- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by xenonman
- May 22, 2017, 05:07 AMQuote from: Wandersmann on May 21, 2017, 07:12 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on May 20, 2017, 05:08 PMIf it had not been for the moderate thinking of Gorbachev, the wall would probably still be there.
Ark - Actually, an excellent point. You are correct. If we could only find some moderates in the polygraph and security communities to lighten up on the Soviet-style banishment of people who have trouble with the poly.
Maybe that will happen on the day that Americans will finally rush and then tear down the barriers surrounding Langley, in a manner similar to that moment in 1989 when the East Berliners finally rushed the barriers which surrounded West Berlin, and also forced their way into Stasi headquarters.
Until that exalted day arrives, I don't see much hope for serious reform of any aspect of the IC.
Unfortunately I don't see any American version of Gorby emerging on the horizon!
Posted by Wandersmann
- May 21, 2017, 07:12 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on May 20, 2017, 05:08 PMIf it had not been for the moderate thinking of Gorbachev, the wall would probably still be there.
Ark - Actually, an excellent point. You are correct. If we could only find some moderates in the polygraph and security communities to lighten up on the Soviet-style banishment of people who have trouble with the poly.
Posted by Neal Harris
- May 21, 2017, 03:10 AMOops, I meant to address my post to Ark, not George. Sorry Ark.
Posted by Neal Harris
- May 21, 2017, 03:03 AMHi George: The twins are adopted and the triplets are IVF babies, so it is not as statistically uncommon as it appears on the surface.
It is good to see Dr. Kircher mentioned with respect. My colleagues feel a great responsibility to protect his reputation and legacy.
I have drafted a response to Dan about science vs, pseudoscience, but I want to sleep on it before posting. Hopefully tomorrow.
It is good to see Dr. Kircher mentioned with respect. My colleagues feel a great responsibility to protect his reputation and legacy.
I have drafted a response to Dan about science vs, pseudoscience, but I want to sleep on it before posting. Hopefully tomorrow.
Posted by Ex Member
- May 20, 2017, 11:08 PMQuoteI have triplet boys in 7th grade and twin girls in 8th grade.A very interesting probability exercise.
Posted by Ex Member
- May 20, 2017, 10:59 PMQuotethe gist of his viewpoint was that "Just another index of sympathetic/ parasympathetic struggle" was a "reductionist statement".
He is very perspicacious; he is not the first one to notice my reductionist proclivity. I respect Dr. Kircher's work, so give me some time to digest this data.
Posted by Neal Harris
- May 20, 2017, 10:44 PMArk:
Sorry for the delay in responding. It was not due to a lack of interest. I have triplet boys in 7th grade and twin girls in 8th grade. I was in the mountains my boys yesterday afternoon and today.
I mentioned that I have never posted before on this site before. I am a relative newcomer to your industry and I felt the odds of me being ridiculed for my lack of knowledge and experience were far greater than my ability to add something valuable to the debate. My sincere desire is to learn from those of you that have divergent opinions and far more experience.
Ark, I did not understand your statement about the construct so I asked Dr. Kircher. It is hard for me to keep up with him as well, but the gist of his viewpoint was that "Just another index of sympathetic/ parasympathetic struggle" was a "reductionist statement". Further, he said that all psychological constructs can be explained by biological mechanisms and all biological processes can be explained by chemistry and physics. ODT is a psychophysiological measure that distinguishes between truthful and deceptive individuals by using feature validity coefficients."
On page 440 of Andrea Webb's dissertation (Table 4), you can see a list of these feature validity coefficients (i.e. the construct). I have also added a list of the peer-reviewed science in a separate attachment.
I don't know if this is the construct you were looking for, and if not please reply back and I will ask again.
Thanks.
Sorry for the delay in responding. It was not due to a lack of interest. I have triplet boys in 7th grade and twin girls in 8th grade. I was in the mountains my boys yesterday afternoon and today.
I mentioned that I have never posted before on this site before. I am a relative newcomer to your industry and I felt the odds of me being ridiculed for my lack of knowledge and experience were far greater than my ability to add something valuable to the debate. My sincere desire is to learn from those of you that have divergent opinions and far more experience.
Ark, I did not understand your statement about the construct so I asked Dr. Kircher. It is hard for me to keep up with him as well, but the gist of his viewpoint was that "Just another index of sympathetic/ parasympathetic struggle" was a "reductionist statement". Further, he said that all psychological constructs can be explained by biological mechanisms and all biological processes can be explained by chemistry and physics. ODT is a psychophysiological measure that distinguishes between truthful and deceptive individuals by using feature validity coefficients."
