posted 02-11-2013 06:41 PM            

Sounds more like damage control and the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I'm assuming that we'll all be seeing a lot more damage control in the very near future.

National security...? How about a little compassion for the real people that were tested on this instrumentation!

quote:

---

Maybe someday we'll get back to some interesting and useful discussion.

r

---

The arrogance of Lafayette's expert on EDA and all things concerning science and polygraph is astounding given the gravity of this situation.

posted 02-11-2013 07:19 PM            

You should go and review the threads from your original concerns regarding the LX4000. Topic: Modular LX5000

At the time, the only voices from Lafayette's food chain were from Raymond Nelson and Mark Handler. They strongly voiced their concerns about about marketing and toxic sludge...

quote:

---

If it can't occur here, then where?

---

posted 02-11-2013 08:54 PM         

An hour or two ago, I received a phone call from our forum host and service provider, Ralph Hilliard.

It seems that Ralph has been contacted by several individuals who expressed their concerns about forum privacy.

Let me reiterate, the only post I ever shared with an outsider was Skip's demeaning screed of a few days ago.

Here it is again...

quote:

---

Dan,
You appear to sweating quite profusely. There also appears to be the beginnings of a very slight bulge in the front of your Mickey Mouse pajamas. Please try not to over excite yourself. It might become embarrassing if someone enters your basement lair.

You finally have the opportunity to speak loudly, publically and authoritatively about your passion and can tell the world about the black APA helicopters and NCCA drones hovering over your house. Put your colander back on your head, cover yourself with aluminum foil and enjoy the notoriety. You’ll soon be a star like your hero “Georgie boy”.

---

As I have already said, I wanted to show "this Taylor woman" that the long knives were indeed out, and attempts would be made to discredit me.

That is the one and only post I've ever shared with an outsider.

But I have to wonder about these "concerned" individuals... I wonder who they are?

Let's review:

I screwed with the indu$try.
I screwed with the feds.
I screwed with the $cience.

Now, it appears some "concerned" individuals want to have me whacked, in a manner of speaking.

Now let's return to the alleged LX4000 EDA issues...

The gummint runs about 70,000 tests annually. If Lafayette has a 90% gummint market share, that translates to about 63,000 polygraphs.

Now let's say -- purely for the sake of argument -- that only 10% of the tests are suspect because of EDA flakiness alone.

That's 6,300 tests.

Now, multiply that by the number of YEARS the issue has been around.

People, that's a lot of potential lawsuits.

And that's only on the federal scene!

People, this could be HUGE.

Now let's turn to the money trails...

Sorry. You'll have to use your imagination, perhaps based on what's been discussed here so far. I hope more info comes in.

Bottom line: I can see why some indu$trialists would be "concerned."

But hey, I'm just speculating. Your theories are welcome.

This forum is an essential medium. It must be sustained. Can you imagine Herr Krapohl -- the minister of polygraph propaganda who controls the global polygraph narrative with Goebbels-esque efficiency -- putting up with this on his tightly controlled APA site? No way.

Ralph could succumb to pressure and pull the plug on me at any moment, even though I have not compromised privacy outside the aforementioned character-assassinating post by Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr., past president of the American Polygraph Association and gummint bureaucrat.

Should I suddenly drop off the Polygraph Place radar screen, I urge you to pull your heads out of the sand, open your eyes, and look beyond the indu$try-manufactured polygraph bubble.

Dan

posted 02-11-2013 09:53 PM            

It's possible that indu$trialists may own or have some influence over this BB?

Does our good friend Ralph enjoy sole ownership of this enterprise?

posted 02-11-2013 09:53 PM            

You're going to get a plunging EDA with skin resistance about twice as often as with skin conductance from what I recall of Honts's study on the issue. The plunging EDA isn't necessarily a problem with the instrument. It happens.

I think I mentioned before that I once had a Lafayette (3000) signal that, when filtered, changed the EDA in one question significantly. Any time you filter or subject a waveform to an algorithmic transformation, you're changing things (duh!), and sometimes the changes will be problematic. The question is how often those things occur. (You can always look at the manual, non-filtered data to make decisions if the filter isn't doing what it should: make things clearer.)

In any event, while watching a movie with my kids (Taken - they love it for some reason), I went through some data I have at home and pulled out confirmed cases from Lafayette (4000) and Stoelting (CPS-PRO) files.

