The Wikipedia entry for Pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience) includes a section titled "Identifying pseudoscience." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience#Identifying_pseudoscience) I invite all to peruse this checklist and consider for themselves how polygraphy fares.
Well, there you go. That just goes to show that we can all learn something new. I now know the meaning of "granfalloon." Thanks, George.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on Dec 13, 2006, 04:29 PMWell, there you go. That just goes to show that we can all learn something new. I now know the meaning of "granfalloon." Thanks, George.
The existence of polygraph granfalloons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granfalloon), chief amongst them the American Polygraph Association, which purports to be "Dedicated to Truth" (APA motto) but sees no ethical problem (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3092.msg21841#msg21841) with a past president and life member falsely passing himself off as a Ph.D. (https://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-036.shtml) in marketing his polygraph services, is but one of the many hallmarks of pseudoscience stamped all over the empty vessel of polygraphy.
Although it doesn't address polygraphy, Brian Dunning's video about critical thinking and recognizing pseudoscience, Here Be Dragons, may be of interest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=752V173e31o
George
I agree with this video and I'm the biggest skeptic around and don't believe much until I try it myself when it come to urbal benefits. However, I think this guy is wrong when it comes to the FDA.
I have been plagued with skin cancer for 20 years. I had four surgically removed with two returning. Then my daughter obtained a product that cured melanoma on her prize stallion. It was suggested that he be put down. He lived another 12 years. I then used it on the two carcinomas that returned. It cured them and they never returned. Then I got melanoma myself in my right temple and applied this product. Walla. It was cured. I can furnish pictures of the different stages of cure. It has cured cancers on me, three members of my family and four others 17 times without a failure. But do you think the FDA will do research on it. Hell no. Why? Because this product has been curing cancer for 100 years and pharma industries and the medical profession can't make their billions from it. I firmly believe that the FDA is the enforcement arm of the AMA and Pharma.
I will not name the product because I don't believe in advertising on someone else's website.
Like I said. I proved it on me first then others without a failure. I still don't believe the pseudoscience of polygraphy because I proved it ineffective on me first.
Should that have been herbal instead of urbal? Are phonetics allowed here. lol. I do pretty good in ebonics or eubonics also.
Twoblock,
The point in the video concerning the FDA is the importance of blinded clinical trials with statistically significant numbers of individuals for evaluating the effectiveness of a drug. Anecdotal evidence is not enough.
With regard to polygraphy, our personal experiences do not prove that it's not valid. Even a valid test for deception (and none has yet been devised) would have a margin of error, and inevitably some truthful persons would be wrongly classified as deceptive (and vice versa).
But polygraphy has not been proven to reliably differentiate between liars and truth-tellers under field conditions. Those who claim it is a highly accurate test for deception (who inevitably have a financial stake in polygraphy) have failed to support such claims with evidence that withstands scrutiny.
With regard to the FDA, it doesn't initiate testing of drugs. The company that wants to market a drug does so (http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/default.htm). I'm glad that your melanomas are cured, but your experience is not enough to prove that the treatment you employed is generally safe and effective.
Of course, as you noted, herbal is spelled with an "h." Some people aspirate the h, some don't, which explains how a misspelling like "urbal" can arise.
This video is nothing more than orthodox establishment thinking, and the guy who made it is nothing more than a tool for the establishment.
He cites FDA clinical trials as the holy grail methodology of "scientific proof". YET - he conveniently does not mention that the same FDA pulled more than 1,700 prescription drugs from the market in 2009, after they underwent the vaunted FDA clinical trial process. Explain that one George...
Then he hocks his own book at the end of the video - but warns the viewers to watch out for such tactics. He denigrates both chiropractors and acupuncture, which have been supported by major medical universities and centers such as John Hopkins.
And, George, if you believe the BS this "expert" is spewing then why don't you accept the controlled US government clinical studies of the polygraph. Yeah, I know the polygraph is a very crude instrument with limited utility --- but if one were to accept the information in this video then polygraph should be accepted. After all, the same US Government that controls the FDA controls polygraph...
Just some food for thought my friend.
skeptic too,
The FDA's 1,700 prescription drug recalls in 2009 were evidently based on manufacturing lapses (http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/16/news/companies/drug_recall_surge/index.htm), and not faulty clinical trials.
The US government has not conducted any trial of polygraphy that is remotely comparable to the FDA's clinical trial process.
As Alan Zelicoff, M.D. has observed, "If we had medical tests that had the same failure rate as a polygraph, then physicians that use those tests would be convicted of malpractice."
