Looks like BOARDERS is using Voice Stress Technology out in AZ. Just think of the time and cost the voice stress would save the government. It's about time this happened.
USIS signs teaming agreement with University of Arizona for development of new investigative tools
Research project to assist U.S. with winning the future on border security
FALLS CHURCH, Va., April 27, 2011 – USIS, an Altegrity company, has signed a teaming agreement with The National Center of Border Security and Immigration (BORDERS) at the University of Arizona to develop new investigative tools that will enable agencies to conduct comprehensive interviews and inquiries of current and prospective employees. The research will be conducted at the campus of the University of Arizona in partnership with USIS.
"This is an exciting opportunity for USIS," said Bill Mixon, president and CEO of USIS. "As the nation's largest provider of investigation services, we bring a wealth of experience to this partnership. I believe our work with the University of Arizona in this project will result in a more thorough and comprehensive screening process for those organizations that have that requirement."
BORDERS, headquartered at the University of Arizona, is a consortium of 14 premier institutions dedicated to the development of innovative technologies, proficient processes and effective policies that help protect our nation's borders. The Center is funded by the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate.
"We look forward to integrating our technologies with USIS' current investigative procedures," said Dr. Elyse Golob, executive director of BORDERS. "This partnership will give us the opportunity to use our innovations to tackle border security challenges. It will also provide our students with real-world experience in integrating technologies into the interview process."
"This project will rapidly test and evaluate technologies to augment and enhance employee screening," said Damon Hudson, vice president of investigative programs of USIS's Investigative Services Division. "What makes this different from the way employee screening is being conducted now is the infusion of service enabled technology that will aid investigators in a more thorough, complete and accurate investigation."
BORDERS researchers bring more than 30 years of experience in credibility assessment. While many detection techniques exist, ranging from physiologically-based instruments to behavioral cues, no single indicator has proven to be accurate 100 percent of the time. To respond to this challenge, BORDERS has developed computer-assisted detection tools that assist human interviewers by analyzing and tracking speech and nonverbal behavior. These techniques have shown great promise in discerning both truthful and deceptive information.
"We will utilize our extensive experience in credibility assessment technologies and validation to augment and automate the interview processes," said Dr. Jay Nunamaker, Regents and Soldwedel professor of MIS, Computer Science, and Communication, who also serves as BORDERS director and principal investigator. "Our research has already produced many proprietary and custom-built products relevant to rapid, high-volume screening and we are already developing new applications."
About USIS:
USIS provides services under more than 100 contracts and is the largest commercial provider of background investigations to the federal government. It has more than 6,600 employees working in all 50 states and overseas. USIS offers litigation support as well as customized solutions for helping government clients manage records, information and documents. In addition, it specializes in construction surveillance services, physical/personnel/facility security and investigative analytics.
About BORDERS:
The National Center for Border Security and Immigration (BORDERS) is a university-based Center of Excellence funded by the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, Office of University Programs. BORDERS, headquartered at the University of Arizona, was established in 2008. BORDERS conducts research on detection, sensor networks, data fusion, and immigration policy.
Media Contacts:
USIS, Jack Papp, office 703-245-0867, cell 571-251-3978, or Jack.Papp@altegrity.com
BORDERS, Riley McIsaac, 520-621-7515, or rmcisaac@borders.arizona.edu
Altegrity Fact Sheet
analyzing and tracking speech and nonverbal behavior
This is not VSA, more too it than voice tremors. Nonverbal and speech tracking indicates both word usage and physical movements of the body.
Look out tax payers we're being ripped off again by another psuedo Science gimmick. Our idiot government, especially Homeland Security, is a pushover for crap like this. Oh well, as long as people stay complacent they will get away with it. I fight them with everything I have but I can't do it alone.
Securing the border is so simple. Let old boys like me patrol the border. We would furnish our own guns and work for nothing. There are enough of us willing to do this that each one would have five miles of border to patrol. I assure you there would not be another Mexican cross the border to the U.S. Very simple and very cheap. Huh?? How bout it Napilatano and Obama? You are breaking us on crap like is described above.
You're just what they're looking for, a gun-toting geezer ready to shoot first and ask questions later. Get back to the retirement home grandpa and put your dentures back in. Leave the border protection to the professionals.
Quote from: quickfix on May 05, 2011, 03:51 PMYou're just what they're looking for, a gun-toting geezer ready to shoot first and ask questions later. Get back to the retirement home grandpa and put your dentures back in. Leave the border protection to the professionals.
