You conflate “facts” with “opinion as to what the facts are” .
It’s pretty simplistic thinking but no doubt common among those who are not critical thinkers.
Here is an example.
Is it a fact that during and immediately after the presidential campaign of 2016, Hillary Clinton’s surrogates colluded with foreign nationals and FBI personnel to damage Donald Trump’s chances of winning and then to damage his administration when he won?
I say that is a fact. And what do you say?
You’ve posted articles referencing physical and mental countermeasures. Timing those to match one’s actual response window would be virtually impossible.
Trump could pass one with flying colors.
I say “virtually” with a disclaimer: sociopathic habitual liars are the exception. He wouldn’t need countermeasures to manifest physiological responses.
I’m not sure I really understand your point? The articles essentially detail the limitations of polygraph tests along with how if one understands exactly how they work to then “practice” or train oneself to pass the test even if they are lying.
Beating a lie detector is absurdly easy. All you have to do is reframe the question in your mind into another question and then answer the question in your mind that you were not asked.
Are the results even admissible in court? I personally don’t think they are all that revealing.
The limitations outlined in the articles are well known countermeasures. The window of time during which someone manifests a physiological response to stimuli is often precise and consistent. Replicating that response window by means of countermeasures is virtually impossible. Simple enough.
Which means that the polygraph test is??? An effective tool to assess that someone is lying??? Not an effective tool to determine if someone is lying??? Somewhere in between???
More dependent upon the examiner than the test itself. Single issue examinations can be up to 95% accurate in determining dishonesty.
That also depends on the person being questioned - how good they are at lying or how well they have trained themselves to fool this test. And while some studies can demonstrate 90% accuracy opponents of this test say its like flipping a coin.The inherant problem with this test is that a pathalogical lier has as a good a chance or better at passing this test than an honest but nervous person.
True.
When follow-up investigations are included, waterboarding is definitely more effective. Will she agree to be waterboarded ? If not, she is lying.
Why should the Anerican people and the SCOTUS nominee be forced to accept a roll of the dice… even if the odds are as you say?
Those statistics are not absolute. Other studies have shown accuracy of only 70%, and opponents of the test say its like flipping a coin. Nonetheless everyone acknowledges that it is not a lie detector test.
You guys are cracking me up talking about it’s easy to beat a polygraph.
I dare you to try a Full Scope. LOL!
Unless you’re specially trained the average person will not have an easy time.
Now CI poly’s those are easy, but FS…yeah okay. Easy my ass.
You guys watch too many movies.
Did the accuser take a full scope polygraph?
I never said either of those things.
It’s a common misconception that anxiety has an affect on one’s performance during an examination; it doesn’t. True, though, that a sociopathic liar like Trump could “beat” a polygraph.
Of course opponents say that. But the fact remains that single issue examinations have been shown through meta analysis to be around 95% accurate. That’s quite a bit better than 50/50, or a flip of a coin.
Yep. And apparently everyone here is an expert. Couple movie references and a few opinion articles = fact… so long as it supports their talking points.
