quickfix wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

hmmm, let's see:  computerized polygraph instruments, ability to zip polygraph charts which can be emailed as an attachment;  far better and vastly more sensitive countermeasure cushion components;  built-in audio and video recording capability, no more cassette tapes needed.

The 2003 NAS study The polygraph and lie detection concluded in part "Computerized polygraph scoring procedures have the theoretical potential to increase the accuracy of polygraph interpretation..."

Has this potential been even partially realized since 2003? Are any polygraphers using computer algorithms or automated expert systems to interpret or score charts?

The study continues "The polygraph as currently used has extremely serious limitations for use in security screening to identify security risks and to clear valued employees. In populations with extremely low base rates of major security violations, such an application requires greater accuracy than polygraph testing achieves."

Has this greater accuracy been demonstrated since 2003? Has any polygrapher even cited a significant increase in accuracy since the damn thing was invented?

I have asked you in all seriousness whether anything in the NAS study has been refuted yet, and you can only bloviate about converting a poly chart to a zip file or by eliminating the cassette tapes. Frankly, sir, this is just more of your argument-like noise.


quickfix wrote on Mar 28^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

The methodology is far more improved as well, but I certainly am not going to share the details of that on this site.

Well I suppose we should be thankful to be spared at least that much bullshit.