Calling out LieBabyCryBaby

[Ludovico]

REFER: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

gullible
One entry found for gullible.

Main Entry: gull·ible
Variant(s): also gull·able  /'g&-l&-b&l/
Function: adjective
: easily duped or cheated
- gull·ibil·i·ty  /"g&-l&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- gull·ibly  /'g&-l&-blE/ adverb

You actually checked??

That joke never works!!!!!!!

LOL

cost of an old joke = nothing

cost of a few moments of typing in Interschmet = .01

cost of knowing that 1904 actually looked up "gullible" to verify it is in Merriam-Webster Onlkine = PRICELESS


smile 1904, I gotcha on that one

[Ludovico]

Most P/G examiners suffer from the Zimbardo effect.
You Sir are a typical example.

You traded in your polygraph for some mind reading device???

Tell us what it is, ay Boss?

[Ludovico]

Excellent Lethe, a thoughtful reasonable reply.  As you see from WW's comment, poly exs often don't agree on what makes good CQ material, so why should we?  Your presentation to the ignorant subject was not bad.  As to the knowledgeable, well, one small correction.  Again you repete your oft stated error that the knowledgeable subject (KS) must provide a deceptive answer to a CQ and since they are knowledgable, you reason, the response will be diminished.  Flawless logical reasoning, but reread George's earlier post, since you don't seem to believe me.   KS's answer to the CQ doesn't have to be deceptive.  That's as plain as I can say it!  It can be, it usually is, but it is not required.   All that is required is that the CQ produces sufficent emotional response in a truthful KS.  
 
Missing from your logical analysis is one important aspect of the real life, butt on the line, down and dirty polygraph pretest interview.   It is not solely an intellectual excercise, there are considerable emotions involved, and neither the ignorant or the knowledgeable, logical subject is able to completely control or chose the emotions they feel.  

I wish I had an avatar.

Anyone else notice that Pailryder and Lethe are locked into an almost symbiotic conversation here?

Its like they'r joined at the hip or sompin'

Now I'm pretty sure that Pailryder issn' LCBC's alter ego.

Hey Waitress! can we get an IP check?


Here. Try this for an avatar.

[1904]

REFER: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

gullible
One entry found for gullible.

Main Entry: gull·ible
Variant(s): also gull·able  /'g&-l&-b&l/
Function: adjective
: easily duped or cheated
- gull·ibil·i·ty  /"g&-l&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- gull·ibly  /'g&-l&-blE/ adverb

You actually checked??

That joke never works!!!!!!!

LOL

cost of an old joke = nothing

cost of a few moments of typing in Interschmet = .01

cost of knowing that 1904 actually looked up "gullible" to verify it is in Merriam-Webster Onlkine = PRICELESS


smile 1904, I gotcha on that one

No you didn't.
I truly thought you were stupid.
But you cant blame me for thinking in that direction.

[1904]

Most P/G examiners suffer from the Zimbardo effect.
You Sir are a typical example.

You traded in your polygraph for some mind reading device???

Tell us what it is, ay Boss?

Yes Rasputin,
I did acquire new mind reading skills.
So can you. But first you have to throw away your snake-oil box.
Read the following authors:
Aldert Vrij; Undeutsch; Steller; Trankell - to name but a few - just to whet yr appetite.
It will also make you feel better about yourself.
Peace.

[Ludovico]

No you didn't.
I truly thought you were stupid.
But you cant blame me for thinking in that direction.

Lemme get this straight.

You though I was stupid,

and you looked up "gullible" to verify it is actually in Merriam Webster Online?


bzzzzt.

[pailryder]

Lethe
        If a burglar understands how to disarm an intruder detection alarm, is the scientific validity of the system effected or is it the system's utility that is effected?  

[Paradiddle]

Hey "Pailryder", look up at the top of your screen in the grey stripe and you should see that you have private messages. Click on the word "messages" and read and respond to your mail.

