Wandersmann wrote on May 21^st, 2017 at 11:12pm:



Maybe that will happen on the day that Americans will finally rush and then tear down the barriers surrounding Langley, in a manner similar to that moment in 1989 when the East Berliners finally rushed the barriers which surrounded West Berlin, and also forced their way into Stasi headquarters.

Until that exalted day arrives, I don't see much hope for serious reform of any aspect of the IC.  

Unfortunately I don't see any American version of Gorby emerging on the horizon!  

Ex Member wrote on May 20^th, 2017 at 9:08pm:


Ark -  Actually, an excellent point.  You are correct.  If we could only find some moderates in the polygraph and security communities to lighten up on the Soviet-style banishment of people who have trouble with the poly.

Oops, I meant to address my post to Ark, not George. Sorry Ark.

Hi George:  The twins are adopted and the triplets are IVF babies, so it is not as statistically uncommon as it appears on the surface.   

It is good to see Dr. Kircher mentioned with respect.  My colleagues feel a great responsibility to protect his reputation and legacy.   

I have drafted a response to Dan about science vs, pseudoscience, but I want to sleep on it before posting.  Hopefully tomorrow.

Quote:

A very interesting probability exercise.

Quote:


He is very perspicacious; he is not the first one to notice my reductionist proclivity. I respect Dr. Kircher's work, so give me some time to digest this data.

Ark:

Sorry for the delay in responding.  It was not due to a lack of interest.  I have triplet boys in 7th grade and twin girls in 8th grade.  I was in the mountains my boys yesterday afternoon and today.

I mentioned that I have never posted before on this site before.  I am a relative newcomer to your industry and I felt the odds of me being ridiculed for my lack of knowledge and experience were far greater than my ability to add something valuable to the debate.  My sincere desire is to learn from those of you that have divergent opinions and far more experience.

Ark, I did not understand your statement about the construct so I asked Dr. Kircher.  It is hard for me to keep up with him as well, but the gist of his viewpoint was that “Just another index of sympathetic/ parasympathetic struggle” was a "reductionist statement".  Further, he said that all psychological constructs can be explained by biological mechanisms and all biological processes can be explained by chemistry and physics.  ODT is a psychophysiological measure that distinguishes between truthful and deceptive individuals by using feature validity coefficients." 

On page 440 of Andrea Webb's dissertation (Table 4), you can see a list of these feature validity coefficients (i.e. the construct).  I have also added a list of the peer-reviewed science in a separate attachment.   

I don't know if this is the construct you were looking for, and if not please reply back and I will ask again.

Thanks.

Ark:

Sorry for the delay in responding.  It was not due to a lack of interest.  I have triplet boys in 7th grade and twin girls in 8th grade.  I was in the mountains my boys yesterday afternoon and today.

I mentioned that I have never posted before on this site before.  I am a relative newcomer to your industry and I felt the odds of me being ridiculed for my lack of knowledge and experience were far greater than my ability to add something valuable to the debate.  My sincere desire is to learn from those of you that have divergent opinions and far more experience.

Ark, I did not understand your statement about the construct so I asked Dr. Kircher.  It is hard for me to keep up with him as well, but the gist of his viewpoint was that “Just another index of sympathetic/ parasympathetic struggle” was a "reductionist statement".  Further, he said that all psychological constructs can be explained by biological mechanisms and all biological processes can be explained by chemistry and physics.  ODT is a psychophysiological measure that distinguishes between truthful and deceptive individuals by using feature validity coefficients." 

On page 440 of Andrea Webb's dissertation (Table 4), you can see a list of these feature validity coefficients (i.e. the construct).  I have also added a list of the peer-reviewed science in a separate attachment.   

I don't know if this is the construct you were looking for, and if not please reply back and I will ask again.

Thanks.

If it had not been for the moderate thinking of Gorbachev, the wall would probably still be there.

Ex Member wrote on May 20^th, 2017 at 4:18am:

  Sorry Ark.  No room for moderate here.  This is good versus evil.  The East Germans that tore down their wall in 1989 came to understand that.   Ruining innocent peoples' lives to make a scam living and support a scam industry is pure evil.  

Dan Mangan wrote on May 18^th, 2017 at 11:31pm:


No reply. Seems odd, considering the openness and enthusiasm of Neal's original post.

It's not a complicated question.

Or is it?

Oh, just to point out. I am not George. Call me Ark. I try to be the voice of a moderate here. I believe complete polarization is futile and boring. Look what's happened in our country recently. People who were once considered neighbors with a different political view are now considered enemies. I am not a polygraph examiner by profession, just an old kid that can't stop observing the damn universe.

George:

While I can accept your point of respecting this Utah group, this is the same old gang, they are just pushing something else. They claimed the polygraph was the defacto standard for detecting lies for decades and now they are saying it is all in the eyes!   

