Brett Kavanaugh, how to get a SC Nomination

[gowlerk 1,912]

ryoder

***I would legitimately not be surprised if he has no memory of this and could pass a polygraph to prove it.

A polygraph does not mean squat.
It is 20th century witchcraft.
It is a stage prop in an interrogation to scare people into confessing.


Throw him into the water. If he floats, he is liar. If he sinks, he's innocent. Or, just do the honourable American thing. Waterboard him until he tells the truth.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jcd11235 0]

gowlerk

There is strong reason to believe at least some of them.

That Starr ignored? Possible, but not likely.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Phil1111 910]

ryoder

***I would legitimately not be surprised if he has no memory of this and could pass a polygraph to prove it.

A polygraph does not mean squat.
It is 20th century witchcraft.
It is a stage prop in an interrogation to scare people into confessing.

There is a sound scientific basis for polygraph procedures. Its not accepted as proof by courts because individuals can be trained to overcome the testing measures used by current tests.

Law enforcement offices will however eliminate suspects based upon the tests. IMO skilled examiners can ascertain if individuals are being "evasive". Which dosn't establish a lie. But can be sufficient evidence to warrant further investigations by other means.

I would offer trump as an example. He lies so habitually that respiration blood pressure, etc. may not change Because his very psyche is so accustomed to lying.

[billvon 2,400]

Kavanaugh hearings postponed; a hearing on the accusations from Ford will happen Monday in front of the Judiciary Committee. Both Kavanaugh and Ford will testify.

[ryoder 1,384]

Phil1111

There is a sound scientific basis for polygraph procedures.

Wrong.

Penn & Teller "Bullshit!"
http://www.220.ro/emisiuni-tv/Penn-And-Teller-Bullshit-S07E05-Lie-Detectors-HDTV/8bCgA2Un8c/

"60 Minutes"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROhp2aS9pQU

Adam Conover
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyDMoGjKvNk

Vice magazine
http://www.vice.com/read/are-lie-detector-tests-complete-bullshit-1117

Smithsonian
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/lie-detectors-dont-work-advertised-and-they-never-did-180961956/

Michael Shermer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLL3wtgBiFA

http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-(Lie-Detector)

https://www.antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/25/nsa-whistleblower-reveals-how-to-beat-a-polygraph-test

http://www.wikihow.com/Cheat-a-Polygraph-Test-%28Lie-Detector%29

http://lifehacker.com/5675884/how-to-beat-a-polygraph-test

http://www.livescience.com/33512-pass-lie-detector-polygraph.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/beat-lie-detection-test.htm

http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/beat-polygraph-doug-williams-law-enforcement-crime-policing-evidence-court-95274/

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-doug-williams-war-on-lie-detector/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,400]

>>There is a sound scientific basis for polygraph procedures. Its not accepted as proof by
>> courts because individuals can be trained to overcome the testing measures used by
>>current tests.

>Wrong!

To take one article from your list:


=========
If you're like most people, lying makes your heart race. It makes you pant. It drives up your blood pressure and makes you drip sweat. A polygraph machine detects lies by looking for signs of these physiological changes.

However, knowing how the machines work, you can beat them by lying with your body as well as your words.
=========

That's basically what Phil1111 said. It works for most people. It can be beaten.

[ryoder 1,384]

billvon

That's basically what Phil1111 said. It works for most people. It can be beaten.

There are a couple stories in those links where a polygraph operator was hired to examine several suspects. The operator was told by the hiring person that they suspected a certain person. Remarkably, the operator found that same person to be guilty. What the operator did not know was that *none* of them were guilty, because the alleged transgression never happened. Obviously, the operator found the hint he was given to be of greater importance than anything the machine told him.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,384]

In college, I had a friend who was working on his PhD. He had been hired by the CIA (SigInt) right after getting his bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering. After a couple years, he took an educational leave to get his masters. He returned to the CIA after that, then a couple years later, took another leave to get his PhD.

Now the CIA was paying his housing, and providing insurance coverage throughout this time, and expecting him to return to them after getting the PhD. But upon completing it, he found a faculty job instead, and told them he was done with them.