[Lethe]

Excellent Lethe, a thoughtful reasonable reply.  As you see from WW's comment, poly exs often don't agree on what makes good CQ material, so why should we?  Your presentation to the ignorant subject was not bad.  As to the knowledgeable, well, one small correction.  Again you repete your oft stated error that the knowledgeable subject (KS) must provide a deceptive answer to a CQ and since they are knowledgable, you reason, the response will be diminished.  Flawless logical reasoning, but reread George's earlier post, since you don't seem to believe me.   KS's answer to the CQ doesn't have to be deceptive.  That's as plain as I can say it!  It can be, it usually is, but it is not required.   All that is required is that the CQ produces sufficent emotional response in a truthful KS.  
 
Missing from your logical analysis is one important aspect of the real life, butt on the line, down and dirty polygraph pretest interview.   It is not solely an intellectual excercise, there are considerable emotions involved, and neither the ignorant or the knowledgeable, logical subject is able to completely control or chose the emotions they feel.  

I wish I had an avatar.

I understand that the response to the CQ need not be a lie, that the subject must simply be more uncertain and anxious about the response than she is about her responses to the RQs.  I don't think anything in my prior post betrays the opposite belief.  (However, I don't see how the subject in our case study here could be uncertain about whether or not she dealt drugs with her cousin, that seems like an all-or-nothing, clear cut situation to me.)

In any event, why will the knowledgeable subject be more anxious about the CQs than the RQs?  It seems to me that the possibility of losing a source of income is only a minor annoyance compared with the threat of decades in prison.  The threat posed by the CQ in question is much, much lower to the informed subject than to the ignorant subject.  So, does the size of the threat not matter?  If not, then perhaps getting them to believe that they'll be charged $5 more for the exam if they lie would be sufficient?  Or if it is simply uncertainty that is desired, why not get the person to estimate how many times he or she exceeds the speed limit during the average week, or for every 1000 miles they drive?  No one could have great confidence in his or her answer to that, you've got instant uncertainty if that is all you need.

So, does the size of the threat matter?  Why would I be significantly more anxious and concerned about the CQ than the RQ here?

[Paradiddle]

Clearly, you are working on a book, eh GM?

[Lethe]

Lethe
        If a burglar understands how to disarm an intruder detection alarm, is the scientific validity of the system effected or is it the system's utility that is effected?  

Are you admitting that someone who knows how the test works and knows, or can easily determine, the control questions will produce significantly less accurate results on a poly?  I can think of no other valid reason for you to make that statement.

But we are not just dealing with a security system that many burglars can undermine.  What we are dealing with is more along the lines of a security system that goes off when someone who knows how it works walks by.  It is not just that the system doesn't stop all of the burglars, but that it results in harm to innocent people.  

Please do check your private messages.  I'm sure that Paradiddle has some good advice for you.  Probably along the lines of "shut the hell up, will ya?"  Doing so would be a rational choice for someone in your situation; you really are giving away far too much, both by what you say and what you refuse to say.  The more people know about the polygraph, the less accurate it will be.  That is unfortunate, I myself would wish it otherwise, but it is the way things are.  Out of curiosity, where did you receive your polygraph training, and how long ago?  And were you ever with the feds?

Anyway, it seems fairly likely that this shit won't work for me.  This shit being, of course, a PLCQ exam.    So, for me, the rational choice is simply not to take such an exam and suffer the reduced opportunities that I will then face.  This is, perhaps, a pity.  With my keen sense of humor, I could have made an excellent federal employee.

[Ludovico]

Its uncanny.

Almost like you two (Lethe and PailRyder) are reading each other's thoughts...

Lethe, are you GM in disguise??

I was studying your avatar for clues and I noticed some things.

***[deleted bad taste photoshop of Lethe's avatar with a drag fest pic - sorry Lethe]***

[Lethe]

Its uncanny.

Almost like you two (Lethe and PailRyder) are reading each other's thoughts...

Lethe, are you GM in disguise??

I was studying your avatar for clues and I noticed some things.

