Quickie, tell us how polygraphy has "advanced" in the last few decades.

What you refer to is gadgetry enhancement not advancements in polygraphy. The truth is, there have been no advancements.

The gadgetry of seatbelts has been enhanced, but the basic concept of "if you restrain the passenger, injuries are reduced" has not been improved upon. Your fascination with your toys distracts you from the fact that there have been no advancements in detection of deception.

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

It's such a shame that we didn't have all this advanced lie-detection technology in 1955, when John Anthony Walker was allowed access to navy secrets, or in 1960, when David Henry Barnett was hired by the CIA, or in 1967, when Aldrich Ames was hired by the CIA, or in 1976, when Robert Hanssen was hired by the FBI, or in 1977, when William Kampiles had access to the CIA's KH-11 spy satellite manual, or in 1980, when Harold Nicholson was hired by the CIA, or in 1986, when U. S. Army warrant officer James Hall III was investigated while he had already been selling codes to East Germany and the Soviet Union for three years, or in 1987, when FBI agent Earl Pitts was providing Top Secret documents to the Soviet Union, or in 1991, when Pitts had to find a new market in Russia because his former customer had imploded, or even in 2006, when Edward Snowden was engaged by the CIA and the NSA.

But don't be completely discouraged by all those failures: we did have enough gagetry in 1983 to falsely accuse Edward Lee Howard of drug abuse, causing him to be unjustly fired and driving him into the embrace of Soviet Union recruiters where he betrayed his entire former network.

pailryder wrote on Mar 29^th, 2014 at 7:27pm:

Please tell us how computerization has made polygraphy more able to detect deception.

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

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:

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

Aunty Agony wrote on Mar 30^th, 2014 at 2:59am:



Aunty Agony

The short answer to your question is yes, practically all are.  In addition to a numerical hand score, I have scored every chart I have run since 1995, almost twenty years now, with computer software.  Using software calls as a backup has alerted me to potential mistakes and most certainly has improved my accuracy.

pailryder wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 11:41am:

As I said, computerization has not advanced your ability to detect deception; it is just a crutch for your rusty chart reading skills.