Clarence Thomas, disgusting nomination, betray of democracy

[John Cuthber]

It's also unfortunate that the particular allegation is likely to induce a change in heart rate regardless of the truth of any allegation.

Not many people can reliably talk about whether or not they wanted to have sex with someone and maintain a flat pulse rate and steady breathing.

[StringJunky]

Not many people can reliably talk about whether or not they wanted to have sex with someone and maintain a flat pulse rate and steady breathing.

It is after all, a racy subject by it's very nature..

Edited April 18, 2016 by StringJunky

[Sensei]

In the most of court cases there is no need to ask details during lie detection test. The all details were (or at least should be) given during testimony.

Just ask questions:

"did you lie during testimony?"

"did you hide some important information during testimony?"

etc.

 

Just to correct some misinformation, that appeared earlier in this thread, about usage in court:

 

According to various sources:

"in Japan, polygraph evidence is admissible in court".

 

Also

"In one US state, New Mexico, polygraph evidence is (conditionally) admitted in the same way as other scientific evidence."

http://lawschool.unm.edu/nmlr/volumes/13/3/07_note_lie.pdf

 

"In the United States, most states permit polygraph test results to be used as evidence where parties have agreed to their admissibility before the examination is given, under the terms of a stipulation. "

 

http://www.polygraphis.com/WebsiteFAQ.htm

 

In the laboratory you use f.e. graduated cylinder 100 mL, that has +-1 mL (+-1%) tolerance.

And you don't complain that it has not perfect accuracy.

And yet you complain that lie detector has no absolute accuracy.

Everything has some tolerance for error in measurement. It should be calculated at the end of measurement.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Sensei

[Greg H.]

In the laboratory you use f.e. graduated cylinder 100 mL, that has +-1 mL (+-1%) tolerance.

And you don't complain that it has not perfect accuracy.

And yet you complain that lie detector has no absolute accuracy.

Everything has some tolerance for error in measurement. It should be calculated at the end of measurement.

 

A graduated cylinder doesn't change volume depending on the liquid being measured, the time of day, and whether or not it's having a bad day. Once I know the variation in any given cylinder, I can then account for it in future uses of that cylinder.

 

The problem with a lie detector is that it's a people reader, and people do not give consistent results - even the same person may give inconsistent results for any of a variety of reasons. If you asked the same person the same set of questions, in the same environment, and only changed the tone of your voice (from say passive and soothing to angry and aggressive) you'd likely get different results, because being angry automatically heightens other people's tensions.

 

We're not complaining that a lie detector is fallible. We're pointing out that the margin of error is far too high for something that requires a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.¹

If you cannot get consistent results from a piece of equipment or testing procedure, then you are well within reason to be skeptical of using or trusting it - especially in a circumstance where one's liberty may be impacted.

---

1: "8 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003. doi:10.17226/10420. http://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/10

Edited April 19, 2016 by Greg H.

[Endy0816]

In fairness, the time when Anita Hill worked with Justice Thomas was a bit different.

 

Unless the boss actually said, "have sex with me right now or I'll fire you," then sexual harassment claims were rarely acted upon or enforced. Unless it was explicit and it overt, this was not a charge that would lead anywhere or offer any remedy.

 

Fortunately, lots has changed since then, including what's considered harassment, but that was not the case in her time clerking at his office.

Good point. This all happened when I was fairly young.

 

Actually thought OP was talking about Obama's recent nominee, before looking into it.

[Sensei]

A graduated cylinder doesn't change volume depending on the liquid being measured, the time of day, and whether or not it's having a bad day.

Yes, it does. And liquid too. It's called thermal expansion.

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

Being too small, does not mean it's not existing.

 

Some alcohol meters (Thermohydrometer) has thermometer inside, to be sure at which temperature reading of volume is done.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Proof-and-Tralle-Hydrometer-Alcoholmeter-Distilled-Spirits-Moonshine-Alcohol-USA-/291510995251

See, there is even table attached what readings will be at which temperature.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Sensei

[Greg H.]

*facepalm*

Way to miss the point there.

[swansont]

A graduated cylinder measurement will not result in a reading of "there is no liquid in the cylinder". The error is quantifiable. A lie detector on the other hand, is measuring a boolean state: true or false. There is only one error mode: maximum error (unless you waffle and say "inconclusive". Can you get such a result with a volume measurement?). You have false positives or false negatives. So the assessment moves to the rate of false positives and false negatives, and the impact they have.

 

DNA and fingerprint evidence are supposed to exclude >>99% of the population (when done correctly). Lie detectors have nowhere near the same level of confidence.

[Sensei]

A graduated cylinder measurement will not result in a reading of "there is no liquid in the cylinder". The error is quantifiable. A lie detector on the other hand, is measuring a boolean state: true or false. There is only one error mode: maximum error (unless you waffle and say "inconclusive". Can you get such a result with a volume measurement?). You have false positives or false negatives. So the assessment moves to the rate of false positives and false negatives, and the impact they have.

