On the lighter side

[George W. Maschke]

"no guilt"
I see examiners coming here as sort of like this analogy;

Say the most omnipresent website about automotive mechanics was produced and populated by people proclaiming that automechanics are all thieves, and their "Scantool (r)"---(the main computer used by modern technicians to indicate system problems)---although not perfect by anymeans----was repeatedly called a "money prop" used for unnecessary and costly exploration. After a while. mechanics would grow tired of all the unchallenged, inductive thoughts, and constant smear upon a square profession that ultimately helps people and even saves lives on occasion. Examiners are here on occasion to keep the HS down to a mere stench, rather than a plague.

Your silly little opinion, while it is your right, is annoying, wrong, and worthy of rebuttal when it is within the limits of sanity.

Am I clear about that point?

It should be recalled that Eric Johnson spearheaded a trolling campaign to taunt, jeer, and belittle those who post here. See Outing the Trolls: The Polygraph Peanut Gallery (A Cast of Characters Starring Eric S. Johnson, Raymond Nelson, Donna Taylor, Ted Todd, and Louis Irving Rovner).

[sackett]

Sackett!! My posting record is 100 % I am convinced that polys are not effective in detecting lies!!
You on the other hand said that "no poligrapher ever said that poligraphs detect lies" when I told you what my poligrapher said to me you said " I don't care what your poligrapher said"
Even though you stated that you continue to declare that poligraphs work...... flip folp flip flop flip flopppp.

"notguilty1"

I recognize that I can never change your opinion but for the purpose of "friendly" discussion, I will try to revisit my point.

Polygraph does not detect lies, period! No (informed) examiner, in a technical discussion of how polygraph works would say so.  Now, if after the examination, your examiner says "you're lying", it is said for the reason of simplicity and steamlining the conversation, NOT as a technical discussion of the results! The technical discussion of how it works should have already been engaged in during the pre-test interview.  I will assume you received that as well.

When I made the comment of not caring what your examiner said, I don't!  Many examiners say and do things during their examination which I disagree with.  Some of which I read on this board (if honestly beng reported).  I have my training and stick to it.  Some do not.  Sorry, I can't help that, but I will not be held responsible for what someone else said or did.  Nor can I explain everything someone else did.  Furthermore, I certainly will not be held responsible to the misrepresentation of the polygraph process you present here, for the convenience of trying to prove your point.  

You see, no flip-flopping by me.  

Sackett

[nopolycop]

in a technical discussion[/u] of how polygraph works would say so.  

You might want to bring this up with the American Polygraph Association then, because their defination of "polygraph" is:

"R -"Polygraph" may mean "forensic psychophysiology" when used in detection of deception."

Last time I considered the subject, the concept of "detection of deception" was anologous to "lie detection."

Of course, the motto of the APA is "dedicated to truth" which might lead a reasonable person to believe that the polygraph had something to do with finding out what the truth was.

Additionally, on their website, they have a glossary which is concluded by the words:

"Source for many terms and definitions: Forensic Psychophysiology Using the Polygraph, Scientific Truth Verification - Lie Detection by James Allan Matte) "

Guess they think that a book by James Allan Matte which uses the term "lie detection" in the title is good enough for them.

But wait there is more...The American Association of Police Polygraphists states as their primary purpose:

"The primary purpose of a polygraph examination is to determine if the person being examined is being truthful or untruthful to the issue under investigation. "

So Sackett, maybe you want to change the meaning of what a polygraph is, because you personally, in your gut, know that a polygraph machine, procedure, exam or whatever you want to call it cannot detect lies, but until you get the industry which you work in to see it your way, you are stuck with it.

NPC

[notguilty1]

Hey Nonpoly don't confuse Sackett with facts even if they come from his own organizations.
Read his posts he's all over the place with his statements.
Maybe he should log on to the APA's web site and see what his teams game plan is before he gets out on the field.

[sackett]

"notguilty1",

I don't ask anyone for an opinion.  I have my own...  They rarely conflict with the professional organizations, to which I belong. Further, your statement that I am "all over the place" is another attempt to play upon the laziness of some readers and derail my credibility...My postings are consistent, albeit in conflict with yours and others like you.