Applying this checklist comparing features of science with those of pseudoscience to the field of polygraphy is instructive:
LOL...you could replaced the psuedoscience catchword with polygraphy and no one would ever know the word psuedoscience was there in the first place!!! LOL
1st4th5thand6th,
You can yuk it up until hell freezes over.
Why is that?
Because polygraph "works" -- at least in one fashion or another.
In the grand scheme of things, that's all that matters.
Consider this:
- Polygraph has expanded exponentially since 9/11.
PCSOT has made inroads into the UK and beyond.
Russia, China, India and many other nations are becoming increasingly invested in the liebox.
Polygraph is here to stay...at least until the next big thing in lie detection is more firmly is place.
To learn more about that eventuality, go here: www.converus.com
Meanwhile, you will have to reckon with the fact that life ain't fair, and Uncle Sugar hates to take chances when it comes to national security.
Yes, the deck is stacked in that regard.
That's the way it is.
I rarely ever comment on this board anymore, but as a scientist and engineer, 2 letters "BS". Just like fMRI was going to be the next big thing in detection of deception devices. This eye movement device delves into the same area that the fMRI tries too. That the human body has a definitive standardized response to lying. Standardized responses from human beings is a pipe dream. Which has always been the holy grail for any device that claims to be able to detect deception. And I can off the top of my head think of at least 5 OTC medicines that would not only hinder any attempt to monitor eye movements, if not completely negate reactive eye movements. Try as you might Mr. Mangan, science and substance beats pseudoscience everytime. And once a subject is trained on how the detection of deception con is played, (pick your device), it basically renders the process useless. Or in layman's terms, once you know the magicians trick, it is far from impressive.
EosJupiter,
So what?
The "magician's trick," as you call it, still works on most of the people most of the time.
If, for nothing else, EyeDetect will replace polygraph in federal and state government credibility assessment applications out of sheer economic superiority.
As you know, fMRI is cost-prohibitive.
Polygraph is relatively costly and decidedly high maintenance.
EyeDetect is...and please forgive the un-PC term...a God$end.
This game is all about gross percentages -- and bang for the buck.
Mr Mangan,
Just like every other Detection of Deception machine, or should I say Placebo Device, its only as good as the selling job that's done with it. If you correlate Placebo Effect to any deception detection process, its one and the same. The ultimate countermeasure to be trained is "Just don't believe". Core Non-belief leads to no adrenals released, no F3 reactions, no reactions on the machine. Its that simple, and knowledge is power. Remove the fear and anxiety and you get nothing. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist, once informed, to see any deception detection device as being worthless. So until a device is built that can actually read the human mind, any of these devices remain just what they are, interrogation props. And a knowledgeable subject will know he has nothing to fear from them. Which defeats even the most ardent operator.
EosJupiter, I agree with you to a significant extent. An absence of fear really upsets the polygraph applecart.
However, that is not to say that the fearless necessarily pass the test. From what I've seen, they usually "flatline" right through the process, making the result inconclusive.
Is that a win? It depends. In many quarters, an inconclusive polygraph is viewed -- in a practical sense -- as a flunk.
So, for the sex offender or gov't/LE job applicant who's under pressure to pass a polygraph, the lack of fear will only help them if they help themselves with CMs.
Most no-fear test subjects that I've observed were generally involved in a domestic dispute and subjected to the odious "infidelity test." In these cases, it appears they suffered from what Backster taught was a form of resignation. That is, the subject resigned themselves to the fact that the outcome of the test was immaterial, thus they failed to be stimulated by the questions.
In domestic cases, that usually means the suspected wayward spouse has in effect already been driven out of the relationship -- in no small part, perhaps, spurred by the humiliation via polygraph as a twisted coup de grace of sorts -- and thus has mentally "checked out." In a very real sense, such a person has already moved on with their life and is just going through the polygraph motions.
Again, these subjects generally have little reactivity to any of the questions and simply cruise right through the process in a virtual flatline profile.
Truly fearless test takers are relatively rare. One would have to manage to free themselves from the bondage of pressure to pass (as in SOs and LE/gov't applicants), or another form of expected test outcome -- which can instill a form of expectation-related anxiety.
By the way, I don't do any selling; quite the opposite, in fact. Most polygraph clients, for whatever reason, are pre-sold on the 'box. Still, I try to temper their enthusiasm with the links on my Recommended Reading web site page.
Mr Mangan
A very informed opinion, we shall see. Countering the eye movement polygraph will also happen. So the game begins a new. And I do so like a challenge.
Best Regards.
EosJupiter, I spent 20 years in the technology industry before getting into the polygraph field. I am fully confident that once engineers on the outside understand how the newfangled EyeDetect gizmo "works," methods to defeat it will become widely known. Nevertheless, EyeDetect will replace polygraph to a very large extent.
