Do you receive results?

[Dan Mangan]

Only 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.

[Ex Member]

Could the Hope/Fear spot elucidate any cues to CM's?

[Dan Mangan]

Ark, 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."

[Ex Member]

The Quadri-Track's complexities appear to be too daunting for the industry's own scientists

Indeed, scientists often need a competent engineer to slap them in the face.

[Ex Member]

IMHO, 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.

[Dan Mangan]

the 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.

[xenonman]

"Brain trust"  ? 

Those charlatans have no brains!    lol

[George W. Maschke]

Our 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.

[Dan Mangan]

George, 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.

[Ex Member]

The 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.

[George W. Maschke]

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.

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.

[Neal Harris]

George, 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.

[Dan Mangan]

Converus 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

[xenonman]

There 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

[xenonman]

I 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-)