Englebert

No axe to grind. I was just surprised to recently find out that many people think polygraphs actually detect lies. I did the research many years ago, and I just assumed that the results I found 25 years ago was common knowledge today. (I also did a minor follow-up research paper around 12 years ago.) I knew law enforcement uses them (to what extent I have no idea), and am surprised by their use because the results are absolutely unreliable. I don't really care if they are used for trying to solicit a confession, but it just seems that in an investigation the overall results are going to waste as much time as they save. And there are many studies out there that show just that.

Every thing you said is correct...but you emphasized just the true postives. The false positives are an enormous problem. Many innocent people are shown to be lying on a polygraph. So many so that when you get a positive result, you have no idea if the result is a true or false positive. If you administer a test to a person and the test shows that he is being untruthful (rapid heartrate, perspiration, etc.) then what are you to conclude. Well it could be that the person is just nervous or it could be that he is actually lying. The fact is that you have no idea what the real truth is after the test is administered. If you think he is lying and follow that up with more investigation then two things can happen. You can find the evidence and feel good that the tool helped you. Or you can not find any evidence because the person was nervous and you've just wasted time and resources on a guess that didn't pan out. If the first instance was the majority of the instances, then it could be construed as a good tool. If the second instance was the majority, the test could be construed as a hindrance to investigations. Many studies have shown that the first instance happens between 50-63 percent of the time...which is basically no better than flipping a coin.   In many of the studies on the subject, people were shown to be lying when they were actually telling the truth. When questioned why they got nervous on certain questions, many people responded that they were worried that the test would show them lying even though they knew they were telling the truth. These false positives show up more as the stakes are higher. That is, the more a person has to lose, the more false postives result, and the higher they blow up the test. When you have a guy in custody, he knows you think he has committed a crime. When the question arises on the polygraph (Did you shoot your wife?) or some other question, even though the subject did not do it, he's afraid his answer will register falsely, thus the rise in heartrate, perspiration, etc. An innocent man is now the main subject of your investigation.   In addition, some studies have shown a high number of false negatives. That is a person is lying and the polygraph is showing them as telling the truth (no significant baseline change in heartrate, etc.). If I remember correctly, many of these came about from people that were giving answers based on what he thought the administrator wanted to hear. Many of these people have a high need to please and will even lie to win approval. These also came about when the consequence of failing a question was something unwanted by the subject (such as being tasered).   The silly little numbers test positively proves that a "lie detector" does not measure lies. You and the others already knew that. I prefaced that paragraph with "for anybody that thinks that they work". I'm under the impression that the majority of the general public (not you three) believe that polygraph tests is a measurement of lies. That was the whole point of the rest of my post.

Studies have shown that many people will confess when faced with a polygraph test. But polygraph tests also result in an enormous amount of false positives (people telling the truth but the administrator thinks they're lying) that the overall benefit is negated. That's why it has been dubbed the "fear test". The three variables that the polygraph measure have absolutely no correlation with lying. Phrenology tests are just as effective as polygraphs if the subject thinks that the test actually works.   The reason I was asking this question (and I shockingly found my answer even with just 3 responses) was I thought that the general public had been exposed to the wealth of information showing that polygraphs do not work. 60 minutes did a prime time show debunking polygraphs 20 years ago. Penn & Teller did an hour long show recently debunking them. A quick google search will give you all the info you need to realize these are phony tests. I am kinda amazed at how out-of-touch I was with how the general public views polygraphs.   And if anyone thinks they work, I can show you how to beat the machine with a simple little test. Write down a number from 1 to 25 on a sheet of paper (don't show the polygraph administrator what number you wrote down). Then answer all of the questions the administrator asks, with the provision that the administrator must ask if you wrote on the paper the number 1, the number 2, etc so that each number is asked. You answer “no” to each number. Therefore, it is a fact that you lied on one and only one of the numbers. If polygraphs work, the administrator should be able to tell you what number you wrote down.   When doing a study on polygraphs in college, I was able to get a polygraph specialist to administer this test to me (with a written confidentiality clause that I could use the results but could not reveal the company or administrator’s name). He failed, as would any other polygraph administrator. Later I was able to duplicate the results with 4 other subjects (subjects being the ones that the test was administered to). In each case, the polygraph administrator could not "guess" the correct number. The administrator actually thought he could figure out the correct number, and was shocked when he could not.   I kinda secretly hope that one day I am asked to take a polygraph test. I will only consent to taking a real test after the administrator correctly guesses my number. Not only would I not have to take the test, I would be able to expose the fraud that is the polygraph.

