If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TwinCities.com)   Polygraph test reveals incredibly rare creatures thought to be a myth: Honest Fishermen   ( twincities.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Polygraph, Ice Fishing Extravaganza, Forum News Service, Star Tribune, Minnesota, contest, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Brainerd Jaycees  
•       •       •

3959 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Feb 2018 at 12:35 PM (22 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-02-09 11:14:24 AM  
Just more proof of the fallacy that is polygraphy.
 
2018-02-09 11:17:18 AM  
Flipping a coin is a better determiner if a person is telling the truth than a polygraph. Polygraphs have been debunked and are less useful than putting a persons' hand on a copy machine preloaded with paper that have truth or lie preprinted on the paper. Call Bunk.
 
2018-02-09 11:55:25 AM  
Honest fish, however, are ubiquitous.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-09 12:34:05 PM  

eurotrader: Flipping a coin is a better determiner if a person is telling the truth than a polygraph. Polygraphs have been debunked and are less useful than putting a persons' hand on a copy machine preloaded with paper that have truth or lie preprinted on the paper. Call Bunk.


Apparently they still use them as part of sex offender treatment programs, to see if the treatment is "working".
 
2018-02-09 12:44:09 PM  

hobnail: eurotrader: Flipping a coin is a better determiner if a person is telling the truth than a polygraph. Polygraphs have been debunked and are less useful than putting a persons' hand on a copy machine preloaded with paper that have truth or lie preprinted on the paper. Call Bunk.

Apparently they still use them as part of sex offender treatment programs, to see if the treatment is "working".


So, they basically are training them to be better liars (well as far as polygraphs go)?
 
2018-02-09 12:47:11 PM  
Finally, our long national nightmare is over.
 
2018-02-09 12:50:46 PM  
hobnail:
Apparently they still use them as part of sex offender treatment programs, to see if the treatment is "working".

Don't those programs also strap sensors to offenders' junk and make them watch porn to see what type turns them on? They don't seem like the most scientific system...
 
2018-02-09 12:53:40 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-09 12:53:52 PM  

Urmuf Hamer: Just more proof of the fallacy that is polygraphy.

Yeah, this says more about the polygraph than the existence of honest fishermen.
 
2018-02-09 12:54:27 PM  
They cheated, and now dad is threatening a defamation suit.
 
2018-02-09 12:54:51 PM  
It's pretty cool how polygraph testing works in theory, but it relies on the test subject only getting nervous before and during the lie, then relaxing afterwards. The questions are asked several times in the same order to reinforce this. No, it's not reliable.
 
2018-02-09 12:57:43 PM  
FTA: might not have legitimately caught the fish they entered, which earned them first, third and 98th places

They actually suspected the guy that got 98th? I knew competitive fishing could get hardcore, but damn.
 
2018-02-09 01:00:03 PM  

Opacity: FTA: might not have legitimately caught the fish they entered, which earned them first, third and 98th places

They actually suspected the guy that got 98th? I knew competitive fishing could get hardcore, but damn.


15,000 paticipants
 
2018-02-09 01:00:24 PM  
Pinball Arcade - Fish Tales
Youtube dq4QvsWYWvs
 
2018-02-09 01:00:35 PM  
It's quite the spectacle.
Fished it twice, didn't catch a thing, watched a third place fish come out of a hole two holes away.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-09 01:02:09 PM  
Why TF do you need a polygraph for a fishing contest?  There could be nothing more objective.  You weigh the fish.  If they're worried people are going to the local Piggly Wiggly and buying fish, make 'em fish nekkid.
 
2018-02-09 01:03:28 PM  
Subby, it's a polygraph EXAM. It's not a test. A test is objective with repeatable results. Math is a test because 2+2 will always be 4 and no amount of arguing will ever make 3 or 5 the correct answer.
 
2018-02-09 01:06:34 PM  

R.O.U.S: hobnail:
Apparently they still use them as part of sex offender treatment programs, to see if the treatment is "working".

Don't those programs also strap sensors to offenders' junk and make them watch porn to see what type turns them on? They don't seem like the most scientific system...


Well, that's not they did to me.  Maybe it varies state to state.
 
2018-02-09 01:07:03 PM  
Polygraph test reveals incredibly rare creatures thought to be a myth: Honest Fishermen  fishing contest organizers are gullible about polygraph tests.

Fixed
 
2018-02-09 01:08:27 PM  

UsikFark: The questions are asked several times in the same order to reinforce this.


The questions are asked a minimum of twice, in a different (but likely not random order). I've never seen a polygraph examiner use a RNG to shuffle the order of the questions, so they're likely not doing a true random switch for the second round of questioning.
 
2018-02-09 01:08:45 PM  

Urmuf Hamer: Just more proof of the fallacy that is polygraphy.