I normally am not a poster on blog sites, and have been meaning to look at this site ever since my fate. Maybe this eyedetect device would have been easier for this neophyte to use other than the Lafayette unit he used on me.  I was his 2nd victim! as this person was a newly minted polygraph examiner.

Former federal polygraph examiners are also on this bandwagon as in 

http://www.c3acorp.com/eyedetect.html

All of these people stick together as in the end it is all about money.  The polygraph money train is slowing down and they had to develop a new trap.

A friend of mine in the US Border Patrol updated me on this weeks ago.  It is being considered due to too many polygraph failures. US Border Patrol is on a hiring frenzy and has changed the policy on pre-employment exams to some degree when it comes to experienced applicants.   

I am no technical person but I do not think this new gadget will catch fire.  It is just too much of a threat to the existing polygraph market. It is also hypocritical as the polygraph experts are now saying one measurement, as in the EYE is the best way to go!

I was thinking of applying to PSP as they dumped polygraph and I was a state trooper before going federal when I was younger.  Probably too old now but I still can keep up for the most part.  Treating people with respect still works.  I think RR said it best:  If you can't makem see the light, make em feel he heat. 

The work you have done on this site has helped many people. I just wish I would have gone to this site before I took what was my last polygraph, as the outcome would have been different. Have a good evening and I appreciate you allowing people like me to post on this site.   

I personally have a lot of respect for the Utah group. They were the first to apply critical thinking and the scientific method to polygraphy. You are correct Tom that this website is dedicated to exposing polygraph abuse and elucidating that it is "pseudo-science." But, that also fosters two schools of thought: 

1. The polygraph should not be employed for screening and monitoring as its true accuracy is not known. However, if one day, the problem of establishing ground truth in forensic settings could be solved and the true accuracy is found to be commensurate with other forensic testing, then its utility should at least be considered.

2. No way! Accurate or not, nobody has the right to delve into that private domain of our psyche and soul. Even if a valid truth machine could be invented, it should be smashed and the plans burned.

My impression is that most of the posters here are of the latter mindset.

Converus is made up of " Polygraph Greats " to be sarcastic if nothing else. This is the next phase of their lives as there is no more runway left for the polygraph. Big time money is financing this operation to include the ranks of Mark Cuban, well know Trump hater and critic.  This website is dedicated to exposing polygraph and how it has hurt decent people.  I am one of them as I lost my job during the last administration, as they turned up the dial on polygraph exams hoping that would stop the future Ed Snowdens.  When you look at the management and science team of Converus on the website, it is a who's who of the polygraph community.

Neal, in terms of its official corporate positioning, does Converus regard polygraph as science, or pseudoscience?

Quote:


I appreciate you providing the document. I'll give it due scrutiny. Your post glows with commercialism, but that's okay, you are like the rest of us, just a squirrel searching for a nut. Until ocular measured responses can be linked to a construct whereby they are indicative of deception, they are just another index of sympathetic/parasympathetic struggle.

Hi Arkhangelsk:

Attached is the latest journal article that references all published ODT research. Fair-minded people will read the research before forming an opinion on ODT.   

I loved George's post about the difference between science and pseudoscience.  Science welcomes critics.  I expect my post will bring them out of the woodwork, and I hope they will be thoughtful and reference any flaws they see in the research vs. their personal beliefs, intuitions, and fears.  Dr. Kircher is open to any serious criticism of his research.

Also, I would be happy to send our white paper and the other referenced studies if you email me at nharris@converus.com.   

Quote:


I am aware of the Osher and Webb dissertations and the Patnaik thesis, but have yet to see any field studies. Can you provide them?

Hi All:

**Disclosure - I am employed by Converus, the makers of EyeDetect.   This is my first post on a polygraph website. **

For 30+ years I have worked for technology startups, so I've seen many new technology products fail and others ridiculed and dismissed prematurely.  My first startup invented Ethernet, and IBM said it would never work and had an organized and well-funded marketing campaign to try and kill it. But Ethernet worked and changed the world of computer networking. The marketplace is already voting with their wallets on whether EyeDetect will succeed or fail, and the next few years will be interesting...

Dan, with your background I think you will agree that bad technology dies because customers don't buy it and investors don't continue to fund companies that can't show market traction and growth.  Converus' funding needs are minimal because sales have steadily grown, and our investors continue to offer additional funding to accelerate this growth.  We have years of "runway", even if our sales growth slows, and we don't expect that to happen.    