I wanted to know if the Lafayette EDA behaved, shall we say, like Stoelting's. (If you have a problem with Stoelting's EDA, I'd refer you to Dr. Raskin, but suit up with several layers or the blows are going to sting.) Since I was interested in individual EDA responses, I used the Relevant / Comparison ratios at the chart level. (When you use R/C ratios, values greater than 1 mean the RQ was bigger; lower than 1.0, the CQ was bigger.)

The correlations with ground truth were not statistically different for either EDA (Stoelting vs. Lafayette). Thus, the amount of variance explained by the EDA was not statistically different. The (logistic) regression coefficients were not statistically different either. I didn't calculate the 95% CI for ROC curves, but there's no question they wouldn't be different either. (With the raw data, Lafayette slightly outperformed Stoelting, but it's likely only by chance.) So, the best I can tell with a quick look is that regardless of the dramatic speculation, the evidence of some heinous offense by the people at Lafayette is lacking.

posted 02-11-2013 10:36 PM         

See that? A casual review of the data -- in between a few handfuls of popcorn, no less -- and presto! Everything's cool.

Man, the polygraph indu$try's statistical alchemy data mine never fails to deliver.

Amazing. Solid gold.

posted 02-11-2013 10:48 PM         

Here are the inside gags:

"Statistical Alchemy"
"Polygraph Scientology"
"Minister of Polygraph Propaganda"

These are not classified bits of TS/SCI polygraph intelligence. They're MY OWN terms used to describe certain elements within the indu$try -- as I see them.

Now, go back to your "Train-Fight-Win" one-handed reader for short guys.

posted 02-12-2013 12:43 AM            

"Polygraph Place Bulletin Board

Rules, Policies, and Disclaimers
Registration for this bulletin board is completely free! If you agree to abide by our rules below, you should press the "Agree" button, which will enable you to register. If you do not agree, press the "Cancel" button.
This Bulletin Board is to be used to discuss the issues related to Polygraph in a COURTEOUS AND PROFESSIONAL MANNER.

We encourage probing questions, professional insights and other comments that will continue to IMPROVE(not attempt to undermine) the Polygraph Profession.

Please understand that our premise is that we believe Polygraph is a useful instrument with a basis in science that in the hands of a properly trained and experienced examiner, can effectively determine truth or deception.

If you are truly seeking knowledge and have doubts or questions, you are more than welcome, however, if your premise is that Polygraph has no valid use and you only wish to discredit polygraph, this bulletin board is not for you and your posts will likely be deleted.

All those who use profanity or personally criticize another member of the bulletin board will be banned immediately without any further warning or explanation and your posts will be removed."

posted 02-12-2013 07:32 AM         

That's proof? Hallelujah!

By all means, do the industry a favor and reach out to Ms Taylor.

Look, Lafayette decided to address this issue for a reason.

Let's think it through...

"EDA flakiness happens "X" amount of the time, so we need to fix it."

What I want to know is, what is the value of X?

<10%?
<5%?
1%?

Let's say it's 3%. Using my previous rough estimate of 63,000 federal polygraphs done on Lafayette platforms each year, that comes out to 1,890 suspect tests. Multiply 1,890 by, say, five years, and you get 9,450 potentially erroneous results from bad EDA alone.

Again, that's a lot of lawsuits.

Back to the point: Does Lafayette -- or anyone else -- know exactly what X is?

Or, are you (Barry) saying that the alleged EDA deficiency problem simply does not exist?

posted 02-12-2013 11:36 AM            

What is being portrayed here as an issue of deficiency or defectiveness might actually be better understood as an issue of imperfection.

Do we expect the EDA alone to perfectly indicate who is lying and who is telling the truth during CQT testing?

No.

I will suggest that it is naive to expect perfection, and not naive to remember that nothing is perfect.

I it is also NOT naive to expect that an imperfect process can provide a high level of accuracy. It can. The way to provide a high level of discriminatory accuracy is to make effective combination of different signals that are good yet imperfect. The way to do that is typically through logistic regression or discriminate analysis or other scientific model building methods.

We've done that, and we know how to combine EDA data with other data to achieve a rather high level of discrimination.

Is there an ethical issue inherent to using the polygraph or any good yet imperfect test? Of course. The ethical issue involves the intersection of consequentialist/utilitarian ethics and deontological/clinical ethics. That's a long conversation. A lot of thought has already gone into it, and the consensus seems to weigh in on using the polygraph for its strengths despite the fact that it is not perfect.