So I see you hate old people along with sex offenders. It must be horrible to wake up every morning with such hatred eating away at your soul.
Two Block, we need more like you.
quickfix
You Obama quacks are doing such a piss poor job of securing the border let's do it my way for a change. However, that will never happen because the more illegals that unlawfully come in here means more illegal votes for Obama and leftwing poluted-ticians. Just ask Harry Reid about getting elected by hauling loads of illegal Mexicans to Las Vegas to make sure he won. First hand knowledge of that happening.
You must have a contract to polygraph prospective agents for BP with strict instructions from Obama to weed out the good prospects and hire garbage that won't do their job. That makes you important with Washington. Huh? Mexico or any other country would shoot me or anyone else that tried to illegally inter their country. If you don't believe that, then you head is in the sand.
I may be old but I can still whip ass with fists or guns. You left wing nuts better dance while you have a dance floor because we will remove it starting next year.
If you are intelligently capable, why don't you try intelligently debating instead of being dumb and calling your opposition names. Is what we see hear the limit of your vocabulary? Must be.
Wow, what a conversation. TwoBlock, I'm with you, put us old farts on the border armed and we can control immigration on the Southern Border.
I am in polygraph, however I'm not left wing or liberal. If you need help on the border, just let me know, I'll be there with you.
Bill,
Dont knock what you dont really know.
I will agree with you that LVA is unreliable, having tested it personally and thoroughly.
The original, traditional VSA systems are reliable in the 'right hands' (just as with p/g) but..........
the new generation of automated vsa systems remove most of potential examiner induced errors and are highly reliable.
AVSA PRO 1,8 is such a system. It is bang up to date 2011
check it out.
Not sure what I "Knocked". I would like to see any published research generated by the manufacturer and also independent studies so I can make an informed statement.
Well, Cliff, we are waiting.
Dear Pailryder,
You do have to understand that the whole sales discussion sounds very similar to what has been proposed as polygraph strong points. This is a way to save money and shorten the process of finding who is being truthful or not. I know that you do not pontificate or make rude remarks. If you can, please listen to the sales pitch and pretend that instead of the word "voice analysis" and "body language", we inject "polygraph."
Bill Brown,
Twoblock is opinionated but he has the right to voice his opinion, just as you do. You have to admit, your first posting after Twoblock's post was pure knee-jerk reaction without any type of intellectual thought or discussion. It kind of distracts and subtracts from your credibility when you make further presentations.
It comes down to this: the government is looking for a cheaper alternative to the polygraph. Our present day society is very accepting of "apps" to get the job done. A company creates what looks like a cheap sure fire way of using technology to enhance security for far less than it takes to make the current polygraph system work. It does not matter whether it works or not to Congress, it matters that it makes them look good for voting for it. "I am Congressman ________ and I voted for Bill 2699 which will enhance border security with technology that will not add to the budget deficit. We can now automatically screen everyone by computer for less than the previous cost of screening far less people with human operators."
I do not agree with any technology predicting the "truth." That said, they have a great selling gimmick and the polygraph community has far more to fear from their cheaper automatic programs than they do from this website.
If people believe it works, then it works for the intended purpose.
The best example I can give is the AED devices that are now common place everywhere. I can take a one day course and be certified to operate an AED. You hook the person up and the machine runs through a predefined program and make the decision for you. It take NO specialized training to operate. This is compared to the years of training it took to become a paramedic in the past. The machine is being certified to make the decisions according to a preset list of parameters that the paramedics used to use.
I am now a "Voice/Body Language" technician. I set up the listening device, I set up the camera according to preset instructions and start the program. Similar to the radar guns in police cars, I do not have to be a FCC Radar endorsed technician to operate the radar gun. I take a one day manufacturer approved course that I can use in court as proof of proficiency for the intention of issuing a ticket. The computer asks the question, analyses the results, and comes up with the analysis according to programmed parameters.
I could get a monkey to do it but the monkey wants too many bananas (satire intended, laugh with me).
It sounds too good to be true, just like polygraph exams. Congress will love it and go for it in a heart beat.
Regards.
Fair Chance, nice post and I must apologize to TwoBlock if I offended him. I was not making fun of him at all, I was agreeing with him and I am elderly also. I also know some miners in Alaska and the shape their are in physically.
Again my apologies.
