My son took his first polygraph today.  Things did not go well and he was told that he "failed" the test.  I thought the purpose of the polygraph for a sex offender was to be sure the person was not offending anyone else and keep up with what other information they wish to extract from the person.  However, today's polygraph was totally focused by the person who administered the poly and the probation officer on the supposed "crime" my son is to have committed.  

They asked him question after question about what happened and told him that they thought he was a menace to society and a very bad person.  They laughed at him when he answered certain questions and told him he was lying.  He knows he told the truth about what happened.  We are in Texas and I fail to see the purpose in this test.  Apparently, it is one of the sex offender requirements, but why?  

To give you a short version of the whole story behind this, my son is on deferred adjudication probation for sexual assault.  He had been pursued for a month or so by a girl who apparently had a huge crush on him and was determined to persuade him to date her.  He did not respond to any of her advances until one night at a party with friends, she hounded him and hounded him until he unfortunately gave in to her rubbing and suggesting -- she tugged at his shirt and pants and made quite a spectable of herself.  He then made the mistake of having consensual sex with this 15 year-old girl who lied and told him she was 17.  He believed her because she is very mature and "well-developed" and besides, she worked someplace where you had to be 17 to work.  

Once he decided not to continue the relationship upon finding out she was only 15, she retaliated on him by telling her mom, who then went to the police.  Our attorney told us it was our best bet to take the DA's plea bargain, but in retrospect, I wish we had gone forward with a trial.  There is common knowledge in this girl's hometown that she is the town "slut" and I don't think my son should be paying the price for her lie.  My son has talked to several boys who have had sex with her and upon ending the relationship, the girl has pressed charges on other boys or has threatened them that she will do so.  

Please let me know if you are able to recommend a good criminal attorney specializing in these types of sex crimes who has successfully represented other boys in the same situation or who has on appeal been able to successfully alter the outcome.  Having to register as a sex offender for life or even the duration of the 7-year probation is too long and I get upset all over again realizing that my son's charges are similar or alike to those a child molester or pedophile receives.  Our laws need to be changed - there should be a difference in the eyes of the law of a boy who had sex with a consenting, VERY aggressive girl and a person who has a sickness and only gets turned on by children.  

What happened to the days when this crime had it's own label - statutory rape - now it is all indexed together under the label "sexual assault".  Sorry to go on and on, but as you can see, this really bothers me.  My son is devastated thinking that he will pay for this the rest of his life.  Any help anyone can provide will be much appreciated.  THANKS!  :'(

Worried Mom,

Spaces between paragraphs were added to your last post to facilitate ease of reading. No other changes were made.

AntiPolygraph.org Administrator

Quote:

We are in Texas and I fail to see the purpose in this test.  Apparently, it is one of the sex offender requirements, but why?

Heavy lobbying by the polygraph community is one reason why mandatory sex offender testing is so widespread. When the Employee Polygraph Protection Act banished polygraphy from the private workplace in America in 1988, the entire private sector pre-employment polygraph industry (a cash cow for polygraphers) disappeared overnight. Polygraphers knew that they could not stay in business full-time with the limited amount of work available (essentially contract work screening applicants for police departments and other government employers) and began to plot other ways in which they could continue to perpetuate their institutionalized fraud.

It comes as no surprise to those familiar with polygraphy that the examiners chose to prey upon convicted sex offenders in the wake of being banished from plying their trade on a majority of Americans. As you will learn on this website, polygraph “tests” are actually interrogations that depend on trickery. Furthermore, abusive and unprofessional behavior seems to be the rule and not the exception among polygraphers. From the standpoint of a polygraph examiner, convicted sex-offenders, considered the “bottom feeders” of our society, are the perfect targets for a process known to give rise to frequent and substantial allegations of abuse. Examiners know that they can get away with things that the rest of society would not (and did not) tolerate. Numerous accounts of abusive behavior by polygraphers played a large part in the passing of the 1988 EPPA.

Although the number of “exams” being conducted is now far less, abusive and inappropriate behavior by polygraph examiners still continues unabated. The Personal Statements section of this website contains descriptive accounts of the abusive manner in which polygraphers treat applicants for employment with prestigious agencies including the FBI, US Secret Service, and CIA. Keep in mind that these are individuals with impeccable credentials who have already received a conditional job offer. Complaints against polygraphers almost always go nowhere, even when they are voiced by police officers, applicants for these positions, and others with spotless records (see the personal statements of Bill Roche).  I can only imagine how examiners treat convicted sex offenders. Considering the nearly insurmountable obstacles those with impeccable credentials face when attempting to advance a claim of misconduct against a polygrapher, I would assume that examiners who abuse convicted sex offenders sleep very well at night.

Back to your question. Essentially, the purpose of these “tests” is to keep polygraphers (many who possess only a high school diploma and an eight week training course as credentials) making $100-$300 per hour in a nation where polygraphy is all but otherwise banned. A secondary purpose of post-conviction sex offender polygraph programs is to allow legislators to appear tough on crime. Considering the wide misperception in our society that lie detectors are highly accurate (when in fact they have never been shown to operate at better than chance levels by a scientific study conducted under field conditions), one can understand why representatives support these laws. The purpose of this website is to educate both legislators and the general public about the true nature of polygraph “tests.”


Quote:

Please let me know if you are able to recommend a good criminal attorney specializing in these types of sex crimes who has successfully represented other boys in the same situation or who has on appeal been able to successfully alter the outcome.  Having to register as a sex offender for life or even the duration of the 7-year probation is too long and I get upset all over again realizing that my son's charges are similar or alike to those a child molester or pedophile receives.  Our laws need to be changed - there should be a difference in the eyes of the law of a boy who had sex with a consenting, VERY aggressive girl and a person who has a sickness and only gets turned on by children.

