The #1 lie detector----On Topic

Re: The #1 lie detector----Off Topic

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Well, don't lie to your wife and don't get your pants twisted over anything the likes of Paul Harvey has to say.

Pam

Re: The #1 lie detector----Off Topic

Todd Hughes

>Is he still alive? I thought he died years ago! ,...maybe he did and they just couldn't tell and all reruns now..... What is he now about 120?....and thats the rest of the story....Todd

Re: The #1 lie detector----Off Topic

Todd O. Cronkhite Maine Native in FL. Exile :~(

>OK, OK, gee whiz, I thought it was comical since so many of us are always trying to sneak a new tool past the wife. Yes, I understand that not all Islanders are male, but the vast majority are, so I didn't think it would be taken in any serious manner. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

Apologies to anyone I may of upset.

Todd O.

Re: The #1 lie detector----Off Topic

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>OK, I'll generalize this: you should never lie to your spouse. And Paul Harvey is still worse than useless. :)

Pam

Re: The #1 lie detector----Off Topic

Jack Guzman

>Not totally useless.I find his show to be amusing.Sometimes.---Jack

Re: The #1 lie detector----Off Topic

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I suppose, but it irritates me that this bozo makes piles of money in advertising based on a sizeable listening audience. So keep listening if you want to support his life style; but to attribute any wisdom to his drivel is less than useless, it's harmful.

Pam

BTW, Todd, I think the current version is Jr.

Just to set the record straight...

David Barnett - Venice, Florida

>While Mssrs. Paul Harvey, Sr. & Jr. may offend one's sensibilities (I can't stand to listen to either), the MRI's effectiveness for lie detection is astoundingly accurate, nonsubjective (as are polygraphs and the somewhat less so, VSA systems), well-documented, and likely in use. Other, more passive systems (in other words, covert) are becoming far more robust, accurate, and portable (concealable). Whether the MRI can ever outperform the "Wife Test"... oops! "Spouse Test" for truth evasion is another matter entirely.

To take this totally out into left field...

Mike Recchione

>The spouse test beats other tests (when it does) because it has memory and long-term calibration. An MRI or polygraph is limited to a short training period to monitor physiological reactions to different statements and knowledge of how true or false statements affect those reactions for most people in general. The spouse test has a long calibration period to train on cues for lying/non-lying behavior that are specific to you, and it also considers higher level information like how the statement fits into the context of a long history of your characteristic behavior. But this means that the spousal lie detector is most effective when you behave in a way that is in keeping with your historical behavior, but try to indicate that you have not.

These strengths are also the weaknesses of the spousal lie detector. If the lie is consistent with your characteristic behavior, the history test would tend to cause the lie to be accepted even when contradicted by the physiological cues. Similarly, if your historical behavior is erratic, the historical component will contribute nothing useful to the lie/truth decision.

What does this all boil down to? A couple of points to remember if you want to defeat the spousal lie detector:

1) It's important to behave erratically right from the beginning in a relationship. Keep 'em guessing. Don't develop patterns.

2) When you decide to lie, make sure you do something really outrageous and out of character - it's much more believable to deny doing something really bizarre than to deny doing something you're known to do all the time.

3) Make sure you begin lying to your spouse right from the beginning. Don't give your spouse a chance to calibrate on your "truth-telling" behavior.

4) Openness and honesty are essential to a good committed relationship - avoid them at all costs.

- Mike (who hopes nobody takes this seriously :-) )

Gotta love it Mike...ROTFLMAO!

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond,CA

>

Seconded :~D

Alice Frampton, UK

>

I like Paul

Todd O. Cronkhite Maine Native in FL. Exile :~(

>Been actively listening to him for 30 years or more. I remember when I was about 5, we was eating dinner on afternoon, and my Mother told be to be quiet because Paul Harvey was on. Mom died when I was 7, so this is a very strong memory. I have been known to tell people to shush while I was listening to him as well.

I know other folks who wouldn't give a plugged nickel for him either, but it just so happens that I for one throughly enjoy his broadcasts. Now, I'm not going to say that I agree with 100% of what he says, but I think that it is far from drivil. I heard one time that he was pro-Vietnam until his son got drafted, than he changed his views, which turned alot of folks against him. I've never proved, nor dis-proved this story, just relaying what I had heard.

Paul was given a Celebrity Roast one time, and Don Rickles said that Paul had been doing that noon broadcast for so long that the 10 Commandments where his first broadcast.

Just to make things understood I don't lie to my wife, unless you count lying by omission, which means, if she don't ask(about tool/flea market purchases) I don't tell. Coarse, that works both ways as I know that she has more shoes and clothes than she's told me about buying.

I'd be interested to hear from any and all about why they don't like Paul Harvey, but I think it best to take it off line since it is a O/T topic, and could possibly break down into a Political conversation. Yes,I am open to the opposing views concerning him. I promise no uncivil replies.

Todd O.

Re: Paul Harvey

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>I guess I just like the sound of his voice. But usually agree with his take on a lot of things, so I guess that helps you to know me a whole lot better than you want to ;) I guess it's a good thing we are not all alike.

Re: right versus left

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>yep, I think it best to avoid that conversation entirely. it''s a no win situtation. the poor ignorant right wing versus the highly educated, smart, wealthy, enlightened left wing.

LOL

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>

Re: right versus left

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I don't think so. I think it's a difference between those who want to divide us and those who do not recognize that duality. I think we're all in this together, that what affects you affects me, that we're both human and have more or less the same needs and wants. And what's more, we're all at one with the world, that what affects a tree affects you and me.

Pam

Re: right versus left

Christopher Fitch@Memphis

>Very good point..

I recently responded to my uncle who said some things I did not agree with or appreciate. My response? "I don't put my political party ahead of America. Why do you?"

He has not talked to me since...and quite frankly, though it saddens me, if my response bothered him, then he has some serious problems.

Have to Ask: Why the Venomous Rancor, Pam?

Bob Hutchins in central Texas

>

Huh?

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Guess it's all a matter of interpretation, Bob. I thought what I said was neither venemous nor rancorous. What did I say that you thought otherwise?

I admit that I disdain people who prey on us [edited--Moderator], they are wrecking our country. However, I'm quite calm when discussing them, not at all angry or upset.

Pam

Re: Warning

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>...which is the reason why we have a rule about discussions of politics on WoodCentral. In general, it gets people really angry and irrational, and really gets in the way of reasonable and rational discussions of woodworking, and other subjects on which we can provide real help to each other.

Paul Harvey does political commentary, but as far as I know does offer help on working wood, and we should henceforth refrain from discussing his opinions, or our opinions of his opinions on this forum.

Centralians, please do not respond to this message, or make any further comments on any other opinions that have been posted in this thread.

Re: Warning

ThomD

>Sounds fair. How about a rule about sexist threads? Seriously.