The Glade 4.0

"Who gives a ****" is in reply to your saying you're not taking my word for it. I don't give a crap. As for the science behind it, as I said, it cannot be proven because you cannot know for sure if someone is lying or not. And I already know you don't care about people being held up at checkpoints or wrongly accused of lying because you're just that guy. As for the rest of your strawman, I'll not take your bait.



Wrong. You don't need to be an expert to discuss the subject. Guess what? Neither do I. I do understand how they work, in general. But you know what's really messed up about your statement? YOU are the one that started with this bullshit about people not knowing as much as they think they do, and now you're bothering me for saying you're not an expert either? Stop being a tool - you started this nonsense. Nobody needs to be an expert to discuss a simple subject like how a lie detector test works.



Are you seriously getting upset at being called "bro"? Holy crap.



You agree with me, as I've shown, yet somehow you still argue. I've never said you're wrong, only that the system as applied is horrendous. You've admitted the same faults I have stated, and yet still are getting all bent over nothing. The only difference between us is the faults that you have admitted to are unacceptable to me, as they have the potential to impact people's lives. But they're fine for you.

As for pseudoscience, what do you think the "art" of interpreting physiological responses to questioning as it relates to the unprovable assertion that someone is lying is?

So you're just talking to hear yourself talk.



What cannot be "proven"? How can you "not know if someone's lying or not"? That hardly matters when they truthfully admit to something, which is part of the value of the test - people tell the truth about things they otherwise wouldn't.



I'm just what "guy"? A guy that thinks that your personal convenience is really not the issue? Sorry.


There are none. You don't even know what strawman means.



That's what I just said. You are incredible. You repeat what I said, then put "wrong" in front of it to pretend you're pointing something out. For someone who doesn't give a ****, you sure do spend a lot of time trying to score rhetorical points.



No, I didn't start any "nonsense". YOU started this nonsense by screeching about how I'm not an "expert". The reason I pointed out the thing about people not knowing as much about this as they think is because, after I pointed out that the test do not work in the way you, and others, were claiming they did - namely, that the machine does not detect truth or lies or "flag" anyone; it is a matter of operator judgement and skill after the machine gives the arousal indicators - you just go right on talking the same way, as if I hadn't said anything at all. You keep saying you understand how they work in general - yet what you are saying about them indicates that you don't. You keep talking about how people can fail because they're "nervous", or because they "React differently". It doesn't work that way. That's why an individual baseline is established for each testing session. People fail on their reaction to specific questions, in relation to the other questions, not because of general nervousness, and if someone is so damn nervous they can't even get a baseline - an assertion I find dubious at best, yes, they most likely have something to hide, and no I don't care how many of those cases there are. Being too nervous for the machine to even work is not a common event.

Yet for some reason you get all butt-hurt at the suggestion that no, general nervousness is not what makes the test unreliable; it's false positives to specific questions. Why are you even arguing? Unreliable is unreliable. You keep wanting to say "we agree!" and despite the fact that we agree and you acknowledge I have some experience, you still want to argue. That's not the voice of someone who cares about the reliability; thats the voice of someone who believes it's unreliable because they resent its existence, and any reason will do - and calling into question that reason, even with another equally valid reason why it's unreliable, is calling into question that treasured resentment.



Don't flatter yourself. You're not important enough for me to get upset over. Is it really that important for you to type extra words like "bro"? No? Then it's a rhetorical trick to score points. Sorry, I pointed it out. Get over it.



I don't need to. All you're doing is ***** about me. You're not discussing the issue at all; all you're doing is hollaring "you're not an expert!!!1111!!onhundredthousandeleven!"

[/quote][/quote]



I agree with you only through sheer luck. The difference between me and you is that I dislike polygraph tests based on direct experience, not just on "they suck!" and "ZOMG GOONS!" and "the system is horrendous."

See, the thing is that you could easily find psychological studies that show the high propensity for false positives of these tests. Instead, we get nothing more than inaccurate complaints about "flagging people as liars" and Coro making worthless comparisons to radios. What do you not get about this? If you don't like them and think they're no good, at least do it for reasons that make sense, not because you want to suck your thumb and whine about "hassles" and stupidity, especially when, in all likelyhood, it isn't even based on polygraph technology. It's far more likely that it's based on VSA technology, and (giant hint here) the two are not the same. In fact, practitioners of either technology will spend a great deal of time trying to prove the other is worthless.



What "system"? Why is it "horrendous"? This is just more colorful languge. Ok, you can be outraged. You're cool. Don't worry, you have all the anti-authority street cred you need.