Unfortunately, I know of no attorneys that deal with this particular situation. Perhaps others reading this board can help. I do agree with you that it is wrong that a teenager who engages in consensual intercourse with a girl a year or two younger is treated the same as a pedophile.  I have even heard (unconfirmed) reports of individuals arrested for public urination being classified as sex offenders. The catch-all term “sex offender” serves to dehumanize these individuals and thus increases societal support for programs of abusive punishment, including polygraph “tests.” I can only suggest that you write your representatives and tell them what has happened. Furthermore, I suggest that you consider writing letters to prominent US representatives encouraging them to pass a comprehensive polygraph protection act that protects all Americans.

Among other things, let your representatives know that you want to see polygraph “tests” stopped because they are easily beaten. Anyone, including convicted pedophiles can use countermeasures to pass a polygraph “test.” Countermeasures allow a pedophile who continues to engage in his repulsive behavior to easily beat the polygraph and divert suspicion onto other truthful subjects who are having trouble passing these unreliable “tests.”  I am as disgusted as anyone by child molesters. Nonetheless, the way to supervise them is with careful monitoring, not pseudoscientific tests that are easily defeated.

I understand your feelin's, we are trying to get custody of my husbands nephews and he was a victim as a child, then he had a conviction 8 yrs. ago, they made him take a polygraph to see if he may harm as an adult....

the examiner ran the test 3 times and told my husband that the test was inconclusive, so what is pass, fail and then this "inconclusive" ????? we need to gather this info. ASAP and do you know where we look or who to contact??

cowgirl

:'(

Dear Worried Mom,

I DO understand and sympathize with your son's situation as Texas does in fact have some really
screwey laws that make no sense.  Furthermore, it remains a sad fact that "entrapment" IS legal in the state of Texas whereas it is not in other states.  

I just recently completed my year long probation and deferred adjudication for a trumped up charge
of indencent exposure which was a total farce and bad reflection on the entire judicial system of
Texas.  I was in a park restroom minding my own business tending a nature call when a man came in,
groping himself trying to illicit a response from me which I chose to ignore.  He then later identified
himself as a cop, took identification information after his partner took my keys off my belt, and then let me go, saying I'd recieve a letter in ten days or so" and follow the instructions in the letter.  Such a letter was never recieved but an arrest warrant was entered in the system and when I later went to renew my
driver liscence, I was arrested.  The officer had written a trumped up report that was totaly untrue
along the line of "inappropriate sexual conduct" as if I were the one trying to illicit a response.  I found all this out when my attorney handled the case.  The point is, regardless of one's innocence, "the system"
will take the cop's side every time when they write their false trumped up reports as if thery were carved in stone.  My attorney and later on the "therapist" I had to see for a year both thought that the whole thing was absurd and the fact was that in order to get deferred adjudication and a year of supervised
probation, I was told that I was simply going to have to go before the judge and tell them what they wanted to hear, to accept responsibility for my actions, etc. etc. ad nauseam, take my lumps and
deal with it.  Later on, the polygraph thing seemed to be something that most attorneys, or at least
the one I had, were a little miffed by and had never heard of such a thing being done in such a
misdemeanor case when on probation.  Anyway, the polygraph exams were "inconclusive" and I already
knew that polygraphy is a fraud and depends on trickery and decpetion and so I simply employed
basic countermeasures to render the tests inconclusive.  To put it simply, just relax, control your breathing
slow, steady, and normal (whatever is normal to the individual), hear the questions but don't think about them, and keep a relaxing picture in you mind through the whole questioning process since recognizing the
the "control questions" can be difficult.  The first time I employed counter measures it caused me to
fail but the controling the breathing and sittinig very still and picturing a relaxing scene in the mind
works quite well.  While it neither pass nor fail, it really dosen't matter.  I think that you and your son
should have fought this and took it to trial and brought forward the other guys who have been
victimized by that vicious girl who obviously is the real criminal with serious problem.  BUT, if you've already
been given probation and all the bull crap it entails along with polygraphy and deferred adjudication,
all I can say is get through it, endure it, and before the probation expires, make certain that all the
probation fees are paid in full before the expiration date and be SURE to mail them certified with a return receipt and make copies of the made out money orders and then staple the return receipts to them for each month.  It is a screwey system separate from the the regular system of justice that has its own agenda
depending on the individual probation officer.  Most probation officers for "sex offenders" will almost always be women who, in some way or another, have it in for the male species and get off on doling out misery
in the truest sense of the term.  That is why they are in the business.  But when it comes to polygraphy,
if they were at the recieveing end of it, most of them would never "pass".

I also recommend that somehow by some means that this vicious girl who has cause this be somehow
trapped and all the other guys victimized by her come forward.  SHe needs to be beaten at her own
game, even if it is done so a little illegally.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  It
saddens and apalls me that your son has been victimized by a screwy judicial system that I can clearly
see needs an overhaul in Texas.  Write to your lawmakers and exercise your right to petition accompanied
by sample bills as this is really the process by which we can get laws changed or modified.  Just writing
to them is not enough.  But read the Texas Criminal Code and Procedures beforehand so that you
will be well armed with what aspect of definition in it that needs to be changed.  Again I sympathize
with you and your son.  It is an injustice that defies all logic and reason as this vicious gal is probably
victimizing other guys as well.  Sooner or later she will end up paying a heavy price for her conduct
as she obviuosly has a problem.

Join the club -- I really feel for you and your son.