A $cientology e-meter is basically one of the channels.  Yeah it's pseudoscience.
 
2018-02-09 01:08:56 PM  

mrmopar5287: Subby, it's a polygraph EXAM. It's not a test. A test is objective with repeatable results. Math is a test because 2+2 will always be 4 and no amount of arguing will ever make 3 or 5 the correct answer.


How about 2+2=22 ?
 
2018-02-09 01:15:42 PM  

capt.hollister: mrmopar5287: Subby, it's a polygraph EXAM. It's not a test. A test is objective with repeatable results. Math is a test because 2+2 will always be 4 and no amount of arguing will ever make 3 or 5 the correct answer.

How about 2+2=22 ?


Don't know, depends on the humor of your polygraph examiner. The one guy who was doing the "calibration" card trick did it by having me write a number from 1 to 10 on a piece of paper where he went through and told me to deny every number he asked. The magic trick was supposed to be him telling me he knew what number I wrote down. He got kinda upset when I showed him the card with π (pi) written on it. He said it wasn't a number I could choose, and I told him he didn't say NATURAL NUMBERS...
 
2018-02-09 01:19:02 PM  

MNguy: 15,000 paticipants


MnDuffman: It's quite the spectacle.
Fished it twice, didn't catch a thing, watched a third place fish come out of a hole two holes away.

[img.fark.net image 850x446]


Damn... now I know why people give a fark about 98th place.
 
2018-02-09 01:21:02 PM  
Another one of their channels is basically this:
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-09 01:24:46 PM  
What a bunch of iceholes....
 
2018-02-09 01:26:06 PM  

mrmopar5287: UsikFark: The questions are asked several times in the same order to reinforce this.

The questions are asked a minimum of twice, in a different (but likely not random order). I've never seen a polygraph examiner use a RNG to shuffle the order of the questions, so they're likely not doing a true random switch for the second round of questioning.


Really? I may have misunderstood something, I thought the order was pretty critical to finding which answer was supposedly deceptive.
 
2018-02-09 01:28:52 PM  

R.O.U.S: hobnail:
Apparently they still use them as part of sex offender treatment programs, to see if the treatment is "working".

Don't those programs also strap sensors to offenders' junk and make them watch porn to see what type turns them on? They don't seem like the most scientific system...


Yes.  Not sure if it is actually porn, it may be non-pornographic but suggestive situations.

I recently handled a file for an inmate at one of these programs.  Without going into detail, you're right. It doesn't seem very scientific. At all. And they use periodic polygraphs to justify all sorts of things, including what course of treatment to use.  It reminds me a lot of "gay conversion" programs but without the abusive religious aspect.
 
2018-02-09 01:38:57 PM  
It was mentioned in the first thread about this incident, but if you are cheating in a fishing contest a 3.1 pound fish is poor planning.
 
2018-02-09 01:39:18 PM  
Polygraphs are bullshiat.

It's better than coin flipping, contrary to what some people here have asserted.  However, it's still wrong so often that pinning any finding of deception on an exam's result is absurd.  Over a large enough sample size, you'll get a strong statistical indication that the procedure does do better than a coin flip.

But getting to ~60% isn't particularly good as evidence of deception in any singular case, which is the point of the exam.  In addition, it's extremely easy to manipulate.
 
2018-02-09 01:47:28 PM  

UsikFark: mrmopar5287: UsikFark: The questions are asked several times in the same order to reinforce this.

The questions are asked a minimum of twice, in a different (but likely not random order). I've never seen a polygraph examiner use a RNG to shuffle the order of the questions, so they're likely not doing a true random switch for the second round of questioning.

Really? I may have misunderstood something, I thought the order was pretty critical to finding which answer was supposedly deceptive.


Depends entirely on state regulations. Here in Illinois the exam has a few requirements as I mentioned. Two panels of questions, with the order mixed between each panel.

If there were to be any legitimacy to this I would expect a double-blind exam with two different examiners who never meet, and a third who prepares the results. The first examiner would be in the room asking questions in a random order. The chart would be printed in another room where a second examiner interprets results without know the questions being asked (just knowing there were questions 1-10 or whatever) and they would opine "Questions 1, 4, and 5 on panel 1 gave indications of stress. Questions 3, 8, and 10 on panel 2 gave indications of stress." The third person would then see if the questions asked by examiner 1 correlated with the chart from examiner 2.
 
2018-02-09 01:49:36 PM  
Too bad polygraph tests are complete crap. Every time they're put under a scientific test they find easy ways to screw with them.
 
2018-02-09 01:51:21 PM  

Khellendros: It's better than coin flipping, contrary to what some people here have asserted.


A skilled examiner can use standard interview techniques to tease things out of people. Polygraph's basically work on people stupid enough to be manipulated into believing they work. If a criminal is a strong suspect for something, it's usually pretty easy to read body language and manipulate them into admitting things.

