  What "student" follows the teaching of an unproven teacher?  Theory, is not proven information and George only hurts those he purports to try to help.  You see, George's intent is to make polygraph obsolete, not help people "protect" themselves.  He will be long deceased before a change in this county's attitude towards polygraph occurs and all this effort will be in vain.  Post on...

The countermeasure information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) is based in large measure on peer-reviewed research wherein half of test subject who received a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction in such techniques were successful in fooling the polygraph, and even experienced polygraph operators could not detect their countermeasures. Citations with abstracts are provided in TLBTLD, and skeptical readers are encouraged to check these for themselves.

DoDPI/DACA instructor Paul Menges was so satisfied that the countermeasures described in TLBTLD are effective that he went so far as to seriously and publicly suggest that making such information available to the public should be criminalized (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029.shtml).

And American Polygraph Association past president Skip Webb was so satisfied that such countermeasures are effective against DACA's new Port-A-Poly (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3910.msg29179#msg29179) that he accused me of treason (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3922.msg29268#msg29268) for publicly explaining how it can be beaten (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3911.msg29181#msg29181).

George,

I am stating that a person, coming into your web site, and reading your material, then beating an examiner has never been proven as viable or even possible.  Receiving 30 minutes of instruction directly form an examiner is very, very different from sitting behind a computer screen and reading information, then successfully using it.  

I have never said an examiner can not be beaten.  But, thanks to sites like yours, its getting easier to catch them.

Sackett

"notguilty1",

you have missed my point.  

I am not trying to change the mind of anyone (on this board).


Sackett

QuoteI am stating that a person, coming into your web site, and reading your material, then beating an examiner has never been proven as viable or even possible.

Maybe, but they will a hell of a lot less gullible, naive and subject to the petty intimidation that goes on during a polygraph.

For example, if the examinator gives them the typical "this test is 98% accurate, better get everything off your chest Mr. Applicant.  I am here to help you!" bullshit,  they will know better.

TC

Quote from: sackett on May 22, 2008, 11:08 AM

I am stating that a person, coming into your web site, and reading your material, then beating an examiner has never been proven as viable or even possible.

Sackett

Just what type of proof would you be satisfied with?

Now we are so far away from anwering my very legitimate and very pointed question.

Sackett,

I came to this place and asked you a very fair question, to which I have not received a vlaid answer.  I feel like some poor schmoo who called tech support and got some guy in India who is trying to help him work his DVR.

I also asked you, quite explicitly, what variables would ahve to be "off kilter" in your opinion, for there to be two different results from a polygraph.

Also, I have read all the posts and have come away with the notion, however odd, that many think it possible that I was lying for my second polygraph.  Now I was lying for BOTH polygraphs or I was telling the Truth.  if your polygraph science is so damned accurate, it should have been able to detect which one was which.

To my mind, that it did not do so, even in just this instance, means that it cannot do so.  This leaves  the conclusion that the polygraph itself is inherently a poor tool, not much better than chance.

Also, the second polygrapher (tho one I failed) never asked me what, if any medications, I was on (at the time, I was on several, including blood pressure medicine) and he did not ask me if I was under stress for any other reason than this charge.

Do you not at least find that a bit disturbing?

I know I do.

Quote from: sackett on May 22, 2008, 11:08 AM

Quote from: sackett on May 22, 2008, 05:54 AM

Quote from: sackett on May 21, 2008, 09:55 PMP.S.  No-one has ever proven to the satisfaction of anyone, the ability of TLBTLD to teach and beat a polygraph examination.  Not even George has used his own teachings to beat a test.  What "student" follows the teaching of an unproven teacher?  Theory, is not proven information and George only hurts those he purports to try to help.  You see, George's intent is to make polygraph obsolete, not help people "protect" themselves.  He will be long deceased before a change in this county's attitude towards polygraph occurs and all this effort will be in vain.  Post on...