Unfortunately, people that are accused of these types of crimes have become the scapegoats of society -- kind of the modern-day version of the Salem Witch Trials.  The threat and sheer terror of the ramifications resulting from the slim chance of felony Sex Assault conviction serve to intimidate just about everyone into taking a plea whose consenquences may be severe but are less than years in prison as a sex-offendor and lifetime probation and "therapy".

Now add the intimdation of the ploygraph and it becomes almost unbearable.   Did you know that some states are even toying with the idea of putting "convicted" sex offendors on the internet?

The idea of putting "sex offenders" on the internet is nothing new and it IS already being done in
Texas along with other "scarlet lettering" tactics that serve no real function than to stroke the egos
of those who get off on badgering and intimidating people accused of "sex offender" crimes.
When I was on probation for a trumped up charge of indecent exposure, I was told by the probation
officer that if I got a second offence, that I'd have to register on the national sex offender registry
on the internet.  This same probation officer had posted within the office a large poster with the
news headline and article of a judge in Texas who proceeds forward like a Puritan in Plymouth by
scarlet lettering convicted offenders in the form of having to post a large sign on their property
that reads in big bold letters, "CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER LIVES HERE---REPORT ALL SUSPICIOUS
BEHAVIOR TO......(phone number).  The article showed a convict holding the sign which he was told
had to be posted on his property and clearly visible and to remove it would result in his immediate
arrest and revocation of probation as this scarlet lettering is part of his terms of probation.
How a judge can get away with such a thing is beyond me but if figures in a place like Texas.

Don't get me wrong,  I'm all for the proper adjudication of severe felony sex offenders, especially child
molester pedophiles but at the same time I'm knowledgable of the fact that they have a problem and  need professional help as most of them were molested themselves as children.  To just outright throw them
in jail without at least trying to properly therapeutically correct them into rightness is neither ethical
nor just in any sense of the term.  The judicial system, especially that of Texas, seems to want to
push the envelope for "therapy" and "reform" in lieu of jail but negate the beneficial effects of
"treatment" by such practices as the above described scarlet lettering and of course, polygraph testing.
To simply outright just court order branding them in this manner is neither therapeutic nor logical, for that matter, if one is to expect proper reform from criminal child molesting behavior.  To make spectacles of them
to the rest of sociaty will only negate their reform because the results of such scarlet lettering will only make the rest of society cling to the mindset that they are beyond reform.  I'm certain that there are some
convicted sex offenders, some repeat offenders, who, for whatever reasons either can't or simply won't
rehabilitate and should be taken off the streets and confined in the cases where there are repeat offences.
It is at that point obvious that they won't reform.  BUT all possibilities of reform are negated by scarlet lettering along with the bull crap of polygraphy added to it.  With these things combined, how can anyone possibly expect that the convict would even be capable of reform when, by conformance to all the terms of probation, the rest of society continues to treat them with no respect and no encouragement towards a positive end?  Is this real justice or simply the meanderings of an overblown ego armed with a gavel for the sake of politics and re-election?

Grant it, we need change and reform in the definitions within the laws of Texas as well as more legitimate
and positive therapies for "sex offenders", NOT scarlet lettering at the hands of judges with overblown egos.
Since polygraphs are technically no longer legal in court, I fail to understand how it is that a pseudo science like polygraphy is employed by a legal a system that outlawed it in the private sector yet continues to use
it in a way for political reasons, knowing all the while that is is a scam and has no real basis in science nor is really reliable.  While it remains rare that judges themselves order polygraph testing, the fact that probation
system uses it is as apalling as them once having been admissable in court.  It seems to be a double standard that the very thing that was outlawed in the private sector is employed by the probation system
who are empowered by judges to do as they wish, "it then being admissable in court",  all based on the opinions and recommendations of an egotistical probation officer, many of whom have the attitude of,
"So the judge didn't send you to jail, well, I'll do everything in my power to get you there, legitimately
or otherwise."  It is this mentality among probation officers that is more apalling than judges who practice
scarlet lettering and negate the potential successes of positive therapy towards successful reform of sex offenders.  

It is not just sex offenders who are polygraphed.  I've learned that in Texas, ALL probationers
are subject to the abusiveness of polygraphy at the discretion of probation officers who, based on the
criteria and guidelines that vary from county to county in Texas, can and will employ the scam of polygraphy, all the while telling you that it (the polygraph) is admissable in court when what they really mean is that THEIR opinion and recommendations, along with the opinions of the "therapist", based on the meandering results of polygraphy, are what are really admissable in court.  Since the courts of Texas usually
DO NOT order polygraph exams because of legal structure, it remains a mystery how it is that if the court did not order it as terms of probation, that the probation system, with its own agenda can get away with it legally. In my own case I had to pay for the damn poly exams in addition to my monthly probation fees as well as having to pay a portion to the therapist.  This sort of thing varies from county to county in Texas.
I had transferred my probation from one county to another with the original county in which probation was rendered as having jurisdiction throughout the entire probation period.  Had I remained in the original county
and not transferred, I'd have paid the full $60.00 per session therapist fee every week for a year as well as having to pay for two of the three poly exams I had to endure.  To address the abusiveness of polygraphy,
my first poly was a "come clean" sort of exam in which the polygrapher, arrogant smart assed, inappropriate
tone of voice asshole that he was, went over a copy of the original trumped up police report conducive to my case to devise his questions.  I had already paid the $200.00 and recieved the receipt, he devised his questions and basically badgered me into signing a written confession of "what happened" but only so long as it was in accordance and conformity to the cops version of the occurence.  He never even hooked the damn polygraph up to my body and basically just ripped me off!!!  Then I'm certain that he never told the probation officer what really happened.  If only I could have been armed with a recording device and tiney video camera!!!  I later learned that this examiner was dismissed and no longer employed by Richard Wood &
Associates of Arlington, Texas, the polygraph firm that most north Texas counties utilize.

