Child brings gun to school, then the idiocy starts

[Inquartata]

Could it possibly be so that these recruits actually have been in a fight sometime, somewhere, but that they report to you that they are clean as the driven snow, just because that they expect than even the smallest self-incrimination would harm their job prospects? Not like you can check them out on this score, is it?

Actually, all police recruits must pass a rigorous polygraph examination. I'm willing to accept the premise that some people can beat the machine, but they are rare birds, I think. Lying and being discovered are a very good way to fail the hiring process. ( Typically there's also a psychological examination and interview. )

[Gav]

Actually, all police recruits must pass a rigorous polygraph examination. I'm willing to accept the premise that some people can beat the machine, but they are rare birds, I think. Lying and being discovered are a very good way to fail the hiring process. ( Typically there's also a psychological examination and interview. )

I'm sorry but polygraphs are widely shown to be unreliable.

Arguably you could say that they are a good psychological technique to add to interrogation but then it's all down to theatre and nothing scientific.

[dcmdale]

Actually, all police recruits must pass a rigorous polygraph examination. I'm willing to accept the premise that some people can beat the machine, but they are rare birds, I think. Lying and being discovered are a very good way to fail the hiring process. ( Typically there's also a psychological examination and interview. )

"Rigorous" and "Polygraph" don't really belong in the same sentence. The National Academy of Science found:

We have reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph with the goal of assessing its validity for security uses, especially those involving the screening of substantial numbers of government employees. Overall, the evidence is scanty and scientifically weak. Our conclusions are necessarily based on the far from satisfactory body of evidence on polygraph accuracy, as well as basic knowledge about the physiological responses the polygraph measures. .... Polygraph Accuracy 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.
Theoretical Basis The theoretical rationale for the polygraph is quite weak, especially in terms of differential fear, arousal, or other emotional states that are triggered in response to relevant or comparison questions. We have not found any serious effort at construct validation of polygraph testing.


...


Utility Polygraph examinations may have utility to the extent that they can elicit admissions and confessions, deter undesired activity, and instill public confidence. However, such utility is separate from polygraph validity. There is substantial anecdotal evidence that admissions and confessions occur in polygraph examinations, but no direct scientific evidence assessing the utility of the polygraph. Indirect evidence supports the idea that a technique will exhibit utility effects if examinees and the public believe that there is a high likelihood of a deceptive person being detected and that the costs of being judged deceptive are substantial. Any technique about which people hold such beliefs is likely to exhibit utility, whether or not it is valid.


...


Effectiveness Basic science and polygraph research give reason for concern that polygraph test accuracy may be degraded by countermeasures, particularly when used by major security threats who have a strong incentive and sufficient resources to use them effectively. If these measures are effective, they could seriously undermine any value of polygraph security screening. All of the physiological indicators measured by the polygraph can be altered by conscious efforts through cognitive or physical means...

<http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=212#>

In discussing the tradeoffs between false positives and false negatives (a curve) the report says:

Nevertheless, if the proportion of major security risks in the population being screened is equal to or less than 1 in 1,000, it is reasonable to expect even with optimistic assessments of polygraph test accuracy that each spy or terrorist that might be correctly identified as deceptive would be accompanied by at least hundreds of nondeceptive examinees mislabeled as deceptive, from whom the spy or terrorist would be indistinguishable by polygraph test result. The possibility that deceptive examinees may use countermeasures makes this tradeoff even less attractive.

While false positives are more common than false negatives (in some studies incorrectly identifying true statements as false occurs 50% of the time--the same accuracy as a coin flip), false negatives are also common.

[chase]

I think it to be a heartwarming blend of badly directed wergeld, holy war and cold-war runoff with a pinch of nation-building and a heavy heap of misdirection. I am willing to believe that there was the intent of fighting terrorism at the start, but then we went into Iraq and now we're talking about Iran... a country that is openly at conflict with the Sunnis that attacked us.

Iran is a terrorist state that has repeatedly threatened to destroy us. They fund terrorist groups that kill Americans and Israelis, and now they want nuclear weapons. And you do not want to do anything about it? And here is some news for you: Sanctions and empty threats will do nothing against people who are eager to be "martyred for allah." They are just like the Japanese during WWII, and will not give up until they are physically not able to continue to fight.

