quickfix wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 8:22pm:



quickfix, I am not only a polygraph examiner, but I am a polygraph consultant. 

Is there anything sinister about that?

By the way, you dodged my earlier questions.

Here's your second chance...

>What's wrong with informing the consumer? [About the risks, realities and limitations of the "test".]

>Do you have something against efforts to reduce victimization by polygraph?

Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
www.polygraphman.com

Aunty

I don't always know, but sometimes subsequent events confirm both false positive and false negatives.

Dan Mangan wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 1:11am:


You appear to have lots of time on your hands to make such an offer.  I guess that's what happens when you spend the majority of your time talking clients out of your services instead of providing it to them.

You already state that polygraph has a "hugh" error rate.  So why would I want to look at your cases?  To guess which calls are accurate and which aren't?  Is that how you do it?  Which part of the Backster course was that taught in?

I respectfully decline your invitation.  File it with your other idea of a "challenge series",

pailryder wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 4:53pm:

How do you know when you've made an error?

quickfix wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:


quickfix, let's straighten this out.

Fly into MHT and make your own arrangements to stay for a couple of days. My office is less than 30 minutes away.

You can review a pile of my exams -- including video, of course -- and then report your findings here.

On top of that, I can waltz you around to a few nationally known APA figures, who know of my work product, that happen to be located right in my geographical backyard.

C'mon, quickfix, it'll be fun.

At least for me.

Interested?

Computerized scoring algorithms are a convenience in many respects, but they can become a crutch for some examiners.

Still, the algorithms really shine as a launching pad for a post-test interrogation. That is one of their chief attributes. Another attribute (or drawback) is that many polygraph consumers are inclined to believe the computer readout, and put it above the examiner's opinion should it differ.

Once in a while, the two most popular algorithms -- Polyscore and OSS3 -- will disagree with each other.

It is most unlikely, in my view, that such disagreement would be revealed to the test subject -- especially if the polygraph was conducted by a law enforcement or government operator.

Aunty

By comparing my known errors before and after.

quickfix, your comments remind us that polygraph is BS (Belief System) driven.

Still, I most certainly believe in what I am doing as it regards polygraph. 

I'm merely being a realist about the risks, realities and limitations of the "test."

Sure, polygraph kinda/sorta "works" on some of the people most of the time, but, all things considered, the real-world error rate is huge.

Prospective test subjects should be made aware of that before they submit themselves to the process.

What's wrong with informing the consumer? Do you have something against efforts to reduce victimization by polygraph?

Finally, regarding the APA elections, I think it is noteworthy that of the nearly 3,000 APA members, only 500 or so bothered to vote. That means less than 20% of eligible voters determined the outcome of the elections. We simply don't know for certain what the opinions of the remaining 80+% of the APA membership are regarding my platform positions.

pailryder wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 2:54pm:

How did you measure that?

Thanks for your comments pailryder, it's a good discussion. I have no doubt that it makes things much easier and having the scoring algorithms to back up your chart scoring is valuable and of great utility. My point however, can extrapolated to other systems where there exists an analog versus digital argument. Digital is not better than analog in respect to the intrinsic ability. Digital and analog polygraph systems produce the same charts and in this regard, the ability to detect deception is not increased. This is why vinyl LP's are making a comeback as staunch audiophiles prefer the "warm" audio that analog produces. I also personally believe that the appearance and sounds produced by an analog polygraph instrument better stimulate the subject....it would be an interesting experiment to see if what I postulate is true.

Dan Mangan wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:16pm:


Mr Mangan:  It says your "open platform" ideas are either idiotic (your #2 point), or unrealistic (#1).  As for point #3, the APA is a private organization.  The "limited access trade secrets" to which you refer contain materials which are actually classified and require a US security clearance.  Private and LE examiners do not possess such a clearance, and are therefore not authorized to receive such information.

Your mediocre credentials have nothing to do with your schooling.  The Backster School is highly regarded, producing many fine examiners in the private and LE sector.  You sir, are not one of them.  Someone who essentially states that they don't believe in the very profession that they have been trained in and earn a living at, shows a profound lack of confidence in their own abilities.  It also shows that they don't believe in what they're doing, but they will do it as long as it pays the mortgage.  In essence, you are not a polygraph examiner;  you are someone who operates a computer, asks a few questions, and hands the customer a bill.  Someone with such a lack of confidence in the validity of their profession is the weak link in the polygraph community chain.  And you don't understand why you were outvoted by a 6-1 margin? 

Ark

I did several thousand polys before digitization and several thousand since and, speaking only for myself, I assure you that use of scoring algorithms, has, without any doubt, increased the likelihood that I correctly inferred deception in many cases.

quickfix wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 7:48pm:


Perhaps my polygraph credentials are indeed mediocre at best. After all, my private polygraph "barber school" was only 8 weeks long, whereas quickfix's federal barber school was all of 14.

