Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Woody and Mia
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:16:06 GMT
 <1992Aug25.151120.1@mdcbbs.com> <1992Aug26.045105.24582@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Aug26.045105.24582@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.151120.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:>>
>>  Woody Allen passed his lie detector test. When will Mia submit to one?
>>
> 
> Her attorney, Alan Dershowitz, who usually represents folks on the other
> side in such cases and who has written articles for Playboy and
> Penthouse and many law journals, knows better than to have her take one.
> This is why:
> 
> 	"Lie detector tests do not indicate whether or not a person is
>          telling the truth."
> 		- Aaron Hoffmeyer
> 
> You see, a lie detector machine is a fairly simple electromechanical
> device that monitors pulse, respiration, blood pressure and
> electro-chemical changes at the surface of the skin.  None of these
> things is a measure of truth.  The way the test has been sold to the
> populace and especially all these technical wizards in the legal
> profession is by telling them that people with a conscience react
> physically when they tell lies.  It's like this:  they assume that I
> will not react physically when I tell the truth.  Why should I?  If you
> ask me my name and I say, "Aaron Hoffmeyer," there is nothing for me to
> be upset about.  That IS my name.  But, they also assume that when they
> ask me a question they want to know the answer to, if I am lying, I
> will react physically if I tell a lie.  But that is a very wrong
> assumption.
> 
> Here's why.  If I have been accused of something morally repugnant, or
> even worse, something illegal and disgusting, I will probably be pretty
> upset about that allegation - whether I am guilty of it or not.  But
> let's assume for a second that I am not guilty of the allegation.  When
> they give me a lie detector test, I answer all the control questions
> (the questions for which they already know the answers) and they are no
> big thing - and I don't react to them.  But all of a sudden - BLAM -
> DOOSSHHZ!! - they ask me something like, "Did you ever put your son's
> penis in your mouth?"  What a morally repugnant question!  My heartbeat
> rate increases - temporarily, my blood pressure goes up - temporarily,
> my respiration rate goes up - temporarily, electrochemical changes take
> place at an increased rate at the surface of my skin - temporarily, and
> the person reading the output of such a machine looks at all the
> squiggly lines and tells me I'm lying.  (There are many variations on
> this: examiner harassing the examinee, examiner misreading the results,
> claustrophobia, anxiety attacks, nicotine fits - many possible reasons
> for false positives for lying.)
> 

  [rest deleted to save bandwidth]


  What you say may indeed be true for the Polygraph. However, there are far
more modern methods such as the PSE, or Psychological Stress Evaluator. Having
worked with this device myself, I can attest to it's value not only as a lie
detector, but as a powerful tool for psychotherepists in dealing with
surpressed memories.

  In California, whereas the polygraph you describe is no longer allowed as
evidence in court trials, the PSE is! That should indicate to some extent the
relative accuracy of the two devices.

  If you doubt the value of the polygraph (and you are justfied in that), 
then let us tape record both Woody and Mia's public statements off of the 
TV, then run them through the PSE to see who is telling the truth.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|  Alas, this  is harder to do than one might think as the patents for   |
|  the PSE and control of most "professional" units resides with members |
|  of a certain well known intelligence agency which prefers that the    |
|  average citizen NOT be able to tape record political speeches off of  |
|  TV and analyse them for truth content. However, given the power of    |
|  modern personal computers and digital sound samplers, why the same    |
|  trick couldn't be done with some freely distributable public domain   |
|  software is a mystery to me!!!!!  :)  :)  :)                          |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Xref: sparky soc.men:15886 soc.women:16110 alt.feminism:535