This is getting abit tedious now, although I was abit tedious in getting into it in the first place ^^
No-one has said placebos don't have scientific validity. You've taken the semantic line of seemingly responding to an argument I haven't made. You 2 should team up and become team Placebo! you can garrotte people with the floss of a thousand suns whilst semantic slowly demoralises your enemies with discussions about the meaningfullness of discussions on the meaning of meaning.
But anyway. My point is LD tests have validity beyond simply that of the placebo effect of them on the person being tested. And as I countered earlier your only suggestion to the contrary was the brief part in that article where someone proffers a placebo comparison as a potential influence on their "effectiveness".
Show me the part in that article, or anywhere, that it has been evidentially shown that Lie Detector tests have no validity beyond that of their potential for a Placebo effect on the "suspect". You won't find it, because your talking out of your Dental Flosser
On November 09 2011 09:49 XeliN wrote: This is getting abit tedious now, although I was abit tedious in getting into it in the first place ^^
No-one has said placebos don't have scientific validity. You've taken the semantic line of seemingly responding to an argument I haven't made. You 2 should team up and become team Placebo! you can garrotte people with the floss of a thousand suns whilst semantic slowly demoralises your enemies with discussions about the meaningfullness of discussions on the meaning of meaning.
But anyway. My point is LD tests have validity beyond simply that of the placebo effect of them on the person being tested. And as I countered earlier your only suggestion to the contrary was the brief part in that article where someone proffers a placebo comparison as a potential influence on their "effectiveness".
Show me the part in that article, or anywhere, that it has been evidentially shown that Lie Detector tests have no validity beyond that of their potential for a Placebo effect on the "suspect". You won't find it, because your talking out of your Dental Flosser
Okay here is a study published in the Journal of Speech, Language and the Law called "Charlatanry in Forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously." The APA article was written with a very restrained tone because Lie-detector manufacturers have been well known to sue any scientist who do reserach on the efficacy of lie-detector tests.
After you consider that, check out this first hand testomonial from a polygraph operator who describes how they REALLY work
The fake card trick was not the only ploy built into the school curriculum to give the examiner some help in reaching his conclusion. One such item was a serious plea to the testee to go to the washroom and scrub both hands thoroughly - because “the instruments won’t give me good results unless your hands are spotlessly clean.” When the person goes to the empty bathroom by himself, the examiner spies on his activity through a one-way mirror. If the individual seems intent on foiling the examination by failing to wash the hands, the examiner gets a pretty good hint that he is not a truthful person. Often one hears the water running and sees the individual pretending to wash his or her hands.
A similar stunt is to leave him/her in the room alone with the polygraph itself, always laying on a stern injunction not to touch or even breathe on the equipment because “it’s so delicately balanced it will screw up all my results if it’s moved or shaken.” Once again a one-way mirror comes into play. It is amazing how many times one sees a wise-guy trying to loosen a wire or otherwise shake-up the instruments.
In addition to a number of such physical procedures, there are numerous psychological traps designed to indicate truth or deception. For example, suppose we take a simple case of a man accused of car theft. A fake phone call is received by the examiner, who then turns to the subject and says, “What if I tell you that our identification technician just reported that he found your fingerprint on the car?”
The innocent person will say something like, “That’s utterly and completely impossible.” The lying person may say something like, “Well you know anything is possible. I may have walked by the car in a parking lot or shopping center and accidently brushed against it.”
The second of your links calls into question the techniques employed in conjunction with the use of a lie detector test in order to deceive or unbalance, and not on the validity of the LD itself.
The first however seems to be fairly forthright in claiming the lack of validity on the lie detectors themselves. And considering you have presented 3 outside examples to try support your claim and the only evidence I've offered is "LOL U WRONG" then I will concede this argument.
I am still quite skeptical on the idea that LD tests have zero validity whatsoever beyond their placebo influence of the tested. It seems to me something that would be widely known if they were genuinely to have no scientific validity whatsoever, but lacking evidence (and too lazy to search xD) to the contrary I concede this round. U winz
I sure hope that he gets the Republican nomination. Despite what's come up about him in recent days, I still believe he's best suited (at least out of the rest of the nominees) to represent the Republican Party. I have a hard time believing what these women say, and the fact is that PAC's, interest groups, and the like have been known to prop these people up, and we end up later finding out that they were paid off to lie.
Watch too much tv...also the police like it any tool that is believed to work in telling if you're lieing helps them put pressure on people and get a confession. US police are completely allowed to lie to you during cross examination in some states allowed to secretly record you as it only takes 1 person knowing that they are being recorded for it to be legal ie the police officer, they employ a lot of tricks in order to decern if you're guilty or not and if they should put more pressure on you in order to get an answer.
Yeah, every psychology course I ever took ripped into the validity of Lie Detection tests. However it remains ingrained in the imagination of the general public as a valid measurement.
The more I learn about the republican primaries the more America scares me.
I enjoy the irony that people who are denying that this guy molested women, despite multiple accounts, overwhelming evidence etc, are from the same party that tried to discredit Obama by claiming he was born outside of the US, and continued to deny it after he showed you all his birth certificate. The only candidate who seems remotely sane is Ron Paul, and when I say remotely sane I mean remotely sane.
