2 polygraphs from same county

[digithead]

Digi, I would respect your posted opinions if you didn't commit grammitical errors, and than raise your browe at mine. READ YOUR POSTS AND AIM THAT ELITIST EDITING AT YOURSELF. Christ, it's a goddamn web board, not a board of acedemics. It is clear that you have a hard-on for examiners (to use a 1950's phrase) and that you are incapable of having casual discourse. It must be very difficult being your friend or partner. It is not a requirement to be both anti-polygraph, and anti-social on this site, although it's not uncommon. That being said, I have seen "anti-dudes" in this realm who are of solid personality---despite my professional disagreement.

Your self importance is derived from your inability to accept that a statement of facts should require you to modify your opinion. Sex Offender containment officials sans Examiners do not vest the safety of our children with the results of a polygraph test, period. As far as we are concerned, 99% accurate would not be enough (I have 3 children of my own) to look away---much less 86-93% which is the more commonly held accuracy range for multi-issue tests. Your self importance comes from the fact that like a certain president, you seem to ignore facts and go with your "gut." Your gut is filled with organs and shit.

I'm sorry polygraph didn't serve your direct needs. Some stories regarding polygraph shortcomings make rational people desire to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Why is it that you polygraph people cannot argue without resorting to ad hominem attacks, appeals to emotion, and other logical fallacies?

Quite simply, I very rarely go with my "gut" on anything because I know that I have cognitive biases and I know I can be wrong. So I research things and what I've found about the polygraph is that given the bulk of research the CQT polygraph is a deeply flawed procedure that cannot reliably detect deception. Since it has no validity, it can't have any reliability and is therefore a dangerous prop if its relied on for anything more than inducing confessions from the gullible...

As for your overblown statements of accuracy regarding multi-issue tests, they are garnered from the pro-polygraph literature and the majority of that literature is not published in acceptable peer-reviewed journals nor could it meet the research standards of either the National Institute of Health or the National Science Foundation. I'll also stand by the National Academy of Science conclusion that the CQT polygraph has no validity and as such, it cannot have a high degree of accuracy in any screening application...

Can you refute the NAS study with anything other than your own experience? Are they all elitist snobs too?

[palerider]

Yawn. Please research the concept of "ground truth" within the proper parameters of polygraph research, and while you're at it, please research the empirical differance in field studies of polygraph versus "mock crime" staging and the subsequent disparities in arousal magnitudes. You have a very large paint brush when you dispense your opinions on polygraph. It is a sign of scientific prejudice. NAS type of studies are similar to zoologists studying animals in captivity under the guise of studying "wildlife."

My use of the word "elitist" was a sardonic referance to your grammer and spelling remark. Your critical remarks of what is supposed to be a web-shorthand-style of communication is the opposite of elite. I didn't realize I was dealing with Monk.