Dear Bill_Brown,
No need to apologize, your statements are rather polite compared to some of the stuff that goes on in these posts. I know TwoBlock, his skin is so thick people think he is wearing a Kevlar vest.
We are just sharing ideas. Have a good day.
Regards.
Fair Chance
I understand how and why VSA systems are marketed to sound like polygraph, only cheaper. And you are exactly right that they pose a greater economic threat to polygraph than this site, because polygraph will never be abolished, as is the stated goal of this site, but it will surely, at some point, be replaced by a more advanced technology.
You don't like technology predicting the truth. I understand your discomfort, but some technique will be used because there are instances where any improvement over chance could prove useful.
The polygraph techniques are interviews and interrogations accompanied by physical recordings. An interrogator, a person, will always be necessary to interview and question the subject, to discuss and clarify the issue to be addressed and to formulate proper questions. (only my humble opinion)
The voice stress technologies are not new, they have been around longer than I have been in polygraph. They are not the future because there are no favorable peer reviewed studies to support them.
Clifton, or polyvsa, comes on the board from time to time to promote vsa with ancedotal evidence but never cites scientific studies.
How about it Cliff? We are still waiting.
Quote from: pailryder on May 20, 2011, 05:46 PMbecause polygraph will never be abolished, as is the stated goal of this site
Yes I agree. The polygraph will probably never be abolished. But, we can, as Dorothy did, pull back the curtain to expose the charlatan.
stefano
Not to split hairs but I thought that was Toto.
Quote from: pailryder on May 21, 2011, 07:00 AMNot to split hairs but I thought that was Toto.
Good catch.
Dear pailryder,
The main concern about polygraph is as you say, "peer reviewed studies." All or most of the "peer reviewed studies" concerning polygraph are by parties that have an interest in furthering the use of polygraph. It is like many drug companies that have sponsored "independent" studies to proclaim their drugs effective and safe. Only is it years or decades later that we find out the long term damage and the millions spent on a useless drug.
Again, any device that claims it can work to detect deception is as good as the polygraph because the polygraph is unproven except for anecdotal evidence and studies. In our present state of federal and state budgetary crisis, I see it being abandoned for the "next great thing." Unless polygraph operators can cut the cost, I see polygraph operations being cut-back. It is not even about evidence or argument, it is about money. Polygraph is finally being found to be not economically feasible.
A computer with properly programmed parameters can come up with a fifty-fifty chance of detecting deception. If I can convince you that it is effective, the odds go up. The polygraph is just a thinly veiled interrogation process that desperately depends on the subject's believe that it works. Otherwise, it is ineffective. Computers are cheaper and their results are going to be the same.
Regards.
Quote from: Fair_Chance on May 22, 2011, 10:38 PMthe polygraph is unproven except for anecdotal evidence and studies.
Fair Chance
Unproven, really? After more than eighty years of use, anecdotal evidence, and studies, what other proof are you asking for? What other proof would you accept?
Why don't the anti's pool their resources and produce a peer reviewed study of their own to debunk the polygraph myth once and for all?
Quote from: Fair_Chance on May 22, 2011, 10:38 PMThe polygraph is just a thinly veiled interrogation process that desperately depends on the subject's believe that it works.Otherwise, it is ineffective. Computers are cheaper and their results are going to be the same.
Interesting....as long as they want a gimmick, let's give them one that costs less. I can actually see these knuckle-Draggers falling for it.
Quote from: pailryder on May 23, 2011, 08:10 AMWhy don't the anti's pool their resources and produce a peer reviewed study of their own to debunk the polygraph myth once and for all?
Your point is well taken. In all my postings, you will notice that I never said the polygraph is not accurate. The problem is there is no way to tell. As Fair Chance said, the people conducting the studies have an agenda and the resultant bias is unavoidable. In fairness, this bias would also be present should the other side choose to do their own studies. But, it's all futile as there is no way to tell because you cannot read someone's mind. Having a bunch of college students at Boise State saying "oh yeah, I was telling the truth" or conversely having a confession by some sociopath substantiate a DI polygraph report proves nothing. There is no theory from stimulus onset to the sympathetic reaction. They can say "over 80 years, we have observed this", but there is still no theory.
Polygraph accuracy cannot be determined; it's impossible. My stand is not from one of accuracy, but rather I don't want to live in an America where people are strapped to Orwellian machines with the goal of opening up their soul. If someone tries to do the guilt trip thing with me about how Sex Offenders are contained as a result of the polygraph, I counter that all these therapists get into a room and open up a big box of granola and think of some other way.
stefano
I do know some polygraph guys who hold rather high opinions of themselves, but I have never heard them claim to have opened up anyone's soul.