I was recently reading an article about a missing person, and the article stipulated that a possible suspect had passed a lie detector test. While reading the comments section I was astonished at how many people were basing their comments on the passing of the lie detector test. I was under the impression that most people knew polygraphs did not work. I started this topic to get an idea as to how many people think polygraphs do or do not work. I'm really not interested in the details of the workings of the test or what they are measuring or the accuracy of the measurements...I'm very famailiar with that. I'm interested in hearing how accurate and how credible the general public thinks these tests are.

I find if curious (not disputing the fact) that crime rates have gone down, but I now have to lock my house, car and every other thing. I have a lock on my trailer hitch. Twenty years ago I would never lock my house. I left my keys in the car ignition most of the time. House alarm systems were for paranoid rich people.   But to answer the question, the sanctity of marriage has been dismantled. Instilling discipline in a child/juvenile is considered abusive. The idea of self-reliance is a thing of the past. Taking responsibility for one's own actions is out the window. Modesty and courtesy in public has evaporated. For way way too many people, taking care of your family is considered the job of the government. Reliance on government assistance is now considered normal. These are few things off the top of my head.   Many things have changed for the better, and many things have changed for the worse. I would love to be able to keep all of the electronic gadgets, appliances, medical advancements, etc. that we have today, but live in Mayberry (I still watch old episodes of Andy Griffith). Does a town like that exist anywhere today?

Every time I hear about anything to do with child abuse I can't help but reflect on an example one of my professors used as to how statistics can sometimes be very misleading. (It was a statistics class.)   The number of child abuse cases is higher today than it was in the 1970s, and dramatically higher than in the 1950s. One would conclude that child abuse is on the rise. And that conclusion would be false, and in fact the opposite is true. What has led to the rise in child abuse cases is the definition of child abuse, and the number of cases reported. In the 1950s, a complete stranger could swat the backside of a misbehaving child without fear of any type of prosecution, much less any reporting. Leaving a child in car while going into a convience store was standard practice for many. Now-a-days, both can get you thrown in jail. For this particular topic, in the 1950s this trial would have never seen the light of day even if the kid had huge welps from being spanked. In fact, the person who reported the abuse would probably be more liable to being charged with submitting a false report than the parent facing abuse charges.

Is the "rule of thumb" still in effect? With the way the media portrays our ever growing girth, I'm sure a lot of men have some very wide thumbs now-a-days.

  Me too. The worst was a section of Hot Wheels race car track. Or a balloon stick. The belt was the usual method of choice...well, not my choice.   Most of our principals, teachers and coaches in school would give us the option (if the offense wasn't too bad) of taking the paddling at school from them or a call to our parents. We all took the paddling at school 100% of the time. My dad's belt was way worse than that big ol' wooden paddle (although the paddle did have a biting sting to it). Cursing at a teacher would probably have gotten you both, a paddling at school and a phone call, which would lead to major whooping when you got home. Waiting for my dad to get home from work was agonizing.   The freshman woodshop class would make the paddles for the teachers. It was not mandatory, but everybody thought it was due to the woodshop teacher kinda implying that it was. The seniors would make their own paddles for freshman initiation.

Are you introducing a new question and then tacking it on to a question for me? Who is "They"? Why don't you answer since I have no idea in what context you are employing.   As far as the leftist handbook, you seem to have it memorized. I believe your last post might fall on page 2. When you have no answers, deflect deflect deflect. As far as where to get it, try thinkprogress.org.   I'm assuming by your remark of "you low educated conservatives will believe anything" (in your first post on this topic), that you are suggesting that there are some statements in the video that are untrue. Instead of deflecting by trying to pose more off-topic questions, why don't you give us your synopsis of these falsehoods. Don't be shy about adding links.