The countermeasure information provided in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) is based in large measure on peer-reviewed research wherein half of test subject who received a maximum of 30 minutes of instruction in such techniques were successful in fooling the polygraph, and even experienced polygraph operators could not detect their countermeasures. Citations with abstracts are provided in TLBTLD, and skeptical readers are encouraged to check these for themselves.

DoDPI/DACA instructor Paul Menges was so satisfied that the countermeasures described in TLBTLD are effective that he went so far as to seriously and publicly suggest that making such information available to the public should be criminalized (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-029.shtml).

And American Polygraph Association past president Skip Webb was so satisfied that such countermeasures are effective against DACA's new Port-A-Poly (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3910.msg29179#msg29179) that he accused me of treason (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3922.msg29268#msg29268) for publicly explaining how it can be beaten (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3911.msg29181#msg29181).

George,

I am stating that a person, coming into your web site, and reading your material, then beating an examiner has never been proven as viable or even possible.  Receiving 30 minutes of instruction directly form an examiner is very, very different from sitting behind a computer screen and reading information, then successfully using it.  

I have never said an examiner can not be beaten.  But, thanks to sites like yours, its getting easier to catch them.

Sackett

Dear Sackett,

Two Questions

If an examinee bites his tongue when answering every Comparison question (unseen), how would you pick up on that in the tracings?

How accurate is the tongue biting CM? ie, what % of efficacy might it produce ?

your response is eagerly awaited.

polytechnic,

George is the self reported "go-to" man on countermeasures.  I am sure he read somewhere, something about it and could answer your question.  

As a matter of personal policy, I do not openly discuss specific actions or countermeasure activity or their efficacy.


Sackett

Quote from: sackett on May 23, 2008, 11:40 AMNow we are so far away from anwering my very legitimate and very pointed question.

Sackett,

I came to this place and asked you a very fair question, to which I have not received a vlaid answer.  I feel like some poor schmoo who called tech support and got some guy in India who is trying to help him work his DVR.

I also asked you, quite explicitly, what variables would ahve to be "off kilter" in your opinion, for there to be two different results from a polygraph.

Also, I have read all the posts and have come away with the notion, however odd, that many think it possible that I was lying for my second polygraph.  Now I was lying for BOTH polygraphs or I was telling the Truth.  if your polygraph science is so damned accurate, it should have been able to detect which one was which.

To my mind, that it did not do so, even in just this instance, means that it cannot do so.  This leaves  the conclusion that the polygraph itself is inherently a poor tool, not much better than chance.

Also, the second polygrapher (tho one I failed) never asked me what, if any medications, I was on (at the time, I was on several, including blood pressure medicine) and he did not ask me if I was under stress for any other reason than this charge.

Do you not at least find that a bit disturbing?

I know I do.

TheKaisho,

much to the frustration of another, I have covered the "variables" issue sufficiently.   I can not answer for your examiner's behaviors or lack of proper pre-test, if that is in fact the case.  

And, I do (according to your post) find it disturbing that your health was not addressed during your pre-test.  It is a crucial aspect of determining suitability.

Sackett

TheKaisho

Finally. we (you) must ponder the deeper question of how accurate a lie test ought to be for particular applications.  If one is hiring policemen or CIA operatives, then perhaps any additional clues, any improvement over chance at all might be worthwhile.  These are senstive positions in which the wrong person can do a great deal of mischief, and it may be in the public interest to use a screening procedure that reduces the number of undesirable candidates hired, even if this means excluding also a large number of perfectly acceptable, wrongly called Deceptive by the test.    David Thorsen Lykken   A Tremor in the Blood  p.64

I guess he changed his mind about this too.

Kaisho,

You are correct.  The logical answer to you question is that the test is simply not accurate.  And you will never get a polygrapher to admit that.  