"nopolycop",

the term "lie detection, truth verification", etc, is used to make it easily understandable to the masses (i.e. general public).  While identification of a lie, per-say is not what polygraph does, for the laymen the term makes it easier to understand and comprehend what the goal is.

If I say the term "polygraph" or "lie detection", the readers know what I mean. If I say forensic psychophysiological detection of deception, ie detection of lying throught the evaluation of physiology affected by the individuals knowledge of the issues, it becomes confusing...

IOW, "Lie detection" and "Truth Detection" are expiditious terms and publically acceptable.  When used, it is easier than using the full explanation of the entire process and activity which most would not be able to comprehend readily without the full explanation of the ANS versus CNS in regards to the physiology and psychology of the entire procedure during a discussion of the process.  

We don't go through the full explanation here during cursory discussions, though it is certainly twisted and purposefully confused by people like you, for the readers who are not fully aware of the process.  

Of course, the full explanation is given during all polygraph examinations, to ensure the examinee understands the principles and process, completely. IOW, the term "lie detection" is easier than anything else!  

Stop trying to derail this discussion and make me look like a liar!


Sackett

[yankeedog]

The words "deception" and "lie" are not automatically transposable.  A person can be deceptive without actually lying.  But, if you are lying, you are most definitely being deceptive.  I know it may be difficult to grasp the concept, but give it a try.  Think of it as interviewing a person who is beating around the bush when you ask a question.  This is a common occurrence to experienced law enforcement professionals.  The person may not be lying to you, but they are being deceptive.   (You alleged law enforcement types on this board should know what I am talking about)  An experienced law enforcement professional who conducts detailed and thorough interviews of victims, witnesses and suspects will understand.  A person like this would have difficulty in "passing" a polygraph examination.  That is to say, a deceptive result would be expected and certainly not surprising.  That is where a highly skilled and professional examiner, such as Sackett, would conduct a post-test interview in an attempt to resolve the issue.  It may seem as though this is "splitting hairs", but that is a part of the sophistication of the polygraph profession.    

"Lie detector" is a term of convenience utilized by lay people who do not understand the complexity of the discipline of Forensic Psychophysiological Detection of Deception.

And yes, it works, and works very well.  Which is why I use it almost daily.  Give me a better mouse trap and I'll be glad to use it.  Until then, I will continue to use what has shown to be successful, effective and legal.  

de•cep•tion  –noun
1. the act of deceiving; the state of being deceived
2. something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud; artifice.
Synonyms 2. trick, stratagem, ruse, wile, hoax, imposture.

Lie  -noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood
2.  something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.  an inaccurate or false statement.
4.  the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
5.  to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6.  to express what is false; convey a false impression.
7.  to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.

[nopolycop]

"notguilty1",

I don't ask anyone for an opinion.  I have my own...  They rarely conflict with the professional organizations, to which I belong. Further, your statement that I am "all over the place" is another attempt to play upon the laziness of some readers and derail my credibility...My postings are consistent, albeit in conflict with yours and others like you.

"nopolycop",

Of course, the full explanation is given during all polygraph examinations, to ensure the examinee understands the principles and process, completely. IOW, the term "lie detection" is easier than anything else!  

Stop trying to derail this discussion and make me look like a liar!
Sackett

First, I am not making you look like a liar,  you are doing a pretty good job of that yourself.

In none of the three polygraphs I have taken, was the techno-babble explained, just the lie that the polygraph can detect if I was lying.  

[sackett]

"n.p.c.".

you wrote:  "First, I am not making you look like a liar,  you are doing a pretty good job of that yourself.

Yeah?!  How so?  What have I stated here that has been nothing  more than a difference of your opinion..?

In none of the three polygraphs I have taken, was the techno-babble explained, just the lie that the polygraph can detect if I was lying."

Once again, you're asking me to explain something outside my responsibility.  What can I answer for you that I could possibly be responsible for...?

Sackett

[LALE]

Y

 Are you really sure he passed??? Or could it be that due to his rank, position and access level,  the examiner's couldn't believe the results?  