Lastly, please don't call me a liberal, or a democrat, as I am neither.
On November 09 2011 10:48 Gako wrote: The more I learn about the republican primaries the more America scares me.
I enjoy the irony that people who are denying that this guy molested women, despite multiple accounts, overwhelming evidence etc, are from the same party that tried to discredit Obama by claiming he was born outside of the US, and continued to deny it after he showed you all his birth certificate. The only candidate who seems remotely sane is Ron Paul, and when I say remotely sane I mean remotely sane.
Lastly, please don't call me a liberal, or a democrat, as I am neither.
It helps if you view individual people as individual people, instead of lumping them all together into "parties" and what not, but from my experience that is very difficult for people to handle. Some people questioned Obama's birth, and some people questioned the allegations towards Cain.
I never questioned Obama's birth place, but I question seriously the allegations against Cain. I'm an individual, not a party. It's funny you are worried about people calling you liberal or a democrat... We foster guilt by association these days. That's how they took down the tea party at least.
On November 09 2011 10:48 Gako wrote: The more I learn about the republican primaries the more America scares me.
I enjoy the irony that people who are denying that this guy molested women, despite multiple accounts, overwhelming evidence etc, are from the same party that tried to discredit Obama by claiming he was born outside of the US, and continued to deny it after he showed you all his birth certificate. The only candidate who seems remotely sane is Ron Paul, and when I say remotely sane I mean remotely sane.
Lastly, please don't call me a liberal, or a democrat, as I am neither.
Overwhelming evidence? There has been NO evidence besides he said she said..
On November 09 2011 11:03 Romulox wrote: Man I hope this guy gets a shot to go vs Obama 1 on 1 in front of this country and the world in a debate. let the entertainment begin.
Really looking forward to it. I don't see him losing the support of the Tea Party anytime soon. I don't see this sexual harassment junk taking him down either. How soon would you think you'd have two African Americans fighting for the presidency?
I highly suspect Cain will eventually leverage his polling to gain a position in another candidate's administration. The republican establishment has been favoring Romney as the candidate since the beginning, and that probably won't change anytime soon.
It's kind of like Ron Paul... people love him, they express admiration for his policies, they advocate for him, but when it comes time to vote they hold their nose and vote for whoever the party has put up, whoever they think has a real shot at winning. That's part of the reason the two party system has lasted so long. Being in a majority is more important than than having the candidate you like.
ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) - Private investigator TJ Ward said presidential hopeful Herman Cain was not lying at a news conference on Tuesday in Phoenix.
Cain denied making any sexual actions towards Sharon Bialek and vowed to take a polygraph test if necessary to prove his innocence.
Cain has not taken a polygraph but Ward said he does have software that does something better.
Ward said the $15,000 software can detect lies in people's voices.
CBS Atlanta's Mike Paluska played Cain's speech for Ward into the software and watched as it analyzed Cain's every word.
If he is hiding something this thing would have spiked way down here," said Ward. "He is being truthful, totally truthful. He is a man with integrity and he talked directly about not knowing any incident he is accused of."
The software analyzes the stress level and other factors in your voice. During the speech, when Cain denied the claims, the lie detector read "low risk." According to Ward, that means Cain is telling the truth.
During the section of Bialek's news conference where she says, "He suddenly reached over put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals he also grabbed my head brought it towards his crotch."
During the analysis of that section the software said "high risk statement." Ward said that means she is not telling the truth about what happened.
"I don't think she is fabricating her meetings," said Ward. But, she is fabricating what transpired."
Ward said nearly 70 law enforcement agencies nationwide use the voice software, including the Forsyth County Sheriff's Office.
Ward said the technology is a scientific measure that law enforcement use as a tool to tell when someone is lying and that it has a 95 percent success rate.
After listening to Cain's speech and analyzing it, Ward said there is no doubt, Cain is innocent.
"When he directly talks about the allegations against him there is no high risk," said Ward. "It is low risk, which tells me he is being truthful in his conversations to the public."
Note that polygraphs aren't accurate enough to be used in a court of law as evidence, so even suggesting that they should be used in anything other than a superficial way is laughable.
Just the number of these people coming out of the woodworks is pretty suspect that Cain was behaving shady. I hate to say it, but I wonder if this Victor guy will lend far greater credibility because for whatever reason, it seems women speaking out about these sorts of things get brushed aside too easily.
Between this and his answers on foreign policy as of late (Libya video) I think this guy is done. But then again, Gingerich is getting his second life, so who knows. If people dislike Romney enough, some of these guys might end up with as many political lives as a cat.
No way is Cain a legitimate candidate. 1. The sex scandal will never go away, and lots of people won't elect him because of it. Not only that but Cain handled this "accusation" horribly, saying that he had never wronged anyone ever. Which is a blatant lie for any human being. 2. He doesn't have a real big campaign behind him. Which is apparent. 3. He is a complete IDIOT who's foreign and economic policy has little to no thought, and is trying to change that around into saying that it would be easier for the american public to understand and "read over the dinner table"
Cain will never get the GOP nomination or the presidency.
EPT