TC

Quote from: sackett on May 23, 2008, 02:43 PMTheKaisho

Finally. we (you) must ponder the deeper question of how accurate a lie test ought to be for particular applications.  If one is hiring policemen or CIA operatives, then perhaps any additional clues, any improvement over chance at all might be worthwhile.  These are senstive positions in which the wrong person can do a great deal of mischief, and it may be in the public interest to use a screening procedure that reduces the number of undesirable candidates hired, even if this means excluding also a large number of perfectly acceptable, wrongly called Deceptive by the test.    David Thorsen Lykken   A Tremor in the Blood  p.64

I guess he changed his mind about this too.

pailryder,

You've cherry-picked a quote to make it appear that David Lykken supported polygraph screening. He most certainly did not. Concluding his chapter on "Preemployment Screening by the FBI and Other Federal Agencies" (Chapter 15 of the 2nd edition of A Tremor in the Blood), Lykken writes:

QuoteI think it is now obvious that polygraph testing has failed to screen out from our intelligence agencies potential traitors and moles. On the contrary, it seems to have served as a shield for such people who, having passed the polygraph, become immune to commonsense suspicions. And it is certainly obvious that polygraph testing has been screening out some of the very kinds of people one would most want to see placed in positions of trust: conscientious people like Major C, Elizabeth M., John Tillson, Michael Pillsbury, and Col. McFarlane--highly socialized people who seem to be especially vulnerable to false positive mistakes.

Mr Maschke

Of course I cherry pick my quotes, anyone here who doesn't?  My point is not that Dr Lykken supported polygraph.  No reader of Tremor could draw that conclusion.  My point was just that Lykken changed his mind on some issues and that at one point he seemed to at least try to give the appearance of objectivity.  But then he changed his mind about that too.

Mr Maschke

What I found most interesting about Lykken's quote was his suggestion that in some cases, society may judge any improvement over chance, to outweigh the cost to the false positive.  I know that you would not grant that our techniques provide any improvement over chance, and I can understand how an individual false positive would hardly be presuaded, but this point is often given as the main reason some decide to request and submit to private crediability assessment.

pailryder,

The passage you quoted from (apparently the 1st edition of) A Tremor in the Blood is retained in the 2nd edition, where it appears at p. 68. For proper context, here's the entire section in which the passage appears:

QuoteHow dependable is the lie detector, then? Here is a straightforward question for which there is no simple answer. Since "dependable" is vague and the "lie detector" does not exist, I must start by rewording the question. There are several different types of polygraphic examination, each based on different assumptions; one cannot assume that all these types will have the same degree of accuracy. To provide some initial perspective, remember the purpose of a polygraph is to diagnose the individual respondent as deceptive or truthful with greater accuracy than one could achieve without the examination. I can classify subjects as truthful or deceptive and be correct half the time merely by flipping a coin; the chance accuracy of this type of dichotomous classification is 50%--if 50% of the subjects are actually lying. If my subjects are all defendants who have been brought to trial on criminal charges, and if the statistics show that 80% of this group, on average, are in fact guilty, then I could attain 80% accuracy just by classifying everyone as deceptive. For a test to be useful, its accuracy must be obviously higher than one can achieve by chance, and it should usually be higher than the base rate of the more frequent classification in the group tested.

Finally, we must ponder the deeper question of how accurate a lie test ought to be for particular applications. If one is hiring policemen or CIA operatives, then it might be thought that any additional clues, any improvement over chance at all might be worthwhile. These are sensitive positions in which the wrong person can do great mischief, and it may be in the public interest to use a screening procedure that reduces the number of undesirable candidates hired, even if this means also excluding a large number of perfectly acceptable people, wrongly called deceptive by the test. As we shall see later, however, there is reason to believe that many honorable people, the very sort of "straight arrows" we should like to see in these sensitive positions, are especially vulnerable to failing and being eliminated by these screening tests. Moreover, cases like that of Aldrich Ames indicate that false negative errors (classifying a liar as truthful) not only occur but do great harm when reasonable suspicions are quieted by unjustified faith in the polygraph. In the United Nations fantasy that we considered earlier, it would be disastrous to settle for even 90% accuracy in the Truth Verifier. If so much weight is placed on the test result that one makes less effort to seek other information or is lulled into a feeling of great confidence in the result, then one should make sure that the test result is very dependable indeed.