On the other side there are people like me who haven't done anything and know the examiners are using bullshiat voodoo science. That's why I come across as "inconclusive results." It's because I know they don't work and I don't care.
 
2018-02-09 01:52:22 PM  

LordBeavis: Why TF do you need a polygraph for a fishing contest?  There could be nothing more objective.  You weigh the fish.  If they're worried people are going to the local Piggly Wiggly and buying fish, make 'em fish nekkid.


People cheat by bringing in a ringer fish that they didn't catch. They can also inject the fish with something after they catch it to bring the weight up.
 
2018-02-09 01:58:00 PM  

Khellendros: Polygraphs are bullshiat.

It's better than coin flipping, contrary to what some people here have asserted.  However, it's still wrong so often that pinning any finding of deception on an exam's result is absurd.  Over a large enough sample size, you'll get a strong statistical indication that the procedure does do better than a coin flip.

But getting to ~60% isn't particularly good as evidence of deception in any singular case, which is the point of the exam.  In addition, it's extremely easy to manipulate.


A coin flip is random by does have a defined probability. Polygraphs have no repeatability or scientific basis. A skilled interviewer can use it as a prop but it is only a prop. Polygraphs are the same as a Scientology " e meter" designed  as a party game that got out of hand because some people want to believe.
Not one legitimate study has shown polygraphs as anything scientifically valid.
 
2018-02-09 01:59:41 PM  
c1.staticflickr.comView Full Size
 
2018-02-09 02:01:12 PM  
Russ1642: People cheat by bringing in a ringer fish that they didn't catch.
i.ytimg.comView Full Size
 
2018-02-09 02:15:01 PM  
The thing with this contest is that prizes are given away for the top 150 fish, but the prizes are not necessarily given away according to value of the prize and the size of the fish.  An 8 oz perch may net you 99th place and a new $500 ice auger, and a 7.9 oz perch will get you 100th place and a brand new $15,000 ice house.  150th place was a new ATV.  That's why even if cheaters are found afterwards, nobody can move up or down the list once results are final.
 
2018-02-09 02:23:18 PM  

hobnail: R.O.U.S: hobnail:
Apparently they still use them as part of sex offender treatment programs, to see if the treatment is "working".

Don't those programs also strap sensors to offenders' junk and make them watch porn to see what type turns them on? They don't seem like the most scientific system...

Yes.  Not sure if it is actually porn, it may be non-pornographic but suggestive situations.

I recently handled a file for an inmate at one of these programs.  Without going into detail, you're right. It doesn't seem very scientific. At all. And they use periodic polygraphs to justify all sorts of things, including what course of treatment to use.  It reminds me a lot of "gay conversion" programs but without the abusive religious aspect.


Ah, but did you enjoy "handling" that file?

;)
 
2018-02-09 02:38:59 PM  

al's hat: hobnail: R.O.U.S: hobnail:
Apparently they still use them as part of sex offender treatment programs, to see if the treatment is "working".

Don't those programs also strap sensors to offenders' junk and make them watch porn to see what type turns them on? They don't seem like the most scientific system...

Yes.  Not sure if it is actually porn, it may be non-pornographic but suggestive situations.

I recently handled a file for an inmate at one of these programs.  Without going into detail, you're right. It doesn't seem very scientific. At all. And they use periodic polygraphs to justify all sorts of things, including what course of treatment to use.  It reminds me a lot of "gay conversion" programs but without the abusive religious aspect.

Ah, but did you enjoy "handling" that file?

;)


No.
 
2018-02-09 02:39:01 PM  

MnDuffman: It's quite the spectacle.
Fished it twice, didn't catch a thing, watched a third place fish come out of a hole two holes away.

[img.fark.net image 850x446]


Fark it, I give up. I've been staring at this damn picture for over an hour and I still can't find him. So tell me, just where the hell is Waldo?
 
2018-02-09 02:40:52 PM  
If anyone cares the National Academy of Sciences put out a paper in 2002 called "Polygraph Testing Too Flawed for Security Screening" the paper is linked http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onp​i​news/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10420and if you have access to the nation academy of science database ( I do) the study is https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10420/the​-​polygraph-and-lie-detection?onpi_newsd​oc10082002=
 
2018-02-09 03:19:47 PM  

nanim: [c1.staticflickr.com image 800x488]


Waldo was there!
 
2018-02-09 05:39:21 PM  

eurotrader: Not one legitimate study has shown polygraphs as anything scientifically valid.


But when you ask someone who uses them, they answer (as trained) "I've never had them steer me wrong."
 
2018-02-10 03:19:21 PM  
You don't reward the largest or heaviest fish. You randomly draw the twelfth largest fish to win the prize. It's supposed to be fun.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report