Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3  ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Polygraphy as Pseudoscience (Read 14812 times)
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Dan Mangan
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 625
Joined: Jul 31st, 2014
Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience
Reply #15 - Sep 28th, 2014 at 11:09pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
EosJupiter, I agree with you to a significant extent. An absence of fear really upsets the polygraph applecart.

However, that is not to say that the fearless necessarily pass the test. From what I've seen, they usually "flatline" right through the process, making the result inconclusive.

Is that a win? It depends. In many quarters, an inconclusive polygraph is viewed -- in a practical sense -- as a flunk.

So, for the sex offender or gov't/LE job applicant who's under pressure to pass a polygraph, the lack of fear will only help them if they help themselves with CMs.

Most no-fear test subjects that I've observed were generally involved in a domestic dispute and subjected to the odious "infidelity test." In these cases, it appears they suffered from what Backster taught was a form of resignation. That is, the subject resigned themselves to the fact that the outcome of the test was immaterial, thus they failed to be stimulated by the questions.

In domestic cases, that usually means the suspected wayward spouse has in effect already been driven out of the relationship -- in no small part, perhaps, spurred by the humiliation via polygraph as a twisted coup de grace of sorts -- and thus has mentally "checked out." In a very real sense, such a person has already moved on with their life and is just going through the polygraph motions.

Again, these subjects generally have little reactivity to any of the questions and simply cruise right through the process in a virtual flatline profile.

Truly fearless test takers are relatively rare. One would have to manage to free themselves from the bondage of pressure to pass (as in SOs and LE/gov't applicants), or another form of expected test outcome -- which can instill a form of expectation-related anxiety.

By the way, I don't do any selling; quite the opposite, in fact. Most polygraph clients, for whatever reason, are pre-sold on the 'box. Still, I try to temper their enthusiasm with the links on my Recommended Reading web site page.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience
Reply #16 - Sep 29th, 2014 at 6:44am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Mr Mangan

A very informed opinion, we shall see. Countering the eye movement polygraph will also happen. So the game begins a new. And I do so like a challenge.

Best Regards.
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Dan Mangan
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 625
Joined: Jul 31st, 2014
Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience
Reply #17 - Sep 29th, 2014 at 1:46pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience
Reply #18 - Sep 29th, 2014 at 5:41pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
« Last Edit: Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:11pm by Ex Member »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box EosJupiter
Especially Senior User
*****
Offline


But of Course ...

Posts: 483
Location: Always Out There ......
Joined: Feb 28th, 2005
Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience
Reply #19 - Oct 3rd, 2014 at 6:42am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Dan Mangan wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 1:46pm:
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.


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
  

Theory into Reality !!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box 1st4th5thand6th
User
**
Offline



Posts: 28
Joined: Sep 13th, 2014
Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience
Reply #20 - Oct 3rd, 2014 at 11:33am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
EosJupiter wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 6:42am:
Dan Mangan wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 1:46pm:
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.


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


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"....   


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience
Reply #21 - Dec 11th, 2015 at 8:54pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Ex Member wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 5:41pm:
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.


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.
« Last Edit: Dec 11th, 2015 at 10:16pm by Ex Member »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Neal Harris
Guest


Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience
Reply #22 - May 18th, 2017 at 6:32am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience
Reply #23 - May 18th, 2017 at 1:39pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
Accuracy claims by Converus are supported by several lab and field studies - 86.1% for single issue tests.


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?
« Last Edit: May 18th, 2017 at 4:33pm by Ex Member »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Neal Harris
Guest


Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience
Reply #24 - May 18th, 2017 at 8:57pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience
Reply #25 - May 18th, 2017 at 11:23pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Quote:
I loved George's post about the difference between science and pseudoscience.  Science welcomes critics.


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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Dan Mangan
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 625
Joined: Jul 31st, 2014
Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience
Reply #26 - May 18th, 2017 at 11:31pm
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
Neal, in terms of its official corporate positioning, does Converus regard polygraph as science, or pseudoscience?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Tom Tesslin
Guest


CONVERUS - The Next Financial Gravy Train for the Polygraph Community!
Reply #27 - May 20th, 2017 at 1:33am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Ex Member
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 710
Joined: Dec 9th, 2012
Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience
Reply #28 - May 20th, 2017 at 2:05am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Paste Member Name in Quick Reply Box Tom Tesslin
Guest


Re: Polygraphy as Pseudoscience REPLY
Reply #29 - May 20th, 2017 at 4:16am
Mark & QuoteQuote Print Post  
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. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
ReplyAdd Poll Send TopicPrint
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo
Polygraphy as Pseudoscience

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
                       
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align
resize_wb
resize_hb







Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
X