I don't see how you can, in good faith, suggest than Lykken lacked objectivity in his foregoing assessments. Unlike polygraph operators, Lykken's judgment was unclouded by the self-interest involved when one derives income from giving lie detector tests.

Quote from: pailryder on May 24, 2008, 11:17 AMpailryder,

The passage you quoted from (apparently the 1st edition of) A Tremor in the Blood is retained in the 2nd edition, where it appears at p. 68. For proper context, here's the entire section in which the passage appears:

QuoteHow dependable is the lie detector, then? Here is a straightforward question for which there is no simple answer. Since "dependable" is vague and the "lie detector" does not exist, I must start by rewording the question. There are several different types of polygraphic examination, each based on different assumptions; one cannot assume that all these types will have the same degree of accuracy. To provide some initial perspective, remember the purpose of a polygraph is to diagnose the individual respondent as deceptive or truthful with greater accuracy than one could achieve without the examination. I can classify subjects as truthful or deceptive and be correct half the time merely by flipping a coin; the chance accuracy of this type of dichotomous classification is 50%--if 50% of the subjects are actually lying. If my subjects are all defendants who have been brought to trial on criminal charges, and if the statistics show that 80% of this group, on average, are in fact guilty, then I could attain 80% accuracy just by classifying everyone as deceptive. For a test to be useful, its accuracy must be obviously higher than one can achieve by chance, and it should usually be higher than the base rate of the more frequent classification in the group tested.

Finally, we must ponder the deeper question of how accurate a lie test ought to be for particular applications. If one is hiring policemen or CIA operatives, then it might be thought that any additional clues, any improvement over chance at all might be worthwhile. These are sensitive positions in which the wrong person can do great mischief, and it may be in the public interest to use a screening procedure that reduces the number of undesirable candidates hired, even if this means also excluding a large number of perfectly acceptable people, wrongly called deceptive by the test. As we shall see later, however, there is reason to believe that many honorable people, the very sort of "straight arrows" we should like to see in these sensitive positions, are especially vulnerable to failing and being eliminated by these screening tests. Moreover, cases like that of Aldrich Ames indicate that false negative errors (classifying a liar as truthful) not only occur but do great harm when reasonable suspicions are quieted by unjustified faith in the polygraph. In the United Nations fantasy that we considered earlier, it would be disastrous to settle for even 90% accuracy in the Truth Verifier. If so much weight is placed on the test result that one makes less effort to seek other information or is lulled into a feeling of great confidence in the result, then one should make sure that the test result is very dependable indeed.

I don't see how you can, in good faith, suggest than Lykken lacked objectivity in his foregoing assessments. Unlike polygraph operators, Lykken's judgment was unclouded by the self-interest involved when one derives income from giving lie detector tests.

"I don't see how you can, in good faith, suggest than Lykken lacked objectivity in his foregoing assessments. Unlike polygraph operators, Lykken's judgment was unclouded by the self-interest involved when one derives income from giving lie detector tests".

And here "lies" (no pun intended) the motivation for Sackett and his like to  continue to defend a un scientific test that yeilds results that CANNOT be relied upon for the purpose of dedtecting decption.
Their unwillngness to admit that the test is not accurate though they use verbage at times that would suggest. This is due manly to the financial ties they have to polygraph and that is also why they are always on here trying to BS new members to this site to continue to believe that polygraph is 95-98 % accurate.

"notguilty1",

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but as a public servant, I am not getting wealthy working for my agency and conducting polygraph examinations.  

I do this because I truly believe in the polygraph process.  You and others may continue to accuse examiners of supporting what we do as a financial concern and interest, but you are wrong.  

Most of us believe in what we are doing.  


Sackett

ng1

To be fair, you must recognize that Dr. Lykken had some financial interest in selling books.    