As far as employing countermeasures to "pass", it remains to be seen that they are really effective and are only so effective ONLY if one can recognize the control questions.  Now that they have made that difficult,
the best countermeasures I've learned is simply to take the polygrapher's instructions one step further when
they tell you, sit back relax, breathe normally, and sit very still through the process. Just control your breathing by having taken a couple deep breaths before the actual test begins.  Since you'll already know what the questions are and your responses to them, don't think about the questions as they are presented in the test and simply keep a firm image of something relaxing and tranquil in your mind as you answr the questions.  Hear the questions but don't think about them as "thinking" will render a physiological response whereby which the polygrapher can say that you're lieing.  This kind of control renders the graph even an consistent on every question giving the polygrapher nothing to compare to and thus your results will be inconclusive.  While such is neigher pass nor fail, wether you pass of fail really dosen't matter as the probation officer's mind is usually made up one way or the other near the end of one's probation.  While they will lead you to believe that it is admissable in court, it is really their recommendations along with any other arrests during the probation period that determine wether or not the judge will extend it.  As long as one has adherred to all the terms of probation as specified in the probationer's pink copy of the court
documents and their are no arrests during the period and all probation fees are paid, then usually they will not extend one's probation.  On the other hand, if one gets the probation officer from hell like I had, you'd better do whatever it takes to keep these people happy because apparently the courts and judges have no
better sense of legal competency than to render judicial decisions based on their own moods of the moment
along with the moods and egotistical motives of probation officers, some of whom's sole mission in the business is to cause you to go to jail simply because the judge didn't put you there from the start.  This is especially true in the case of "sex offenders" and in Texas, a whole host of "offences" are grouped together under one heading, the chargings of which will stick based solely on the meanderings of perverted law enforcement officers who, like many probation officers, get off on doling out misery and INJUSTICE, knowing all the while that their own actions in the process are outright wrong but will get away with it because of the flaws in the laws, coupled witht the fact that "the system" will take their sides every time, regardless of the fact that entrapment tactics were used but such is never reflected in the trumped up reports they submit to make a case against anyone.  This is where the legal and judicial structures of Texas are badly in need of an overhaul because to simply group a list of "offences" under one heading without proper definition then leaves a wide open margin for not only law enforcement, but the system  as a whole to get away with ruining decent individuals all for the sake of ego stroking, politics, and re-election of judges who, unlike in the old days, apparently can't render a proper judicial decision without it all having been pre-decided by individuals with overblown egos and an incessant drive for doling out misery to make themselves feel good.

This seems to be the case in Texas too much so and if it is to ever change, people must make an effort to
contact their legislators and congressmen with petitions and sample bills towards getting the laws changed
as well as proper definition and catagorization of "sex offences", NOT grouping it all together under one heading without consideration of mitigating cricumstances, as in the case of "Worried Mom" here in this forum and her son who obviously is the victim of the real crime that, because of the flaws in the law and the system, is now the real victim while the real criminal goes unpunished as a result of screwey loosely defined laws.  All I can say at this point is STAND UP, SPEAK OUT WITH ACTIVISM AND MAKE AN EFFORT
TO GET OUR LAWMAKERS TO CHANGE WHAT MUST BE CHANGED in a way that is going to truly make a difference and STOP all this madness.  BUT we live in a society that embraces a judicial system that
the common man is led to believe is far better than any other, forgetting that it is they who helped create
it along with its flaws because it is an imperfect system devised and implemented by humans and human
fallabilities, the epitome of which can be corrected by due process of law and adherence to that which is legitimate, NOT PSEUDO-SCIENCE, NOT SCARLET LETTERING OF THE OFFENDER and to embrace such things
as "justice" is the greatest injustice of all.  The rights of the individual WILL be protected, only so long as they don't conflict with the political agendas of the state and nothing is more dangerous to any society
that professes to embrace "DEMOCRACY".

Texas is not the only state with mandatory lie detector tests.  It is done in Kansas too.  My fiance is stitting in county jail tonight because he failed his mandatory test.  He is like your son had sex with a consensual sex with a 15 year old girl and went to prison for 4 years for it.  He is now on parole and they are going to put on severe restrictions and maybe sent him back if he does not pass his next test in March.  Sex offenders are all lumped into one category with molestors and rapists.  His name and picture is on the internet also.  If there is any way to help him pass his next test I would like to know it, he has done nothing wrong and told them only the truth but they say he is lying and manipulating them.  It is not fair the way the system treats them but what can you do?   Kansas

wrote on Feb 21^st, 2002 at 5:21am:

If there is any way to help him pass his next test I would like to know it, he has done nothing wrong and told them only the truth but they say he is lying and manipulating them....

See Chapters 3 & 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to learn about the trickery on which these "tests" rely and how to pass them.

