Posts
Some estimates put polygraph accuracy near 70%. (others say close to 100%) I hope it’s a lot higher than 70% accuracy and here’s why:
Assume a truth you tell is being tested. If you test positive for untruth, now everyone REALLY thinks you're lying. Well, at least they think there’s a 70% chance you've fibbed.
On the other hand given the same truth, if you pass the lie detector test, people are still thinking there’s only a 70% chance you’re telling the truth.
What’s the worst a lie detector could do? If I call a coin my lie detector, accuracy will be 50%. In fact, if 70% reliability were counted on, that probability would be closer to a 50/50 coin-toss than perfection.
But if you don’t take the polygraph test, suspicions are raised, guilt inferred. Does it become a Damned-if-you-do/Damned-if-you-don’t-scenario? Would a gadget reliable 70% of the time have any use for someone telling the truth?
Why would anyone lying take a lie detector test? Well, there’s a 30% chance he’ll pass the test. If he fails, those who speculated guilt will only be 70% sure of the lie. They may have already been at least this sure.
I’d say for any test less reliable than 90% (seems polygraph accuracy has to be measured subjectively to some extent), it’s a better bet for the liar than the teller of truths.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The accuracy of a lie detector test can be greatly affected by the experience of the examiner. Nadac Group undertake polygraphs under controlled environments using professional examiners
So, by implication, there are shady polygraph technicians who are less than professional?
Who are these psychotic Charlatan polygraph techs?
How can we root them out of the system and free the ranks of legitimate, professional polygraph techs for decades to come?
If these bogus PG Techs are lying, then they are lying for the lying. If they are lying for the truthful, they are lying for the truthful for the lying. Telling the truth for the lying could only benefit someone outside of the test who is lying, and telling the truth for the truthful wouldn't be lying at all, and the Tech could not do so unless the truth somehow benefitted someone who was lying.
Of course, it won't matter after Wednesday. That's when the scientists fire up that particle accelerator in France and create tiny black holes that will destroy the solar system.
Nice knowin ya, you liars!
"End of the World is Nigh"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7600966.stm
One post in 12 days and two this month? Who is this Bluto character anyway?
Blog, Bluto! Blog!
## (totally off subject alert) ##
We have to take off our shoes for airport security screening. And our hats. And our backpacks.
Finally there is a justifiable reason to force women to take off their shirts and bras.
http://www.firebox.com/product/2061/The-WineRack?src_t=cat&src_id=party
You can fit an entire bottle of wine in there. That's enough nitroglycerin, nitromethane, dithekite, nitroethane or methyl nitrate to blow a plane to bits all over Lockerbie, Scotland.
I say it is high time to take it off, ladies.
I am not flying on a plane with any women until I have seen and inspected each and every one of their boobs.
SEINFELD on the Helmet Law
"The only thing dumber than the helmet is the helmet law — the point of which is to protect a brain that is functioning so poorly, it's not even trying to stop the cracking of the head that it's in..."
Kim (CULATA) said,
"Bluto, I REALLY did not appreciate your comment on the HJ thread that said I might be erring on the side of paranoia. Just as you think I wouldn't understand enough to question your area of expertise, you have no idea what I and my law-abiding family have been through with law enforcement and prosecutors. If you are going to pin garbage like "paranoia" on me simply because I dare question, then I've totally lost respect for what I once thought was your fairly objective outlook on things. You seem to be black and white on anything to do with police officers."
Oh Kim,
My comment had nothing to do with you being "paranoid" per se. (regarding our banter on the hj site).
With the facts that have been presented, it makes sense for those grieving to question every step here. But for an onlooker like you or CandleWick to jump to the conclusion that the 50 something page exoneration resulting from an independent investigation cannot be trusted errs on the side of paranoia if you ask me.
No offense of course!
Crap! I did it agian.
No Biggie Kim!
"I posted that and thought, "S**t!! I just gave myself away!" Boy, was I kicking myself. Oh well...now you know, I guess. Let's keep it between us!
As you could probably tell, you hit a sore spot with me. But hey...it's all just talk.
So no offense taken."
Kim my friend,
You can even say "SHIT" here! No worries and keep up the good work!
Post a Comment