Polygraphs: The evidence

[CFLarsen]

No, your problem is that you wouldn't know a logical statement if your life depended on it. You can't "safely say" anything about my position on topic "A" based on my statements regarding completely different topic "B".

Whatev, Creationist...

You need to get it through your head: Preliminary tests are only done after a challenge has been accepted by the JREF and a protocol agreed upon. I am asking you if you think a polygraph test would qualify. You have no official say on that (and your initial responses to me acknowledge this) and therefore your opinion has no binding effect on the JREF.

So don't hide behind some special status you think you have to avoid answering a simple question.

I'm not hiding, Thanz. You have to understand that I can't say whether such claims would be accepted in advance or not.

That's the way it is. Deal with it.

No, it hasn't been. How will you effect the JREF's determination on what challenges to accept?

Why do you think you are entitled to know what must be discussed privately?

Argument by emoticon. Very mature. It simply shows that you have no coherent argument to make.

No, it shows that you are completely out there.

You get a baseline. Then compare answers against the baseline. You are testing variations from the baseline. This can be done (and has been done) without the stress of say, a murder investigation. In controlled lab conditions. Which is the heart of my question: If a polygraph operator can detect deception at a rate well above chance in these controlled, less stressful lab conditions, would that qualify for the MDC in your opinion?

Wait, wait.

Are you saying that when people lie, they can get more calm?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, YOU need to follow the conversation. It was explained to you that computers can determine if someone is lying or not and pretty much agree with the people operating the polygraph. How can a computer get those results through extracting a confession ?

Where, in the quote of mine you posted, did I mention computers?

Was I not clearly referring to polygraphs?

 

[Thanz]

Whatev, Creationist...

What exactly is the point of throwing a label at me, based on no actual inquiry into my position? Does it make you feel like a bigger man? Does it satisfy some psychological need of yours?

I'm not hiding, Thanz. You have to understand that I can't say whether such claims would be accepted in advance or not.

That's the way it is. Deal with it.

I am not asking you if it would. I am asking whether, in your opinion, it should. Are you aware of the difference between the two?

Why do you think you are entitled to know what must be discussed privately?

I am curious as to what makes you believe you have some power over Randi. Perhaps it is just your regular delusions of grandeur.

Wait, wait.

Are you saying that when people lie, they can get more calm?

Not at all, and I don't see how you get that from my response. More arm waving and distractions, no actual answers to simple questions.

 

[CFLarsen]

What exactly is the point of throwing a label at me, based on no actual inquiry into my position? Does it make you feel like a bigger man? Does it satisfy some psychological need of yours?

No. I just go with what you say.

I am not asking you if it would. I am asking whether, in your opinion, it should. Are you aware of the difference between the two?

No, you asked:

I am asking you if you think a polygraph test would qualify.

At least keep track of what you say yourself. Will you be capable of that in the future?

I am curious as to what makes you believe you have some power over Randi. Perhaps it is just your regular delusions of grandeur.

I don't claim to have any power over Randi, and it isn't a question of whether I can or not. It is simply a matter of some things that cannot be discussed in public.

Do you understand that not all discussions about claims can be discussed in public?

Do you understand that it is not up to you to decide that these discussions should be discussed in public?

Not at all, and I don't see how you get that from my response. More arm waving and distractions, no actual answers to simple questions.

I asked you. Learn the difference between an assertion and a question.

If you don't say that when people lie, they can get more calm...what are you testing for in a polygraph test?

 

[Belz...]

Where, in the quote of mine you posted, did I mention computers?

Was I not clearly referring to polygraphs?

Claus, please read what I said: _I_ am the one who brought the computer issue. _I_ was asking _YOU_ a question. Please answer it.

 

[Thanz]

No. I just go with what you say.

Demonstrably not. You haven't gone with what I have said on Intelligent Design. You have gone with your own twisted interpretation of what I have said on an unrelated topic to guess at my position on ID. Two radically different things.

No, you asked:

At least keep track of what you say yourself. Will you be capable of that in the future?

Fine. Mea Culpa. If that word is tripping you up, let's eliminate it now. I want to know whether, in your opinion, a polygrapher should qualify for the MDC. Can you answer that?

I don't claim to have any power over Randi, and it isn't a question of whether I can or not. It is simply a matter of some things that cannot be discussed in public.

Do you have an actual obligation imposed on you by Randi or anyone else at the JREF not to discuss the challenge and what may or may not qualify for it?

If you don't say that when people lie, they can get more calm...what are you testing for in a polygraph test?

Physiological variations from the baseline.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, please read what I said: _I_ am the one who brought the computer issue. _I_ was asking _YOU_ a question. Please answer it.

