Ex Member wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 5:02pm:


Another option might be "polyamory", about which there is much material online!

Ex Member wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 10:40pm:


There is a time for every purpose under heaven.
A time to use countermeasures, a time to not....

lol

Quote:


If that is true, Neal, then why did Converus post this video on YouTube claiming 97% outcome confidence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8zN0o1qt9k

Dan Mangan wrote on May 27^th, 2016 at 1:41am:


I verified a few minutes ago that Russ Warner from Converus was misquoted in this article.  Converus only quotes accuracy rates from Dr. Kircher's peer- reviewed and published research studies - .83 and .88 for a mean of .85.

Converus does not make exaggerated or false claims of accuracy, and has asked the magazine to issue a retraction.

Dan Mangan wrote on May 27^th, 2016 at 1:41am:


EyeDetect, like polygraphy, has not been proven through peer-reviewed research to distinguish between truth-tellers and liars at better-than-chance levels under field conditions.

As is the case with polygraphy, none of the indices measured by EyeDetect have been shown to be systematically correlated with deception in humans.

Ex Member wrote on Mar 21^st, 2016 at 7:36pm:


A re-emphasis from my previous post. 

Mr. Handler's paper does not elucidate this reality.

George, could you be mistaken?

I'm confused...

I thought it was all spelled out right here:

http://converus.com/american-association-police-polygraphists-article-says-using...

If you dispute the findings of APA editor-in-chief Mark Handler -- a former police officer and well-regarded polygraph scientist with many published articles to his credit -- I suggest you articulate your argument.

Dan Mangan wrote on Mar 21^st, 2016 at 7:07pm:


Dan,

Sorry for the late reply. It seems to me that Converus's EyeDetect, like polygraphy, is snake oil. "Successive hurdles" of pseudoscience will predictably yield less reliable results, not more.

"Brain trust"  ?   

Those charlatans have no brains!    lol

Ex Member wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 7:22pm:



Ark, in the right hands -- that is, someone who was trained by Backster himself in the seminal Backster method, then personally trained by Matte in his evolutionary method -- the MQTZCT works better than anything else.

Polygraph is an art, not a science.

Don't let the cool kids who comprise the APA's oh-so-fashionable brain trust tell you otherwise.

IMHO, although accused of lacking a "scientific" foundation, the more I consider the MQTZCT the more it feels intuitively correct. It's a very creative and thought provoking concept.

Dan Mangan wrote on Apr 4^th, 2016 at 7:04pm:

Indeed, scientists often need a competent engineer to slap them in the face.

Ark, my opinion is that the Fear-Hope spot of the MQTZCT is most valuable. Indeed, it can serve as a cue for the presence of CMs that would otherwise go undetected.

I sometimes use a MQTZCT exam as a follow-up to a mainstream technique -- such as a Federal Zone of single-issue AFMGQT -- that shows signs of CMs, or when an examinee claims to be the victim of a false-positive result.

As you are probably aware, the MQTZCT has been branded as a boutique technique by the APA. The Quadri-Track's complexities appear to be too daunting for the industry's own scientists, who promote a simplified, dumbed-down, paint-by-number approach to polygraph "testing."

Could the Hope/Fear spot elucidate any cues to CM's?

Only in cases where such attempts were visible to the naked eye (or ear, in instances, say, of muted whimpers heard during CQs). Also, it is not unusual for the presence of possible CMs to be concurrently flagged by the evidence-based scientific machinations of OSS3.

To be clear, when I refer to observations via the naked eye, that means examinee behavior as well as chart interpretation.

That said, polygraph operators -- and scoring algorithms -- don't know what they don't know.

And therein lies the problem.

Dan, In the course of your career, have you ever caught anyone attempting CM's?

Ex Member wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2016 at 11:26pm:


Ark, allow me to respectfully disagree. I say it's not all that difficult.

Coaching -- while ostensibly a more expedient how-to CM solution -- is not necessary, IMHO.

What is necessary, however, is possessing the right mindset to prevail in a cat-and-mouse game that hinges largely on theatrics.

Between the comprehensive CM resources that already exist in written form, and the abundance of internet videos that capture actual polygraph exams, a motivated examinee seeking to pass the "test" has ready access to effective study materials.

There's a good reason why many APA bigs (and other pro-polygraph cheerleaders) have vehemently condemned my call for a countermeasure challenge series: The "test" would be shown for what it is -- a deeply flawed process disturbingly vulnerable to countermeasures.

A conundrum has developed however; much to my astonishment, the government has assailed the issue of countermeasures with intense ferocity.

I have read many posts here over the years wherein examinees have reported executing undetectable CM's with ease. I say it's not that easy. I'm sure some would be able to refine them with practice, but going in haphazardly could result in detectable errors which, at the least, would arouse the examiners' suspicions--resulting in a pseudo-false-positive.

So, how does one reach that point of refinement, when they could endeavor to execute CM's above the skill of a novice? Asking someone to coach is effectively asking someone to be the next target. I wouldn't even entertain the thought.

Ex Member wrote on Mar 21^st, 2016 at 6:19pm:


Ark, from what I've observed in my 11+ years as a certified forensic psychophysiologist, many of my colleagues would agree with you.

Such reasoning is easy to understand. 

Why?

Even under the best of circumstances, a polygraph "test" is a crap shoot, and self-preservation is an instinct. 

Thus, the decision to use CMs is not irrational.

For some, it's likely the right play.

Ark, in my opinion, PCDVT is another lucrative commercial opportunity wrapped in a cloak of righteousness.

Dan Mangan wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2016 at 3:07am:

It does make one pause to consider the extent the polygraph may be utilized for "monitoring." It seems to be driven by emotion: "we have to protect our children and women!"; hence PSCOT & PCDVT. Bank robbers and corrupt officials don't appeal to the emotions.

Ark, in my opinion, this latest iteration of an APA "model policy" appears to be little more than a clever cut-and-paste bastardization of the popular PCSOT moneymaker.

Clearly, the PCDVT phenomenon heralds an opportune new line for the polygraph gravy train. [ALL ABOARD!]

Indeed, it seems the polygraph "test" model-policy domino theory knows no bounds...  What's next? A "model policy" for miscreants convicted of texting while driving?

BTW, before getting into the polygraph field, I was a victim-witness advocate attached to a DV court.

I'll tell you what we'll never see: An APA "model policy" for infidelity exams, which happens to be the bread and butter for many a polygraph operator in the private sector.

Dan,
What's your take on PCDVT? Were you able to scrutinize the APA model?

Quote:
  I guess I should claim a confession or at least an admission...LOL

It's evidence enough for us.  The one who doesn't know better is you.