She gets her info from that hack sight. And yet somehow she draws the conclusion that it's Fox News that lies. Astonishing!

I've seen more intelligent statements on Watter's World. If he ever comes down here, Big Girl could get her 15 minutes of fame. Hopefully he won't ask her what college she attended.

  When did the Republicans cut funding for veterans. No link? Just made it up. Heard/read it on some Left Wing "news" sight. Let me help you out:   [Hidden Content]   From the article:   "It's an outrage," vanden Heuvel said. "Those who are involved in these longer wait times must be held accountable, prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But I think we need to step back." She continued, "I mean, Congress has cut funding, has slashed funding, for veterans' benefits over these last years. If anyone should be offering their resignation, maybe the Congress should."   Vanden Heuvel's claim is problematic for a pair of reasons.   First, she said "veterans' benefits" -- which include disability payments, pensions, survivor benefits and programs like the G.I. Bill and vocational rehabilitation. Those programs are considered "mandatory spending," which means they’re paid by a statutory formula and are not subject to annual budgetary tinkering by Congress.   What vanden Heuvel meant to refer to -- based on what she told us and the context of her comments -- was spending for the VA health system. Health system spending is considered "discretionary" spending and under the purview of Congress. But Congress hasn’t "cut" or "slashed funding to the VA health care system. This VA budget summary sheet shows that, far from being "slashed," discretionary spending on the VA has risen each year over the last decade. In fact, on Obama’s watch, the VA’s discretionary budget has risen from $47.8 billion in 2009 to $63.4 in 2014 -- a one-third increase over five years.

  But not one rebuttal to anything that was said in the video.   I think that falls under page 1 of the leftist handbook...if you can't refute the messege, you must attack the messenger.

  I was in the process of writing the same thing, but you beat me to it.

In the comment section, the 3rd poster blamed the closings on the new mayor. Didn't take long.

  So you think the GOP should be made up of more people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Sheila Jackson Lee, Barrack Obama, Hillary "I'm not Rich" Clinton...man this list could get long in a hurry. Really? Is that what you are suggesting? NO THANKS!

I'll take my Glocks anyday. I have a 17, 19, and 26. I just got the Baby Glock (26) and love it. The 19 is my favorite. It went under in Hurricane Ike...stayed under salt water for 5 days. I brought it in to be serviced and all that was needed was a little cleaning. The magazines are still functioning perfectly.

  Yes it did...I thought that was a given. And when you have conservatives and liberals voting unanimously the same way, you can deduce that your position wasn't even close to the same interpretation...which is remarkable considering that the wrong side came from a supposedly constitutional scholar.   So what do you conclude from this...Obama knew he was wrong but tried to slide it through anyway, or was his interpretation shot down 9-0 by fellow constitutional scholars?

  From wikipedia...very first paragraph:   [Hidden Content]

So according to you, if a person has a financial misstep (whether his own fault or unforeseen circumstances) then his whole professional trade cannot be trusted. I know a RN that raped a patient while on duty (and was later convicted of the crime).Therefore, all RN's are potential rapists and are not to be trusted. Does that pretty much surmise your position?

  Wow. Your financial planner's car was repossessed and now all of a sudden Nash is not to be trusted based on that? Is that really what you are implying? You better be careful...Bluedove might be ready to pounce!  Oops, nevermind.

9-0! Even the 4 uber liberal judges said the "constitutional scholar/professor" did not follow the constitution.

My monthly statement from Wells Fargo said nothing of the kind. In fact, my dividend went down. Humm, I wonder if Wells Fargo is treating their clientele differently? If so, what would be the criteria for one group getting a "blue skies ahead" letter and one group getting a smaller dividend check?

  As opposed to listening to Chris Matthews, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and all the ladies on The View. Seriously?

Who is trying to make the poor poorer?   BOOM BOOM and finally BOOM!!! Whatever that is supposed to mean.