It is always OK to revisit this ethical decision, and remain aware of how the conclusion was reached and what the costs and risks are. It is NOT a good idea to make ourselves crazy, hostile, and confused about what are the real issues.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-12-2013 12:00 PM            

I will add that it is always best if criticism is constructive and solution focused.

It is not helpful to criticize in a manner that is misleading or stirs nothing but rancor and hostility.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-12-2013 12:06 PM         

What we need is congressional hearings on the polygraph "test" process -- and its many repercussions.

posted 02-12-2013 12:30 PM            

If the examiner is trained/anointed by the correct mystical guru, and uses the right artistic technique, then they will have ~100% accuracy with ~0 variance. You already proved that in 2008.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-12-2013 12:55 PM            

But I'm mostly interested in techniques with reproducible and generalizable accuracy. You've stated before that you doubt the accuracy of the accuracy of the polygraph is much greater than chance - a very different opinion than the conclusion and results of Mangan et al. (2008).

Why would I be interested in a technique for which the principal investigator and author does not believe in or stand up for? Or, does this mean you still endorse the possibility of achieving ~100% accuracy?

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-12-2013 01:02 PM         

It relies on art as much as science.

For someone like Armitage who has done thousands upon thousands of tests, a lengthy string of perfection is possible. Remember, Jim was at his elbow doing QC.

I suggest that you get trained by Matte and try the technique yourself. But don't wait too long -- Jim is in his eighties.

[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 02-12-2013).]

posted 02-12-2013 01:43 PM         

While he was most diplomatic, I see Ralph's call as strike two.

So, I've decided to stand down for a while. This is voluntary.

Also, as I said earlier, the only post I have shared with an outsider is Skip's post alleging my "Mickey Mouse pajamas," "basement lair," etc.

As humorous as they are, I have asked Ms Taylor to not to publish Skip's character-assassinating comments, out of respect of forum privacy.

Actually, I wish Ms Taylor could publish Skip's post in its entirety and give full attribution to the author. That would help show Skip's level of professionalism when it comes to dealing with people who are critical of gummint bureaucrats and their polygraph "testing" programs.

But, it is not to be.

At least I don't think so.

Carry on, gentlemen.

posted 02-12-2013 02:01 PM            

Take a break.

As before, your criticism and questions - though difficult - are sometimes interesting.

Will Ralph reset your counter at some point?

We'll have to pick this up without the flamethrowers when you return.

'till then.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-12-2013 06:09 PM         

Sorry Dan, this one made me laugh so hard that I almost forgot about all of your other STUPID remarks. Enjoy your vacation!

posted 02-12-2013 06:39 PM            

I'm bored; what will we talk about now....?

posted 02-12-2013 07:21 PM         

What did Lafayette know about the alleged EDA deficiency and when did they know it?
What percentage of LX platforms have this problem?
What percentage of tests are affected?
Could EDA deficiencies lead to false results?
If so, how many lives have been affected?
Why does Ray dodge the kickback question?
When did the feds learn of the alleged EDA problem?
Was/is there any kind of cover-up?
We've been focused on the federal level. What about the trickle-down effect to state/local LEPET and PCSOT tests?

C'mon guys, you can do it!

(Thanks Ted, that was pretty stupid -- but funny. I cleared it up.)

posted 02-12-2013 07:33 PM            

I've answered your question about whether I get commissions from students.

If you want to know about the legal business agreements of others then you can ask them directly. Just as you can ask Jamie's exclusive dealer in Colombia - also a school director - about his financials. Ask away.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-12-2013 08:41 PM            

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-12-2013 09:17 PM            

quote:

---

The folks at Limestone have been a pleasure to work with. They are smart, responsive, progressive, and interested in a good product that is grounded in an understandable documented science (sorry if I sound like a cheerleader - they don't pay me for that, but they are good folks).

r

---

We've never stopped listening to our clients . Examiner feedback is essential to our success. As you know, Limestone Technologies believes in a mutual co-operation between us and the examiner.

posted 02-12-2013 09:35 PM            

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-12-2013 09:41 PM         

Dan,
STOP…you are killing me. This one is even funnier that your last stupid comment! This is the second time today that I have had to change my shorts after reading one of your hilarious posts.

And now, this just in!

“While he was most diplomatic, I see Ralph's call as strike two.
So, I've decided to stand down for a while. This is voluntary.”