You complained that I misunderstood.

Where, in the quote of mine you posted, did I mention computers?

Was I not clearly referring to polygraphs?

Demonstrably not. You haven't gone with what I have said on Intelligent Design. You have gone with your own twisted interpretation of what I have said on an unrelated topic to guess at my position on ID. Two radically different things.

It is definitely not my twisted interpretation. I am going with what you say.

Fine. Mea Culpa. If that word is tripping you up, let's eliminate it now. I want to know whether, in your opinion, a polygrapher should qualify for the MDC. Can you answer that?

No.

Do you have an actual obligation imposed on you by Randi or anyone else at the JREF not to discuss the challenge and what may or may not qualify for it?

Do you understand that not all discussions about claims can be discussed in public?

Do you understand that it is not up to you to decide that these discussions should be discussed in public?

Physiological variations from the baseline.

But since you say that those variations cannot be of a kind that shows that people get more calm, doesn't this mean that the variations show that people get less calm?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

No.

No you can't answer? (and why not?).

Or no you don't think polygraphers should qualify? (and why not?)

Honestly, I have just read this thread from start to finish and I am still completely unclear as to exactly what your position is on polygraphy. With everyone else, I pretty much understand what their position is. You seem to enjoy petty bickering and avoiding answering questions much more than getting to the truth in a topic.

 

[qwert]

Question for CFLarsen:

Can you think of any scientific experiement which could be performed using subjects untrained in countermeasures which would convince you that the polygraph did function better than chance?



Alternately, what experiment would you suggest to convince "believers" that the polygraph does not in fact work? (again, using subjects untrained in countermeasures)

 

[Thanz]

It is definitely not my twisted interpretation. I am going with what you say.

Then point to where I said that I was a Creationist, or proponent of ID as science.

No.

Why not?

Do you understand that not all discussions about claims can be discussed in public?

Do you understand that it is not up to you to decide that these discussions should be discussed in public?

These questions are non responsive to my question. Do you have an actual obligation imposed on you by Randi or anyone else at the JREF not to discuss the challenge and what may or may not qualify for it?

But since you say that those variations cannot be of a kind that shows that people get more calm, doesn't this mean that the variations show that people get less calm?

Why do you care what the variations are? If, in your opinion, it is all pseudoscience anyway it may as well be measuring someone's individual aura. Regardless of the methodology (again, the JREF doesn't care about theories, only results, for the challenge) do you think polygraphy should qualify?

 

[CFLarsen]

No you can't answer? (and why not?).

No, I can't answer. Because there are issues re the challenge that cannot be discussed in public.

Or no you don't think polygraphers should qualify? (and why not?)

I can't speak about that.

Honestly, I have just read this thread from start to finish and I am still completely unclear as to exactly what your position is on polygraphy. With everyone else, I pretty much understand what their position is. You seem to enjoy petty bickering and avoiding answering questions much more than getting to the truth in a topic.

It should be very clear. If you don't get it by now, you probably ever will.

Question for CFLarsen:

Can you think of any scientific experiement which could be performed using subjects untrained in countermeasures which would convince you that the polygraph did function better than chance?

That poses a conundrum: How do we determine who has been trained in countermeasures?

Alternately, what experiment would you suggest to convince "believers" that the polygraph does not in fact work? (again, using subjects untrained in countermeasures)

It is not up to me to convince others that polygraphs don't work. The onus is not on me. The onus is one those who claim polygraphs work. Just like any other claim.

Let me ask you this: Why do you think polygraphs should be absolved from this?

Then point to where I said that I was a Creationist, or proponent of ID as science.

This is not surprising at all. As we have come to learn - the hard way - Creationists are not all always too eager to state their position in a clear way. Michael Behe, William Dembski, etc.

I don't see any reason to think you would be any different.

Why not?

Because there are some things re the challenge that cannot be discussed in public.

These questions are non responsive to my question. Do you have an actual obligation imposed on you by Randi or anyone else at the JREF not to discuss the challenge and what may or may not qualify for it?

As I have explained in extenso, I am not going to discuss what goes on in private re the Challenge.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? Whatever gave you the impression that you are entitled to know everything re every Challenge discussion?

Why do you care what the variations are? If, in your opinion, it is all pseudoscience anyway it may as well be measuring someone's individual aura. Regardless of the methodology (again, the JREF doesn't care about theories, only results, for the challenge) do you think polygraphy should qualify?

Stop.

Right there.

You argue that people don't get excited when they lie.

You argue that polygraphs detect changes in people when they lie.