Quote from: pailryder on May 25, 2008, 01:03 AM"notguilty1",

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but as a public servant, I am not getting wealthy working for my agency and conducting polygraph examinations.  

I do this because I truly believe in the polygraph process.  You and others may continue to accuse examiners of supporting what we do as a financial concern and interest, but you are wrong.  

Most of us believe in what we are doing.  


Sackett

I am sure your not getting wealthy. We all have our financial potential limitations.
If you as you say "really believe in the polygraph process" then you also have other limitaions and that is in comprehention of facts. Odd that some one that has those limitations is sitting in judgement of others.
Perhaps it the "sitting in judgement" that so apeals to you. You have shown by your posts that you recognize and accept the limitations of polygraph and you have even said that "this is all we have". So how can you possibly believe in the process?

Quote from: pailryder on May 25, 2008, 11:44 AMng1

To be fair, you must recognize that Dr. Lykken had some financial interest in selling books.    

I do recognize that. But you must know that his views are not unique in the subject of polygraph if he was the only one I would agree that finaicial motivation is a consideraton.
Come on ..... if polygraph was in fact 95-98% accurate or anything close it would be admissable in court and it would not be illegal for employers other than feds and LE to use it in their employment practice.

Quote from: pailryder on May 25, 2008, 12:04 PM

Quote from: pailryder on May 25, 2008, 01:03 AM"notguilty1",

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but as a public servant, I am not getting wealthy working for my agency and conducting polygraph examinations.  

I do this because I truly believe in the polygraph process.  You and others may continue to accuse examiners of supporting what we do as a financial concern and interest, but you are wrong.  

Most of us believe in what we are doing.  


Sackett

I am sure your not getting wealthy. We all have our financial potential limitations.
If you as you say "really believe in the polygraph process" then you also have other limitaions and that is in comprehention of facts. Odd that some one that has those limitations is sitting in judgement of others.
Perhaps it the "sitting in judgement" that so apeals to you. You have shown by your posts that you recognize and accept the limitations of polygraph and you have even said that "this is all we have". So how can you possibly believe in the process?

"notguilty1",

you presume to understand my motivations.    

I have stated that polygraph is not perfect and mistakes can be made, by either and/or both parties.  But, we have come to an agreement that nothing is perfect.  

Your (and others' point) is to do away with polygraph entirely because there is a small percentage of wrong findings.  While George and others attack polygraph on the primary basis that the NAS found it was too unstable as a screening device, althewhile ignoring potential motiviations and the fact it was not scientifc research but a review of material and research they thought appropriate; this entire board has ignored it's finding and potential concerning specific issue testing.  

Very selective, I think...

Sackett

Quote from: pailryder on May 25, 2008, 12:27 PM

Quote from: pailryder on May 25, 2008, 12:04 PM

Quote from: pailryder on May 25, 2008, 01:03 AM"notguilty1",

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but as a public servant, I am not getting wealthy working for my agency and conducting polygraph examinations.  

I do this because I truly believe in the polygraph process.  You and others may continue to accuse examiners of supporting what we do as a financial concern and interest, but you are wrong.  

Most of us believe in what we are doing.  


Sackett

I am sure your not getting wealthy. We all have our financial potential limitations.
If you as you say "really believe in the polygraph process" then you also have other limitaions and that is in comprehention of facts. Odd that some one that has those limitations is sitting in judgement of others.
Perhaps it the "sitting in judgement" that so apeals to you. You have shown by your posts that you recognize and accept the limitations of polygraph and you have even said that "this is all we have". So how can you possibly believe in the process?

"notguilty1",

you presume to understand my motivations.    

I have stated that polygraph is not perfect and mistakes can be made, by either and/or both parties.  But, we have come to an agreement that nothing is perfect.  

Your (and others' point) is to do away with polygraph entirely because there is a small percentage of wrong findings.  While George and others attack polygraph on the primary basis that the NAS found it was too unstable as a screening device, althewhile ignoring potential motiviations and the fact it was not scientifc research but a review of material and research they thought appropriate; this entire board has ignored it's finding and potential concerning specific issue testing.  