Stefano,
Please explain what you are stating regarding theory. I am aware of the reason reactions occur on polygraph, from stimulus onset to sympathetic arousal.
Quote from: Bill_Brown on May 23, 2011, 06:46 PMStefano,
Please explain what you are stating regarding theory. I am aware of the reason reactions occur on polygraph, from stimulus onset to sympathetic arousal.
There is no theory which can link the precise neurological mechanisms to deception. Sympathetic arousal is indicative of fear, but extrapolation of fear to deception is pure conjecture.
Quote from: pailryder on May 23, 2011, 05:43 PMbut I have never heard them claim to have opened up anyone's soul.
Asking someone how many times they masturbate each week or coercing people to share fantasies about sex with their mothers comes pretty darn close Pailryder. There is a line that should not be crossed in a democratic society.
Dear pailryder,
There are some good discussion points going on and you brought up a few. I would like an independent study by qualified scientists who have no horse in the race. These studies are impossible to come by. Everyone has a horse in this race and there are no independent peer-reviewed case studies. In just about every study, a researcher can find a bias which can skew the research both pro and con. A truly scientific procedure should easily display its repeatability and reliability. The polygraph examiners have placed too many variables, such as the experience and quality of examiner, type of questions, pre-screening application use or specific incident use as excuses why some results are not repeatable or justifying why passed examinees should have been failed after the fact.
When an EKG is taken according to manufacturer instructions, the technician follows a preset order of operations and procedures which can be exactly duplicated by another similarly qualified technician. The polygraph does not have such repeatability.
I can use a telescope for eighty years and say the sun revolved around the earth. Everyone agrees with my statement so it must be right. Just because something has been done for eighty years does not mean it is scientific or accurate, it just means it was a practice or urban legend passed on from generation to generation based on belief, not science. I can give you anecdotal statements that back up my theory. If I do not provide evidence to back up my theory, it is just a statement, not fact.
I believe that the best way to prove something is to disprove the negative. Let us assume that the polygraph exam is scientific, repeatable, and 99.99% accurate. If a theory is correct, repeatability is essential and the data should show little or no variation from the expected mean. There should not have to be collateral damage with a scientifically tested and proven technique. There should be no false positives unless they are attributed to error associated with the machine calibration error. Automatic laboratory testing with computers is 99.9999% accurate unless the calibration of the equipment is out of range. There are no other excuses.
I am stating that a computer can be programmed to analyze the same readings according to existing polygraph examiner protocols and the machine should be 99.999% effective unless the protocols are incorrect or the machine is out of calibration. Why do we need an operator, let's save money. If you tell me a machine cannot be programmed to do what you do, I am stating that you are not performing a scientific, fact based, parameter limited, repeatable test.
If the polygraph exam is scientific, a computer should be able to repeat the exam on the subject with identical results every time. The computer injects no bias except for the bias of the programmer. It follows protocols regardless of ethnicity, age, or nervousness of the subject. I should be able to hit the retest button every time and get the same results.
When an examiner argues that a compute cannot do his job, I would use those exact arguments against them and state that their results are biased or flawed. The results should be defined on preset, concrete, and repeatable parameters. Gee, it is starting to sound like an AED machine. Read up on the research and programming that is involved in allowing a machine to make the judgment about whether a defibrillator should be used or not. They are programming a machine to perform a life or death decision . Applying a shock when not needed will kill a living person. You cannot tell me that if you have a scientifically proven way of using polygraphs to detect deception, it is not capable of being programmed into a machine. We should not need human operators to do the analysis or exam. If we do need operators because the machine cannot be programmed to make the decision, then I doubt the parameters are correct or scientific.
Regards.
Quote from: stefano on May 23, 2011, 08:30 PMQuote from: Bill_Brown on May 23, 2011, 06:46 PMStefano,
There is no theory which can link the precise neurological mechanisms to deception. Sympathetic arousal is indicative of fear, but extrapolation of fear to deception is pure conjecture.
