- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by xenonman
- Apr 11, 2016, 08:04 AMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 14, 2016, 02:22 PMDan, I never attended a polygraph school. I am an engineer by trade.
"Polygraph school"? Wouldn't that be a bit like an astrology school? lol
Posted by Ex Member
- Feb 17, 2016, 03:53 PMDoc,
If you are ever so inclined, on page 12 of the attached issue of the European Police Science and Research Bulletin is a very interesting article by Kovalenka & Saldžiūnas which delineates a forensic example of the EKT. I believe these gentlemen are worthy of your time and scrutiny as they have over a decade of empirical data from high stakes field examinations. It's also curious to note that the criminal courts accept their polygraph testimony into evidence. Also interesting is the fact that they tried and eventually abandoned the CQT totally in 2004.
If you are ever so inclined, on page 12 of the attached issue of the European Police Science and Research Bulletin is a very interesting article by Kovalenka & Saldžiūnas which delineates a forensic example of the EKT. I believe these gentlemen are worthy of your time and scrutiny as they have over a decade of empirical data from high stakes field examinations. It's also curious to note that the criminal courts accept their polygraph testimony into evidence. Also interesting is the fact that they tried and eventually abandoned the CQT totally in 2004.
Posted by Ex Member
- Feb 16, 2016, 09:59 PMElectrical Engineering, involved in instrumentation, which sparked an interest in the subject. I find it an interesting mix of science and ethics--similar to whether or not an engineer should be involved in the design of weaponry. I am very prolific and varied in my interests, studies and experimentation encompassing many disciplines, mostly involving science. And, I do find Matte's Hope/Fear concept very interesting....
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Feb 16, 2016, 08:53 PMArk, you claim to be an "engineer by trade."
I ask you, what type of engineering?
My curiosity has deep roots. In my former career -- in what was called "high tech" industry at the time -- I worked with many an engineer. I sincerely doubt that a single one of them would put any credence in the polygraph "test".
Why your fascination -- and what's your connection, if any -- with polygraph?
I ask you, what type of engineering?
My curiosity has deep roots. In my former career -- in what was called "high tech" industry at the time -- I worked with many an engineer. I sincerely doubt that a single one of them would put any credence in the polygraph "test".
Why your fascination -- and what's your connection, if any -- with polygraph?
Posted by Ex Member
- Feb 16, 2016, 12:51 AMBy the way, "boat anchor" referred to the size, not the quality.
It seems that your angst may be related to APA's feud with Matte. Advice from the fence: loyalty is noble but, don't take things so seriously, they are just spirited discussions.
It seems that your angst may be related to APA's feud with Matte. Advice from the fence: loyalty is noble but, don't take things so seriously, they are just spirited discussions.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Feb 15, 2016, 10:53 PMNo, I don't have a copy handy, but I agree -- "It's just not science."
I agree -- (no CQT "test" is, as you already know) -- and have sad so, many times.
So what?
I agree -- (no CQT "test" is, as you already know) -- and have sad so, many times.
So what?
Posted by Ex Member
- Feb 15, 2016, 10:45 PMQuote from: danmangan on Feb 15, 2016, 08:51 PMAny more questions?Yes, would you happen to have a copy of this document?:
Verschuere, B., Meijer, E., & Merckelbach, H. (2008). The Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique: it's just not science. A critique to Mangan, Armitage, and Adams (2008). Physiology and Behavior, 95(1-2), 27-28.
It would be interesting to read as Bruno Verscheure is one of the top polygraph researchers and I'd like to compare his analysis with that of your paragon of polygraphy.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Feb 15, 2016, 08:51 PMArk, I'll put it this way:
Honey badger don't give a sh*t about the APA obstructionist agenda.
My gig is all about the prime principle that the APA abandoned.
That is, serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons.
Any more questions?
Honey badger don't give a sh*t about the APA obstructionist agenda.
My gig is all about the prime principle that the APA abandoned.
That is, serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons.
Any more questions?
Posted by Ex Member
- Feb 15, 2016, 08:44 PMHmmm, I wonder if your irreverence may be related to the attached?
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Feb 15, 2016, 08:06 PMIndeed, Ark, I strongly suggest you become familiar with the MQTZCT before our discussion goes any further.
Meanwhile, know this: the Matte "boat anchor," as you call it it, is The Bible of polygraph.
When it comes to polygraph expertise, Matte is nonpareil.
In my most humble opinion, polygraph re$earcher$ Ray Nelson (who I consider to be the Professor Irwin Corey of polygraph), Barry (pastor) Cushman, Mark (APA editor in chief) Handler, Don (polygraph is belief system oriented) Krapohl, et al, could never match -- even collectively -- the expertise of James Allan Matte.
Soon, George will trot out Matte's "bogus" doctoral degree.
Given A-P's agenda, I get it. No sweat.
But, for you, Ark, I suggest doing your homework thoroughly before you engage me further on the MQTZCT.
Your move, engineer.
Meanwhile, know this: the Matte "boat anchor," as you call it it, is The Bible of polygraph.
When it comes to polygraph expertise, Matte is nonpareil.
In my most humble opinion, polygraph re$earcher$ Ray Nelson (who I consider to be the Professor Irwin Corey of polygraph), Barry (pastor) Cushman, Mark (APA editor in chief) Handler, Don (polygraph is belief system oriented) Krapohl, et al, could never match -- even collectively -- the expertise of James Allan Matte.
