- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by xenonman
- Sep 21, 2016, 04:07 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Mar 19, 2016, 01:02 PMQuote from: Kubota139 on Mar 19, 2016, 07:44 AMI need to do it and beat it using the techniques here.So you want to "beat" an infidelity polygraph? How about just being faithful to your wife? If this is something you cannot or will not do, then you are better to get a divorce and live your life of promiscuity. If you do want to salvage your marriage, you will always fail if it is built upon a foundation of deceit.
Another option might be "polyamory", about which there is much material online! 8-)
Posted by xenonman
- Sep 21, 2016, 03:35 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Mar 20, 2016, 06:40 PMThere is a time to use countermeasures
There is a time for every purpose under heaven.
A time to use countermeasures, a time to not....
lol
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 19, 2016, 03:33 PMQuoteConverus only quotes accuracy rates from Dr. Kircher's peer-reviewed and published research studies - .83 and .88 for a mean of .85.
If that is true, Neal, then why did Converus post this video on YouTube claiming 97% outcome confidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8zN0o1qt9k
Posted by Neal Harris
- Sep 19, 2016, 02:01 PMQuote from: danmangan on May 26, 2016, 09:41 PMGeorge, could you be mistaken?
I'm confused...
I thought it was all spelled out right here:
http://converus.com/american-association-police-polygraphists-article-says-using-eyedetect-polygraph-can-produce-outcome-confidence-99/
If you dispute the findings of APA editor-in-chief Mark Handler -- a former police officer and well-regarded polygraph scientist with many published articles to his credit -- I suggest you articulate your argument.
I verified a few minutes ago that Russ Warner from Converus was misquoted in this article. Converus only quotes accuracy rates from Dr. Kircher's peer- reviewed and published research studies - .83 and .88 for a mean of .85.
Converus does not make exaggerated or false claims of accuracy, and has asked the magazine to issue a retraction.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 27, 2016, 05:46 AMQuote from: danmangan on May 26, 2016, 09:41 PMIf you dispute the findings of APA editor-in-chief Mark Handler -- a former police officer and well-regarded polygraph scientist with many published articles to his credit -- I suggest you articulate your argument.
EyeDetect, like polygraphy, has not been proven through peer-reviewed research to distinguish between truth-tellers and liars at better-than-chance levels under field conditions.
As is the case with polygraphy, none of the indices measured by EyeDetect have been shown to be systematically correlated with deception in humans.
Posted by Ex Member
- May 26, 2016, 11:30 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Mar 21, 2016, 03:36 PMThe 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.
A re-emphasis from my previous post.
Mr. Handler's paper does not elucidate this reality.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- May 26, 2016, 09:41 PMGeorge, could you be mistaken?
I'm confused...
I thought it was all spelled out right here:
http://converus.com/american-association-police-polygraphists-article-says-using-eyedetect-polygraph-can-produce-outcome-confidence-99/
If you dispute the findings of APA editor-in-chief Mark Handler -- a former police officer and well-regarded polygraph scientist with many published articles to his credit -- I suggest you articulate your argument.
I'm confused...
I thought it was all spelled out right here:
http://converus.com/american-association-police-polygraphists-article-says-using-eyedetect-polygraph-can-produce-outcome-confidence-99/
If you dispute the findings of APA editor-in-chief Mark Handler -- a former police officer and well-regarded polygraph scientist with many published articles to his credit -- I suggest you articulate your argument.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 26, 2016, 09:24 AMQuote from: danmangan on Mar 21, 2016, 03:07 PMOur sanctioned testing methods need to evolve to a greater extent than they have thus far.
One option might be to adopt the EyeDetect-PDD successive hurdle model, which is said to provide an outcome confidence of 97%.
Learn more here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O8zN0o1qt9k
Dan,
Sorry for the late reply. It seems to me that Converus's EyeDetect, like polygraphy, is snake oil. "Successive hurdles" of pseudoscience will predictably yield less reliable results, not more.
Posted by xenonman
- Apr 06, 2016, 12:27 PM"Brain trust" ?
Those charlatans have no brains! lol
Those charlatans have no brains! lol
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Apr 04, 2016, 03:52 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Apr 04, 2016, 03:22 PMthe more I consider the MQTZCT the more it feels intuitively correct.
Ark, in the right hands -- that is, someone who was trained by Backster himself in the seminal Backster method, then personally trained by Matte in his evolutionary method -- the MQTZCT works better than anything else.
Polygraph is an art, not a science.
Don't let the cool kids who comprise the APA's oh-so-fashionable brain trust tell you otherwise.
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 04, 2016, 03:22 PMIMHO, although accused of lacking a "scientific" foundation, the more I consider the MQTZCT the more it feels intuitively correct. It's a very creative and thought provoking concept.
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 04, 2016, 03:19 PMQuote from: danmangan on Apr 04, 2016, 03:04 PMThe Quadri-Track's complexities appear to be too daunting for the industry's own scientistsIndeed, scientists often need a competent engineer to slap them in the face.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Apr 04, 2016, 03:04 PMArk, my opinion is that the Fear-Hope spot of the MQTZCT is most valuable. Indeed, it can serve as a cue for the presence of CMs that would otherwise go undetected.
I sometimes use a MQTZCT exam as a follow-up to a mainstream technique -- such as a Federal Zone of single-issue AFMGQT -- that shows signs of CMs, or when an examinee claims to be the victim of a false-positive result.
As you are probably aware, the MQTZCT has been branded as a boutique technique by the APA. The Quadri-Track's complexities appear to be too daunting for the industry's own scientists, who promote a simplified, dumbed-down, paint-by-number approach to polygraph "testing."
I sometimes use a MQTZCT exam as a follow-up to a mainstream technique -- such as a Federal Zone of single-issue AFMGQT -- that shows signs of CMs, or when an examinee claims to be the victim of a false-positive result.
As you are probably aware, the MQTZCT has been branded as a boutique technique by the APA. The Quadri-Track's complexities appear to be too daunting for the industry's own scientists, who promote a simplified, dumbed-down, paint-by-number approach to polygraph "testing."
Posted by Ex Member
- Apr 04, 2016, 02:07 PMCould the Hope/Fear spot elucidate any cues to CM's?
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Apr 04, 2016, 01:28 PMOnly in cases where such attempts were visible to the naked eye (or ear, in instances, say, of muted whimpers heard during CQs). Also, it is not unusual for the presence of possible CMs to be concurrently flagged by the evidence-based scientific machinations of OSS3.
To be clear, when I refer to observations via the naked eye, that means examinee behavior as well as chart interpretation.
That said, polygraph operators -- and scoring algorithms -- don't know what they don't know.
And therein lies the problem.
To be clear, when I refer to observations via the naked eye, that means examinee behavior as well as chart interpretation.
That said, polygraph operators -- and scoring algorithms -- don't know what they don't know.
And therein lies the problem.