Whether you are (1) a parent or other relative of a boy or "young man" (2) that boy or "young man" who is subject to the registration requirements or (3) just a person who is appalled by the disabilities and/or discrimination that can result from having to register, please read this.  In particular, I am referring to boys and young men who receive probation or have been incarcerated as a result of having sex with a minor - what was previously known as "statutory rape" wherein the sex with the girl was consensual - but which is being treated in the State of Texas the same as being a pedophile or child molester, etc.  In my eyes, there is a big difference in being a pedophile/child molester/true sex "offender" and being a boy who has consensual sex with a girl who is under age. Unfortunately, the State of Texas seems to think that these offenses should all be labeled and punished the same and that is simply unjust.  By no means do I condone what is done to children/boys/girls by persons who truly have an illness, mental sickness or other perversion - that is a separate atrocity and should be dealt with harshly.  I received a communication from another concerned Texas parent and it has to do with constitutionality of Texas' sex offender registration.  An assistant public defender in Wichita County named Tony Odiorne is very concerned about Texas' current registration requirements, and he is trying to do something about it - he is scheduled to go to Austin on Monday so if you have any information that will assist him, please feel free to email him.  The details of his "mission" are as follows:

"My name is Tony Odiorne and I am an assistant public defender in  Wichita County.  My job is to represent persons accused of crimes who cannot afford to hire an attorney.  A number of persons I represent are accused of sexual offenses or failing to register as a sex offender.

In conjunction with my practice, I am scheduled to travel to Austin next week to argue the constitutionality of Texas' sex offender registration program in front of the Court of Criminal Appeals.  Key portions of my argument are that persons required to register do indeed suffer disabilities (including difficulty in obtaining employment, housing and possible physical harm to themselves, family members or their property from others in their community who do not want them there), and that there is no provision to restrict or eliminate the registration and notification requirements for those who no longer pose a risk.

As you are probably well aware, things in Texas have generally gotten worse every legislative session for persons accused of sexual offenses.  The one bright spot in last year's session was the opportunity for juvenile sex offenders to be exempt from registration (in very limited situations).  However, while every state has registration requirements, most are not as bad as Texas' and those that were have usually had some court-imposed limitations put upon them due to legal challenges in their state.

I hope to convince the Court to declare some or all of Texas' statute unconstitutional, or at least restrict the dissemination of some of the registration information to protect people from reprisals.  If you have any information that may be of assistance to me, I would be most grateful.

Sincerely,
Anthony C. Odiorne
Assistant Public Defender
Wichita County
email:  anthony.odiorne@co.wichita.tx.us"

I am a registered sex offender in Texas.  I am on 10 years of deferred adjudication probation for 2 counts of felony sexual assault of a minor.  My victim was just a month shy of 15, and I was 36.  I am a female. The sexual relationship lasted about 6 weeks, and altho he was a minor, it was consensual.  

I am required to take an annual polygraph.  Last July I took my first one, passed, no problems, no stress.  Saturday I took my 2nd poly.  I was confident that I would pass...I have strived to do my probation perfectly.  I am not an evil person, I never intended harm, and I have worked hard at therapy to discover what it was inside of me that made me believe that a sexual relationship with a teen was acceptable.

I failed the poly.  I just read over the book recommended here and it was classic poly techniques.  I answered every question honestly, except the question he told me to lie about...which was "Have you ever lied to someone who trusted you?"  He said I failed every question, even one about have I had sex with animals.  Then came the interrogation.  He started TELLING  me I was lying about something, that my body was betraying me, and I needed to give it up.   He called in my probation officer and together they started grilling me on my masturbation fantasies.  It was very traumatic and embarrassing.  I suffer from severe anxiety and panic attacks and their technique brought on some severe symptoms, which I am sure just reinforced them thinking I was guilty.  

The whole test was uncomfortable physically.  I am a big woman, and the bp cuff was too tight.  I didn't complain.  By the time the questioner got to the relevant questions I was in extreme pain and my arm was twitching.  My fingers turned blue.  

I meet with my probation officer and therapist next week.  I don't know what to say when I see them.  

Dear justagurl,

Even though it is illegal to record a conversation in the state of Texas without the other party having knowledge, there are still devices you can get at spy supply places that are inconspicuous and work quite well.  I suggest that you record your meetings with your probation officer as well as your poly exams
as I did.  It may not be usable in any legal proceeding but at least it will give your attorney something to work with that shows your truthfullness to him or her whereby he or she will be better able to defend you in the event of a legal proceeding.  All I can say is endure it and the b/s that comes with it.  This is Texas,
the land of b/s when it comes to legal stuff.

I know what I went through with my poly exams and the first one, failed by the way because the b/p
cuff was too tight, was the poly examiners first method of deliberately proceeding in a manner that would, simply by the cuff being too tight, create enough tension to cause you to fail.  Because I recorded this session, had I had to have a legal proceeding, at least my attorney would have been informed of the reality of the situation and the fact that it was the polygrapher who caused the failing by a cuff too tight that,
when presented to a judge, would have created enough reasonable doubt in his or her mind to issue
special orders as an addendum to your terms of probation.  IF such a thing is done as it can be and is on occasion, them the bullying probation officers have no choice but to comply and if they don't, they end up in deep ca ca.