Who's getting bent out of shape? Certainly not me. We agree about the basic principle , yet when I correct you on things like how the test works, you go into this straight up "I need to prove DE WRONG!! about something, anything!" mode. You dislike the tests for teenage-level reasons; some anecdotal story about some buddy of yours or something and things being "horrendous" and "goons" and blah blah blah. Never mind that there's publicly accessible studies out there indicating that polygraph technology is about 61% accurate; never mind that this test isn't likely even based ont he same technology - let's just jump straight on the ZOMG GOVERNMENT! bandwagon and start ranting! Great idea, "bro".



Everything has "the potential to impact people's lives". That's a silly objection.



It's not an "art". "Pseudoscience" refers to things like ghost hunting, or trying to teach creationism in science class where basic principles of science are simply ignored. "Pseudoscience" does not mean science or technology that just doesn't work very well, or that turns out to be a dead end. Polygraph technology is real science in the sense that it's pursued using real science - it just seems, so far to be a dead end. That's like calling a V-2 rocket "pseudoscience" based on its unreliability.

You're an engineer. If you want to object to the science of this, try objecting to the actual science. I'm sure there's plenty of common ground. Worrying about someone else's expertise or lack thereof and simply throwing around vague pejoratives like "the system is horrendous!" make you sound like a knee-jerking idiot.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Polygraphy is widely characterized as pseudoscience.

Polygraphy has little credibility among scientists.



There are reasons the EPPA exists, and it's for just the reasons Ara and Stathol have brought up previously: The person administering the test is capable of misinterpreting the information, accidentally or purposefully, and their summary of the test is what matters to the people who hire them to administer the tests, not the data gathered by the polygraph machine.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

No, I'm stating my opinion. I don't give a crap that you don't like it.



/facepalm You cannot know what is truly in some guy's head. You may think you know he's lying, but you can't prove this.



"I"m better than all them gummint people" is a misrepresentation of my argument.



Wrong. You stated: "You sound like Monty claiming that since I'm not a 4-star general I must not know the first thing about artillery rounds and therefore am on the same level as his totally untrained ***." This is wrong. I am not claiming you need to be an expert. You're misrepresenting my position, and intentionally so.



I have said several times you don't need to be an expert. Never said you did. I took offense at your implication that I am unfamiliar enough with the technology to discuss the matter. Secondly, I know, and have always known, and have said as much, that the machine does not detect lies or truth - the "system", which includes the interpreter, is intended to do that. I know they merely measure physiological changes, and have said as much. Are you even reading my posts?

As for nervousness, I have addressed this. The baseline is established at the beginning of the tests, with easy questions the operator can verify as truth or not. Address, age, name, etc. This baseline is INADEQUATE when serious questions related to sensitive issues arise, such as, for example, repeated questions about drug use when an individual has used drugs. The questioning, even though answered honestly, can generate the same physiological response as a lie, because the individual is nervous about admitting such things. Furthermore, continuous questioning and key personality types can lure people into blabbing about nearly everything related to anything they have ever thought about - just to be truthful - and this can derail the test.

And it's not just me - google "anxiety polygraph" and read some articles. Here's a WaPo article on the unreliability of the testing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/30/AR2006043001006.html

It's not just me - it's a bad system.



At this point I'm mostly just pointing out your blatant misrepresentation of my arguments. Which you are doing again here, with the suggestion that I somehow resent its existence. I resent its use despite its unreliability. Huge difference. If it didn't suck, I wouldn't have a problem with it.



Score points? How does "bro" score me points? You're not making any sense.



Except I'm not. I've said you don't need to be. You really need to read. And I'm trying to discuss the issue, but your strawmen are causing derails.



If that were the only reasons given, you might have a point. It's odd that you feel it necessary to resort to such implications to make your point.



Again, had you actually read my arguments, you would see that I agreed that with new technology comes new possibilities. I only expressed concern over past uses, and thus my skepticism.



As I've stated before, the combination of machine and interpreter. It is horrendous because it is unreliable, and has the ability to seriously impact people's lives. All this has been said.



That's a lot of exclamation points, misrepresentations, incorrect statements, and insults for someone not bent out of shape. I'm calling shenanigans.



No, it's not. Bad technology that doesn't impact anyone doesn't invoke the same level of concern as bad technology that can have significant impact. If it had no impact, I probably wouldn't give a crap.



It ain't science.