Why? Because every time he came back from a leave, they put him on a polygraph, then told him he had failed. Then they grilled him over and over for hours over several days, trying to get him to confess. After completing his masters they decided it was telling them he was gay, not straight, and for him that was the last straw. He didn't tell them his intentions at the time, but when he took the leave to get the PhD, he had no intention of ever returning.

So the use 20th century witchcraft can drive brilliant people like him out of government service.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

There are a couple stories in those links where a polygraph operator was hired to examine several suspects. The operator was told by the hiring person that they suspected a certain person. Remarkably, the operator found that same person to be guilty. What the operator did not know was that *none* of them were guilty, because the alleged transgression never happened. Obviously, the operator found the hint he was given to be of greater importance than anything the machine told him.

Of course. There are plenty of examples of that. Another was a series of experiments where people witnessed a staged "crime" and were asked who they thought the assailant was. People who were not prompted got it right most of the time. Other witnesses were then 'prompted' by the investigators with phrases like 'I was surprised a woman would do that' or 'maybe we shouldn't send in the suspect first' - in voices low enough to be overheard, but also low enough to make it seem like they were talking amongst themselves. A very large percentage of the witnesses then followed the investigator's lead, rather than identifying the actor who 'committed' the crime.

Still, eyewitness identification is considered pretty valuable - even though it can be spoofed.

[Phil1111 910]

If there was no scientific basis for testing why do most law enforce mt agencies provide training and update equipment?

They could just hook up a blood pressure monitor and some fake electrodes. Then beat the truth out of the suspect as usual.

I did not say it was foolproof. I said its a tool that in some cases can add credibility to statements. Depending on the individual.

An argument supported by " Remarkably, the operator found that same person to be guilty." a falsified examiners opinion dosn't help your position. A trained polygraph operator offers opinions as to the truthfulness or deceptiveness of a subject.

Its no different from the circumstances whereby people falsely confess to a crime. They can become convinced that they did something when they didn't.

Polygraphs are like an alibi. It fits into a pattern of evidence that all leads to a common conclusion.

[ryoder 1,384]

Phil1111

If there was no scientific basis for testing why do most law enforce mt agencies provide training and update equipment?

There is no requirement for law enforcement forensics to be based on sound science.
See this: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/real-csi/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Phil1111 910]

ryoder

***If there was no scientific basis for testing why do most law enforce mt agencies provide training and update equipment?

There is no requirement for law enforcement forensics to be based on sound science.
See this: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/real-csi/

If you like that then you will like this:
Junk Science and the Jury
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1072&context=uclf

Its 30 pages long and explains how trial lawyers use junk science to confuse jurors. More or less. How misconceptions about science, the facts together with the particulars of a matter before the jury. To enrich themselves and get convictions or liabilities overturned.

[ryoder 1,384]

billvon

Of course. There are plenty of examples of that. Another was a series of experiments where people witnessed a staged "crime" and were asked who they thought the assailant was. People who were not prompted got it right most of the time. Other witnesses were then 'prompted' by the investigators with phrases like 'I was surprised a woman would do that' or 'maybe we shouldn't send in the suspect first' - in voices low enough to be overheard, but also low enough to make it seem like they were talking amongst themselves. A very large percentage of the witnesses then followed the investigator's lead, rather than identifying the actor who 'committed' the crime.

Still, eyewitness identification is considered pretty valuable - even though it can be spoofed.

OK, for argument's sake, let's say the polygraph really works. But the results can be biased by the human doing the interrogation. Well, the machine produces a hard copy of it's results, annotated by the operator with the Q's asked. Now since the machine really does work, then the solution is to separate the interrogation from the interpretation of pass/fail. i.e. We give the output of the machine (and a transcript of the Q&A) to a second polygraph expert who was:
- Not present at the interrogation.
- Does not know the identity of the subject.
- Has not been briefed on the case.

Since the machine really works, the second person should be able to make the determination of pass/fail just from the the graphs, right?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,384]

Phil1111

If you like that then you will like this:
Junk Science and the Jury
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1072&context=uclf

Its 30 pages long and explains how trial lawyers use junk science to confuse jurors. More or less. How misconceptions about science, the facts together with the particulars of a matter before the jury. To enrich themselves and get convictions or liabilities overturned.

This does look interesting.
I'll add it to my reading list.
(I'm in the 2nd half of Woodward's "Fear" at the moment.)