My advice to you is simply follow the polygraphers instructions which is usually, sit up straight but not
rigid, look straight ahead, relax, and answers the questions yes or no.  If you take several DEEP breaths
before the "test" begins and just simply relax and breathe slowly and normally (whatever is normal for
you), and keep firmly in your mind a relaxing image such as relaxing on the beach or something,
hear the questions but don't think about them ( since by then you'll already know what the answers are going to be), you'll come up with "inconclusive" results.  While that is neither pass nor fail, inconclusive
results are exactly that, INCONCLUSIVE and therefore nothing can be made of it since what they really base everything on is the recommendations of your therapist who "teams" with your probation officer as to wether a probation extension should be recommended.  As long as you adhere to all your terms of probation
and pay all of your fees and go to your therapy sessions, in most cases, unless you're a repeat offender,
they won't extend it.  Just pay all your fees, early if possible, send them certified mail with a return receipt,
and make copies of the made out money orders and attach the return receipt to that copy for each month.
It a a screwy system in Texas and mistakes are made often by idiot ethnic clerks more interested in tending their nails than posting probation fees to the proper account and having a certified mail return receipt,
which is an original legal document like a cancelled check is the only legal recourse you have if they later come back and say that you haven't payed all your fees.  Any good competent attorney wil tell you this
as it is the only proof you have of payment made other than a receipt issued by the clerk if you pay your fees in person.  I strongly advise that you pay off all your fees just before your probation ends.  You'll
recieve a letter near the end of it with a statement as to wether you are all paid up or still owe some.  BUT
usually by then, and I can't emphasize this enough, have them all paid off BEFORE your probation end date
because one little ding and they will use it as an excuse to extend the probation, regardless of the "recommendations" of your therapist and probation officer.  Some counties in Texas will let you pay off all your fees ahead of time and some won't as every county is different, hence the inconsisitencies of "the system" in Texas.  If you can pay them all off early do each one with a separate money order for each month, all sent certified.  I know it is an inconvenience and costs but it is better to have legal recourse
on your side than to be left hanging if an error is made, you paid everything, and then the system comes back and says you haven't.  I've seen this before and it can be a real legal mess with it being a case of you
and your attorney's word against theirs without any documentation.

As far as polys, do as I've suggested above with breathing control, relaxation, and imaging and you will do fine. Secretly record the sessions if you can and DON"T take any unnecessary "ABUSIVENESS" from the polygrapher and if they do get abusive, DEMAND ANOTHER EXAMINER.  Also, one more thing.  IF you want to avoid the polys altogether, get pregnant. THEY WILL NOT poly exam a pregnant woman as "it can be stressful", as they put it and if it would even remotely stressfully affect the preganant subject, as they know it would, then THEY would be held liable if any complication occurred.  I saw this first hand when I had to go and take my polys when a pregnant woman was scheduled for and exam and the polygrapher rejected the subject and was on the phone immediately to the requester of the poly to inform him or her that they WOULD NOT proceed with the exam, period. The rest of the b/s you will just have to endure through the duration of your probatioin period.  I had two inconclusives by employing the relaxation and breath control techniques and because of it, they had nothing to use against me.  They key thing is to not volunteer any information to the polygrapher.  The other thing is that when you go in and prior to the test beginning, you sign a release form that releases them of any liability and wether or not you consent to your TEST being
available, statistically for other polygraphers and the Polygraph Association.  Check the do not consent.
They won't proceed with the test if you refuse to sign the waiver but because you are on probation, you really can't get out of signing it.  Just don't check the consent to release the information to anyone other than your probation officer.  They will tell you that that information never gets out to third parties but the fact is, regardless of what they tell you, any information you volunteer, rest assured they are telling your probation officer even though the probation officer and they will tell you that the polygrapher only tells wether you "pass" or "fail".  This is the biggest lie of all because they DO tell everything you volunteer to your probation officer.  All in all, though, if you're pregnant, they won't test you at all and your probation officer knows this, though they won't admit it and you have to go through with the attempt at keeping the appointment on the appointed day only to be rejected by the polygrapher, after which there is nothing
your probation officer can do about it no matter how much he or she wants you to be poly examined. So you do have an advantage as a female IF you're willing to go that far to lessen the b/s that you have to go through with polygraph tests.  In north Texas counties the probation system usually uses Richard Wood and Associates of Arlington, TX for all their b/s polygraphy schinanigans.  When I had to endure them, they had one polygrapher, my first one, who was a real bastard and I later found out from my therapist that this particular examiner had been dismissed.  The rest of them there are relatively nice although clearly backwoods redneckish and not exactly very highly educated which anyone with any intellect can clearly see.  They may talk a good game but as with most of the advice in this forum, don't fall for their b/s which is clearly recognizable, don't volunteer any personal information, don't lie when the poly examiner tells you to as the questions he will tell you to "lie" on are designed to trip you up and is their warped way of creating a control question that really isn't in compliance with the guidelines that they are supposed to follow.  The truth is, it really dosen't matter wether you pass or fail because in either case, you're screwed.  IF you pass, you're probation officer and possibly therapist will badger you and say you're lying or holding something back.  IF you fail then they will really badger you.  If you have consistent results of inconclusive, since it is those idiots who work for "the system" who give credence to polygraphs, if you're inconclusive, then they have nothing to use against you, despite the fact that THEY already know that polygraphy is B/S!!  If they were on the recieving end of the exams, they'd all FAIL MISERABLY no matter how much they insist they were truthful, just like their probationer victims.  I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.

Your son is a sex offender.
What he has convinced you about his crime is typical thinking for sex offenders.  They are the victims, not the person they hurt.  It is sad that you buy into his minimizations so easily.  Now you will not be able to help him change his deviant thoughts and behaviors, because now you support his deviant thinking patterns.
Whether the polygraph works or not, it does one thing that helps sex offenders like your son.  It makes them re-evaluate the truth about what they did.  Habitual lies are a daily part of a sex offenders life.  Using the polygraph to force them into the truth is the best thing that can happen for a sex offender's road to self-realization and the changing of their deviant thoughts.

Mr. Psychology,

You write:


Quote:

...Whether the polygraph works or not, it does one thing that helps sex offenders like your son....  Using the polygraph to force them into the truth is the best thing that can happen...

