The % numbers at this point are irrelevant right, wrong or indifferent, as long as it’s not a exact science the human element comes into play, those who believe it’s a certain will lean toward the 70%, those that don’t will lean toward the 30%. Then there’s grumpy old guys such as myself who believe you can get the same #'s from a fortune teller at a county fair.
I might be the exception. I believe I have beat Polygraphs for a job once where it was part of the interview process. I think its doable. Just relax and think happy drone thoughts
That’s one of the points I’ve been trying to make. Actually in a couple of the articles I read they said that one way to beat the test is to reprhase the question in your mind and then answer that question.
Lie Detector detector? During the test, did Professor Ford factually state the name of her alleged assaulter or just provide information about the alleged assault? If she is uncertain about many important details, and absolutely certain about the name of the person, wouldn’t the test show a drastic fluctuation in the emotional response?
Is the “passed a lie detector test” statement based specifically on incident information, or with the name of the accused included?
At this point her testimony is as credible as that of the nominee. There will be a weighing of evidence and testimonies soon. The problem is not the scientific likelihood of any particular scenario but the outright dismissal of her claims by so many. She was there, we were not. If her claims are true, she was likely devastated it and is now rubbing chlorine bleach on the wound because she feels strongly that it is the right thing to do. If she is lying, I hope there is a crime she can be charged with.
Personally, I like to see people stick it to Trump, but that isn’t good enough, this is serious ■■■■ with serious ramifications and proper procedure must be followed.
Testimony is not strictly limited to legal proceedings, the word can also be used as a lay term. There was nothing wrong with the way I used it, only your strict interpretation of the word.
If she is telling the truth, it absolutely was a solemn declaration and thus absolutely a form of testimony as defined. You think she’s a liar apparently, and I think she should be heard. We are arguing over the meaning of a word here, which I used in a perfectly acceptable manner. Again your strict interpretation of the word to legal proceedings only is failing you. I make no claim that there was legal testimony in a court or hearing of any sort.