- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by underlyingtruth
- Jul 17, 2006, 01:57 AMAll of my polys given over at least the last 4 years have been with a computer. The polygrapher told me that he was going to "put me in the computer" (indicating my base-line readings) and would then begin to run a chart. At the end of running all the charts, he'd have me waiting to see what result appeared on the screen - pass or fail. That was the result and he pretented as if he was just learning of the result himself at the same time. I always play the game with them just like I would with any 5-year old playing a pretend game, but I must admit, I actually believe that he uses calculations from the computer to weigh the standard divation.
I haven't thought about this before
.
I haven't thought about this before
.Posted by cesium_133
- Jul 17, 2006, 01:18 AMThe computer does nothing more, as Bill C. mentioned, than eliminate moving parts. You have no wires to fray, needles to bend, ink to clot or dry, or paper to get tangled on the spool.
I don't know if the poly industry has tried to implement mathematical formulae into the measurement channels, but I seem to think not. I have had 2 polys done with a computer, and the interrogator never mentioned anything about having complex math playing a part in his decision. You would think that he would if anything came into play like that. However, I wouldn't put it past those people, now or in the near future... except...
I could only see the polywogs
seriously trying to implement such a thing on the basis of an amplitudinal (or frequency-based in the case of breathing) standard deviation from whatever "baseline" they would arbitrarily program the poly to establish. The SD, btw, is a measurement of how far from the mean factors that contribute to the mean diverge, e.g., in 1 2 3 4 5 the mean is 3 and the SD is also 3.
If they could then rig the machine (and that's what they would be doing) to figure if you stayed within, say, 1 standard deviation on BP, GSR, etc. on each question, you would be shown as being "NDI". Beyond that, I won't even try to guess what they might pull with their "new math".
Given that the ploygraphers, er, polygraphers want to do the analysis on their own, anyway, I find it difficult to imagine that such a scheme would gain much of a foothold. They may say that the computer does the work, but that's a half-truth to beat them all. Poly-men still do the tea-leaf reading...
I don't know if the poly industry has tried to implement mathematical formulae into the measurement channels, but I seem to think not. I have had 2 polys done with a computer, and the interrogator never mentioned anything about having complex math playing a part in his decision. You would think that he would if anything came into play like that. However, I wouldn't put it past those people, now or in the near future... except...
I could only see the polywogs
seriously trying to implement such a thing on the basis of an amplitudinal (or frequency-based in the case of breathing) standard deviation from whatever "baseline" they would arbitrarily program the poly to establish. The SD, btw, is a measurement of how far from the mean factors that contribute to the mean diverge, e.g., in 1 2 3 4 5 the mean is 3 and the SD is also 3.If they could then rig the machine (and that's what they would be doing) to figure if you stayed within, say, 1 standard deviation on BP, GSR, etc. on each question, you would be shown as being "NDI". Beyond that, I won't even try to guess what they might pull with their "new math".
Given that the ploygraphers, er, polygraphers want to do the analysis on their own, anyway, I find it difficult to imagine that such a scheme would gain much of a foothold. They may say that the computer does the work, but that's a half-truth to beat them all. Poly-men still do the tea-leaf reading...
Posted by Thomas_Delacy
- Jul 16, 2006, 11:59 PMrealllly a computer telling me if i am lying or not.... hard to belive.. but i see cm's easier to use wit a computer cause earlier software with the testing isnt as advanced in detectin simple counter measures unless test was to the most distinct math eq's such as sudden change in brething where a human eye woundlt detect
Posted by underlyingtruth
- Jul 16, 2006, 08:34 PMPolygraphers will tell you that it takes the pass-fail "decision" out of their hands... it's all up to the computer if you pass or not. Don't blame the tester!
Posted by Bill Crider
- Jul 16, 2006, 12:37 PMno. that has no effect on the test. it just makes it more convenient for the tester and less susceptible to mechanical errors.
Posted by Thomas_Delacy
- Jul 16, 2006, 04:39 AMis compu polygraph more accurate and sensitve than a older version machine such as those that scribble on paper. does it make a diff towards cms