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[gowlerk 1,912]

Quote

Since the machine really works, the second person should be able to make the determination of pass/fail just from the the graphs, right?

This is pretty much proof that you are correct and that there is no good reason to put any faith in polygraph results. I would rate them just slightly below the reliability of an experienced psychic with a crystal ball. At least the psychic has proven experience reading people.

It is NOT science if it is not reproducible.

It is merely a tool of intimidation. And it is often misused to the point that it should never be used in law enforcement.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,400]

>It is NOT science if it is not reproducible. It is merely a tool of intimidation.

Well, in that case, climate change isn't science, either.

[jcd11235 0]

billvon

>It is NOT science if it is not reproducible. …

Well, in that case, climate change isn't science, either.

I don't follow. Why isn't climate research reproducible? Are the data and analysis not generally made available to other researchers upon request?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

jcd11235

***There is strong reason to believe at least some of them.

That Starr ignored? Possible, but not likely.

Starr had one testify under oath. It's in the Wiki link he posted.

In all three cases, there were reasons to question the claims.

Back then, those claiming to be victims had a much, much longer and harder road to get people to believe them.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,400]

>Why isn't climate research reproducible?

It's pretty hard to run an experiment and change the variables to prove what's influencing the climate. Of course we can make predictions and see if they come to pass - and they're usually right. But we can't reproduce the starting conditions and try again. And often there are confounding events (like the big pause in warming between 1945-1980 and the shorter one from 1998 to 2005.)

Of course, that doesn't mean that climate change is invalid, or isn't science.

Lie detection is, of course, science as well. We can quantify how well it works. It doesn't work well enough to be used in most legal cases - but it works well enough for police to use it for screening, as a "first pass" tool.

[jcd11235 0]

wolfriverjoe

Starr had one testify under oath. It's in the Wiki link he posted.

In all three cases, there were reasons to question the claims.

Back then, those claiming to be victims had a much, much longer and harder road to get people to believe them.

Agreed. OTOH, today people seem overeager to conflate thinking with one's dick with sexual predation. The former does not imply, or to be fair, preclude, the latter.

As you point out, in all three cases there were credible reasons to doubt the claims.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

billvon

Of course, that doesn't mean that climate change is invalid, or isn't science.

Or non-reproducible, in the context of research.

Lie detector Polygraph results, by contrast, were shown to be non-reproducible.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[gowlerk 1,912]

Quote

We can quantify how well it works.

Where and how? No one has ever shown in any objective way that they work. Not ever. People get nervous just being questioned. Everyone is different and the operators use subjective techniques. It's junk science.

Quote

There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious.

The American Psychological Association position is:

Quote

Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

Some would argue that psychology is not science either. Polygraphs are misused so often that they should be outlawed as investigative tools. Just using one is misusing it by it's very nature. We have no better methods, so this gets used because it's all we have. That is not really a good enough reason.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[ryoder 1,384]

Many years ago I was reading about Voice Stress Analysis, and how it was the next big thing in lie detection, especially since it could be used on recordings, w/o the subject being present. I haven't heard of it since, but apparently is is not dead yet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_stress_analysis

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,400]

>Lie detector results, by contrast, were shown to be non-reproducible.

Lie detector tests have indeed been shown to be reproducible. The National Research Council ran a series of tests and found that, on random populations, they demonstrated an accuracy of between 0.81 to 0.91, with a median of .86. They used about 3000 subjects drawn from students, military trainees, workplace volunteers and research subjects obtained through employment agencies. (A test that shows statistically valid results after 3000 reproductions is indeed reproducible.)

Their conclusion - "Specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection."

https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/1#xv

That, of course, is under laboratory conditions. Many critics claim that most tests are not so controlled, and thus the accuracy is closer to .7. And that's quite likely true. But "the test was botched so the theory isn't correct" is not a valid argument against the theory.

[jcd11235 0]

I'll not be a bit surprised if the next significant advances in lie detection come via AI and machine learning.

The premise that the signal appears in heart rate, blood pressure, pupil dilation, palm sweat, voice fluctuation, etc., is probably sound.

Those signals, however, come with a lot of noise, more so if the examinee is trying to fool the test. It's hard for a human to tease out the signal, visually, in near real-time or otherwise. But that's just the sort of problem for which machine learning is well-suited.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!