When I ran for president-elect of the American Polygraph Association last year, my platform consisted of three main points:

1. A "bill of rights" -- similar to what has long existed in the medical field -- for all polygraph test subjects. The main thrust of such an initiative is to better inform individuals as to the risks, realities and limitations of the polygraph "test," thereby reducing the wholesale victimization that plagues the polygraph industry. 

2. An ongoing countermeasure challenge series, made integral to APA national and regional seminars, which would pit randomly chosen polygraph operators against a crew of countermeasure-prepped volunteer subjects. (I predict that roughly half of the countermeasure ringers would prevail in such a scenario.)

3. Equal treatment for all APA members, primarily as it regards access to educational materials. (Federal and LE examiners are privileged; private examiners are clearly disadvantaged. Such limited-access "trade secrets" has created a caste society within the organization -- and put potential victims of sexual offenders undergoing PCSOT exams at a higher risk.)

My platform was highly criticized by many APA members, most of whom, by the way, are law enforcement or government connected. (Private examiners are a minority within the APA.) 

When the votes were counted, I lost by a six-to-one margin.

But that's OK, because now we have a schism within the Church of Polygraph, so to speak. I'll be running again this year, and that crack will most assuredly widen. 

Meanwhile, what does the APA electorate's rejection of such an open platform say about their faith in the scientific robustness of the "test"?

quickfix wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 7:48pm:

Digitization of polygraph instruments has not increased your ability to detect deception one iota. They are great for data management. They also allow chart scoring via a few algorithms, but you are already supposed to have learned to do that in barber school.

George, you must be kidding!! That pub is dated 1991!!!  You're hanging your hat on that??? We didn't even have computerized polygraphs back then!  The schoolhouse no longer subscribes to that information, and that pub has long been put out to pasture.  If you're going to fight the polygraph profession, at least use "fresh ammo".

WifeofAGoodGuy:  I strongly suggest that you DISREGARD anything Mr Mangan has to offer in the way of information on polygraph.  He has no expertise in the counterintelligence field, is not a federal employee, and is totally unfamiliar with DOD polygraph policies and procedures.    He is a private examiner whose professional polygraph credentials are mediocre at best. Just ask any APA member who voted in the last APA election.

Quote:


It is true, as quickfix mentioned, that NSA polygraph examinations are subjected to internal reviews. However, there is no procedure for an applicant to obtain an independent review of an NSA polygraph examination.

Quickfix's statement that I failed two polygraph exams with two different agencies is also true; however, his claim that I attempted to use countermeasures is false. If interested, you can read about my polygraph experience in my public statement, Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter with the Polygraph.

Quickfix is correct in stating that DoD (NSA's parent agency), as a policy matter, does not probe religious beliefs during polygraph examinations. This does not preclude, however, the potential for examiner bias. And the federal polygraph school's Interview and Interrogation Handbook specifically states that an examinee's statement that he is very religious is an indication of deception.

At p. 52 (p. 64 of the PDF) we find "Deceptive suspects may support their answers with religion or oaths."

At p. 55 (p. 67 of the PDF) "I'm very religious" is listed as a "statement of verbal deception."

At p. 108 (p. 120 of the PDF) "I don't steal because I am a religious person" is cited as a form of denial or "escapism."

WifeOfAGoodGuy,

Speaking as a lowly polygraph operator with a mere ten years of experience -- and speaking as a former (and future) candidate for president-elect of the American Polygraph Association -- I strongly suggest that you DISREGARD any and all comments from the phantom poster known as "quickfix."

If you really want to know the truth about the "test," please contact me privately.

Phone calls are preferred. I'm generally available between 9AM and 9PM EST.

I look forward to answering your questions.

Daniel Mangan, M.A.
www.polygraphman.com

However, thank you for letting me know that the NSA has supervisors who review the polygraph tests.  I do appreciate that.

quickfix wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:54pm:



Now this is getting interesting, but for an entirely different reason than you might suspect.   

You just called me "gullible" and assumed I believed everything I read on here without qualification.  Allow me to give you some more information: 

I had no reservations at all about him taking the polygraph exam to begin with.  I googled "NSA polygraph" to see what he needed to do to prepare. (For example, should he drink coffee? Take his meds?  How would sleep affect the results?  Should I pack him a Unisom? Those types of things.) One of the first links that came up was this one: 

https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1231592632

I read this, then read the links and downloads that accompanied it, and told my husband, "I know you can't read antipolygraph materials, but from what I've read, there's no way to know if these guys are telling the truth, or if they're upset because they failed, and seeking retaliation. Just go be honest, and I'm sure you'll do fine." 

Then, when he failed his first polygraph, I was shocked that it seemed to follow the *exact* script that these links described.  He only gave me about 50% of his experience, compared to the information in the posts, and when I probed deeper, he told me he couldn't tell me more.   

He's an excellent secret-keeper. 

Since my husband is a Christian, he came home and actually spent time in prayer over whatever the "issue" was that they focused on, to see if he had hidden sin in his life, or sins that he'd forgotten about, and hadn't made restitution over.   

THAT'S when I started researching more.   

Then, after his second polygraph, they didn't tell him if he passed or not.  He's saddened by this, to say the least, and wondering if he really did do something wrong that he hasn't remembered.   