Stefano,
We are in agreement on this. (Fight Flight to Deception is not 100% and there is a possibility of error)
The reason for an extended interview is to create a mind set that focuses on fear of detection. Are we 100% sure we accomplished that task? No we are not and we have an error rate. There is a second argument regarding cognitive conflict causing reaction. That will be for another days discussion.
stefano
Quote from: stefano on May 23, 2011, 08:33 PMAsking someone how many times they masturbate each week or coercing people to share fantasies about sex with their mothers comes pretty darn close Pailryder. There is a line that should not be
stefano
What agency allows an examiner to ask those questions?
Quote from: pailryder on May 24, 2011, 03:25 PMWhat agency allows an examiner to ask those questions?
Those are excerpts from PCSOT exams which I have critiqued.
Quote from: Bill_Brown on May 24, 2011, 10:49 AMThe reason for an extended interview is to create a mind set that focuses on fear of detection.Are we 100% sure we accomplished that task?No we are not and we have an error rate.
This is the point where science departs the scene and shamanism takes over.
Dear Bill_Brown,
I know that you are trying to express your view and I feel that your last statement was completely unscientific. It was a perfect example of why the polygraph is just a thinly veiled interrogation process that depends on the subject being convinced that you can use the machine to detect deception. Your last answer is really stretching thin the line of scientific testing. You have absolutely no way of knowing if you have created a scientifically acceptable and repeatable "...mindset that focuses on the fear of detection."
You are very honest in your statement but look at the statement: You are saying that a mindset of fear of detection is necessary for successful scientific testing. You and every other examiner have absolutely no idea of what level of fear of detection is relevant. Your parameters are not scientific or repeatable.
Your are polite and I enjoy your talking points, but I am going to need parameters that are independent of any fear process if this test is going to be repeatable or programmable in a computer. This is not some type of "feel good" test, people's lives and careers are being ruined by a test that depends on fear. What a wonderful way to describe a job description for an applicant: You must be able to provide the proper fear reflex in your mind in order to get this position. All others need not apply. For those who cannot supply the proper fear reflex, we are truly sorry but we must ruin your chances of ever getting another federal position that requires this fear attribute in your mind.
Sounds very scary, just like the movie Gattica.
I respect your sincerity that you really believe in what you are doing but I cannot accept any type of science to your statements. I need to have the proper amount of fear in my mind to pass? What a concept in the year 2011! It reminds me more of the Spanish Inquisition. The tortured subject was guilty and the only way for him to save his eternal soul was to pronounce his guilt. When he finally pronounces his guilt after extreme torture, his soul can be saved. In order to save his soul, he is sentenced to death for admitting to the accusations. The torturer has a wonderful sense of self-worth for he has sent another guilty soul to their death after justifying that death with the confession that they obtained.
It sounds so familiar, the polygraph examiner says, "Work with me, tell me what is going on and we can get through this together." The only way for the examinees to save their employment chances are to admit to what the examiners want them to admit to. After those admissions, the examiners feel justified in finding them guilty of the charges that they accused them of. What a wonderful way to introduce employees to employment with the American government.
History has a wonderful sense of repeating itself.
Regards.
Pailryder ( Hi Eric)
Firstly, I think you understand my sentiments iro DOD tech.
Neither p/g nor vsa are perfect sciences.
In the hands of the unskilled, they are highly unreliable.
Attending a p/g or vsa training course does not turn anyone into a DOD expert. Conversely, many examiners, despite their many years of experience, are simply unskilled.
WRT scientific validation, the p/g industry should keep mum and fly under the radar. As you well know, the bulk of p/g research was pretty soundly thumped by the NAS study.
Anti-vsa research was funded by p/g vested interests.
So what. For every 'pro' report on either tech, one can find an 'anti' research report. Again, so what !
We dont have to throw the babies out with the bathwater.
Both technologies have proven to be useful and useless in turn.
I support the view of the unknown cia guy who allegedly said, " We have to push 100 in the front door to get 1 out of the back door. But in view of the fact that we have nothing else ( no 100% accurate tech), that's what we have to do."
The DOD industry as a whole suffers when each takes cheap shots at the other.
I would be happy to send you a trial version of AVSA PRO, but that wouldnt go down too well with the APA hierarchy I guess.
Keep Well.
polyvsa
I believe all intelligent members of the deception detection industry will admit to collateral damage applicants (false positives). My question is: Why do the national security agencies feel it necessary to blacklist failed applicants who will never be able to get a LE job? I thought blacklisting was outlawed. Now I remember though. LE entities, especially those controlled by federal idiots, and poluted-ticians are not subject to the laws imposed on the other industries. As I've said before, it is wrong for a one person/one machine decision to ruin the imployment life of an honest person. Federal agencies should be subject to the same laws and statutes imposed on the rest of us. A one person jury cannot convict one charged with a crime.