 

It's not just boolean true or false in the case of lie detector. There is list of dozen questions.

List of dozen truth questions person has to answer. List of dozen lie questions person has to answer.

From it, examiner is learning, how body of somebody is behaving when he/she is telling truth (just saying something from memory), and when he/she is making stuff up.

Then graph is checked against to compare, with questions that are important.

If graphs from test "truth questions" won't match each other, and important question,

or test "lie questions" won't match each other, and important question,

the whole examination is void. As person is trying to cheat examiner.

The same is done with voice recognition and comparison of signature: there is data to examine, and there is reference, to compare against it.

(see MRI lie detector checking brain activity during making stuff up, versus remembering it from memory)

 

Obviously it's useless for somebody with mental problems, or who has hallucinations.

But such person would be excluded (or at least should be) from being interrogated by court also!

 

I gave example of graduated cylinder not accidentally.

I knew somebody will tell that volume will be volume, no matter what, like Greg H.

It's analogy and example of unexperienced lie detector examiner.

Who does not know that pressure and temperature have to be taken into account while reading data..

 

Please notice, in the case of this thread, there are two lie detections which should be done: one with Anita Hill and C.Thomas.

Problem would be if lie detectors would show up that they both saying truth. As their versions are mutually exclusive.

 

DNA and fingerprint evidence are supposed to exclude >>99% of the population (when done correctly).

That depends where DNA is found. On victim or somewhere in room.

If police or prosecutor found DNA on coffee or wine cup, in a room of deceased murdered person they will treat person whose DNA is on it, as the first one to be suspect.

So better don't go to somebody apartment just in case he/she is murdered an hour later, as you will never be able to clean from accusations...

There is plentiful examples, were somebody visited deceased person, or even lived with him/her (how they couldn't leave DNA everywhere?), and police used DNA found on place to prosecute innocent, even though there were people swearing they were with him/her later when murdering happened and they could not do it..

 

Lie detectors have nowhere near the same level of confidence.

Nobody seems to understand that in 99% it's not important what lie detector will show up.

What matter is reaction of somebody to fact they will be examined.

The real guilty will fear it and decline passing through.

While innocent will have no objections to being examined and instantly agree to do it to have peace.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Sensei

[John Cuthber]

 

In the laboratory you use f.e. graduated cylinder 100 mL, that has +-1 mL (+-1%) tolerance.

And you don't complain that it has not perfect accuracy.

And yet you complain that lie detector has no absolute accuracy.

Everything has some tolerance for error in measurement. It should be calculated at the end of measurement.

And if the tolerance is +/- 100% is it still useful?

Also, you seem to have forgotten to answer this.

 

 

 

 

He knows that "lie detectors" are unreliable (That's why they don't stand up in court) so why would he take the risk of it falsely labelling him a criminal?

 

Would you?

(Before you answer that, remember that typical accuracies are of the order of 50%)

 

Are you really prepared to take a test that has a 50% chance of claiming that you are a liar?

[Greg H.]

While innocent will have no objections to being examined and instantly agree to do it to have peace.

That's a hell of an assumption you've made there.

[swansont]

 

Nobody seems to understand that in 99% it's not important what lie detector will show up.

What matter is reaction of somebody to fact they will be examined.

The real guilty will fear it and decline passing through.

While innocent will have no objections to being examined and instantly agree to do it to have peace.

 

 

And obviously you don't understand that this assumption is horribly wrong.

[Phi for All]

The real guilty will fear it and decline passing through.

While innocent will have no objections to being examined and instantly agree to do it to have peace.

 

I'm probably one of the most law-abiding people I know, and I would never agree to taking a lie detector test, unless I could read the questions first, and probably not even then. I had an experience similar to the one I described earlier, and lost a job unfairly. I never stole money or products from the company, but the lie detector test said I was lying about that. It lied.

 

Further, knowing the laws in my state in the US, I won't talk to the police without a lawyer, even if I'm completely innocent of wrongdoing. There is nothing about testimony you give to the police that can ever help you. It can only be used against you, so why would I volunteer information that might make me look like a viable suspect?

[Delta1212]

The assumption that a guilty person won't take the test but an innocent person will relies on both of them trusting that the test is accurate. An innocent person who believes that a lie detector test will implicate them even though they are innocent will not want to take a lie detector test despite being innocent.

[waitforufo]

The fifth amendment guarantees your natural right against self incrimination. Choosing not to self incriminate does not point to guilt.

[Sensei]

Here, it's almost routine, to check parents on lie detector, when child is missing (or other family member is missing).

The only one time when parent, actually mother, didn't want to pass through it, was the case when mother actually killed her baby daughter..

 

After she refused to go through lie detector, pressure made by her own family, 24h/d, mother by law, her husband, were so overwhelming, that she break apart, and revealed that she killed her.. And where body is buried..

They later revealed that they were going after her, the whole day long, telling her "we know you're f**ing lying, tell the truth" etc.