Very selective, I think...

Sackett

Sackett, I don't presume to understad your motives I was simply guessing, unlike you I have no crystal ball to tell me what people are thinking.
Also, I am not here to eliminate a viable test that would in fact detect deception if and when that test is avaliable. To use polygraph as a detection devise in spite if its limitations in that capacity is WRONG and therefore must be eliminated as such.
Of course that leaves you unemployed. I am sorry that that is where you'd find yourself but it does not merritt continuing a lie to the public.
BTW Sackett you always mentionthat we are so few as I can see you are the only one that is here going on and on about your snake oil. ;D

ng1

Even if polygraph techniques were 100% some would still object to their use.  This is more an argument about proper use than simply numbers.  

Quote from: pailryder on May 25, 2008, 01:33 PMng1

The reality is that even if polygraph techiques were 100% some would still object to their use.  This is more than an argument about numbers.  

Pail,
That is not the reality and if it were that "some" would object this site would not have the success it has.
I have not seen any such issues arise with let's say DNA testing why? Because it is an accurate test and there fore IS admissable in court.
You have a test that by all accounts is little more than a coin toss, your industry knows this and so do you. Thats why you and Sackett are here trying to defend your position on a test that has shown to be overwhelmingly unreliable in detecting deception. If you can find a true and proven use for polygraph we would no longer have this argument and this site would loose it's usefullness.

ng1

I am not here to defend all use of polygraph, especially preemp screening.  I am here to learn.  I learn more by discussion with those opposed to what I do than with people who support what I do, and frankly, it is a more stimulating conversation.  Help me learn, you tell me, give me a number, how accurate would CQT have to be for you to consider it useful?

And about DNA, did you follow the OJ matter?

Quote from: pailryder on May 25, 2008, 03:34 PMng1

I am not here to defend all use of polygraph, especially preemp screening.  I am here to learn.  I learn more by discussion with those opposed to what I do than with people who support what I do, and frankly, it is a more stimulating conversation.  Help me learn, you tell me, give me a number, how accurate would CQT have to be for you to consider it useful?

And about DNA, did you follow the OJ matter?

Pail,
I really appreciate your apperant willingness to have an intelligent discussion.
As for how accurate I would want it to be, doesn't matter because it's current legally accepted accuracy makes the test inadmissable in court as well as illegal for most employment screenings.
That to me makes it unacceptable no matter what the numbers are.
The Polygraph industry keeps claiming 95-98% ( I know this because that was told to me by the police examiner) which is non verifiable offically anywhere in any scientific study.
As for the OJ case if I recall the blood found at the scene was verified to be OJ's through DNA however he got off because of a very expensive defense team and sloppy police work not the failure of DNA analisis.

notguilty 1

I guess I don't understand your beef.  You were a suspect in a theft, you consented to a police polygraph, the police examiner got your result wrong and subjected you to a harsh interrogation.  Is that what happened?  As Mr Maschke explains in The Lie Behind the Lie the only sure way of protecting against examiner error is to refuse the test.  So are you angry because your examiner understated the risk, or because he made an error, or because you didn't exercise your right to refuse?  

Quote from: pailryder on May 26, 2008, 08:42 AMnotguilty 1

I guess I don't understand your beef.  You were a suspect in a theft, you consented to a police polygraph, the police examiner got your result wrong and subjected you to a harsh interrogation.  Is that what happened?  As Mr Maschke explains in The Lie Behind the Lie the only sure way of protecting against examiner error is to refuse the test.  So are you angry because your examiner understated the risk, or because he made an error, or because you didn't exercise your right to refuse?  