Fair Chance,
My postings are not designed to impress you or convince you that I am highly intelligent. The words I use are simple and easy to understand. This is not a scientific forum!!
You seem to have missed the last statement made regarding Cognitive Conflict.
Your statement regarding your need for "parameters" of fear is amusing. If you have read TLBTLD you have read the parameters and how they are established. Please do not be condescending in your reply's to me. You are above that.
I don't recall stating polygraph examinations were "Scientific". Science is involved, and human interaction is involved. Human interaction is not scientific.
Stefano,
[/quote]This is the point where science departs the scene and shamanism takes over.[/quote]
I'm impressed with the use of "shamanism". You are truly a scholar. I am sure that was meant to imply I am using a Sham in the common sense of the word. It actually is a complement when understood properly.
I do understand fear of detection is the common thought regarding how Fight/Flight activates during polygraph examinations. I would suggest it is actually a Cognitive Conflict.
Quote from: Bill_Brown on May 25, 2011, 03:32 PMI am sure that was meant to imply I am using a Sham in the common sense of the word.
I would not resort to saying you are perpetuating a sham; I believe you are sincere. I was speaking figuratively to point out at what stage the scientific method is replaced by snake oil. I was not attacking the indigenous peoples of the North.
SHAMANISM
A religion practiced by indigenous peoples of far northern Europe and Siberia that is characterized by belief in an unseen world of gods, demons, and ancestral spirits responsive only to the shamans.
I have to admit that the parallelism does indeed resonate.
Quote from: Bill_Brown on May 25, 2011, 03:32 PMI do understand fear of detection is the common thought regarding how Fight/Flight activates during polygraph examinations.I would suggest it is actually a Cognitive Conflict.
Cognitive Conflict and its associated paradigms: Belief Disconfirmation, Induced-Compliance, Free-Choice and Effort-Justification surely come into play in the autonomous central nervous system and the associated psycho-physiological responses. You may want to read up on research into mental work currently being done by Aldert Vrij. However, until this research can link specific neurological mechanisms to deception, I will remain unconvinced.
Dear Bill_Brown,
If my posting seemed condescending, it was not my intent. I just take exception to any type of "science" being involved when you talk polygraph exams. I can agree with you that human action is not scientific. You are taking purely physical reactions with a machine and there is no science involved except for the creation of the machine to measure physical reactions.
The LBTD has generalities of how reactions are "scored." The score is not scientific, I think we agree on that (and you can correct me if you do not agree on that). It is all subjective. I just can not seem to fathom how anyone can say it is so accurate without valid test performed in a repeatable scientific manner.
The polygraph community just cannot make public statements about its accuracy without some type of controlled tests. I do not believe that any quality controlled tests have been performed by an independent entity who does not have an interest in the outcome.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I absolutely think that any Voice Analyzers combined with body language analysis will have just as good an outcome in predicting deception as the polygraph. I personally would not like to have my tax money spent on either but if the computerized version was cheaper to perform without an operator, I would go for the cheapest and lowest bid. I think Congress will think that way if they believe it to secure the borders more efficiently.
Quote from: Bill_Brown on May 25, 2011, 03:23 PMPlease do not be condescending in your reply's to me
I don't see anything condescending in his post at all. He did not try to come off as being superior to you. He stated that the "fear parameter" is totally unscientific and it is.
When chuckles suggested that you step up to the countermeasure challenge, you stated that you don't have to prove anything to anyone and you are confident in your abilities.
Forgive me, but what I see is you taking the victim posture when your point is close to impeachment.
This is a scientific forum in a way as the scientific method is the true way to debunk the tomfoolery. There are certain requirements for a scientific test which the polygraph technique cannot meet: Repeatability and Reproducibility.
Reproducibility is different from repeatability, which measures the success rate in successive experiments, possibly conducted by the same experimenters. Reproducibility relates to the agreement of test results with different operators, test apparatus, and laboratory locations. It is often reported as a standard deviation.
If I may defer to Gershon Ben-Shakhar, there is also a lack of objective quantification of the physiological responses, inadequate standardization and also a severe risk of contamination and bias.
This is not condescending--just facts.
Bill, can you recommend any (easy to read) books on how to detect liars without using the polygraph.
