"If you are as open and honest and up front with your clients exactly what do you tell them?"

Prior to prospective clients sending the requisite 50% deposit, I tell them the following:

• Polygraph's absolute accuracy is unknown and in fact unknowable
  >The alleged science behind the test is largely BS (Belief System) driven
  >Any polygraph test is a crapshoot, i.e., it's a gamble with an uncertain outcome
  >Polygraph "testing" seems to be biased against the innocent
  >Polygraph tests can be beaten
  >Any polygraph test result is far, far below a reasonable doubt
  >So-called fidelity "tests" are usually a waste of time and money
  >caveat emptor

Dan, yes we are going around in circles  

You claim that you are open and honest with your clients...
as I said previously: (see page 2 of this forum) 

Quote:
 

If you are as open and honest and up front with your clients exactly what do you tell them?

1st4th5thand6th, I kindly ask that you pay closer attention to my posts. Meanwhile, I'll break it down for you...

I never said polygraph has no scientific basis. Rather, I agree with NAS in that there is the strong suggestion that polygraph works in incident-specific applications, but the exact scientific basis has yet to be confidently identified.

There are parallels in the drug industry. If you read the voluminous disclaimers that come with certain medicines, you will sometimes see the phrase "mechanism of action is unknown." In other words, the stuff works, but the drug makers don't know exactly why. The same applies to polygraph. Remember what the research eggheads say: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That said, I concede the error rate is likely huge, compared to pro-polygraph claims.

As to why I do polygraph exams and consulting, it's all supply and demand just like most other businesses. But my approach is different in that I EDUCATE THE CONSUMER FIRST, or at least I try to. Most potential clients, once they learn that polygraph is a very risky crapshoot, elect to avoid taking the "test" -- at least with me. (Sometimes, the polygraph-exam shopper ignores my advice only to be convinced by another examiner, often to ill effect.) The remainder of my clients are either required to take a polygraph, or are just hopelessly caught up in the allure. 

In some cases, it's just like a car salesman telling a Corvette buyer who's on a budget that the bargain-priced model he's looking at was flooded and is being sold as-is. The guy hears the warning, but all he wants is that shiny 'vette for a bargain price. He signs the disclaimers. Consenting adults are allowed to do dumb things.

You mentioned "moral courage." Here's a true story: A couple of years ago I refused to polygraph an inmate at the state prison I worked at (as a state employee) because I felt it would be an abuse of both the prisoner and the polygraph function for which I was hired. My immediate boss was OK with my decision, but the fact that I privately queried the state AG on my obligations must have riled some brass at the DOC. Seems the higher-ups didn't like my end run, which I thought was simply due diligence. Anyway, I was doomed. My position was cut "for budgetary reasons" a couple of months later. Coincidence?

I see no conflict with being both a polygraph examiner and a consultant. Why must it be all or nothing? Such a dual role is common in many fields. As a consultant, I advise people on the pros and cons of the "test,", review exams conducted by other polygraphers, and occasionally give a talk. 

Once more, with feeling... My approach is completely open-book. No one is being duped, unless by themselves via expectations or biases they can't shed. Those folks I caution quite sternly.

Finally, over the past ten years I've turned down hundreds of exams, most commonly because I caught a scent of potential domestic violence or other form of abuse that could be a by-product of the "test."

By the way, since I became somewhat of an activist in the past couple of years I've received several inquiries from people claiming to be seeking what I'll characterize as "special help." I find the timing of such inquiries to be most interesting.

Dan Mangan wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:53am:


ok...so....you are a polygrapher, you admit that there is no scientific basis for your polygraphs.... my question is  Why do you do it?

Do you not have the moral courage to refuse the money?  

To me, and this is just my opinion... admitting this is tantamount to admitting to being a used car salesman that sells flooded cars as used 
(deliberately withholding the flooded part) and not having a problem with it...c'mon....

Now, if you were a polygraph consultant...who's only job was to educate both employers and employees on the process WITHOUT giving them, I would be ok with that... Your are serving as a consumer advocate for both sides...(both sides of which obviously desperately need educating).. But this is admittedly not what you do..... It's like your almost saying to both sides Hey look this is all bullshit... $1000.00 please....  

Quote:
 

ok...but how does a customer bill of rights make up for the lack of science?  Does a bill of rights magically make the scam no longer a scam? Like my previous analogy... Advertising a consumer bill of rights on a used (flooded) car website...doesn't make what the car salesman's deed any better... it doesn't give him a license to sell flooded cars as used... Nor does it excuse him from this type of "fraud".... 
 
Quote:


Sir, with apologies,  I'm afraid I'm not... help me....

What I think I keep hearing is:   a smart, intelligent, educated, adult, male, who is rationalizing  a way to participate  in a scam (called polygraphy) for personal profit...yet amazingly, conveniently sees nothing wrong with doing so.... 

I'm left shaking my head in disbelief....

Yes, 1st4th5thand6th, that is exactly what I am saying.

To say that I find polygraph science "pretty weak" would be a colossal understatement, hence my primary role in the so-called trade, as it were, is that of polygraph consultant.