That fact that the polygraph (polygraph screening and particularly polygraph screening of those convicted of sex crimes) does not work, contrary to what you state, does mean EVERYTHING.  The devil is most assuredly in the details.   If it has no validity as a diagnostic tool, it only adds to the victimization of the sex crime victim and, in fact, exists largely because the polygraph community has unscrupulously created a new business market by taking advantage of the legitimate fears of the(se) original victim(s).  The only thing the polygraph forces an examinee into is a combination of comedy, error, and tragedy.  Polygraph examinations dealing with the inflammatory details of imagined prurient sexual activity presented in the form of a fishing expedition to an examinee hardly forces anyone to confront the truth.  The truth that badly needs to be confronted (by you) is that polygraph screening (and particularly programs dealing with convicted sex offenders) is completely invalid.

wrote on Aug 28^th, 2002 at 5:45am:

Your son is a sex offender. What he has convinced you about his crime is typical thinking for sex offenders.  They are the victims, not the person they hurt.  It is sad that you buy into his minimizations so easily.  Now you will not be able to help him change his deviant thoughts and behaviors, because now you support his deviant thinking patterns. Whether the polygraph works or not, it does one thing that helps sex offenders like your son.  It makes them re-evaluate the truth about what they did.  Habitual lies are a daily part of a sex offenders life.  Using the polygraph to force them into the truth is the best thing that can happen for a sex offender's road to self-realization and the changing of their deviant thoughts.

Wow, all this amazing insight without benefit of actually having met the person, nor knowing any facts other than those put forth here. While your general comments about sex offenders as a whole no doubt mostly hold true, the fact that you so casually disregard the facts as they are told here, and instead rely upon your knee-jerk SOTP pamphlet and also cling valiantly to a worthless diagnostic tool like polygraphy should worry everyone, myself included.

Ok...so the polygraph is invalid as a "Lie Detector".  The one thing it does is scare most Sex Offenders in to telling the truth.  Before the Polygraph was used, sex offenders in State Treatment programs only admitted to an average of around five to ten crimes that they weren't caught doing.  Now, your average sex offender will admit to previous crimes in the range of 100 to 800 offenses!!!!  I really think you people have your priorities wrong.  The goal here is to PREVENT MORE VICTIMS!  Who cares if we are stepping on the toes of the poor sex offenders rights...we are PREVENTING MORE VICTIMS!  We have certifiable proof, that since the use of the polygraph in sex offender treatment programs that recitivism has dropped.  Sex offenders are not re-offending, at least while they are in treatment, because they are afraid of the polygraph!  
Sex Offense is about lies.  THe sex offender is a habitual lier.  They lie to themselves and others to perpetuate their deviance.  Even if we are using a not-so-scientific tool like the Polygraph to scare them into telling the truth, at least we are getting the end results we want.  For every sex offender that comes on this site and complains about the polygraph, there are dozens more who are happy for the polygraph.  Because instead of resisting change, they actually want to recognize their deviant thinking patterns and they actually want to start living an honest life.  The polygraph has helped them to this end and that is why it is important in sex offender therapy.
As to the polygraphs use in the civilian world.....I don't think it has any place in the courts or in the job market as a lie detector.  But leave it in the sex offender programs!  

wrote on Nov 7^th, 2002 at 6:19pm:

We have certifiable proof, that since the use of the polygraph in sex offender treatment programs that recitivism has dropped.

Sir,

I am requesting a website link or reference to the above quote.  I am interested in researching this statement.  I doubt that anyone would want to remove a tool which has such certifiable proof in preventing recitivism.

Thankyou.

Hello Fair Chance,
The proof you seek is in the physical world, not on the internet.  If your County uses polygraph testing in its sex offender programs, then you have all the proof you need for research in this area.  Your local probation and parole department, as well as the Therapists they use, can provide you with the list of those sex-offenders who re-offended while on probation before the institution of polygraph testing, and then the list of those sex-offenders who re-offended while on probation after the institution of polygraph testing.
The drop in recitivism is dramatic.  Good luck in your research.
If you find yourself stonewalled for whatever reason by a local county not willing to dig up any paperwork for you, then there are always other counties and other states.  
I happen to have a close relative who works for the county I live in and so the statistics were easy to come by.  
I also know several therapists who practiced pre-polygraph Sex offender therapy and who continued to practice when polygraph testing was instituted.  Interestingly enough, both of these therapists admit that the polygraph is un-scientific.  But it scares the sex offenders into telling the truth and that is what counts!  
Less victims is the goal of sex offender therapy and polygraph testing is helping reach that end!
People like WorriedMom, are only helping create a future victim by enabling their deviant loved-ones in their working against what modern sex-offender therapy has to offer.
I am as against the use of the polygraph in courts and the civilian job market as any of you, but to this end I say let the polygraph do its job.  If it helps prevent one child from being molested, then I say it is worth it to step on the rights of a million sex-offenders.  Does anyone in their right mind differ with that opinion?

Mr. Psychology,

You write:


Quote:

Hello Fair Chance, The proof you seek is in the physical world, not on the internet.  If your County uses polygraph testing in its sex offender programs, then you have all the proof you need for research in this area.  Your local probation and parole department, as well as the Therapists they use, can provide you with the list of those sex-offenders who re-offended while on probation before the institution of polygraph testing, and then the list of those sex-offenders who re-offended while on probation after the institution of polygraph testing. The drop in recitivism is dramatic.  Good luck in your research.

The kind of do-it-yourself check you suggest is a poor substitute for a systematic study of the correlation, if any, between polygraphy and recidivism.


Quote:

I also know several therapists who practiced pre-polygraph Sex offender therapy and who continued to practice when polygraph testing was instituted.  Interestingly enough, both of these therapists admit that the polygraph is un-scientific.  But it scares the sex offenders into telling the truth and that is what counts!   Less victims is the goal of sex offender therapy and polygraph testing is helping reach that end!