No, it's not pseudoscience because the machine doesn't work well. The measurements the machine takes are fairly scientific. Measuring increased heart rate is not hard. The "pseudo" comes in when people claim to be able to take such readings and somehow determine that people are not telling the truth. It's presented as scientific, based on measurements, etc., but is not in reality.



Misrepresenting other people's arguments to make your point does the same for you. As for the science, I just explained how it is not science. The parts of it that are scientific in nature - the measurements in physiological changes - I have little argument with. I don't doubt that they can measure such things. As soon as they attempt to apply this, they fail - and it's no longer science.

Change your story much. What you were saying earlier is that you didn't give a **** if I didn't buy your anecdotal evidence. Now you're "Stating your opinion". You're all over the **** place. Get a grip. You just bust out the "I don't give a ****" line whenever anyone doesn't buy your present line of bullshit.



Really? You cn't ever have evidence that contradicts someone's assertion? More importantly, who cares if we can absolutely prove in the philosophical sense if someone is lying? We only need to be reasonably sure.



You've stated essentially this in the past, by referring to them as "meatheads" and when I (sarcastically) expressed my sympathy at you having to interact with your inferiors, you acknowledged that you did, in fact, think them inferior. You're back here talking about "goons" again; a well-understood pejorative that indicates a physically powerful but unintelligent subordinate. I am not misrepresenting your arguments; you re misrepresenting your own posting history.



See, where I said "you sound like"? That's me stating an opinion. I realize from what you posted above about not giving a **** about what I think of your opinion when earlier you didn't give a **** if I beleived your anecdote that you may be confused about the difference between "fact" and "opinion", but here's a clue: When I say "you sound like.." that indicates that I'm expressing an opinion. It's based on my observations of what you have said, but it represents my opinions. Then you try to pretend it's "Wrong".

Furthermore, at the time I wrote that the only reference to being an expert you had made was your petulant whining that "you think you're an expert and you're NOT!!!!", which clearly indicated that, at a minimum, you thought me not being a polygraph expert was some sort of problem. This differs from Monty's attitude only in degree.

So, maybe I stand corrected. You're not trying to score rhetorical points; you're desperately flailing about for any basis on which to continue the argument in hopes you'll find something you can claim I'm wrong about.



You first claimed I was not an expert, and only backpeddled into "I didn't say you had to be!" once I pointed out that, yes, I'm not an expert and no, I never claimed I was. No, you technically didn't claim I needed to be an expert, you just implied that it was a problem I wasn't one.



Then you should ahve familiaried yourself more with the technology, and tried discussing it in terms that indicate you have some familiarity. Talking about "hassles" and "stupidity" and "it sucks" and "horrendous" are not the terms of someone with any genuine understanding.



And yet you also stated repeatedly that it "flagged people as lying" and other words to that effect. From YOUR POSTS:





You didn't start acknowledging that the machine does not actually detect lies or determine truth or falsehood until I pointed it out, more than once!

So, maybe you'd be less "offended" if you went back and read your own posts and didn't try to misrepresent yourself as to having knowledge that you only suspiciously seem to start to have after I point it out several times. Furthermore, if you "don't give a ****" what I think of your opinion, then I don't give a **** if you're offended. Why should I? In every discussion, at the least suggestion you should try to convince anyone of anything you go into full blast "I don't give a **** about internet people!" mode so why should I care if you're offended when you can't even seem to remember what you, yourself, posted.



Now you're treading into areas that do require expertise. How do you know the baseline is inadequate? Where did you get this information? I have a psychology degree, and I'm not prepared to determine whether common baseline practices are good, bad, or indifferent - and you are even less prepared. Your personal assumptions about the effects various lines of questioning might or might not have on people are not adequate.

As for your "derail the test" thing, this clearly indicates you don't understand how the test works. During the actual hooked-up-to-the-machine portion of the test, you answer questions "yes" or "no" and nothing else. You do not babble on about anything, or you've violated the testing conditions. This is clearly explained - clearly, as in when it was done to me I was told "if you break these rules it indicates you can't follow simple instructions and have a bigger problem than lying with your job application." The "babbling" part happens before the test and the operator pays attention only to what is relevant. Almost everyone babbles on; that's part of why it takes so many hours to do a test. A big part of the interview is getting all the stupid **** no one cares about out of the way, so that during the test the operator can ask "other than what we talked about during the interview, have you ever..." and you won't think "holy ****, what about that time I told my wife that shitty green dress looked fantastic? Is that lying?" and other **** that might make you think you are lying.