All because of her refuse to being examined (the all other family members were tested without any objections).

Edited April 19, 2016 by Sensei

[CharonY]

Except accuracy (the sum of true positives and true negatives divided by all cases) is not really informative if you want to make sure that you pass the test while being innocent. Assume 100 cases with two liars. Let's assume you characterize the two correct liars (FP) but also identify additional 50 non-liars as liars. This gives you a 50% accuracy (2FP, 48 FN) but a heck of people who are incorrectly accused as liars.

Or take the calculations from the NRC publication. If we use a case where the accuracy of the test is 90% with a 80% sensitivity and that about 1% of the populations are liars, then for each liar caught, there would be 21 wrongly accused. These numbers changed significantly if the performance parameters are different. At an accuracy of 60%, they found 73 wrongly accused for each correctly identified ones. On the other hand, lowering the sensitivity (i.e. allowing for more liars to go undetected) would also improve the ratio to 7 wrongly accused one per real detection (at A=90%) or 54 (A=60%), respectively.

 

 

The problem is that the CQT method is not very amenable to standardization so that if you enter a test, you will have not idea about how the performance is going to end up and how likely you are going to be wrongly accused. To ascertain that you will need a large reference population that can be asked the same question and will react in predictable patterns. And there is a whole body of evidence that the arousal markers are not uniformly applicable, either.

As such, you are more likely to willingly undergo a test if it has either little or no repercussions or if you do not understand the issues with it.

[Phi for All]

All because of her refuse to being examined (the all other family members were tested without any objections).

 

You're using one example of an instance where guilt is revealed due to refusal. If I refused, it wouldn't be because I was guilty. Others have given reasons why they would refuse that didn't include guilt.

 

We're being realistic by taking the system into consideration. Simply threatening a lie detector test and badgering suspects doesn't work in the majority of cases. There are far too many variables with this technology, and when you take the other agendas involved (cops who want the collar, prosecutors looking for wins), you probably aren't going to see anyone who really cares about justice until the trial.

 

The technology clearly offers false results even for store clerks. How much more problematic would it be for a judge that works in nuanced details and life/death decisions? Especially one being considered for the SCOTUS?

[Sensei]

No, it's not one example. It's hundred cases here for the last 10-20 years or so. It's routinely done for the all missing people who were not found.

Any media known case (longer missing than a week, or two, with suspicious disappearance), press inform "family,friends,boyfriend were tested on lie detector and passed through it"..

This allows police to concentrate on searching people, instead of observing (ex-)boyfriend, family members, etc.

 

I gave the only example that I remember when family member disagree to pass through it.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Sensei

[swansont]

No, it's not one example. It's hundred cases here for the last 10-20 years or so. It's routinely done for the all missing people who were not found.

Any media known case (longer missing than a week, or two, with suspicious disappearance), press inform "family,friends,boyfriend were tested on lie detector and passed through it"..

This allows police to concentrate on searching people, instead of observing (ex-)boyfriend, family members, etc.

 

I gave the only example that I remember when family member disagree to pass through it.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence". Unless you have a systematic accounting if this, it means nothing. Phi has already given a counterexample.

[Sensei]

(cops who want the collar, prosecutors looking for wins), you probably aren't going to see anyone who really cares about justice until the trial.

 

That's unfortunately true. They generally stop searching, when they find the most suspected person, which the last visited or saw victim, which might not be the right person (like with example of the last visitor in apartment leaving fingerprints/DNA on wine/coffee cup).

That's why such person, suspected by them, is the most interested to be no more suspected.

[Phi for All]

 

That's unfortunately true. They generally stop searching, when they find the most suspected person, which the last visited or saw victim, which might not be the right person (like with example of the last visitor in apartment leaving fingerprints/DNA on wine/coffee cup).

That's why such person, suspected by them, is the most interested to be no more suspected.

 

If I was already the lead suspect in a police investigation, I might be more likely to allow a lie detector test, if my attorney can vet the questions and methodology, and it was the only thing that might help me. But in the case of judges being interviewed for the SC, they aren't suspected of crimes.

 

And in my case (and hopefully many others), I happen to know I'm innocent, so if I'm not already a suspect, I don't want to increase the odds of me being one by offering to take a test that might falsely label me a liar. That's a judgment that weighs heavily with any jury, and it's damning because everyone assumes you lied to cover up your guilt. It doesn't matter why or even if you lied at that point.

 

I thought Clarence Thomas was a poor choice for Associate Justice.

[John Cuthber]

Your failure to answer this question looks at least as much like an admission of guilt as his refusal to take a lie detector test.

 

 

 

Are you really prepared to take a test that has a 50% chance of claiming that you are a liar?

[Soulnite]

People always slightly "lie" or change the meaning of something to their advantage. This is how we function and survive.

[iNow]

Hard to agree since you used the word "always." Perhaps better and more accurate to instead say "often" or "sometimes" or "frequently" or "occasionally," but not "always."