Clarence Thomas, disgusting nomination, betray of democracy

[Sensei]

Clarence Thomas, disgusting nomination, and betray of democracy..

Guy who molested womans, she passed lie detector test (Anita Hill), he has been nominated to US Supreme Court Justice...

 

 

That's disgusting to justice. Until he pass through lie detector test. Which he will never do...

That's disgusting to democracy.

 

ps. if you would put him in front of lie detector, he would piss off, because of afraid of being examined....

 

ps2. I don't want to be accused to attacking just russians. Like here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94549-russian-democracy/

Nationality does not matter, really. It matters what you do, and who you are, really.

I will threat all sides equally.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Sensei

[Delta1212]

There are a lot of reasons that I don't think Clarence Thomas is a good Justice, but lie detector tests are extremely unreliable and I have trouble faulting anyone who doesn't want to take one. (For that. I can find plenty of fault with them for other reasons and do in this particular case).

[Sensei]

There are a lot of reasons that I don't think Clarence Thomas is a good Justice,

For example??

If you don't know him in person, there is no single reason, you would vote for him not for being judge..

 

but lie detector tests are extremely unreliable and I have trouble faulting anyone who doesn't want to take one.

 

What a gibberish.. Only people with serious crime on conscience can say so...

(who can try to discriminate finger prints?

who can try to discriminate DNA test?)

 

Lie detector is extremely good and reliable.

It's no joke, one guy in front of me, told he is murderer,

he used to be soldier, commando member..

 

Lie detector is just a single step from reading mind.

 

If you put lie detector of somebody lying, he/she will sweat instantly...

 

Testimony in front of God (typical one for now), versus testimony with lie detector, the most reliable one, is second one,

If somebody tells me that lie detector is unreliable it's immediately turning red light, that they committed some serious crime they won't people know about it...

Delta1212, what did you do.... ?

Trying to discredit lie detector is like trying to discredit finger prints, or trying to discredit DNA tests, but lie detection tests are more reliable. As people know what they did or didn't. While finger prints one can leave accidentally (drinking tea/coffee for example).

 

 

[Phi for All]

Lie detector is extremely good and reliable.

 

The technology might be reliable, but the questions asked are often misleading.

 

If you work in a computer store, and I'm giving you a lie detector test (and my boss told me to find someone who's lying, no matter what), I can ask you, "Have you ever taken money from the cash register that didn't belong to you?" If you say no, it's going to show you're lying. I can get you fired right there.

 

Because of course you've taken money from the register, it's part of your job. None of it belongs to you, but you give change to people on most cash transactions. You understood that I meant "steal", but I said "take". I could ask "Have you ever taken merchandise off the shelf that didn't belong to you?" Again, it's part of your job, and your brain knows that, but if I ask it this way, and you say no, it will show as a lie.

[Delta1212]

 

The technology might be reliable, but the questions asked are often misleading.

 

If you work in a computer store, and I'm giving you a lie detector test (and my boss told me to find someone who's lying, no matter what), I can ask you, "Have you ever taken money from the cash register that didn't belong to you?" If you say no, it's going to show you're lying. I can get you fired right there.

 

Because of course you've taken money from the register, it's part of your job. None of it belongs to you, but you give change to people on most cash transactions. You understood that I meant "steal", but I said "take". I could ask "Have you ever taken merchandise off the shelf that didn't belong to you?" Again, it's part of your job, and your brain knows that, but if I ask it this way, and you say no, it will show as a lie.

I realize I'm now flipping sides on this discussion, but I don't think that's the best example of how lie detectors can be problematic in implementation.

 

Even under ideal circumstances, a polygraph doesn't measure the objective truth of your statements, it measures the likelihood that you believe that you are lying. If you understood the question such that you believe the answer is "no" then saying "no" isn't going to register as a lie, even if you could technicality your way into pointing out that the answer is obviously yes in reality.

 

There are ways you can trip people up on a lie detector test, but I don't believe that pedantry is one of them.

[Endy0816]

The allegations didn't come out until after the nomination.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Endy0816

[John Cuthber]

 

Lie detector is just a single step from reading mind.

 

 

Trying to discredit lie detector is like trying to discredit finger prints, or trying to discredit DNA tests, but lie detection tests are more reliable. As people know what they did or didn't. While finger prints one can leave accidentally (drinking tea/coffee for example).

 

 

"Lie detector is just a single step from reading mind."

In that both are science fiction

 

"Trying to discredit lie detector is like trying to discredit finger prints, or trying to discredit DNA tests, but lie detection tests are more reliable."

Except that only one is not accepted by the courts as evidence

[Strange]

Lie detector is extremely good and reliable.

 

Er. No.

 

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/01/are-lie-detectors-admissible-in-court.html

[Sensei]

The allegations didn't come out until after the nomination.