See, if you really understood even half as much as you think about the test (and everything I just told you is laymen-level knowledge that I have) you would ahve already known that. What I just said should have just given you a major clue as to why there are false positives too: despite the length of the interview it is still quite possible to forget something then suddenly remember it during the test and have a "spike" reaction, or have other things that weren't really asked about clearly but suddenly occur to you and get a false positive, like the girl that got raped.

If you were less interested in ***** about me reading your posts, screeching about "goons", and generally trying to vent your spleen and actually paid attention to someone saying "Yes, they're not all that great, but not for the reasons you think" you might actually learn something, even if it is only laymen-level. For that matter, almost anyone out there who's taken a test could have told you that, or you doubtless could ahve found it on the net somewhere if you cared about the issue enough to do even trivial research - but you didn't know that. This, despite the fact that someone supposedly told you about some really horrible polygraph test they had where they answered "yes." That's how I knew whoever described it to you didn't give you the full story. You don't say "yes" to "have you used drugs" out of the blue when hooked to the machine; you're supposed to have already said yes and fully explained your drug use beforehand, so if you pop as lying when you say yes the theory is that you're lying because you only disclosed some (minor) drug use in hopes of conceling more serious use.

While we can certainly agree that theory is, at best, unreliable, the fact is that your description of events simply didn't match polygraph procedure. Either your buddy was subject to a truly abnormal procedure, or he didn't exactly tell you the truth, and you fell for it.
And it's not just me - google "anxiety polygraph" and read some articles. Here's a WaPo article on the unreliability of the testing.

[url]It's not just me - it's a bad system.
[/url]

And yet, you're huffing and puffing and screeching at someone telling you yes, it's a bad system, but not for the reasons you think.



First of all, me saying you "Resent its existence" is not a "misrepresentation of your arguments", that's my evaluation of your arguments - and it's a good one too; referring to polygraph operators as "goons" and talking about "hassles" and "stupidity" are words of anger and resentment, not honest scientific disagreement. Stop trying to denigrate things you don't like and you won't have that problem.

Second, given that you can't even honestly represent what you yourself stated - specifically, you've changed the reference of your "I don't give a ****" statement from referring to if I beleive your worthless anecdotal account to whether I agree with your opinion AND you denied arguing that the machine determines truth or lies despite stating exactly that on two occasions - your complaint that I "misrepresented your arguments" falls into the same steaming pile of **** it falls into every time anyone makes that claim. Your arguments weren't represented, they just sucked, and since we agreed, you didn't even need to make them. You could ahve kept your trap shut and maybe learned something or maybe asked a few questions or gone and read an article or almost anything. Instead, you've continued a pointless argument over nothing, plus yet another paragraph above where you try to sneak in your own assessmen of how people behave under polygraph interrogation as if you were in any way qualified to make such an assessment.

It's absolutely astounding the heights your own arrogance will take you to.



Uh huh. You just like typing a few extra keystrokes for the hell of it? Look up "tone".



And yet, once again, you brought up the expert thing first by trying to debunk a claim of expertise I never made. You only started saying I wasn't because I agreed, I'm not. Sorry, too late. You brought it up in the first place. If you didn't think I needed to be, you shouldn't have brought it up.



Those were the only reasons given, unless you're talking about your uneduated assessments of stress behaviors and your inaccurate concept of what a test must be like.

The only thing that's "odd" is how frequently things I state make their way into your points after I state them, then claim I'm "not reading your posts" and "misrepresenting you" because I'm not allowing you to pretend you were saying them all along.



You expressed concern over past uses of a different technology, predicted (from your original post) "headaches, hassles, and stupidity" based on that, and then went off on this tangent despite the fact that it is, indeed, different technology - and you didn't even understand that there were 2 distinct technologies - distinct enough, in fact, that practitioners of one method regularly deride the other.

Don't play innocent.



First of all, the "ability to seriously impact people's lives" applies only to people who enter into situations where they voluntarily subject themselves to the polygraph. Second, plygraphs are never used alone; they're used in conjunction with other methods of investigation. You still don't understand the "system" you're complaining is "horrendous".



Well, since not a single one of those things is incorrect or a misrepresentation, and I really don't care about your exclaimation point quota nor insulting someone who regualrly declares he "doesn't give a ****", I guess you're just out of luck. Here's a hint: Next time you want to "Call Shennanigans" try to not blatantly misrepresent your own posts, and declare you "don't give a ****" about something then later claim you meant you didn't give a **** about something completely different. Shennanigans calls work a lot better when they're not desperation moves.



