Dan, I caution you to pause before jumping onto the eye detect band wagon. It is my opinion that these folks dove prematurely into the commercialization of this technology simply to get a foothold in the market before anyone else did.

The reality is that the use of ocular metrics for PDD is nascent and immature. I am only aware of 2 attempts at field studies. The first was conducted on Federal Government employees, N=94. The results were a modest 77% accuracy. The second involved job applicants in Colombia, N=94. The results were nil--no demonstrated ability to distinguish between the two groups. The two laboratory experiments that I'm aware of, reported approximately 85% accuracy.

This "successive hurdles" approach shows that their technology cannot yet be decoupled from the polygraph and may be a marketing ploy to salvage their investment.

Ability to detect and motive are two different topics.  Countermeasures can be detected and are detected every day.  The number of people coming to this site to complain they were accused of engaging in countermeasures is the proof.  The motive for engaging in countermeasures cannot be detected as we are not mind readers.

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

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

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.

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.

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.