Thanks for clearing that one up. I think that many people have for long deduced that there are situational factors that play a part in the final call.
So Sackett, tell us who you passed due to rank / seniority / internal politics etc. Is it a long list ?

The answer is none.

See, this is the reason I rarely get personal.  Reason?  I don't really know anyone on this board well enough.  And, no-one on the board has the first clue to my background, etc.  If you did, you and some of the other ignorant (used to explain a lack of knowledge) posters would never say some of the crap that is spewed here about me.

Sackett

Gee Whiz - well if nobody knows whou you are they only have to enter your name in the members section of APA and then they will know.
Jim Sackett - Law Enforcement - Las Vegas NV.

We're not as stupid as you may think Jim.

[nopolycop]

"n.p.c.".

you wrote:  "First, I am not making you look like a liar,  you are doing a pretty good job of that yourself.

Yeah?!  How so?  What have I stated here that has been nothing  more than a difference of your opinion..?

In none of the three polygraphs I have taken, was the techno-babble explained, just the lie that the polygraph can detect if I was lying."

Once again, you're asking me to explain something outside my responsibility.  What can I answer for you that I could possibly be responsible for...?

Sackett

Since my polygraphs were outside your responsibility, it is also outside your responsibility to make generalizations about the polygraph industry, since any polygraph exam you don't personally give you have no control over.

So, when you make these statements, you are lying, misleading, deceiving, etc.  

I frankly find your whole argument here stupid, and simply proffered to confuse uninformed readers.

[LALE]

The words "deception" and "lie" are not automatically transposable.  A person can be deceptive without actually lying.  But, if you are lying, you are most definitely being deceptive.  I know it may be difficult to grasp the concept, but give it a try.  Think of it as interviewing a person who is beating around the bush when you ask a question.  This is a common occurrence to experienced law enforcement professionals.  The person may not be lying to you, but they are being deceptive.   (You alleged law enforcement types on this board should know what I am talking about)  An experienced law enforcement professional who conducts detailed and thorough interviews of victims, witnesses and suspects will understand.  A person like this would have difficulty in "passing" a polygraph examination.  That is to say, a deceptive result would be expected and certainly not surprising.  That is where a highly skilled and professional examiner, such as Sackett, would conduct a post-test interview in an attempt to resolve the issue.  It may seem as though this is "splitting hairs", but that is a part of the sophistication of the polygraph profession.    

"Lie detector" is a term of convenience utilized by lay people who do not understand the complexity of the discipline of Forensic Psychophysiological Detection of Deception.

And yes, it works, and works very well.  Which is why I use it almost daily.  Give me a better mouse trap and I'll be glad to use it.  Until then, I will continue to use what has shown to be successful, effective and legal.  

de•cep•tion  –noun
1. the act of deceiving; the state of being deceived
2. something that deceives or is intended to deceive; fraud; artifice.
Synonyms 2. trick, stratagem, ruse, wile, hoax, imposture.

Lie  -noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood
2.  something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.  an inaccurate or false statement.
4.  the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
5.  to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6.  to express what is false; convey a false impression.
7.  to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.

So, I guess all the folk over at APA who refer to polygraph as Lie - Detection are simply 'lay people' - according to you that is.

I wonder if they would agree with you...I think not.

For all your bs my brother, polygraphy is utilised for one thing only.
Not to make medical diagnosis...it is used to try and detect if the examinee is responding truthfully or untruthfully to a question.
If he is not telling the truth - then what is he doing precisely???

What is the antonym for truth ?

If a verbal response is deceptive, then it is a lie.
Full Stop.
How can a Yes or NO response be anything else but a Lie, if it is not Truthful ??

Tell you what. Try politics.

[LALE]

"no guilt"
I see examiners coming here as sort of like this analogy;

Say the most omnipresent website about automotive mechanics was produced and populated by people proclaiming that automechanics are all thieves, and their "Scantool (r)"---(the main computer used by modern technicians to indicate system problems)---although not perfect by anymeans----was repeatedly called a "money prop" used for unnecessary and costly exploration. After a while. mechanics would grow tired of all the unchallenged, inductive thoughts, and constant smear upon a square profession that ultimately helps people and even saves lives on occasion. Examiners are here on occasion to keep the HS down to a mere stench, rather than a plague.