What "significant impact" exactly does it have that you're so worried about?



And yet, simple observation reveals that it is a science, despite its unreliability and imperfection. You seem to have forgotten what "science" is.



People don't take the readings and determine if someone is or isn't telling the truth; they determine that the results are those indictive of deception. They can also indicate other things. That's why pegging the meters isn't automatically a failure. You follow up on a failed polygraph.



No, you didn't. You again misrepresented what the test is about. Furthermore, a philosophical objection that you can't determine truth absolutely does not make it "not science". Are you seriously asserting that a person who is lying does not have physiological stess indicators, especially if he is hooked up or about to be hooked up to a machine he believes can determine if he is lying?

You don't get to make an assertion about that. You don't know. You're talking way above your level of understanding. I've given you good, solid reasons to object to the polygraph but you still want to argue with me to defend the silly ones.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

How is "this is my opinion" and "I don't care if you buy it or not" incompatible? You're kind of heading off the deep end here.



No, you cannot know for sure what's in someone's head. You can have contrary evidence, but so what? And no - when you're impacting people's lives, "reasonably sure" is not good enough. Furthermore, that "reasonably sure" standard is horseshit. Polygraphs don't meet that standard (not that it's a quantified standard).



You're using ALLEGED statements made by me in the past (with dubious interpretation) to ascribe an argument to me in this thread that I have not made. Dude, stick to the subject at hand - you're hard enough to pin down as it is, without pulling weird crap from past threads.



You're opinion is based on incorrect information, as I pointed out. Wow, none of this matters.



OMG no. You pointed out, with a wiki link that people often think they know less than they think they do. I admitted to not being an expert and pointed out that neither are you. That's hardly whining, it's a valid counter point to your statement, and certainly not cause for you to get so upset.



No, see above.



I'm plenty familiar with the technology, and more importantly, it's application. Perhaps it's time for you to get off the "omg you don't know what you're talking about, I know more than you!" and get back to the subject.



Yes. As I stated multiple times I'm talking about the system - machine plus operator. I don't care what the machine does by itself, who would? As I've stated, it's taking measurements - the application of it is horrendous.



I barely give a **** about any of this, honestly. You're crying on the internet because someone's disagreeing with you (sort of) and getting all butt hurt because they expressed an opinion you don't like. If you'd like to have a rational discourse about the subject, great, but you'll need to get off the stupid ****.



Based on what I've seen, been told, and read. /shrug



You just validated that I know how the test works. Quote: "If you babble on, you've violated the testing conditions". Thus, derailed the test. Oy.



You'd prepare better responses if you read what you were responding to.



So you're all upset about this because someone agrees with you but not for reasons you approve of? Holy crap, dude.



Really, man? You sound like our good old friend who used to rave about the offensiveness of being called a "lib".



/facepalm

It's all documented. And none of this matters. What are you on about? And why?



I said it was two different technologies. When you pointed it out, I quoted you, and said TRUE, then pointed out my skepticism about the success of the new technology. You should read my posts.



Innocent? What does that even mean? How could I possibly be guilty? Guilty of what? Again, what are you on about?



Struck out the nonsense so I could focus on the on topic statements. First - whether they voluntarily submit themselves or not, it's a government job, and they are being excluded because of a bad system. That is unfair. If it were a private job, I wouldn't care, but for government? No good. As to your second point, this is true. However, for the jobs I am familiar with, you have to pass the polygraph AND the other levels. You can't fail the polygraph, pass the others, and get the job.



I'm not misrepresenting my posts. You'd know that if you read them. You've admitting to misrepresenting them, or at least pulling data in not contained here. Still, why should I care about whether or not you agree with my opinion? I'm comfortable with it. What have you shown here that would generate an interest? You clearly cannot tolerate being disagreed with, and frankly it's clear you're only going to engage in personal attacks, derails, and misrepresentations. You're all over the place, and it's frankly not particularly easy to convince anyone of anything if they don't read what you write. Hell, we agree, and you're still freaking out.



Exclusion from high-level government positions.



Science is defined by the ability to hold up to the scientific method. A polygraph test does not. It is an interpretation of scientific data, but taking it to any level of conclusion is not science.



Ok, sure. Still not science.



Some do, some don't. The fact is, you cannot know for sure, in a reproducible, predictable fashion (scientific method) that if anyone lies, they exhibit these features. You've admitted this above - "They can also indicate other things." This makes it unreproducible and unscientific.

It's not science. It's an unreliable application of measured data. Nothing more.