 

Such allegations always appear after the fact.

There would be no nomination (or whatever else) in the first place, if allegations would be known in the past. Isn't it obvious and logic.. ?

Your point is void.

 

It looks like this:

There is president, prime minister, minister, parliament member, or other politician, celebrity, etc.

Somebody with knowledge how to speak, who is used to public speeches, eloquent, intelligent, with team of lawyers and people who advice behind his/her back what to tell, and how to tell to people believe.

 

And there is average "John Doe",

Alone, without anybody who will advice (and if there are some, they are from opposite to politician group, which means they degrade his appearance (because of their own politician reasons)).

Person who is not used to public speeches, who is afraid of them, and being attacked by either media and people supporting politician. His/her life will be examined with the all detail to discredit him/her and immediately brought to press to make unbearable pressure on him/her.

 

There is his word, against "John Doe" word. In front of cameras.

 

Person will end up talking cheap. And nobody will believe.

 

Obviously everybody will rather believe politician, as he/she can persuade people to believe. After all without this ability he/she would not be promoted.

 

Now, "John Doe" pass through lie detector without any objections, while politician refuse to be examined.

 

In her case, Anita Hill, it was secretary of parliament member, who was member of parliament commission investigating nominations,

who called the all old employers asking "do you know of something about C.Thomson what could discredit him?"..

[Greg H.]

I'm confused. Dude has been a sitting Supreme Court Justice for like...20 years? What's all the hubbub, bub?

[Sensei]

I'm confused. Dude has been a sitting Supreme Court Justice for like...20 years? What's all the hubbub, bub?

 

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

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4608402/

Edited April 18, 2016 by Sensei

[Greg H.]

 

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

That was in 1991. You fail to answer my question about why all of this is suddenly earth shattering news now, 25 years later.

[swansont]

I'm no fan of Justice Thomas, but the circumstance of a judge refusing a test unreliable enough that it is inadmissible in court is completely unsurprising to me.

[Sensei]

That was in 1991. You fail to answer my question about why all of this is suddenly earth shattering news now, 25 years later.

 

Because now (16 April 2016) was released movie about this story.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4608402/

Edited April 18, 2016 by Sensei

[Greg H.]

swansont, offtopic, but what is your avatar from?

 

Because now (16 April 2016) was released movie about this story.

And they did one back in 1999. There have been several books on the topic, and both Hill and Thomas addressed it in their memoirs/auto-biographies.

 

The fact is, this is very old news - there wasn't enough evidence to keep Thomas off the bench then, there hasn't been enough to have him impeached since his confirmation, and I sincerely doubt there will be any more truthiness to be found in a made for HBO movie about the subject.

[Sensei]

The fact is, this is very old news - there wasn't enough evidence to keep Thomas off the bench then, there hasn't been enough to have him impeached since his confirmation, and I sincerely doubt there will be any more truthiness to be found in a made for HBO movie about the subject.

 

What evidence are you talking about, when in such cases there are always only word versus word?

She passed lie detector test, he refused.

What else evidence can be added or found.. ?

None.

 

There is word of politician/judge/celebrity/etc high society member versus somebody else much lower class, typically.

 

In her case, she was also from almost the same class, attorney, professor on University, and yet her word was ignored, and she discredited.

 

If professor in University testimony, supported with lie detector test, is not reliable, then whose testimony is reliable, especially "John Doe".. ?

 

It's not about molestation, but about lying in front of commission which is supposed to investigate whether nomination is good choice or not.

What is sense of existence of such nomination commission if they are biased, and ignore everybody testimonies.. ?

 

All of you are simply supporting view that people should not come up with true, just keep mouth shut and mind their own business.

Because if people will tell truth, against high society member, they will be discredited and their life devastated.

[Greg H.]

 

What evidence are you talking about, when in such cases there are always only word versus word?

She passed lie detector test, he refused.

What else evidence can be added or found.. ?

None.

 

There is word of politician/judge/celebrity/etc high society member versus somebody else much lower class, typically.

 

In her case, she was also from almost the same class, attorney, professor on University, and yet her word was ignored, and she discredited.

 

If professor in University testimony, supported with lie detector test, is not reliable, then whose testimony is reliable, especially "John Doe".. ?

 

It's not about molestation, but about lying in front of commission which is supposed to investigate whether nomination is good choice or not.

What is sense of existence of such nomination commission if they are biased, and ignore everybody testimonies.. ?

 

All of you are simply supporting view that people should not come up with true, just keep mouth shut and mind their own business.

Because if people will tell truth, against high society member, they will be discredited and their life devastated.

There's this thing in jurisprudence it's called "evidence". Despite what you may have heard, much like in science, it is not the plural of the word anecdote. The American legal system doesn't operate on the basis of "Oh well this random person who used to work for you says you're a terrible person so..it must obviously be true."