In case you haven't put it together quite yet, that's why I'm an advocate for a bill of rights for all polygraph test subjects.

You and I have been at this for a while now...  Are you finally starting to get the distinction?

Dan Mangan wrote on Nov 14^th, 2014 at 3:15pm:


Dan, you're telling me that the "Scientific credibility" of modern polygraphy can only be traced to an 11 year old report that used field studies that were "decidedly substandard" and doesn't even apply to pre-employment screening polys?   etc...????      

As this is your chosen trade don't you find that pretty weak?      

 



   

Quote:


Indeed, quickfix is known for his profound, articulate and thought provoking arguments. The two of you make quite a pair.

Quote:

""I'm a mature person who has been guilty of taking life a little too seriously" 

Just having an off day Mr. Wabbit?

Quote:


Outstanding!! Best comment on this site thus far!! Well said 'quickfix.'

Quote:


Yeah, whatever Elmer, ya dick!!

George W. Maschke wrote on Nov 14^th, 2014 at 6:33pm:

It's your story, George, tell it any way you like.

quickfix wrote on Nov 14^th, 2014 at 6:19pm:


I wasn't suggesting that you personally send me my charts. If you were to inform me what federal agency has a copy of them, I would file a Privacy Act request for them.

And Doug is correct. The claim that I employed polygraph countermeasures is bullshit.

Doug Williams wrote on Nov 13^th, 2014 at 10:42pm:

 
The only bullshit is that which spews from your little brain and big mouth.

Dean/Arkhangelsk:  I was as forthcoming with George as I would be with anyone else.  If he seriously thinks that I would send his charts showing the CMs, he is as narcissistic as Doug Williams.  Eisenhower didn't send Hitler his invasion plans for Europe, the Packers don't send their playbook to the Bears, and I don't send CM charts to George or anyone else (whether I have them or not).

Hey Dean, I like you better as Mr. Wabbit.

1st4th5thand6th, I think it would be instructive for you to read the 2003 NAS report "The Polygraph and Lie Detection."

That scientific body -- the National Academy of Sciences -- by stating that polygraph works at levels "well above chance but well below perfection," indeed gives credence to polygraph, albeit only in incident-specific applications. 

Of course, NAS makes clear that all bets are off the table when countermeasure are present. Also, NAS hammered home the point that the quality of the field studies they selected for analysis was decidedly substandard -- a fact largely ignored by the polygraph community.

Still, I agree with you to a large extent that the term "polygraph science" is indeed an oxymoron. Why? Because it's the examiner's expertise -- not the alleged science behind the "test" -- that really drives favorable accuracy.

In spite of that inconvenient truth, the polygraph industry is quick to hang its hat on the NAS report, and intertwine the word polygraph with the word science, because it lends an imprimatur of legitimacy to the "test," thereby making pro-polygraph lobbying efforts easier. In other words, it makes for an easier $ell.

As for what the polygraph-linked clerics ask for when they make their supplications to God, I suggest you contact the polygraph organizations (APA, NPA, AAPP, etc.) that rely on such invocations and ask them directly. Many seminars are video recorded in their entirety. The aforementioned associations may, or may not, choose to divulge the content of those prayers.

As always, these are just the personal opinions of a lowly polygraph operator.

Dean's Poly-Pro,

Thank you for your psychoanalysis and counseling. I'll give it all the consideration it's due.

Quote:


Well, you're entitled to find anythingI hard to believe but I know who I am and I'm not that person, though to be honest, I'm now checking everyone out at work trying to catch them reading/posting here. And honestly, I would never use emoticons, let alone in that fashion, as I'm a mature person who has been guilty of taking life a little too seriously, or so my ex's keep telling me. 

I've no doubt what-so-ever that any number of people I work with have visited this site; a) given what we do for a living and b) the very in-depth debates/discussions we have on a regular basis. 

I do find it odd that your comments seem a little deflective. I wrote more than I'd generally write on any site and this was all you had in return?

Quote:

Are you being serious or condescending? It's a little hard to tell at times. I am not a spy, nor have I ever been a spy. However, in my profession I am expected to be extremely diplomatic to the powers that be and all that comes with them. It's just my opinion, which counts for nothing, but I believe there are ways people and agencies etc, can safe-guard themselves with regard to that specific area.

Regardless of whether one proves or disproves they are or are not a spy, was not my point. My point is, you are here sledging a system that is in use on a regular basis, taken seriously in many parts of the country and globally, and I'm simply not to say, yes, you've been wronged. For all any of us know, you're as guilty as sin. Just because you have a website defaming polygraph's and their technician's, does not give you some quasi instant absolution from guilt.

So please, find it hard to believe whatever you want, it's a free world, isn't it??

I get you're standing up for what you believe in and I respect that, I just don't agree with you on it and that's cool too. Agree to disagree.

Quote:


Okay, that's pretty interesting don't y'all think? George, maybe 'quickfix' would be a little more forthcoming (or not), with regard to the the file if you answered the questions put to you. Instead of pulling a Billy Elliot, side-stepping questions when it suits you, man up. 

