George M. Middius wrote:


Bruce J. Richman said:

[Clerkie]
It's a good thing he hasn't taken a polygraph test. He'd flunk that also,
considering how many blatant falsehoods he's spewed on RAO.

I'm not so sure about that. Isn't a certain class of psychological
aberrants more or less immune to a polygraph? The tests measure
indicators of emotional fluctuations, but some individuals don't
experience emotional reactions, so the polygraph shows nothing for them.












It's indeed possible that somebody typically characterized as psychopathic
*might* be able to take a polygraph test, lie, and not be detected. This would
presume, of course, that they have no conscience re. compulsive lying.
However, I would not characterize Clerkie as psychopathic, necessarily,
although he certainly is quite paranoid about all his imagined "enemies" of the
E.H.E.E. and the audio hobby.

All that said, polygraphs basically measure the internal correlates of
emotional changes - e.g. blood pressure, respiration rate changes, GSR
(galvanic skin response) or sweating changes, muscular tension, etc. A person
might be significantly anxious when asked certain questions yet not exhibit any
external signs of anxiety, per se. However, they might have significant,
measurable changes in any of the physiological variables mentioned above.



Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:



Bruce J. Richman said:

[Clerkie]

It's a good thing he hasn't taken a polygraph test. He'd flunk that also,
considering how many blatant falsehoods he's spewed on RAO.

I'm not so sure about that. Isn't a certain class of psychological
aberrants more or less immune to a polygraph? The tests measure
indicators of emotional fluctuations, but some individuals don't
experience emotional reactions, so the polygraph shows nothing for them.













It's indeed possible that somebody typically characterized as psychopathic
*might* be able to take a polygraph test, lie, and not be detected. This would
presume, of course, that they have no conscience re. compulsive lying.
However, I would not characterize Clerkie as psychopathic, necessarily,
although he certainly is quite paranoid about all his imagined "enemies" of the
E.H.E.E. and the audio hobby.

All that said, polygraphs basically measure the internal correlates of
emotional changes - e.g. blood pressure, respiration rate changes, GSR
(galvanic skin response) or sweating changes, muscular tension, etc. A person
might be significantly anxious when asked certain questions yet not exhibit any
external signs of anxiety, per se. However, they might have significant,
measurable changes in any of the physiological variables mentioned above.



Bruce J. Richman
Limited Psychologist

I assume that most of the people on RAO know better than to take
anything seriously that come from people like Bruce J. Richman, who
enters RAO just to engage in smear campaigns.

The Milkman wrote:
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote:


It's indeed possible that somebody typically characterized as psychopathic
*might* be able to take a polygraph test, lie, and not be detected. This would
presume, of course, that they have no conscience re. compulsive lying.

This is true !
When Bruce J. Richman, the RAO's psychologic reference (lol), is
bragging hysterically :
"character assassination !!!"
"anti-semite conspiration !!!"
"Libel !!!"
he has *no* concience that he is making an ass of himself. :-)

Note that before being characterized as psychopatic Bruce J. Richman was
Limited Psychologist. :-(


How does this correlate with individuals who predominantly spend their
time seated on metal spikes?



----------
I Deliver.

The Milkman wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) wrote:

It's indeed possible that somebody typically characterized as psychopathic
*might* be able to take a polygraph test, lie, and not be detected. This
would
presume, of course, that they have no conscience re. compulsive lying.

How does this correlate with individuals who predominantly spend their
time seated on metal spikes?



----------
I Deliver.








That's an empirical question that would need some experiments to answer. One
could conclude that they are "dumbasses". (dumb can = senseless).



Seriously, though, (but just for a moment), some people have achieved "pain
anaesthesia" under hypnosis. I received some training in hypnosis at the
University of Miami Medical School, in classes attended by psychologists,
psychiatrrists, physicians and dentists. One of the more compelling
demonstrations we saw was a film of a well motivated patient that had very
extensive oral surgery while under hypnosis. He got no Novocaine or any other
chemical anaesthesia, just hypnotic suggestions. He appeared to experience no
pain and no discomfort. The patient in the film was present at our training
and when asked directly, he said he was only conscious of some mild "pressure"
from various instruments being put in his mouth, but he was never aware of any
pain.

Various types of surgery (e.g. childbirth) have also been done under hypnosis,
so it's certainly possible that people can be trained to experience normally
painful stimuli without having a painful reaction.

OTOH, some could just be dumbasses.



Bruce J. Richman