pailryder, the polygraph is indeed an effective investigative tool. It functions superbly as a "psychological billy club," to quote Doug Williams.

But the industry, led by the APA, has been trying to affix an imprimatur of scientific legitimacy to the fatally flawed process of polygraph for decades.

In 1997, the APA promoted a report claiming polygraph was 98% accurate. They highlighted that claim on their official web site for about fifteen (15) years, including a full decade after the highly damning NAS report came out in 2002.

The polygraph industry took that 98% accuracy claim and ran with it. In fact, that very claim is still in wide use today, years after the APA's allegedly more rational meta-analysis claiming 89% average accuracy for incident-specific exams was published.

In both cases, the APA said, in effect, "Trust us, the data is cool."

It wasn't then (in 1997) and it isn't now, in my opinion.

Yet the polygraph-as-sound-science drumbeat goes on, with many examiners clinging to that belief with religious fervor.

Predictably, the polygraph industry geeks, technocrats and statistical alchemists who concocted the home-brew of spun-up synthetic test-tube tripe that's currently in vogue run like hell from any form of countermeasure challenge, not to mention a bill of rights for polygraph test subjects.

Such avoidance makes one wonder what the hell kind of scientists they are.

It's kind of funny...in 2004 I attended a presentation by Krapohl at which he described polygraph as being BS (belief system) driven.

That still applies today, even in light of the industry's allegedly scientific advances.

So, while some well-grounded polygraph utilitarians may continue to keep the limitations of their tool in perspective, more and more practitioners who buy into the polygraph science myth are creating problems of a different order.

Those problems need to be addressed.

Of course, all of this is merely the opinion of one lowly polygraph operator.

Wandersmann wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 2:37am:

Wandermann

You offer great insight and are entirely correct.   
Government polygraph policy is set by those who run the agencies, typically not examiners.  The federal and LEA examiners are mostly seasoned investigators, like you, who are good at obtaining confessions.  In more than thirty years in this profession I have never met a single examiner who wanted to be anything more than a "tool".    

Before anyone hits that softball, yes, I intended the double meaning.

Dan there are some things we disagree on, but it is amazing to me how much we DO agree about.

Ya know only in the polygraph industry (speaking of the industry in Texas) are lies and deceptions fertilized and nurtured and the truth is seen as a noxious weed to be poisoned and exterminated.   

TAPE's take on public integrity and transparency is to treat the public like mushrooms; feed them shit and keep them in the dark.   

Joe, I agree that catering to certain well-known personalities within the polygraph indu$try seems to be an organizational problem.

That bullshit has to change.

It's time to bring the revolving door of good ol' boy politicos to a screeching halt, replace them with unbeholden (no pun intended) individuals of character, and make the APA live up to its mission statement.

Dan Mangan wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 11:27pm:



I have to believe that the APA will, in the end, do the right thing  I least I hope that people within the APA, important people will stand up and separate themselves from the behavior in TAPE by condemning the behavior.

I have privately taken a lot of crap of my accusations of Rios and the TAPE leadership condoning racism.  I'm thinking it is time to provide that evidence as TAPE has still failed to condemn the actions that was taken on their behalf by one of their Board Members and the covering up of that behavior by the Ethics Committee consisting of Andy Sheapard, Bridget Woodall, and Gary Hale Del ASantos; as well as the entires current Executive  Committee, from the Secretary to President.   

Thinking it is time to prove that up.  This is already information the APA has as well as other big polygraph associations.

I believe that the APA and other associations want to do the right thing, but it's hard to do the right thing when some of the people doing the wrong things are important within the industry; like Holden.

BTW, sorry it's been a few days, I've been busy putting other ducks in a row

pailryder wrote on Jun 16^th, 2015 at 1:54am:


Correct Pailryder.  All compelled by the US Government or local government, all compelled by seeking a career in law enforcment/intelligence.  The U.S. Government, like the old Soviet Government, claims that I took these tests voluntarily.  The true nature of my voluntary act, however, involved taking the test or being fired for not taking the test.

pailryder, where is the research that shows polygraph screening exams to be around 80% accurate?