Your silly little opinion, while it is your right, is annoying, wrong, and worthy of rebuttal when it is within the limits of sanity.

Am I clear about that point?

No, not at all. your analogy is quite silly actually.
But it does illustrate the subconscious hierarchy to which you have assigned the polygraph - and i agree with you. It has no more status than a garage tool.

Poisons save lives.
Lies save lives.
Criminal activity also saves lies.

Your point has no steam feller.

[sackett]

"n.p.c.".

you wrote:  "First, I am not making you look like a liar,  you are doing a pretty good job of that yourself.

Yeah?!  How so?  What have I stated here that has been nothing  more than a difference of your opinion..?

In none of the three polygraphs I have taken, was the techno-babble explained, just the lie that the polygraph can detect if I was lying."

Once again, you're asking me to explain something outside my responsibility.  What can I answer for you that I could possibly be responsible for...?

Sackett

Since my polygraphs were outside your responsibility, it is also outside your responsibility to make generalizations about the polygraph industry, since any polygraph exam you don't personally give you have no control over.

So, when you make these statements, you are lying, misleading, deceiving, etc.  

I frankly find your whole argument here stupid, and simply proffered to confuse uninformed readers.

Once again, you haven't answered my question that you accused me of, i.e. lying.  What have I said or elluded to that was a lie?!  Avoidance of the topic is not responsible!

And, again, oversimplification, which seems to be the order of the day...  I SAID I can't answer for a specific action of another examiner or person during an examination which has already taken place.  I CAN make observations and comments about the gengeneralizations of polygraph.  How you connect the two, totally opposing issues, I'll never understand.  

Sackett

P.S.  "LALE"  why are you trying to make it appear that I was hiding?  I've never hidden my opinions behind false monikers... and I'm not trying to conceal who I am, unlike you and some of the other anti posters.  A little disengenuous, I think!

Finally, you wrote:  "We're not as stupid as you may think Jim"  Once again, your opinion and certainly entitled to it...

[EJohnson]

No, not at all. your analogy is quite silly actually.
But it does illustrate the subconscious hierarchy to which you have assigned the polygraph - and i agree with you. It has no more status than a garage tool.

Poisons save lives.
Lies save lives.
Criminal activity also saves lies.

Your point has no steam feller.

LALE, you are clearly having fun, eh? Antipolygraph activists are trying to change the industry, pro-polygraph activists are advocating the positive uses and both parties come here to debunk one another. And LALE is after something altogether different.

My anology of using computerized Scantools on modern automobiles---which by the way are more technologically advanced than the first space shuttle----fits quite well. The Scantool doesn't detect malfunctions nor does it claim to (see your point here little man), as many a consumer has assumed. The Scantool pulls a code from the vehicles' computer system. The code doesn't merely tell the technician "fix the suspension actuators"---but instead, the code aids the technician by "indicating" (i.e."problem indicated")a system gliche, but the code does not pinpoint precisely what the malfunction is.

So one could not call the computerized scantool a diagnostic computer in the true sense of the word----but it is more properly labeled a "diagnostic aid." Techs love them, but do not worship them.

Similarly, the polygraph is short-hand called a lie detector, although it really is a tool to aid investigaters in "pulling a code" from individuals. It is imperfect, and when an error occurs, troublesome to say the least. Like in the analogy, Scantool does not work as well with some "types" of systems. As demonstrated by the site author's Bell's Palsy type ticks [see You Tube videos], and another poster who comes to mind who suffers from debilitating panic attacks, the instrument is not ideal for pulling good data on certain types of individuals. Such limitations do not make something unscientific, it merely makes it's use limited, period.

Perhaps LALE is a sufferer of some form of degenerative disease or neurological ailment. He certainly has demonstrated a degree of decompensation.

[nopolycop]

[Once again, you haven't answered my question that you accused me of, i.e. lying.

I have never accused you of lying.  Of course, facts are not your strong suit, are they?