Therefore, you must argue that people get more excited when they lie.

Therefore, you must argue that polygraphs work by detecting these excitements.

Is this correct, yes or no?

 

[Thanz]

This is not surprising at all. As we have come to learn - the hard way - Creationists are not all always too eager to state their position in a clear way. Michael Behe, William Dembski, etc.

I don't see any reason to think you would be any different.

If you have any evidence that I am either a Creationist or believe in ID as science, then present it. Otherwise, I ask that you stop this silly game. In short, put up or shut up.

Because there are some things re the challenge that cannot be discussed in public.

Is this like fight club? The first rule of the challenge is... you do not discuss the challenge?

As I have explained in extenso, I am not going to discuss what goes on in private re the Challenge.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? Whatever gave you the impression that you are entitled to know everything re every Challenge discussion?

You know what? I think that you are making this up as you go along. I don't believe that you have been told by anyone not to discuss what may or may not qualify for the challenge. I don't think that you have been given any sort of authority regarding acceptance/non-acceptance of challenges. At best, you may be available to oversee a preliminary test. I think that this is a ruse you are employing to avoid answering a straightforward question that you don't want to answer.

Further, your position makes no logical sense. If people involved in the challenge (whatever that involvement may be) can't talk about what may or may not qualify for the challenge, what use is the challenge? If you are not allowed to encourage a proponent of the paranormal to take the challenge, what is its use? IF you can't say "Well, if you can do what you say you can that would certainly get you a million dollars! Apply for the JREF challenge!" why bother with it at all? Is it your position that you have never had discussions with any proponent of the paranormal (or other things like homeopathy, etc.) along these lines?

In short, would you encourage a polygrapher to put his money where his mouth is by applying for the challenge?

Stop.

Right there.

Do you gotta know right now? let me sleep on it...

You argue that people don't get excited when they lie.

You argue that polygraphs detect changes in people when they lie.

Therefore, you must argue that people get more excited when they lie.

Therefore, you must argue that polygraphs work by detecting these excitements.

Is this correct, yes or no?

Do you realize that you are accusing me of holding contradictory positions here? Both that people get excited when they lie and that they don't get excited when they lie?

Now, I know that you love to hold contradictory positions, but that doesn't mean the rest of us do.

 

[qwert]

That poses a conundrum: How do we determine who has been trained in countermeasures?

True. Although, I suspect we could assume the only a small percentage of society has been so trained (seems reasonable), then use a large enough sample population that this would not skew the results

But lets ignore countermeasures for the moment:
Is there any experiement that could be performed that would convince you that the polygraph DID work.

It is not up to me to convince others that polygraphs don't work. The onus is not on me. The onus is one those who claim polygraphs work. Just like any other claim.

But that's just it. The research I can find all seems to indicate that the polygraph works better than chance. Not significantly better than chance to be useful in any practical regard, but still better than chance.

I'd be interested in ANY research that shows otherwise.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Over the years I have demonstrated how one part of the polygraph, the galvanic skin response (GSR) works in classroom settings with willing volunteers. It detects changes in the resistance of the skin between two electrodes placed in firm contact with the skin on two fingers. It will predictably change with unexpected loud noises, rude words, or having another student blow into his ear. I had a large galvinometer to display this to the class.
One demo gets a student to volunteer and then write down a number between 1 and 10. Then all I do is go through the numbers and let the class decide which number it was. About 80% accuracy.
So I would not call it pseudoscience. I can do this.. But its use in criminal investigations should be illegal because of lack of training, their preconceived biases and constitutional protection against self incrimination.

 

[CFLarsen]

If you have any evidence that I am either a Creationist or believe in ID as science, then present it. Otherwise, I ask that you stop this silly game. In short, put up or shut up.

You have to be a Creationist. Or inconsistent, of course...

Is this like fight club? The first rule of the challenge is... you do not discuss the challenge?

Pure dishonesty. I didn't say we don't discuss the challenge, I said there were some aspects of the challenge we don't discuss in public.

If you have to lie, at least don't make it so obvious.

You know what? I think

You clearly have a very distorted idea of how the challenge works. Skeptica can do preliminary tests, precisely like other skeptical groups around the world. And some of the things cannot be discussed in public.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that?

Do you realize that you are accusing me of holding contradictory positions here? Both that people get excited when they lie and that they don't get excited when they lie?

Now, I know that you love to hold contradictory positions, but that doesn't mean the rest of us do.

It's perfectly simple:

You argue that people don't get excited when they lie.

You argue that polygraphs detect changes in people when they lie.

Therefore, you must argue that people get more excited when they lie.