Your “Voluntary stand down” lasted all of about 15 minutes-just another sterling example of you talking out both sides of your mouth yet again. Dan, don’t go away pissed off-just go away.

posted 02-12-2013 10:15 PM         

Our brother, Jim Sackett, expressed his concern that the forum was idle.

I merely stepped back in to jump-start the thing.

My reluctant actions, inconvenient as they may be, are for the greater good.

BTW...

Where's Lafayette (corporate) on this alleged EDA deficiency issue? It's mighty quiet out there. Is the issue real or not? What's their OFFICIAL statement?

I'd like to know, because some of my "test" subjects at the NHDOC were incarcerated for an additional 18 months because they "failed" a polygraph "test."

Unless Lafayette chimes in VERY SOON, I will have to report this potential issue to the state attorney general.

Think I'm kidding?

Go ahead, make my day.

Even skinners have rights.

Dan

posted 02-12-2013 11:04 PM            

I have concerns and professional comments and suggestions for future revisions.

Respectfully,

JB

posted 02-13-2013 01:38 AM            

I don't think its reasonable for you to expect an official corporate response at such a late hour.

I participate here as an individual, and although everyone knows I work for Lafayette, I've made it clear in the past that it is beyond the scope of my role and expertise to provide a response on this. It may also be unrealistic to demand a response in this public forum.

Maybe it would be better for you to call Lafayette directly in the morning.

In the meantime, I suppose I can allert the Lafayette executives that you are threatening to have the New Hampshire attorney general sue on behalf of incarcerated sex offenders if they do not give you an official answer to your question about the EDA.

I suppose I can also let them know that the owner and CEO of company that competes with Lafayette would like to have his questions answered by a Lafayette engineer.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-13-2013 07:17 AM            

quote:

---

I don't think its reasonable for you to expect an official corporate response at such a late hour.

r

---

posted 02-13-2013 07:33 AM         

Just to the south of us in Massachusetts, there's a colossal mess because a state employee in the crime lab facility falsified what may be thousands of test results. Cases are being thrown out, and hundreds of inmates have already been released.

I realize this is far, far, far different.

But if -- and I emphasize IF -- the alleged EDA problem is real, there's a potential trickle-down effect of a similar nature.

So, we need to know:

Is the problem real? What percentage of LX platforms have the potential to suffer from this problem? What percentage of tests exhibit this variance? Is the problem significant enough to cause false results? And so on.

If there's nothing to worry about, LIC should tell us.

If there IS something to worry about, LIC should tell us -- and others -- that too.

Putting something on their web site, as well as mailing notices to each and every instrument owner/lesee (similar to an auto recall) is the right thing to do.

Ethics (or the lack thereof) is a huge part of polygraph. Does LIC have a responsibility to let its customers know? Do individual practitioners have a responsibility to alert higher-ups?

I guess it all depends on the severity of the alleged problem.

Maybe this is just a tempest in a teapot, sour grapes from a competing instrument manufacturer who's struggling for a fair shot.

On the other hand, maybe it's something more sinister.

We (outside of LIC) don't know what we don't know.

If -- and again I underscore IF -- this problem is real and the inmates/parolees in the sex offender community get a hold of it, the blowback will be tremendous.

I would think the same applies, potentially, to job applicants who were DQ'd based on polygraph results.

Lawsuits? That's a given. You may even have aggrieved parties pulling a Christopher Dorner and being cheered on by Facebook fans.

It could happen.

I read all the articles in the APA publications. I've noticed something of a cautionary tone over the past few years, particularly in pieces about screening written by you, Mark, Marty, et al.

Let me paraphrase:

Policy makers should exercise caution when...
Decision makers should consider other factors...
Reliance on polygraph alone may be problematic...

I'm loosely paraphrasing, but you know what I mean

Polygraph exam outcomes can have life-changing effects on some individuals. The test has enough doubts and uncertainties already. If there's an instrument-related h/w or s/w defect, people have to own it.

I suspect that the mantra "no test is perfect" won't cut it in court.

Dan

posted 02-13-2013 08:12 AM            

You'll have to call Lafayette. I'm probably the only person at Lafayette that reads or participates in this forum. I'll convey your message. That is all I can do. Unless you have another suggestion, let's move back to something useful.

To continue to beat this dead horse is an exercise in abusiveness.

How about getting back to the discussion about EDA data? What about them-there charts?

Maybe Jamie can explain a few things. He's a technologist and a programmer, right?

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)