Wandersmann

Eight polys in thirty years, some NDI, some INC, accused of CM and one DI.  If screening exams are around  eighty percent that ratio seems about right.  You have personally experienced and survived true negative, false positive, and inconclusive results.  Thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinion.

Am I right in assuming that all of your tests were compelled by your employer?  Are you aware that persons employed by private businesses have had protection from forced testing since 1988?

I think you have confused a false negative and a false positive.  The test is positive for deception, negative for truth.

Thank you pailryder, I stand corrected.

A good time for the APA to fix things?

C'mon, Joe, you know perfectly well of the organization's don't-rock-the-boat mentality.

That's precisely why that boat has to be blown out of the water.

pailryder wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 12:30pm:



Maybe now is a good time for APA to fix this

pailryder wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 12:18pm:



Wow, so not true; at least in Texas

pailryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 1:35pm:


For me it has nothing to do with self promotion.  Though I have to admit that me being the only examiner who actually believes has been good for marketing purposes.

I would rather the industry in Texas do the right thing in regard to my legitimate grievances so I can blend back into the background of all this like between 2009 and 2014.  Also I have an issue with the fact that our industry refuses to use the test we sell to settle internal issues that are testable issues.   

I am not the only examiners who thinks this.  Hell I have even been in touch with lieguytoo who thinks that I bring up some valid points.  I find it strange how me and lieguytoo and act like gentlemen to one another but the rest of the examiners just can't seem to learn that I am easier to get along with than that want to portray.

As far as Dan being a self promoter, he is no more a self promoter than Holden.  Only everyone, publicly anyway, seems to fall on every word Holden says as if it were Canon.   

I don't agree with everything Dan says, but he does raise some valid points.   

Anyway, I think I have proven that Holden and his cohorts are scared of their own tests.  It does make one wonder, is it because they know everything I am saying is true, and they are afraid of having their lies confirmed?  Or, is it because I am an idiot for believing in polygraph and they feel that the test is not worth them risking their lives on?

I would rather be having this discussion and debate privately; but the simple fact is, this is truly my last option to be heard fairly.

The APA drives the "polygraph science" narrative, which has a profound effect throughout the indu$try -- for members and nonmembers alike, not to mention a generally clueless public.

They've defined themselves as the torch bearers for the ethical pursuit of truth, something the APA should take more seriously, in my opinion.

A logical starting point would be a pro active role in consumer protection, as with a bill of rights for potential test takers designed to guard against victimization.

Unfortunately, polygraph and transparency don't mix very well...

Wandersmann wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 2:37am:


I think you have confused a false negative and a false positive.  The test is positive for deception, negative for truth.

Ex Member wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 10:45pm:


Ark

Lets be clear.  Except for EPPA, which is a labor law regulating private employers, polygraph regulation is left to the states.  APA membership is voluntary.  The only real sanction they have is to refuse to accept your check for next years dues. 

They are a paper tiger, but the only one in town.

Ark

Many LEA examiners consider the worst possible outcome to be the false negative.  Why?  They reason, I am not defending this reasoning, just explaining, a false positive can still be cleared by another means, alibi, witness, or forensic evidence.  But a false negative opens the door for a guilty criminal to walk and that is the result LEA's most want to avoid.  If you are called inconclusive and NOT interrogated, well, that is as good as it gets with some agencies. 

The private examiner may have different considerations.  Word of mouth about a false positive call will and should cost him business.  But word of mouth reports of a false negative may bring paying customers to his door.

Dan Mangan wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 3:14am:


Dan -  Not really.  I have been polygraphed eight times in the last  30 years.  I've passed some, been accused of countermeasures, been inconclusive and once found DI.  I know the horrible feeling of telling the 100% truth and being called a liar.  I know for a fact that it doesn't always work.  During this time I have been given many "scientific explanations" by polygraph examiners who I later learned were lying to me.