Therefore, you must argue that polygraphs work by detecting these excitements.

Is this correct, yes or no?

True. Although, I suspect we could assume the only a small percentage of society has been so trained (seems reasonable), then use a large enough sample population that this would not skew the results

But lets ignore countermeasures for the moment:
Is there any experiement that could be performed that would convince you that the polygraph DID work.

We can't ignore the countermeasures. Doing that ensures that a test will show that polygraphs work.

But that's just it. The research I can find all seems to indicate that the polygraph works better than chance. Not significantly better than chance to be useful in any practical regard, but still better than chance.

I'd be interested in ANY research that shows otherwise.

I think you should read the report.

Over the years I have demonstrated how one part of the polygraph, the galvanic skin response (GSR) works in classroom settings with willing volunteers. It detects changes in the resistance of the skin between two electrodes placed in firm contact with the skin on two fingers. It will predictably change with unexpected loud noises, rude words, or having another student blow into his ear. I had a large galvinometer to display this to the class.
One demo gets a student to volunteer and then write down a number between 1 and 10. Then all I do is go through the numbers and let the class decide which number it was. About 80% accuracy.
So I would not call it pseudoscience. I can do this.. But its use in criminal investigations should be illegal because of lack of training, their preconceived biases and constitutional protection against self incrimination.

Oh, there's no doubt that we can detect changes in mood/excitement/blood pressure/breathing/etc that way. What we can't do is use those readings to determine if people lie or not.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I really don't buy that about you not being allowed to talk about it. If someone had asked about dowsing and whether it should be allowed in the challenge, would we really be seeing such reticence to answer?

And I don't understand you logic that seems to say that if the polygraph is measuring physiological changes, then it must be measuring excitment. It has been assumed in the past that the polygraph was measuring changes in anxiety (which is difficult to distinguish from excitement using the measures that the polygraph uses) - compared to control questions - that correlated with lying. Both others (including someone here whose name I have forgotten) have argued that the underlying process is the orienting response. This would mean that the the polygraph would only be accurate when a "lie question" elicits the orienting response - ie when the test more closely approximates the "guilty knowledge" test. I don't know how easy this will be to resolve, but it does show that you reasoning is simplistic and fallacious.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

We can't ignore the countermeasures. Doing that ensures that a test will show that polygraphs work.

How exactly? Can you explain to a slow old bird with a wooden head exactly what you mean here? Just explain the scenario in which ignoring countermeasures will demonstrate that the polygraph works.

 

[CFLarsen]

I really don't buy that about you not being allowed to talk about it. If someone had asked about dowsing and whether it should be allowed in the challenge, would we really be seeing such reticence to answer?

There are some aspects that we can't discuss in public.

Do you understand?

And I don't understand you logic that seems to say that if the polygraph is measuring physiological changes, then it must be measuring excitment. It has been assumed in the past that the polygraph was measuring changes in anxiety (which is difficult to distinguish from excitement using the measures that the polygraph uses) - compared to control questions - that correlated with lying. Both others (including someone here whose name I have forgotten) have argued that the underlying process is the orienting response. This would mean that the the polygraph would only be accurate when a "lie question" elicits the orienting response - ie when the test more closely approximates the "guilty knowledge" test. I don't know how easy this will be to resolve, but it does show that you reasoning is simplistic and fallacious.

Here's an analogy:

In the past, it was argued that homeopathy worked because it was based on the assumption that you could dilute forever. But then, they discovered Avogadro's Number and a lot of other things about atoms and molecules. Instead of dropping homeopathy, they came up with some other explanation, much more complicated.

Or think of astrology: Once, it was gravity - until they finally did their calculations. But astrology wasn't dropped - it was just due to some other "force".

The same thing happens here: You once thought polygraphs worked because it was based on the assumption that people get nervous when they lie. But then you find out that the assumption doesn't hold: The very process of being tested can evoke the physiological responses, and there could be all sorts of reasons why people get nervous. Instead of dropping polygraphs altogether, you keep it and come up with some other explanation, this time much more complicated.

If A is claimed to work because of Assumption(X), A should be dropped if it turns out that Assumption(X) doesn't hold.

 

[Big Les]

This is not surprising at all. As we have come to learn - the hard way - Creationists are not all always too eager to state their position in a clear way. Michael Behe, William Dembski, etc.

I don't see any reason to think you would be any different.

This is hugely ironic given your regular protestations that we can't tell people what they believe.

 

[CFLarsen]

This is hugely ironic given your regular protestations that we can't tell people what they believe.

Thanz could be inconsistent, of course. But I haven't seen him say that he is.