Dan,
I read over the information on the website and I don't perceive eye movement detection as any kind of a breakthrough in the detection of deception. It's based entirely on the concept of Increased Cognitive Load as measured through eye movements. Performing simple mental arithmetic can increase cognitive load and reduce the available working memory, so right away I see that the technology is not impervious to countermeasures. The company also suggests that it be used as a companion to polygraphy, which may have more utility--other than enhancing Raskin and Kircher's retirement.
Quote from: danmangan on Sep 29, 2014, 09:46 AMEosJupiter, I spent 20 years in the technology industry before getting into the polygraph field. I am fully confident that once engineers on the outside understand how the newfangled EyeDetect gizmo "works," methods to defeat it will become widely known. Nevertheless, EyeDetect will replace polygraph to a very large extent.
Mr Mangan,
I spent some time reading/researching, and analyzing this new device. I do see it generating a nice revenue stream. But my analysis is, that its just a new mouse trap polygraph. It replaces, the 4 standard sensors of a regular polygraph with an eye scanner. An easy ruse to sell to anyone not adept to seeing (pardon the pun) the device for what it is. And the part that it should be used in conjunction with a polygraph, keeps the polygraph faithful from going rabid, like it does/did with voice stress and fMRI.
This machine will work on the minions, not the masters. The machine is of no consequence to anyone of with intellect. It will provide much entertainment in some discussions I have coming up about how gullible some people are.
Best Regards
Quote from: EosJupiter on Oct 03, 2014, 02:42 AMQuote from: danmangan on Sep 29, 2014, 09:46 AMEosJupiter, I spent 20 years in the technology industry before getting into the polygraph field. I am fully confident that once engineers on the outside understand how the newfangled EyeDetect gizmo "works," methods to defeat it will become widely known. Nevertheless, EyeDetect will replace polygraph to a very large extent.
Mr Mangan,
I spent some time reading/researching, and analyzing this new device. I do see it generating a nice revenue stream. But my analysis is, that its just a new mouse trap polygraph. It replaces, the 4 standard sensors of a regular polygraph with an eye scanner. An easy ruse to sell to anyone not adept to seeing (pardon the pun) the device for what it is. And the part that it should be used in conjunction with a polygraph, keeps the polygraph faithful from going rabid, like it does/did with voice stress and fMRI.
This machine will work on the minions, not the masters. The machine is of no consequence to anyone of with intellect. It will provide much entertainment in some discussions I have coming up about how gullible some people are.
Best Regards
Right, since the polygraph industry can no longer con the masses with their current prop, they will cleverly replace it/ augment it with a new one. The "masters" of course will be found deceptive / unsuitable....regardless.
Taxpayers of course, will continue to foot the bill for all of this "expertise"....
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Sep 29, 2014, 01:41 PMDan,
I read over the information on the website and I don't perceive eye movement detection as any kind of a breakthrough in the detection of deception. It's based entirely on the concept of Increased Cognitive Load as measured through eye movements. Performing simple mental arithmetic can increase cognitive load and reduce the available working memory, so right away I see that the technology is not impervious to countermeasures. The company also suggests that it be used as a companion to polygraphy, which may have more utility--other than enhancing Raskin and Kircher's retirement.
Dan, after reading up on the research to date on using ocular metrics to detect deception, I have to admit that this previous post of mine was impulsive and dismissive. The theory behind how different reading goals and strategies may affect pupil dilation, fixation and examinee response time does indeed pass the reasonableness test. Moreover, I believe that attempts at countermeasures would be more easily distinguishable than those attempted with the polygraph. I do, however, believe that marketing of their product is premature as there has been minimal testing with mixed results. More research is clearly needed.
Hi All:
**Disclosure - I am employed by Converus, the makers of EyeDetect. This is my first post on a polygraph website. **
For 30+ years I have worked for technology startups, so I've seen many new technology products fail and others ridiculed and dismissed prematurely. My first startup invented Ethernet, and IBM said it would never work and had an organized and well-funded marketing campaign to try and kill it. But Ethernet worked and changed the world of computer networking. The marketplace is already voting with their wallets on whether EyeDetect will succeed or fail, and the next few years will be interesting...
Dan, with your background I think you will agree that bad technology dies because customers don't buy it and investors don't continue to fund companies that can't show market traction and growth. Converus' funding needs are minimal because sales have steadily grown, and our investors continue to offer additional funding to accelerate this growth. We have years of "runway", even if our sales growth slows, and we don't expect that to happen.
