James Randi on Polygraphy

[George W. Maschke]

James Randi comments on polygraphy in his weekly commentary dated 18 October 2002 (scroll to the end):
 
http://www.randi.org/jr/101802.html

[Skeptic]

I'm going to be laughing for quite awhile about that one.

"The polygraph is . . . a highly reliable detector of orgasms. But does it detect lies? Only if you're lying about having an orgasm."

Now that's funny.

Skeptic

[Seeker]

I suppose this would be an inappropriate quote to include in my statement for refusal of the polygraph.  
I wonder if under those circumstances one could claim lack of evidence?
That is indeed the funniest thing yet!

[Anonymous]

...The polygraph is . . . a highly reliable detector of orgasms. But does it detect lies? Only if you're lying about having an orgasm...

from James Randi comments on polygraphy in his weekly commentary dated 18 October 2002

As Flounder of Animal House fame would say, "This is Greeeeeeaaaaaaaaaat!!!"

I can just see it now....."Did she or didn't she??"  A detection of deception application for the polygraph that the polygraph circus clowns of entertainment TV, organized polygraphy, and the NAS panel on polygraphy might jointly agree has promise.  Keep the faith, you charlatans of the polygraph screening world,...there may be future employment for you yet  Even you clowns doing post conviction sex testing may be able to bring your skills to bear as you figure out how to conduct a polygraph exam during sex.  I think the APA should jump on this one...

[Skeptic]

The problem, of course, is the nature of this lie.  To be found truthful, one would want to demonstrate physiological reactions.  Thus, countermeasures might be highly effective.

That, and there are some things most people (in this case, husbands, boyfriends, etc.) really don't want to know the truth about.  If the lie is good enough that one would need a polygraph to tell the difference, then it's probably good enough for most purposes

Skeptic

[Fair Chance]

This site is starting to remind of a sailing craft stuck in a ocean without wind.

You guys are starting to get cabin fever.

Would a pro-polygraph person please start a thread to keep these guys occupied.

[Skeptic]

This site is starting to remind of a sailing craft stuck in a ocean without wind.

You guys are starting to get cabin fever.

Would a pro-polygraph person please start a thread to keep these guys occupied.

The silence is deafening...

Skeptic

[Marty]

Skeptic,

I'm going to be laughing for quite awhile about that one.

"The polygraph is . . . a highly reliable detector of orgasms. But does it detect lies? Only if you're lying about having an orgasm."

This can not go unexamined.  Exactly what studies have show the polygraph a highly reliable detector of orgasms? Sure it may seem that it may be effective, but do we know for certain?  Where can I apply for a grant......?

 

-Marty

[Skeptic]

Skeptic,


This can not go unexamined.  Exactly what studies have show the polygraph a highly reliable detector of orgasms? Sure it may seem that it may be effective, but do we know for certain?  Where can I apply for a grant......?



-Marty

See what DoDPI has in the way of grant money...
I'm thinking you should have no trouble finding lots of participants -- "No, really, I didn't have one...you say I'm lying? we should try again, don't you think, doctor?"  

Skeptic

P.S. my apologies for helping to take the discussion to such low levels so quickly...

[Marty]

P.S. my apologies for helping to take the discussion to such low levels so quickly...

ROFLMAO.

Apologies accepted! (Even if apologies are completely unwarranted).  Now, back to the serious studies at hand....

-Marty

[Seeker]

Marty:
I obtained all the necessary documents to apply for a government grant.  Do you suppose I can get enough "experts" to particiapte in this study if I get funded?  
ROTFLMAO
I am serious, too.  As much money as is thrown away on such foolishness, surely I will get a grant to research the polygraph's validity in detecting orgasims.  
I am just wondering..who would we consider experts?