Since this thread discusses countermeasures, I thought I would post the countermeasures section of our whitepaper:
*****
1)      To determine if an examinee is using drugs or eye dilation drops, EyeDetect administers a 45-second “light test” to ensure that the examinees’ pupils are reacting normally when light is removed. If the pupils don't dilate and constrict, EyeDetect will determine the examinee is using a chemical countermeasure.
2)      Examinees may shake their heads, look away, close their eyes or squint when responding to questions. This is easy to detect because EyeDetect software tracks data loss from the sensor which directly corresponds to these activities.  Also, a test proctor can watch the examinee remotely by using EyeDetect Manager, a software application that remotely accesses the EyeDetect video camera and sensor data over a WiFi network.
3)      Some examinees answer all questions the same way (true or false), fail to answer questions, or answer randomly to avoid thinking about responses. EyeDetect alerts the test proctor when an examinee is using these countermeasures and delivers guidance categories such as: (1) Indeterminate, (2) Insufficient Data from Eye Scanner, (3) Not Credible/Too Many Timeouts or (4) Not Credible/Random Responses or Low Comprehension.

Dr. Charles Honts is a recognized expert in polygraph countermeasures, and has been studying EyeDetect in his lab at Boise State University for over a year.  He stated: “The countermeasures that are used to beat a polygraph invoke autonomic responses over a relatively long period (20 seconds). Simply put, polygraph can be beaten because the examinee has enough time for the countermeasures to work. Unlike Polygraph, EyeDetect test questions are delivered rapid fire (every 3-4 seconds), so examinees must pay close attention and stay mentally involved to answer the questions correctly. Also, the connection between the brain and the eyes is more direct; the channel from the examinees’ central nervous system to the eyes is different than the channel to the autonomic nervous system. The rapid questioning keeps the examinee from using countermeasures effectively. For this reason, I do not currently see immediate active countermeasure threats to EyeDetect.”
*****

If anyone on this thread has a sincere interest to learn more about the science, company, and product, please reach out to me at nharris@converus.com or call me at 801-331-8840 ext. 1012.  I can assure you that the dedicated employees and scientists at Converus are only trying to help credibility assessment (CA) professionals by providing additional scientifically validated tools. CA professionals may reject these new tools, but that doesn't mean that they don't work.  The science was published long before Converus became a company, so the suggestion that Drs Kircher, Hacker, Raskin, etc. falsified their research a decade earlier for personal gain is unlikely.  Attacking their integrity is unfortunate when you consider the scientific contributions they have made to expand the science of deception detection.

Accuracy claims by Converus are supported by several lab and field studies - 86.1% for single issue tests.  Higher accuracy rates can be achieved via cross-validation and alignment with single-issue polygraph in a successive hurdles approach.  Mark Handler did the math using the accuracy rates published in the APA meta-analysis for polygraph. If you feel the claims are inaccurate, he could share the math.  Also, see this link to Dr. Raskin discussing this topic:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmLvMdoMNe0&t=67s ;  We are certainly willing to revise our website and published materials if a scientist can show an error in our data and calculations.

Regards to all.  I hope that I eventually have the pleasure to meet or speak with many of you.

Ex Member wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 5:41pm:


Dan, after reading up on the research to date on using ocular metrics to detect deception, I have to admit that this previous post of mine was impulsive and dismissive. The theory behind how different reading goals and strategies may affect pupil dilation, fixation and examinee response time does indeed pass the reasonableness test. Moreover, I believe that attempts at countermeasures would be more easily distinguishable than those attempted with the polygraph. I do, however, believe that marketing of their product is premature as there has been minimal testing with mixed results. More research is clearly needed.

EosJupiter wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 6:42am:


Right, since the polygraph industry can no longer con the masses with their current prop,   they will cleverly replace it/ augment it with a new one.  The "masters" of course will be found deceptive / unsuitable....regardless.  
Taxpayers of course, will continue to foot the bill for all of this "expertise"....   

Dan Mangan wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 1:46pm:


Mr Mangan, 

I spent some time reading/researching, and analyzing this new device. I do see it generating a nice revenue stream. But my analysis is, that its just a new mouse trap polygraph. It replaces, the 4  standard sensors of a regular polygraph with an eye scanner. An easy ruse to sell to anyone not adept to seeing (pardon the pun) the device for what it is. And the part that it should be used in conjunction with a polygraph, keeps the polygraph faithful from going rabid, like it does/did with voice stress and fMRI. 

This machine will work on the minions, not the masters. The machine is of no consequence to anyone of with intellect. It will provide much entertainment in some discussions I have coming up about how gullible some people are.

Best Regards

Dan,
I read over the information on the website and I don't perceive eye movement detection as any kind of a breakthrough in the detection of deception. It's based entirely on the concept of Increased Cognitive Load as measured through eye movements. Performing simple mental arithmetic can increase cognitive load and reduce the available working memory, so right away I see that the technology is not impervious to countermeasures. The company also suggests that it be used as a companion to polygraphy, which may have more utility--other than enhancing Raskin and Kircher's retirement.

EosJupiter, I spent 20 years in the technology industry before getting into the polygraph field. I am fully confident that once engineers on the outside understand how the newfangled EyeDetect gizmo "works," methods to defeat it will become widely known. Nevertheless, EyeDetect will replace polygraph to a very large extent.