[Inquartata]

I'm sorry but polygraphs are widely shown to be unreliable.

By whom?

You need a good examiner, but it's not exactly witchcraft. ( I have taken several myself, and the results were pretty accurate. )

[fencerchica]

Most, if not all, wars boil down to struggles over access to natural resources, be they water, farmland, timber, fuel, minerals, or even "lebensraum". To say oil is not involved at least tangentially would be naive. You could construct a a respectable argument that we ethically have a right to fight to protect our access to resources, or that such an ethical stuggle later developed into a war of self-defense, but to claim they have absolutely nothing to do with it is totally absurd.

[Gav]

By whom?

You need a good examiner, but it's not exactly witchcraft. ( I have taken several myself, and the results were pretty accurate. )

Loads of people. Someone else has even linked to various places. On you go and read the rest of the thread.

And I enjoyed the totally subjective test that you quoted. Very sciencey.

[Inquartata]

Really? One study translates to 'loads of people'?

Fascinating...

[Hauptman]

By whom?

You need a good examiner, but it's not exactly witchcraft. ( I have taken several myself, and the results were pretty accurate. )

Even with a good examiner it's just not reliable enough.

There is too much room for error, and they are too easy to beat. Even if you assume only 10% for each, that's still only 80% reliability which has it's limits.

What I hate more about the police screening in most cases is that they will not take the highest scoring individuals; they self-select for mediocrity because more talented people supposedly won't stick around.

Of course they then promote from within and create a complete environment of mediocrity. Not a good plan to me.

[WGH]

Iran is a terrorist state that has repeatedly threatened to destroy us. They fund terrorist groups that kill Americans and Israelis, and now they want nuclear weapons. And you do not want to do anything about it? And here is some news for you: Sanctions and empty threats will do nothing against people who are eager to be "martyred for allah." They are just like the Japanese during WWII, and will not give up until they are physically not able to continue to fight.

I want you to grab a map. Got one? Good.

Now find Japan. Get a sense of its scale. Cut it out if you can. Now draw a circle around everything between India and the mediterranean and south of kazakhstan and the caucasian mountains and add the NE coast of Africa. Put Japan on there, either physically or mentally.

Now remember that you invented any hint of me suggesting sanctions and empty threats, then take some history lessons as to why "Muslims want us dead". I'll give you a hint... it has something to do with our respect for their sovereignty over the last century.

[dcmdale]

Really? One study translates to 'loads of people'?

The National Academy of Science report cited above includes citations to 214 other published studies that they included in their literature review. Feel free to read.

[chase]

I want you to grab a map. Got one? Good.

Now find Japan. Get a sense of its scale. Cut it out if you can. Now draw a circle around everything between India and the mediterranean and south of kazakhstan and the caucasian mountains and add the NE coast of Africa. Put Japan on there, either physically or mentally.

Now remember that you invented any hint of me suggesting sanctions and empty threats, then take some history lessons as to why "Muslims want us dead". I'll give you a hint... it has something to do with our respect for their sovereignty over the last century.

Over the last century? We have not done anything to them except help the English install the Shah, who was overthrown. They got their revenge with the whole hostage thing, and if they were any other country, they would have moved on. But they are not.

They want us dead. And we must make it impossible for them to act on their wishes. Right now, they do not have nuclear weapons. When they get nuclear weapons, it is guaranteed that Americans will die.

They are drawing their gun, and will point it right at us. That is why we must strike first. This will not end in a nuclear standoff like with Russia, because Russians did not want to be "martyred for allah." They will die trying to destroy us. We need military action now, and the nuclear option should be seriously considered, since it worked so well against Japan.

[Gav]

Really? One study translates to 'loads of people'?

Fascinating...

Nope. That's just the already quoted (excellent) example. It's a meta analysis. A simple google search will furnish you with more. Keep trying Inq.

[WGH]

Over the last century? We have not done anything to them except help the English install the Shah, who was overthrown. They got their revenge with the whole hostage thing, and if they were any other country, they would have moved on. But they are not.