You had a bad experience but I'm sensing that this site and all the 'baggage' that comes with, has consumed every ounce of your being. You've become a slave to your cause and what comes across is you want to save the world from this. It's not going to happen. Jesus, you've posted nearly 5,500 posts!! Don't you think it's time to move on to greener pastures? I sense you've already become jaded and are without-a-doubt, an extremely cynical person. Time to put all your cards on the table, tally up and tell yourself it's  okay to move on.

It's time you set yourself free and you're the only one who standing in your way of a better, happier life. Hell, it's at least food for thought, yes?

Good luck mate, I fear you'll be needing it. I'm off to snoop on my fellow co-workers!! Ssshhh

Doug Williams wrote on Nov 13^th, 2014 at 10:42pm:


Actually, Doug, I did know about polygraph countermeasures before we first communicated some 15 years ago. After a 1995 LAPD polygraph during which I was falsely accused of having used countermeasures, I researched the topic in UCLA's research library, where I found David Lykken's book, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector, which addresses the topic, as well as research by Charles Honts that explained countermeasure techniques such as toe pressing, tongue biting, and mental activity.

Around the time we first communicated, and you kindly provided a copy of your manual, "How to Sting the Polygraph" as well as a video tape of your media appearances, I did face the possibility of a polygraph examination in connection with my army security clearance. I was prepared to use the "complete honesty" approach mentioned in Chapter 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, but as it turns out, no polygraph examination was conducted because the 902nd Military Intelligence Group's polygraph unit considered it "too hot of a potato."

I've taken polygraph examinations in connection with two (ultimately unsuccessful) applications for CIA graduate internships in the early 1990s, in 1995 for FBI employment and in connection with my volunteer work for the LAPD's anti-terrorist division. In each instance I answered all relevant questions truthfully, and in no instance did I employ polygraph countermeasures.

Quote:


What? You have a "process" that you sell for money that has no scientific basis... Has no scientifically accepted mapping between physiological response and lying etc...  Has a complete absence of any real scientific credibility... and they pray to god for help huh?   
 
Who else can they do?  The box really doesn't work does it?    

A better question is: what exactly are they praying for???

Do they pray for a box that will work?     

Do they pray for strength? - to help them in their sovereign mission to guard the gates of freedom?   (you know with a box that...doesn't work) .

Or is it kind of like a used car salesman prays for another sucker to walk through the door so they can make a sale?????  

Or are they not praying at all...just giving thanks... 
Giving thanks for all that American ignorance,  apathy,  and fear of you and your phony box... Those wonderful elements of our society that keep enabling you to have a job.   

Do you think any of them pray for forgiveness for what they do? 

Quote:


polygraph science?   That's kind of an oxymoron isn't it Dan?

There is no scientific basis for polygraphy... and no reputable
scientific body (sans other polygraphers) gives any creedance to you or your profession... 

Why do you (and polygraphers) keep trying to interwine yourselves with the word "Science"...  when you all know that's bunk....

Quickfix,

So George can use your comments as testimony that the FBI broke the law by not providing the charts in his FOIA request? Why not give us a description of his countermeasure usage and how you detected them? I assure you I know as much as you do about polygraphy and would be able to follow your reasoning quite well--let's hear it.

quickfix wrote on Nov 13^th, 2014 at 7:53pm:



That's bullshit!  I invented what you and your fellow paranoid scam artists incorrectly refer to as "countermeasures".  And I can assure you that George did not "employ CM's" - in truth and in fact, George had no idea what "CMs" were until I gave him a copy of my manual.   

George emailed me after he had failed his polygraph test - he was very distraught that he had been falsely branded as a liar.  He had an exemplary record as a military officer and was shocked and dismayed that his life could be ruined by one polygraph operator falsely accusing him of deception.   

George was trying to appeal the test results and was going to take another polygraph test so I sent him a copy of my manual and told him that he had already proved that just telling the truth did not work - and that if he was going to have any chance of proving his truthfulness by passing another polygraph test, then he must LEARN HOW TO PASS IT.   

George would not even consider learning about how to control the polygraph chart tracings so as to produce a "truthful" chart.  I remember I felt sorry for him because he was so honest and naive - he told me he didn't think it would be "ethical" to use my technique. 

And now, you come along and say that he was using "CMs".  Again, I say that's BULLSHIT!

George W. Maschke wrote on Nov 13^th, 2014 at 8:56pm:

Perhaps, from your point of view.  From my point of view, I have answered your question as best I can.

It seems to me that you've dodged my question.

Good question.  Polygraph charts are maintained per the internal policy of the conducting agency.  The hard copy "paper charts" might be saved in some repository, or the computerized charts might be saved in the agency's server in some common file.  The length of time an agency keeps the charts/chart data depends on the agency.  Charts may also be used for training purposes, with personal identifying data redacted.

quickfix wrote on Nov 13^th, 2014 at 8:14pm:


Okay. So who does have them?

George, I said I saw your charts, not that I have them.   And you don't honestly think I would I would send to you if I did, or point out the exact CMs identified?  Besides, even if I could, it would be a violation of the Privacy Act to post such information on a public site.