Since this thread discusses countermeasures, I thought I would post the countermeasures section of our whitepaper:
*****
1) To determine if an examinee is using drugs or eye dilation drops, EyeDetect administers a 45-second "light test" to ensure that the examinees' pupils are reacting normally when light is removed. If the pupils don't dilate and constrict, EyeDetect will determine the examinee is using a chemical countermeasure.
2) Examinees may shake their heads, look away, close their eyes or squint when responding to questions. This is easy to detect because EyeDetect software tracks data loss from the sensor which directly corresponds to these activities. Also, a test proctor can watch the examinee remotely by using EyeDetect Manager, a software application that remotely accesses the EyeDetect video camera and sensor data over a WiFi network.
3) Some examinees answer all questions the same way (true or false), fail to answer questions, or answer randomly to avoid thinking about responses. EyeDetect alerts the test proctor when an examinee is using these countermeasures and delivers guidance categories such as: (1) Indeterminate, (2) Insufficient Data from Eye Scanner, (3) Not Credible/Too Many Timeouts or (4) Not Credible/Random Responses or Low Comprehension.
Dr. Charles Honts is a recognized expert in polygraph countermeasures, and has been studying EyeDetect in his lab at Boise State University for over a year. He stated: "The countermeasures that are used to beat a polygraph invoke autonomic responses over a relatively long period (20 seconds). Simply put, polygraph can be beaten because the examinee has enough time for the countermeasures to work. Unlike Polygraph, EyeDetect test questions are delivered rapid fire (every 3-4 seconds), so examinees must pay close attention and stay mentally involved to answer the questions correctly. Also, the connection between the brain and the eyes is more direct; the channel from the examinees' central nervous system to the eyes is different than the channel to the autonomic nervous system. The rapid questioning keeps the examinee from using countermeasures effectively. For this reason, I do not currently see immediate active countermeasure threats to EyeDetect."
*****
If anyone on this thread has a sincere interest to learn more about the science, company, and product, please reach out to me at nharris@converus.com or call me at 801-331-8840 ext. 1012. I can assure you that the dedicated employees and scientists at Converus are only trying to help credibility assessment (CA) professionals by providing additional scientifically validated tools. CA professionals may reject these new tools, but that doesn't mean that they don't work. The science was published long before Converus became a company, so the suggestion that Drs Kircher, Hacker, Raskin, etc. falsified their research a decade earlier for personal gain is unlikely. Attacking their integrity is unfortunate when you consider the scientific contributions they have made to expand the science of deception detection.
Accuracy claims by Converus are supported by several lab and field studies - 86.1% for single issue tests. Higher accuracy rates can be achieved via cross-validation and alignment with single-issue polygraph in a successive hurdles approach. Mark Handler did the math using the accuracy rates published in the APA meta-analysis for polygraph. If you feel the claims are inaccurate, he could share the math. Also, see this link to Dr. Raskin discussing this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmLvMdoMNe0&t=67s We are certainly willing to revise our website and published materials if a scientist can show an error in our data and calculations.
Regards to all. I hope that I eventually have the pleasure to meet or speak with many of you.
QuoteAccuracy claims by Converus are supported by several lab and field studies - 86.1% for single issue tests.
I am aware of the Osher and Webb dissertations and the Patnaik thesis, but have yet to see any field studies. Can you provide them?
Hi Arkhangelsk:
Attached is the latest journal article that references all published ODT research. Fair-minded people will read the research before forming an opinion on ODT.
I loved George's post about the difference between science and pseudoscience. Science welcomes critics. I expect my post will bring them out of the woodwork, and I hope they will be thoughtful and reference any flaws they see in the research vs. their personal beliefs, intuitions, and fears. Dr. Kircher is open to any serious criticism of his research.
Also, I would be happy to send our white paper and the other referenced studies if you email me at nharris@converus.com.
QuoteI loved George's post about the difference between science and pseudoscience. Science welcomes critics.
I appreciate you providing the document. I'll give it due scrutiny. Your post glows with commercialism, but that's okay, you are like the rest of us, just a squirrel searching for a nut. Until ocular measured responses can be linked to a construct whereby they are indicative of deception, they are just another index of sympathetic/parasympathetic struggle.
Neal, in terms of its official corporate positioning, does Converus regard polygraph as science, or pseudoscience?
Converus 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.
I 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.
George:
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.
Oh, 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.
Quote 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?
Quote 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. >:( :-[ :-/ :'(
If it had not been for the moderate thinking of Gorbachev, the wall would probably still be there.
Ark:
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.
Ark:
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.
Quotethe 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.
QuoteI have triplet boys in 7th grade and twin girls in 8th grade.
A very interesting probability exercise.
Hi 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.
Oops, I meant to address my post to Ark, not George. Sorry Ark.
Quote 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.
Quote 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! :(