On page 440 of Andrea Webb's dissertation (Table 4), you can see a list of these feature validity coefficients (i.e. the construct). I have also added a list of the peer-reviewed science in a separate attachment.
I don't know if this is the construct you were looking for, and if not please reply back and I will ask again.
Thanks.
Posted by Neal Harris
- May 20, 2017, 10:35 PMArk:
Sorry for the delay in responding. It was not due to a lack of interest. I have triplet boys in 7th grade and twin girls in 8th grade. I was in the mountains my boys yesterday afternoon and today.
I mentioned that I have never posted before on this site before. I am a relative newcomer to your industry and I felt the odds of me being ridiculed for my lack of knowledge and experience were far greater than my ability to add something valuable to the debate. My sincere desire is to learn from those of you that have divergent opinions and far more experience.
Ark, I did not understand your statement about the construct so I asked Dr. Kircher. It is hard for me to keep up with him as well, but the gist of his viewpoint was that "Just another index of sympathetic/ parasympathetic struggle" was a "reductionist statement". Further, he said that all psychological constructs can be explained by biological mechanisms and all biological processes can be explained by chemistry and physics. ODT is a psychophysiological measure that distinguishes between truthful and deceptive individuals by using feature validity coefficients."
On page 440 of Andrea Webb's dissertation (Table 4), you can see a list of these feature validity coefficients (i.e. the construct). I have also added a list of the peer-reviewed science in a separate attachment.
I don't know if this is the construct you were looking for, and if not please reply back and I will ask again.
Thanks.
Sorry for the delay in responding. It was not due to a lack of interest. I have triplet boys in 7th grade and twin girls in 8th grade. I was in the mountains my boys yesterday afternoon and today.
I mentioned that I have never posted before on this site before. I am a relative newcomer to your industry and I felt the odds of me being ridiculed for my lack of knowledge and experience were far greater than my ability to add something valuable to the debate. My sincere desire is to learn from those of you that have divergent opinions and far more experience.
Ark, I did not understand your statement about the construct so I asked Dr. Kircher. It is hard for me to keep up with him as well, but the gist of his viewpoint was that "Just another index of sympathetic/ parasympathetic struggle" was a "reductionist statement". Further, he said that all psychological constructs can be explained by biological mechanisms and all biological processes can be explained by chemistry and physics. ODT is a psychophysiological measure that distinguishes between truthful and deceptive individuals by using feature validity coefficients."
On page 440 of Andrea Webb's dissertation (Table 4), you can see a list of these feature validity coefficients (i.e. the construct). I have also added a list of the peer-reviewed science in a separate attachment.
I don't know if this is the construct you were looking for, and if not please reply back and I will ask again.
Thanks.
Posted by Ex Member
- May 20, 2017, 05:08 PMIf it had not been for the moderate thinking of Gorbachev, the wall would probably still be there.
Posted by Wandersmann
- May 20, 2017, 02:19 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on May 20, 2017, 12:18 AMCall me Ark. I try to be the voice of a moderate here.Sorry Ark. No room for moderate here. This is good versus evil. The East Germans that tore down their wall in 1989 came to understand that. Ruining innocent peoples' lives to make a scam living and support a scam industry is pure evil.
:-/ 
Posted by Dan Mangan
- May 20, 2017, 11:03 AMQuote from: danmangan on May 18, 2017, 07:31 PMNeal, in terms of its official corporate positioning, does Converus regard polygraph as science, or pseudoscience?
No reply. Seems odd, considering the openness and enthusiasm of Neal's original post.
It's not a complicated question.
Or is it?
Posted by Ex Member
- May 20, 2017, 12:18 AMOh, just to point out. I am not George. Call me Ark. I try to be the voice of a moderate here. I believe complete polarization is futile and boring. Look what's happened in our country recently. People who were once considered neighbors with a different political view are now considered enemies. I am not a polygraph examiner by profession, just an old kid that can't stop observing the damn universe.
Posted by Tom Tesslin
- May 20, 2017, 12:16 AMGeorge:
While I can accept your point of respecting this Utah group, this is the same old gang, they are just pushing something else. They claimed the polygraph was the defacto standard for detecting lies for decades and now they are saying it is all in the eyes!
I normally am not a poster on blog sites, and have been meaning to look at this site ever since my fate. Maybe this eyedetect device would have been easier for this neophyte to use other than the Lafayette unit he used on me. I was his 2nd victim! as this person was a newly minted polygraph examiner.