If by GM you mean George Maschke then no, I am not GM.  And, offhand, I cannot think of any GM that I would be.  I am, however, glad that you like my avatar.

Now, would you care to join the real conversation in this thread, or do you just enjoy throwing off the sorts of comments which we have come to expect of you?  Do you maintain that the knowledgeable subject will produce charts just as accurate as the ignorant one?  If so, please explain to us why the CQ will produce more anxiety in the innocent subject than the RQ.

I have seen no one who has yet been able to explain this to me.  If you were to be the first, I would be quite greatful.  Sadly, these conversations all start out with the polygrapher swearing that what the subject knows can't effect the accuracy of the exam.  He then proceeds to conceal as much as he can, though by his own claim there is no reason for him to be doing so, while mainly ignoring the real argument.  He then falls back on a reserve position, usually something that amounts to "the polygraph isn't perfect but it's still awesome," or "if you keep asking questions, you're helping the rapists and pedophiles."  There are other varieties as well, including personal attacks, but almost always my motivations are called into question, as if it is curiosity and not the exercise of power over others that must continually be justified.  

At this phase in the discussion, pailryder is suffering from cognitive dissonance.  Due to his training and socialization, he "knows" that the polygraph's accuracy isn't undermined by one's knowledge of it.  It is, for several reasons, necessary that he himself believe this and great trouble is taken to make sure that the lesson takes.  He would swear that my knowledge of the poly couldn't make it inaccurate vis-a-vis myself and he has been told all the correct things to say and do, many of which are mentioned above, in order to counter arguments against this noble lie.  He is not accustomed to having these challenged, since he's usually ensconced behind his black box facing a helpless subject when the matter comes up.  Thus, the way he has always convinced people in the past that their knowledge can't hurt them has served to make him even more certain of that "fact."  But now, on this forum, his arguments are exhausted and cannot stand up to logic, which he has also been told to understand and respect.  Logic indicates that, given what we appear to agree on in this thread about how the polygraph works, it will not work very well, if at all, with a knowledgeable subject.  If pailryder were a large, clanking robot from a 1950s science fiction movie, at this point smoke and sparks would be pouring forth from his head and his arms would be wildly flailing about as he mechanically said "Does not compute!  Does not compute!"

Now, do you want to keep blowing smoke up each other's asses, or do you want to explain to us (us being anyone reading this thread) how it is that the polygraph's accuracy is not degraded by knowing how it works?

[Ludovico]

Now, would you care to join the real conversation in this thread, or do you just enjoy throwing off the sorts of comments which we have come to expect of you?  Do you maintain that the knowledgeable subject will produce charts just as accurate as the ignorant one?  If so, please explain to us why the CQ will produce more anxiety in the innocent subject than the RQ.

No thanks, you're having a fine conversation with the confederate (whom I don't believe is a polygraph examiner - call me suspicious like that)

[Lethe]

Now, would you care to join the real conversation in this thread, or do you just enjoy throwing off the sorts of comments which we have come to expect of you?  Do you maintain that the knowledgeable subject will produce charts just as accurate as the ignorant one?  If so, please explain to us why the CQ will produce more anxiety in the innocent subject than the RQ.

No thanks, you're having a fine conversation with the confederate (whom I don't believe is a polygraph examiner - call me suspicious like that)

Yeah, he may not be.  For one, he's much more loquacious than you are and for a second thing he's not so much of a dick.

Anyway, what, if anything, that he has said would you say is inaccurate or deficient?  If everything that he has said is accurate a conversation with him suits my purposes just fine, since I want to learn about the polygraph, not just talk with people who are practicing polygraphers.  

Anyway, is "confederate" a term used in polygraph circles to refer to folks who give up too much info on the polygraph?  Or were you just using it of your own initiative?  I'm guessing that the Confederate Naval Ensign was your own device.

Hmm.  Maybe LieBabyCryBaby will come out of hiding now and pitch in here.  After all, we still have zero sensical explanations for how the polygraph doesn't lose accuracy with a knowledgeable subject.