Soon, George will trot out Matte's "bogus" doctoral degree.
Given A-P's agenda, I get it. No sweat.
But, for you, Ark, I suggest doing your homework thoroughly before you engage me further on the MQTZCT.
Your move, engineer.
Posted by Ex Member
- Feb 15, 2016, 05:45 PMDan, let me bone up on the MQTZCT so we can have a discussion about it. It seems very interesting. It's been a while since I've cracked open the Matte boat anchor.
Posted by Ex Member
- Feb 15, 2016, 04:17 PMIn a previous post, I indicated that only two CIT field studies have been conducted thus far and both in Israel. However, I did come across the attached presentation to the I.O.P. in 2010. Since Japanese investigators use the CIT in 95% of their testing, I suspect that will be the main source of any meaningful CIT empirical data from the field.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Feb 15, 2016, 09:53 AMJohn Daly? You're really dating yourself Ark. But I did the same when likening APA de facto chief researcher Ray Nelson to Professor Irwin (The world's foremost authority!) Corey.
The APA has a storied history of steadfastly supporting studies claiming perfect accuracy. In fact, the report that the APA stood by for 15 years -- and sold for 25 bucks a whack -- contained multiple studies showing polygraph to be 100% accurate. Remember, in that compendium, it was reported that average field accuracy for polygraph was a whopping 98.6 percent.
There are several factors that contribute to the "perfect storm" that sets the stage a study showing perfect accuracy. Such factors include clear-cut cases that more than merely satisfy Backster's cardinal requirements for success -- adequate background information, case intensity (i.e., what's at stake), and distinctness of issue; flawless execution of a proven technique, test-taker suitability, and, of course, examiner expertise (to include innate talent, skill and intuition -- none of which are "scientific").
The bottom line is that polygraph is far more of an art than it is a science.
Add to all of that the inherent benefits of conducting a polygraph "test" in a police setting, such as being fed information based on the hunches of the case investigators, as Dr. Richardson has pointed out. Also, people who submit to a police polygraph are probably not all that bright, which helps immensely.
Let me be clear: Studies suggesting 100% accuracy are not to be generalized to the polygraph-operator population at large. Far from it, in fact. Look at it this way...you can't teach someone to throw a 95-mph fastball. That's primarily a God-given skill.
In the case of the MQTZCT, it is my opinion that only (exceptional) examiners who were taught personally by Backster in his seminal ZCT method, and subsequently taught the Quadri-Track technique by its creator Matte himself, should conduct such exams.
Nelson is correct when he characterizes the MQTZCT as both an outlier and a boutique technique. To be sure, the MQTZCT does not fit the APA's current cool-kid narrative that espouses simplified, dumbed down, cookie-cutter polygraph methodological shortcuts such as ESS, inclusive CQs, and directed lies.
The APA has a storied history of steadfastly supporting studies claiming perfect accuracy. In fact, the report that the APA stood by for 15 years -- and sold for 25 bucks a whack -- contained multiple studies showing polygraph to be 100% accurate. Remember, in that compendium, it was reported that average field accuracy for polygraph was a whopping 98.6 percent.
There are several factors that contribute to the "perfect storm" that sets the stage a study showing perfect accuracy. Such factors include clear-cut cases that more than merely satisfy Backster's cardinal requirements for success -- adequate background information, case intensity (i.e., what's at stake), and distinctness of issue; flawless execution of a proven technique, test-taker suitability, and, of course, examiner expertise (to include innate talent, skill and intuition -- none of which are "scientific").
The bottom line is that polygraph is far more of an art than it is a science.
Add to all of that the inherent benefits of conducting a polygraph "test" in a police setting, such as being fed information based on the hunches of the case investigators, as Dr. Richardson has pointed out. Also, people who submit to a police polygraph are probably not all that bright, which helps immensely.
Let me be clear: Studies suggesting 100% accuracy are not to be generalized to the polygraph-operator population at large. Far from it, in fact. Look at it this way...you can't teach someone to throw a 95-mph fastball. That's primarily a God-given skill.
In the case of the MQTZCT, it is my opinion that only (exceptional) examiners who were taught personally by Backster in his seminal ZCT method, and subsequently taught the Quadri-Track technique by its creator Matte himself, should conduct such exams.
Nelson is correct when he characterizes the MQTZCT as both an outlier and a boutique technique. To be sure, the MQTZCT does not fit the APA's current cool-kid narrative that espouses simplified, dumbed down, cookie-cutter polygraph methodological shortcuts such as ESS, inclusive CQs, and directed lies.
Posted by Ex Member
- Feb 14, 2016, 10:52 PMDan, who are you John Daly? I feel like the Mystery Guest on "What's My Line?"
You take a turn now and answer Raymond's question about the reported 100% accuracy of your study.
You take a turn now and answer Raymond's question about the reported 100% accuracy of your study.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Feb 14, 2016, 10:27 PMArk, in your opinion...
Given the fragility of the CQT polygraph "test" -- and the tremendous variance in examiner ability, as well as that of examinee suitability -- should Monte Carlo statistical modeling be part of the equation that predicts polygraph accuracy?
If not, why not?
Given the fragility of the CQT polygraph "test" -- and the tremendous variance in examiner ability, as well as that of examinee suitability -- should Monte Carlo statistical modeling be part of the equation that predicts polygraph accuracy?
If not, why not?