Polygraph fruitloopery

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Jul 2012, 14:28

stevecook172001 wrote: I said that they can provide a significant probability assignment to whether or not some is lying

And I say that is fruitloopery, dangerous fruitloopery.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 21 Jul 2012, 15:12

biffvernon wrote:
stevecook172001 wrote: I said that they can provide a significant probability assignment to whether or not some is lying
And I say that is fruitloopery, dangerous fruitloopery.

Unless you are prepared to unpack your somewhat non-technical accusation of "fruit-loopery" with regards to their operative usefulness, then your accusation is meaningless.

It would help if you unpacked with regards to the point I have made in my previous post.

SleeperService · Post by **SleeperService** » 21 Jul 2012, 15:32

A strange moment for me steve, I find myself in total agreement with your end argument but disagree with a lot of the reasoning.

I suppose any tool can be misused by untrustworthy people. I don't trust our government

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 21 Jul 2012, 15:48

SleeperService wrote:A strange moment for me steve, I find myself in total agreement with your end argument but disagree with a lot of the reasoning.

I suppose any tool can be misused by untrustworthy people. I don't trust our government

I don't want people to misunderstand me here. I am absolutely and utterly opposed to the use of polygraphs. In particular by the state for all of the obvious reasons. I just happen to know as a function of my degree that they do have some limited operational effectiveness. That's precisely why I am opposed to them.

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 21 Jul 2012, 15:54

stevecook172001 wrote:I don't want people to misunderstand me here. I am absolutely and utterly opposed to the use of polygraphs.

Steve, I think you're telling lies.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Jul 2012, 15:55

Operative usefulness be damned! Some argue that a belief in god has operative usefulness but that does not mean that god exists.

And what's so non-technical about 'fruit-loopery'? See for examples http://changedtimes.wordpress.com/fruitloopery/
and
http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/Olive/ODE/ph ... w=ZW50aXR5
and
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fruitloopery

I think the term was first used by the Feedback column of New Scientist and has now gone feral.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 21 Jul 2012, 19:59

biffvernon wrote:Operative usefulness be damned! Some argue that a belief in god has operative usefulness but that does not mean that god exists.

And what's so non-technical about 'fruit-loopery'? See for examples http://changedtimes.wordpress.com/fruitloopery/
and
http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/Olive/ODE/ph ... w=ZW50aXR5
and
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fruitloopery

I think the term was first used by the Feedback column of New Scientist and has now gone feral.

You still haven't made clear what it is specifically about polygraphs that does not do what it says on the tin. In other words, if you think they are not effective at making useful probabilistic judgements about the truthfulness of the answers given by a subject of a polygraph test, then you need to either provide evidence for that claim or, at least, be able to construct a rational, logic based argument for it. You have done neither. It is not enough to simply say "bah-humbug". You have to provide more than that.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 21 Jul 2012, 22:10

In Lyell Watson's book Supernature, somebody wired up a plant to a polygraph, with a view to seeing how it would react if he did various things to it. As soon as he thought of setting a flame to one of its leaves, the plant's polygraph readings went absolutely mental. No-one has ever explained this, and I'm not sure how one could ever repeat it.

DominicJ · Post by **DominicJ** » 21 Jul 2012, 22:29

Steve
Surely its your job to prove why a moisture sensor on my palm and an arse clenching sensor on my chair can detect lies.

I can clench my arse when I tell the truth, and relax it before I lie.
I can think of something arousing, or scary, or embarrising, ect

That of course, assumes that my palms do sweat when I lie and remain dry under stressful situations during which I tell the truth, or dry out instantly between truth and lie.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 21 Jul 2012, 23:38

DominicJ wrote:Steve
Surely its your job to prove why a moisture sensor on my palm and an arse clenching sensor on my chair can detect lies.

I can clench my arse when I tell the truth, and relax it before I lie.
I can think of something arousing, or scary, or embarrising, ect

That of course, assumes that my palms do sweat when I lie and remain dry under stressful situations during which I tell the truth, or dry out instantly between truth and lie.

Without going into the boring details of psychometrics, as its late and I need to get to bed, all of the things you have described are controllable for via baseline questions, via careful positioning of critical questions and via cross reference to archived data and, most critically, by administration by a highly trained operative. Even then, there are limitations and qualifications as I have already repeatedly outlined in my previous posts.

Polygraphs are what they are, no more or less. What they are not, is "fruit loopery"

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 22 Jul 2012, 09:30

RenewableCandy wrote: I'm not sure how one could ever repeat it.

I'm not sure that we would want to repeat Lyell Watson's book Supernature.

I remember actually paying real folding money for it when it first came out. I soon found I had been conned.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 22 Jul 2012, 09:31

stevecook172001 wrote:Without going into the boring details of psychometrics,...What they are not, is "fruit loopery"

I rest my case, m'lud.

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 22 Jul 2012, 14:29

stevecook172001 wrote: Polygraphs are what they are, no more or less. What they are not, is "fruit loopery"

I understand your point about not promoting their use and your position against their application here.

Polygraph is just a device measure physical responses wrt time.
That those response vary and can be measured is not in question.

That those variations are reliable enough to generate a probability of someone lying on that day about that query is in question. If I believe what I say but I recognise it to be offensive I may respond in exactly the same way as if I just made it up on the spot in an attempt to hide something embarrassing.

The point of the polygraph, as with so many interrogation techniques, is to take you out of your comfort zone making it harder for you to construct and maintain a lie.

One effective method of beating all this is simply to pre-construct your lie and ensure that you believe it before anyone ever asks. Unfortunately this is the kind of activity that sex offenders do every day in order to justify their actions to themselves.

This whole idea is political pandering to the rag reading mob.