Hey George,

Why don't you undergo exactly the same questioning with LVA that you had with the polygragh?
I think it would be really interesting to hear your opinions on the whole experience from a firsthand perspective.
Would that be possible?

Well it would give you the opportunity to compare the responses to your answers like for like.
   
It would also protect you from a charge of being guilty of "contempt prior to investigation" which is your current position from an epistemiological perspective. 

I don't know whether this stuff works or not so to hear a first hand report of a direct comparison between these two systems would have been helpful.

But I do understand the difficulty from your own personal stance.  Should this equipment actually vindicate your polygraph experience where would you go from there? 

To Neutral Observer

I hadn't thought of it that way.  I actually meant vindicate George by results agreeing with his claim that he was telling the truth.  To be believed by something you don't believe in would be a bit awkward to say the least.
Thanks for pointing that out, it would take someone with considerable cajones and integrity to have taken up my reasonable suggestion in these circumstances

Quote:


But such a small study would be statistically meaningless and would reveal nothing about the validity of Layered Voice Analysis.
   
Quote:


If you review this message thread, you'll find that I have, in fact, investigated Layered Voice Analysis. And I found no credible evidence to support the claims of those marketing it. If you are aware of relevant information that you think I have ignored, please direct me to it.

Quote:


But the experiment you suggested would reveal nothing about the validity of Layered Voice Analysis, not only because of the small sample size, but also because of the virtual impossibility of independently verifying ground truth in a screening scenario such as you proposed: the questions asked in pre-employment screening polygraph examinations typically involve using and selling drugs, espionage, and sabotage. But how can one prove that one has never done these things? You cannot prove a negative.

A more revealing experiment that I might be willing to partake in is this: on videotape, I will flip a coin 100 times, with the result being shown on camera. After each flip, I will make two statements: 1) The coin is heads up; 2) The coin is tails up. These statements will also be audio recorded.

The purveyors of Layered Voice Analysis will receive the audio recording, perform an analysis of my voice, and determine the result of each coin toss. The results will then be placed on-line for the edification of all.


Quote:


It's not concern about the possible results of the experiment that you suggested which leads me to conclude that it would not be worthwhile, but rather the fact that the results would shed no light on the validity of Layered Voice Analysis.

By contrast, the experiment I have suggested would produce results that could readily be compared against ground truth and from which some logical inference(s) might be possible.

Quote:


An audio recording of Mr. Maschke's voice is available on the home page of this website.  Go ahead and give it a try.  Mr. Maschke may very well oblige you, but why should he.  As you note it isn't a full blown scientific test.  The only science to it is that it records the unexplored world of vocal stress patterns.

Quote:


I would venture that these "amazing results" are the fruits of deception.  It is not that the "test" works.  It is that the criminals providing a confession believe it works.

If you are interested, I have for sale, beach-front property in Arizona.

Quote:


As with polygraphy, there is no peer-reviewed research supporting the validity of "Layered Voice Analysis" for lie detection, love detection, or any other purpose for any age group.