 

As has already been pointed out, lie detectors are so laughably fallible, they aren't even admissible in court. unless both parties to the case (and the judge) agrees to admit the results. Why? Because they don't measure if you're lying - they measure if your physiological responses change when you're asked a certain question. Simple nervousness at being strapped to a machine and asked questions by a strange person with the power to imprison you would make roughly everyone nervous as hell. I would consider anyone who can pass a lie detector immediately a candidate for testing for sociopathic tendencies (not really, but you get the point)

 

If we used the same standard of evidence for science that the lie detector provides, the earth would still be flat, the sun would still revolve around the earth, and the earth would be roughly 6,000 years old. "Because someone said so, yo.".

Edited April 18, 2016 by Greg H.

[Endy0816]

 

Such allegations always appear after the fact.

There would be no nomination (or whatever else) in the first place, if allegations would be known in the past. Isn't it obvious and logic.. ?

Your point is void.

 

It looks like this:

There is president, prime minister, minister, parliament member, or other politician, celebrity, etc.

Somebody with knowledge how to speak, who is used to public speeches, eloquent, intelligent, with team of lawyers and people who advice behind his/her back what to tell, and how to tell to people believe.

 

And there is average "John Doe",

Alone, without anybody who will advice (and if there are some, they are from opposite to politician group, which means they degrade his appearance (because of their own politician reasons)).

Person who is not used to public speeches, who is afraid of them, and being attacked by either media and people supporting politician. His/her life will be examined with the all detail to discredit him/her and immediately brought to press to make unbearable pressure on him/her.

 

There is his word, against "John Doe" word. In front of cameras.

 

Person will end up talking cheap. And nobody will believe.

 

Obviously everybody will rather believe politician, as he/she can persuade people to believe. After all without this ability he/she would not be promoted.

 

Now, "John Doe" pass through lie detector without any objections, while politician refuse to be examined.

 

In her case, Anita Hill, it was secretary of parliament member, who was member of parliament commission investigating nominations,

who called the all old employers asking "do you know of something about C.Thomson what could discredit him?"..

But the thread title specifies him being nominated as the "betrayal of democracy", not the resultant proceedings.

 

She hardly had to wait before reporting sexual harassment.

[swansont]

 

In her case, she was also from almost the same class, attorney, professor on University, and yet her word was ignored, and she discredited.

 

 

If you're going to investigate cases where women were ignored and/or discredited just for being women, the line will be very long indeed.

[iNow]

She hardly had to wait before reporting sexual harassment.

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.

[John Cuthber]

 

Because now (16 April 2016) was released movie about this story.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4608402/

So it's trail by Hollywood.

You think that's democracy?

 

There's a collection of problems with lie detectors.

One of the big ones is that if someone believes something to be true then a lie detector will support that belief- regardless of the facts.

So if she believes she was treated improperly or unfairly, she would pass the "lie detector" test.

However that says practically nothing about what a jury would consider to be inappropriate or unfair.

It says even less about what would have been considered improper in 1991.

 

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%)

[Strange]

So it's trail by Hollywood.

 

You mean trial by trail[er].

[iNow]

I think Sensei must be a sales person or PR guy for the lie detector industry. He's been informed about their problems and serious limitations more than once before, yet his feelings about their effectiveness remain willfully ignorant:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93302-should-we-hide-the-identities-of-presidential-runners/?p=903617

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93302-should-we-hide-the-identities-of-presidential-runners/page-2#entry903774

[John Cuthber]

 

You mean trial by trail[er].

Dratted spell cheque!

[CharonY]

Not only that, there are dozens of ways to conduct a polygraph test with variations in the parameters monitored, the type of questions asked, the order of those questions the way the data is scored. One huge issue is that there is no universally accepted theory on how the whole thing actually works.

 

There are attempts of improving designs, but applying them in a reproducible manner has been found to be extremely difficult, especially outside of controlled lab conditions. The traditional method (Controlled Question Technique) has been readily dismissed due to many faults, yet is still the method used in most circumstances (a good read is the National Research Council 2003:"The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph"). A better, but still quite fallible method called Guilty Knowledge Test has some promise (under controlled conditions).

 

The paradigm here is that is based on exposing guilty knowledge. It is typically based on multiple choice were the correct answer is hidden within neutral ones. And it is assumed that if one possesses the knowledge of the correct answer, heightened arousal can be monitored. This does not work well with all types of questions, though. Also, studies found that even using this standardized approach, there are a lot of variances in the response, depending on the types of question, the mode of answer, the measure and even gender. There advanced approaches (including inducing cognitive load while presenting the questions), but they are used mostly in (current) psychological research and have not made the transition into the general area of polygraph tests like those described by OP.

 

Thus, to characterize existing lie-detector test as accurate is quite misleading.