I saw a video of you on youtube. There you talked about watching eye movements (dependent on right or left handedness), shifting eyes, rubbing your neck, tapping fingers, looking at watch, creating barriers, leaning back in chair, keeping arms crossed, hands clasped in lap, trying to switch conversation, changing their voice, and combinations.
Question: Should polygraphees be conscious of this aspect of the polygraph.
Stefano,
This is not a scientific forum by any stretch of the imagination. There are arguments being made that have scientific basis, however this is a chat forum based on "debunking" use of polygraph.
I am not a victim by any means, I do attempt to stay civil in all postings and not engage in name calling or other infractions of the stated posting policies.
I am familiar with the paper by Ben-Shakhar and other studies that are "anti-polygraph". I would suggest you read the newer studies by the Department of Defense, Raskin/Kircher, Barland, and other persons involved in polygraph.
To decide a study is not valid because it was conducted by persons involved in the use of polygraph is not valid. Studies on affects of medications on pregnant women are conducted by doctors and drug manufactures. Some of the studies are not good studies, many are.
Your posts are filled with meaningful information and valid points which I consider and reflect on. I do respect your opinions, I do not agree with many of them. You are an educated individual and a wealth of information.
From KOC.com, here is the video that I referenced. It's entitled, "FBI Agent Explains How To Spot Liars." It was uploaded to youtube on May 23, 2008.
The eyes are the windows to the sole.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3PAW7zjgPw&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Academic,
I think you have me confused with the author of that film. I am not him. Sorry
Bill_Brown,
I think it may be an exercise in futility to debate it further because it seems to unfold into an ethical issue. For myself, I firmly believe that the polygraph technique is not based on science. The only science is in the design of the instrument. Those on the other side believe that there is enough anecdotal evidence to associate response patterns to deception.
I perceive that you have dedicated many years to this endeavor and thus feel defensive when your profession is under attack--this is normal as I would as well. Those in law enforcement and other investigative realms believe they are doing society a great service in search of the truth.
I, conversely, believe that the potential for devastating collateral damage outweighs this perceived service to society. I have met and helped people whose lives were torn apart by being labeled a liar by a technique which doesn't muster up to science.
You are a smart guy and a gentleman (compared to others who have presented themselves as the low brows that they are), and I have a hunch one day we will win you over.
Stefano,
Thank you for your courtesy. And you may be correct in winning me over. I have observed several polygraph examiners that totally believe polygraph is 100% accurate. I do not.
I always inform persons using my services of the fallacy of taking polygraph as a "lie detector". It does not detect lies. We are in agreement in this area. My personal opinion: use it as a tool, nothing more or less. Only a tool.
Bill,
Sorry about any misquotes that I attributed to you.
Here is both the original article that I mentioned plus the list referenced in the video.
How To Spot A Liar
POSTED: 3:15 pm CDT May 20, 2008
http://www.koco.com/news/16341919/detail.html
Original article:
http://www.koco.com/news/16343960/detail.html
QuoteRe: Voice Stress and BOARDERS
Reply #46 - Today at 3:38am Here is both the original article that I mentioned plus the list referenced in the video.
How To Spot A Liar
Can I suggest you just get a crystal ball? At least then you can wear a cool earring in one ear.
Two Block,
Thank you for a balanced reply. I agree with your sentiments 100%.
Why don't you poly and anti poly guys check into the U of Az and request studies? The polygraph is about yrs100 old, final reporting time takes too long, can be beaten by amateurs, foreign agents train to beat it, and way too many ambient stressors involved with the poly and CVSA to be reliable.
Why do the people of the USA continue to allow the government's 'Gate Keepers' to use antiquated technology that only has been proven to be 50 – 50, "Like flipping a coin." These facts have been known for years, going all the way back to Kubark.
Yeah, I'm an old fart too.
Sounds like there is too much money channeled to Lafayette Polygraph that's encouraged by bureaucratic thinking that resists change 'Cool Aide drinkers'.
I agree the "Charlatan" is a part of the problem with the government, financial system, and our society. The poly allows people to get away with deception, and then the innocent are scapegoated by the same flawed technology. Wow, what a democracy we live in.
Why don't you poly and anti poly guys check into the U of Az and request studies? The polygraph is about yrs100 old, final reporting time takes too long, can be beaten by amateurs, foreign agents train to beat it, and way too many ambient stressors involved with the poly and CVSA to be reliable.
Does U of A have any studies that support your supposition? I would be interested in reading them.