Former federal polygraph examiners are also on this bandwagon as in
http://www.c3acorp.com/eyedetect.html
All of these people stick together as in the end it is all about money. The polygraph money train is slowing down and they had to develop a new trap.
A friend of mine in the US Border Patrol updated me on this weeks ago. It is being considered due to too many polygraph failures. US Border Patrol is on a hiring frenzy and has changed the policy on pre-employment exams to some degree when it comes to experienced applicants.
I am no technical person but I do not think this new gadget will catch fire. It is just too much of a threat to the existing polygraph market. It is also hypocritical as the polygraph experts are now saying one measurement, as in the EYE is the best way to go!
I was thinking of applying to PSP as they dumped polygraph and I was a state trooper before going federal when I was younger. Probably too old now but I still can keep up for the most part. Treating people with respect still works. I think RR said it best: If you can't makem see the light, make em feel he heat.
The work you have done on this site has helped many people. I just wish I would have gone to this site before I took what was my last polygraph, as the outcome would have been different. Have a good evening and I appreciate you allowing people like me to post on this site.
While I can accept your point of respecting this Utah group, this is the same old gang, they are just pushing something else. They claimed the polygraph was the defacto standard for detecting lies for decades and now they are saying it is all in the eyes!
I normally am not a poster on blog sites, and have been meaning to look at this site ever since my fate. Maybe this eyedetect device would have been easier for this neophyte to use other than the Lafayette unit he used on me. I was his 2nd victim! as this person was a newly minted polygraph examiner.
Former federal polygraph examiners are also on this bandwagon as in
http://www.c3acorp.com/eyedetect.html
All of these people stick together as in the end it is all about money. The polygraph money train is slowing down and they had to develop a new trap.
A friend of mine in the US Border Patrol updated me on this weeks ago. It is being considered due to too many polygraph failures. US Border Patrol is on a hiring frenzy and has changed the policy on pre-employment exams to some degree when it comes to experienced applicants.
I am no technical person but I do not think this new gadget will catch fire. It is just too much of a threat to the existing polygraph market. It is also hypocritical as the polygraph experts are now saying one measurement, as in the EYE is the best way to go!
I was thinking of applying to PSP as they dumped polygraph and I was a state trooper before going federal when I was younger. Probably too old now but I still can keep up for the most part. Treating people with respect still works. I think RR said it best: If you can't makem see the light, make em feel he heat.
The work you have done on this site has helped many people. I just wish I would have gone to this site before I took what was my last polygraph, as the outcome would have been different. Have a good evening and I appreciate you allowing people like me to post on this site.
Posted by Ex Member
- May 19, 2017, 10:05 PMI personally have a lot of respect for the Utah group. They were the first to apply critical thinking and the scientific method to polygraphy. You are correct Tom that this website is dedicated to exposing polygraph abuse and elucidating that it is "pseudo-science." But, that also fosters two schools of thought:
1. The polygraph should not be employed for screening and monitoring as its true accuracy is not known. However, if one day, the problem of establishing ground truth in forensic settings could be solved and the true accuracy is found to be commensurate with other forensic testing, then its utility should at least be considered.
2. No way! Accurate or not, nobody has the right to delve into that private domain of our psyche and soul. Even if a valid truth machine could be invented, it should be smashed and the plans burned.
My impression is that most of the posters here are of the latter mindset.
1. The polygraph should not be employed for screening and monitoring as its true accuracy is not known. However, if one day, the problem of establishing ground truth in forensic settings could be solved and the true accuracy is found to be commensurate with other forensic testing, then its utility should at least be considered.
2. No way! Accurate or not, nobody has the right to delve into that private domain of our psyche and soul. Even if a valid truth machine could be invented, it should be smashed and the plans burned.
My impression is that most of the posters here are of the latter mindset.
Posted by Tom Tesslin
- May 19, 2017, 09:33 PMConverus is made up of " Polygraph Greats " to be sarcastic if nothing else. This is the next phase of their lives as there is no more runway left for the polygraph. Big time money is financing this operation to include the ranks of Mark Cuban, well know Trump hater and critic. This website is dedicated to exposing polygraph and how it has hurt decent people. I am one of them as I lost my job during the last administration, as they turned up the dial on polygraph exams hoping that would stop the future Ed Snowdens. When you look at the management and science team of Converus on the website, it is a who's who of the polygraph community.