Hi Pail,
Yes I was accused of a theft. I was asked to take a Poligraph by the detective I agreed because I knew I had nothing to hide and I as many were under the false impression that Polygraph is very accurate.
I was informed that I failed and I was showing "some" deception.
My beef is that this test is being used to judge people and is inaccurate. I know this first hand. I know I had the right to refuse but felt I did not need to exercise that right.
Today, unfortunatly the gun I was accused to stealing has not been recovered and there are still 3 people that, based on Polygraph beleve me to be a thief. Yes I am getting over it but I value my reputation. The test was designed to clear me since I was being truthfull in ALL and ANY information about the gun.
My goal here is to inform people that come here for information not to fall for the BS about Polygraph being 95-98% accurate and that it can infact detect lies two beliefs that the general public has about Polygraph. ( I was told these lies by the Polygrapher ) IF I had it to do over I would have told the detective what to do with his Polygraph machine.
Pail, You seem like a reasonable person and you even suggested in your posts that you do not defend Polygraph in all applications ( I am paraphrasing) so I assume you too understand Polygraphs serious limitations.

ng1

Yes, very serious limitations, but some legitimate applications.  A fair assessment of accuracy for most specific (non screening) applications, is significantly above chance, significantly below perfection.

Quote from: notguilty1 on May 26, 2008, 01:37 PMng1

Yes, very serious limitations, but some legitimate applications.  A fair assessment of accuracy for most specific (non screening) applications, is significantly above chance, significantly below perfection.

Pailryder:

The above is an interesting statement.  I would be interested in hearing your comments regarding what  you believe a fair assessment of the accuracy of "screening" tests would be.

nopolycop

In preemp screening, utility can, probably does, exceed accuracy.  Every agency has finite resources and limited time for background investigations.  Even a small city police department may have 300 passes on the initial written test with only 20 openings at the academy.  To do 300 full background checks, depending on how many applicants were out of state, could tie up every criminal investigator for months.  

One thing that can be fairly said of polyexs is they usually have good interview skills and extract a fair amount of additional information from people who have already "fully disclosed" on their application.

As to accuracy, the best analogy is to target shooting, where with proper training most shooters can hit a single target or know that they missed.  But to simultainously shoot at seven different targets, how many hit seven out of seven?  That has to be much more difficult.

Police departments reason this process is not unfair as long as everyone gets the same test, has the same chance, takes the same risk.

I take it from your response then, that you do not view the accuracy of pre-employment screening tests as being particularily accurate.

nopoly

If APA guidelines are followed, premp accuracy can be acceptable.  That guideline requires a single issue follow up for any initial unresolved response.  Few agencies to my knowledge go that extra distance.  

QuoteIf APA guidelines are followed, premp accuracy can be acceptable.  That guideline requires a single issue follow up for any initial unresolved response.  Few agencies to my knowledge go that extra distance.

A single issue follow-up polygraph?  You can put a tuxedo on a pig, but it will still be a pig.  You are still trying to validate the polygraph with another polygraph.

Why not a follow-up INVESTIGATION.

What do the APA guildelines say about telling the test subject that the test is 95-98% accurate, which they do all the time?

TC

Mr Cullen

Ask the APA.

Quote from: notguilty1 on May 27, 2008, 02:29 PMnopoly

If APA guidelines are followed, premp accuracy can be acceptable.  That guideline requires a single issue follow up for any initial unresolved response.  Few agencies to my knowledge go that extra distance.  

What  do you mean by an unresolved response?  Verbal or physiological?  

nopc

physiological

1. singer lose their vioce
2. you just lost your vioce
conclusion: your a singer


p.s. i'm 11 years old and i'm just learning this so it might be wrong :-/  :-[

How about this then: if polygraph tests are truly reliable, then what information do we need to identify which of the two tests in question are valid? Provide a complete list and how would measure everything on that list.  You seem to be good at dismissing people's questions in a way that prevents you from ever having to provide actual information.

If you can't measure everything you need to know in order to effectively evaluate a test, then it's not a very good test, is it?  It sounds like the only way to explain the results we have here is with vague, un-quantifiable things like "bias".