Wandersmann, have you ever attended a presentation at which a polygraph "scientist" explains the theory (along with some research findings) about the "test"?

Sometimes, with certain speakers, such storytelling reminds me of the comedic bits performed by Professor Irwin Corey when he appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. (Yes, I'm dating myself, but that's how they come across.)

It's time for the polygraph industry to shirk such convoluted and dubious academic fare, and face reality head on.

But first, we need to clean house at the APA, which sets the standards and writes the policies.

To put it bluntly, we need a revolution of sorts.

The good ol' boys have to go.

Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association. Certified PCSOT Examiner
Candidate for APA President-Elect
www.polygraphman.com

Ex Member wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 10:52pm:


I love your post pailryder.  One minor point of disagreement;  there is no long road to exonorate a victim after a false negative, there is no road.  My first negative experience with the polygraph was thirty years ago and I am still in disbelief that these clowns can erase a lifetime of integrity and sacrifice with a bad day on the polygraph.  I have known and know of several wounded and decorated veterans who offered and almost lost their lives for their country who have subsequently lost their jobs or clearance after being determined "unreliable" solely due to the polygraph.  The current use of the polygraph by DOD and Executive Branch agencies is a crime.  People at the top like our DNI and other Executive Branch Intelligence and Security leaders should be held accountable for allowing this disgrace to continue.  God bless former CIA Director Deutch who had the moral courage to speak out against this witchcraft.  Maybe that is why he was "done in".   

I will say that I am impressed by some of the polygraph examiners who have appeared on this forum.  There does seem to be a change of direction by some responsible and ethical polygraph examiners who desire to return the polygraph to its use as a "tool" and not final judge, jury, and executioner regarding a person's reputation and integrity.   

In our glorious past, impugning a man's character and reputation with no proof or solid evidence gave legal grounds to a challenge under the code duello.  Today's polygraph examiners are lucky to be living in current times.  If they attempted to push this witchcraft 150 years ago, lots of them would be traveling to the Old Dueling Grounds in Bladensberg on a daily basis.

The polygraph industry in general has an abject fear of the Countermeasure Bogeyman.

Why? Countermeasures work. (That explains why the polygraph industry shuns any sort of CM challenge.)

Clearly, there's a culture of fear and distrust in the polygraph industry -- especially in govt/LE/PCSOT circles.

Thus -- at least in my opinion -- the industry at large feels that a false negative is the worst possible call.

What of the victims of false-positive results? (Which can happen for a myriad of reasons.)

Well, they're merely regarded as collateral damage. 

"Too bad, so sad," says the polygraph industry -- at least in a manner of speaking.

That bullshit has to change.

It's time for total transparency in polygraph, starting with a bill of rights for polygraph test subjects.

Potential polygraph subjects should be well advised of the risks, realities and limitations of the "test," as is the norm in the medical profession.

It's time for the APA to face reality, and do the right thing.

Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
Candidate for APA President-Elect
www.polygraphman.com

pailryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 9:13pm:


False positives in my opinion are the worst calls. They falsely and unjustly brand a truthful person as being a liar and they may have a very long road to exonerate themselves. False negatives are more reason to not use polygraphy to mitigate risks.

pailryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 8:58pm:

Then what the hell good are they?

Ark

For purpose of this discussion, if we exclude screening tests and inclusive results, you would agree that there are four possible outcomes for any polygraph evaluation.

1.  True negative      subject truthful   examiner call truthful
2.  True positive       subject deceptive  examiner call deceptive
3.  False negative     subject deceptive  examiner call truthful
4.  False positive       subject truthful     examiner call deceptive

What is the worst call, from his point of view, that a LEA examiner can make?

What is the worst call, from his point of view, that a private PCSOT examiner can make?
   

Ark

To keep or not to keep is best addressed as a business matter locally.  Complain to the business in question, write your local newspaper, contact COC or BBB, file in small claims court or get an attorney and sue to resolve the issue.  The APA has no control over and very little or no interest in any private examiner's business affairs.