They want us dead. And we must make it impossible for them to act on their wishes. Right now, they do not have nuclear weapons. When they get nuclear weapons, it is guaranteed that Americans will die.

They are drawing their gun, and will point it right at us. That is why we must strike first. This will not end in a nuclear standoff like with Russia, because Russians did not want to be "martyred for allah." They will die trying to destroy us. We need military action now, and the nuclear option should be seriously considered, since it worked so well against Japan.

I don't have time to do your history teacher's job, but we have done a LOT more in the middle east than just the Shah. Osama bin Ladin? We armed him to fight the Russians. We assisted in the creation of the Jewish state. We have placed military bases in the birthplace of Mohammed, a continued violation directly cited by bin Ladin. We have backed the British violations of the area (who, btw, are also a target). There are few countries in the area whose government we didn't alter or attempt to alter during the cold war. In addition, the number of Al Qaeda cells have exploded since we invaded Iraq. The wars have -increased- the threat.

Furthermore, I know you live in this Team America world in which all muslims are extremists that wish to destroy us more than they wish to die, but this is ridiculous. The government leaders like to govern. Nobody outside of a handful want to destroy the entire planet, and I bet you could find the same number here that feel the same way and just don't have enemy soldiers in their neighborhood to motivate them.

As to the leaders of Iran threatening to destroy us... I think you are mostly thinking of Israel. There has been some bluster towards our destruction, but no more than our own politicians have quipped about destroying them. We've had senators mention assassinating Hugo Chavez. Should Venezuela declare war on us? To paraphrase Ahmadinejad, Nukes are so last century. MAD has made them really expensive paperweights.

[fencerchica]

I don't have time to do your history teacher's job, but we have done a LOT more in the middle east than just the Shah. Osama bin Ladin? We armed him to fight the Russians. We assisted in the creation of the Jewish state. We have placed military bases in the birthplace of Mohammed, a continued violation directly cited by bin Ladin. We have backed the British violations of the area (who, btw, are also a target). There are few countries in the area whose government we didn't alter or attempt to alter during the cold war. In addition, the number of Al Qaeda cells have exploded since we invaded Iraq. The wars have -increased- the threat.

Going further back in history, too, the US was vitally involved in the destruction and dismembering of the Ottoman Empire (one of the allies of the Kaiser during WWI), which produced the modern-day map of the Islamic world. One who believed that Dar as-Salam is meant to be realized as a literal and unified empire could plausibly still carry a major beef over that.

[chase]

As to the leaders of Iran threatening to destroy us... I think you are mostly thinking of Israel. There has been some bluster towards our destruction, but no more than our own politicians have quipped about destroying them. We've had senators mention assassinating Hugo Chavez. Should Venezuela declare war on us? To paraphrase Ahmadinejad, Nukes are so last century. MAD has made them really expensive paperweights.

So you say it is ok for them to nuke Israel? They call us the "great Satan." What do you think that means? If you really believed that Satan was a different country, would you not do everything in your power to destroy him? You would, and that is what they are trying to do.

If Ahmadinejad really believed that, he would stop trying to make them. But he is not stopping enrichment. If it was about energy, we have offered much better deals, but it is not about energy. It is about destroying us.

[jessicasimpson]

They call us the "great Satan." What do you think that means?

That we helped Haiti overthrow the French?

[WGH]

So you say it is ok for them to nuke Israel? They call us the "great Satan." What do you think that means? If you really believed that Satan was a different country, would you not do everything in your power to destroy him? You would, and that is what they are trying to do.

If Ahmadinejad really believed that, he would stop trying to make them. But he is not stopping enrichment. If it was about energy, we have offered much better deals, but it is not about energy. It is about destroying us.

Do you read your own writing? "We've offered much better deals". As if we were God's own appointed steward of splitting of the atom. They have as much right to enrich uranium for power as we do.

Satan means adversary in arabic, btw.

[fencerchica]

that we helped haiti overthrow the french?

LOL!!! It won't let me rep you, but that was a coffee spitting moment.

[chase]

Do you read your own writing? "We've offered much better deals". As if we were God's own appointed steward of splitting of the atom. They have as much right to enrich uranium for power as we do.

Satan means adversary in arabic, btw.

That is funny, considering that they speak Farsi.