Now, you read completely inaccurate information into my first post.  When I clarified, you didn't apologize for *your* inaccurate assumptions, but instead, called me gullible. 

I am neither.  However, you're wrong in 2 out of 2 assumptions. You could have been respectful, and asked for more information, or at least been cordial in your corrections.  Instead, you weren't just wrong, you were *wildly* wrong.

Since you're apparently a polygrapher, my confidence in polygraph testing is sinking quickly. 

My confidence in my husband remains unshaken.  If the NSA polygraphers truly don't see that he's doing the best he can to be forthright, then I'm sorry to say, it will be their loss.    He will find meaningful work elsewhere.  You, however, have shown me that a certified polygrapher's ability to accurately read people is subjective, and may be completely inaccurate. That saddens me.

WifeOfAGoodGuy,

I suggest you wait for others to chime in. You will get nothing meaningful from the Eddy Haskell of polygraph operators.

No, it doesn't make more sense.  It just shows how gullible you are to believe everything you read on this site.  Keep in mind the vast majority or posters here are those who failed their poly for any number of reasons, INCLUDING being deceptive or attempting to pass by dishonest means (countermeasures).

Comparing polygraph training to barber training is a George Maschke-ism, someone who failed not one, but two polygraph exams with two different agencies, and attempted to use countermeasures (a fact he still continues to deny after 15+ years).  Again, keep in mind those who make this ridiculous analogy-people who failed their polygraph.

Finally, I don't know what download you refer to regarding so-called red flags for saying one is religious, but I can assure you that the Department of Defense does not tolerate the probing of religious beliefs as part of any polygraph test.

quickfix wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:11pm:


1) He said his polygrapher was likely in his 20's. 
2) This site compared the amount of training polygraphers received to that of barbers. 
3) In one of the downloads, there was an excerpt from a polygraphy training manual that said something along the lines of, "If your subject claims that he won't lie due to religious beliefs, he's more likely to be hiding something." The manual said to flag that for likely deception. I couldn't make that one up; it really surprised me. 
4) Finally, I said, "his convictions," not "his religion" prevents him from looking on this site.  He honestly wants to adhere to the guidelines they gave him as closely as possible---and they said, "Don't look at antipolygraphy sites." They certainly didn't say, "Make sure your wife doesn't either." I have a strong conviction that these tests aren't accurate, but he doesn't care--he wants to stick to the rules.  That's not religious, but it is a conviction. 

Make more sense?

Quote:


I really don't think age has much to do with it. But, your "barber" analogy is fitting. Both trades require a couple months of training. But, does a barber get better over the years? Does his skill improve with a thousand or more haircuts? The answer is probably not much as after a hundred or so, he's reached the threshold of the asymptote. I see often on polygraphers' websites how they boast of having done 10,000 or more polygraphs, but most likely their skills were already honed after the first hundred or so.

WifeofAGoodGuy:  a rant is exactly what your post is.  Let's review your post:Quote:


Ok, and you know the examiner was a 20-something how?  Were you there?  Did the examiner inform you he was a 20-something?  Of course not.  Quote:


Being religious "flags one for deception"?  Really???  Which religion?  Jew?  Gentile? Muslim?  Your statement is utterly ridiculous.  Why?  Because DOD regulations specifically prohibit issues of race, religion, and political beliefs from being addressed during any DOD polygraph exam.  Furthermore, federal agencies prohibit any discussion of religious topics, either during pretest or posttest.  Quote:


This statement is more comical than ridiculous.  If you're both religious, then why are you researching this but your husband is not???  Perhaps you're both of different religions, and his condemns him to eternal hell if he researches polygraph!!

And to answer your initial question, an independent review was already conducted by senior NSA polygraph supervisors.  If they did not concur, your husband would have been invited back for a retest.

Oh, and BTW, any idiot with a PhD can call himself "Doctor";  unless he is a medically-trained physician, he is not a doctor, just someone with a doctorate, like "Dr" Richardson.

Dan Mangan wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 7:53pm:


Is it possible to ask for this kind of an independent review on a NSA polygraph?   

My husband also has ADHD, and likely has mild Asperger's syndrome.  *I* know that he doesn't have the same kind of affect as normal, neuro-typical people, but a 20-something polygrapher, w/ no more training than a barber, probably doesn't.   

Also, my husband and I are both religious, and he *told them that*.  Thanks to this site, I know that probably flags him for deception.  You can't freaking win with these people!!!!!

Because of his convictions, he won't get on this site, or read anything I've downloaded, or let me try to coach him in any way.  I even tried to slip in some suggestions, and he gave me the "look" and changed the subject.   

He would love this job.  He would be so good at it.  Our family would love the move to the DC area, as well as the chance for him to be the sole provider, and me to stay home with the kids/work on my art.  It ticks me off, and hacks at my sense of justice/fairness, that his job opportunity could be torpedoed thanks to the skewed sense of some under-trained polygrapher, and his super-strong conscience.   

Rant over.