While polygraph screening may offer short-term benefits, any long-term benefit depends on the procedure having some genuine validity. The National Academy of Sciences has recently completed an exhaustive study and found polygraph screening to be without validity. As more and more persons in post-conviction polygraph programs learn this, it can be expected that any deterrent value of polygraph screening will only decrease.

On the flip side, reliance on polygraphy may actually serve to help enable recidivist sex offenders, given the ready availability of countermeasure information, the genuine faith in polygraphy exhibited by too many in law enforcement, the inability of polygraphers to reliably detect countermeasures, and their unwillingness to acknowledge this weakness.


Quote:

People like WorriedMom, are only helping create a future victim by enabling their deviant loved-ones in their working against what modern sex-offender therapy has to offer. I am as against the use of the polygraph in courts and the civilian job market as any of you, but to this end I say let the polygraph do its job.  If it helps prevent one child from being molested, then I say it is worth it to step on the rights of a million sex-offenders.  Does anyone in their right mind differ with that opinion?

I differ with your opinion. Rights are not to be trampled upon, no matter how noble the intention. For example, one of the most egregious civil rights violations stemming from post-conviction polygraph programs is that some on probation or parole end up being sent to jail or denied the right to be with their families, simply because they "failed" a completely invalid polygraph "test." Such punitive actions may be deemed necessary to maintain the official fiction that the polygraph can detect deception, but I think there is simply no excuse for this.

wrote on Nov 11^th, 2002 at 9:10am:

I happen to have a close relative who works for the county I live in and so the statistics were easy to come by.   I also know several therapists who practiced pre-polygraph Sex offender therapy and who continued to practice when polygraph testing was instituted.  Interestingly enough, both of these therapists admit that the polygraph is un-scientific.  But it scares the sex offenders into telling the truth and that is what counts!   Less victims is the goal of sex offender therapy and polygraph testing is helping reach that end!

Dear Mr. Psychology,

I admire your desire to stop sexual abuse of any kind.  We both understand that it is not about sex.  The abuser is using force to control another individual.  The abuser just uses sex instead of a gun, knife, or other physical device but it is far more harmful to the mental health of the victim.

There will be many offenders who will beat the polygraph because it is unscientific and not predictable in its outcome.  You do not have any qualms concerning possible innocent people accused guilty if it protects the innocents but how do you justify the guilty beating such an unscientific test and perpetuating their  violence?

Just as many do not want spies given a free pass to national security secrets, I do not want serial sex offenders given a "free pass" by passing a test which is not scientifically dependable.

Your definition of "certifiable" and mine do not agree but I do thank you for responding to my request to clarify your views.

Dear Fair Chance.
You are only partially rite. Child sex offenders are only concerned with SEX. It has absolutely nothing to do with power.
Getting back to the topic at hand. I have read not only the info on here but have obtained Doug's info on the how to sting the polygraph. I have read both , copied both and distributed them throughout the polygraph community. We have tried all the countermeasures being taught in both books and most of these manufactured reactions were easily discovered.
For all the people out there who think they can take a 10 minute class on how to beat the test. Good luck. For all the PHD's who have studied the polygraph for the last 20 years , proclaim themselves as experts and who think they can beat the test . Good luck to you to.
You are not the ones being tested.

Polylawman,

The available peer-reviewed research on countermeasures such as those described in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector suggests that even experienced polygraphers are unable to detect these countermeasures at better than chance levels of accuracy. And the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, has yet to publish even one article setting forth a methodology for the detection of such countermeaures.

If you would have us believe that you and your colleagues in the polygraph community can detect polygraph countermeasures, then why not accept Dr. Richardson's polygraph countermeasure challenge?

wrote on Nov 12^th, 2002 at 8:45am:

I have read not only the info on here but have obtained Doug's info on the how to sting the polygraph. I have read both , copied both and distributed them throughout the polygraph community. We have tried all the countermeasures being taught in both books and most of these manufactured reactions were easily discovered.

Coming from someone who lies as a major part of his profession, I have my doubts about the veracity of that boast. Add to that the fact that I personally can attest that they do in fact work (my polygraph interrogator didn't have the faintest clue), and we have yet another flat out lie from the propolygraph community. Take the challenge, polylawman, or quit your hollow boasting. No one's buying your bunk here.


Quote:

For all the people out there who think they can take a 10 minute class on how to beat the test. Good luck. For all the PHD's who have studied the polygraph for the last 20 years , proclaim themselves as experts and who think they can beat the test . Good luck to you to. You are not the ones being tested.

Bring it on, tough guy.

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.- H. L. Mencken

Then why are you so bitter. What and who are you blaming for not getting that job either.  Tough Guy

Hey hero's, If you know your job is secure why do you waste your time trying to debate the people on this site?  Why would you spend so much of your time on this site responding to all the dumb ideas the rest of us have?  Im not bothered by someone I know is wrong, Im bothered only by those I know are right.   Do you think the other posts here are right?  Are you wasting your time here because of that? Must suck having to do a job that only comes with a certificate of completion. Dan

By the way, does anyone have a list of the polygraphers in minnesota?  Im interested in creating a Registry of Polygraphers on our servers so that people can place complaints aginst these people and we can atleast try to figure out which polygraphers actually care about their jobs and which are just cranks trying to find out what sexual positions you like.  BTW, does a polygrapher have to take a psy test to see if they are sex offender types or can a freak just take the class and get to ask people all kinds of "Exciting" questions?  Sorry polylawman and mr. psy, but I dont have your names for the registry yet, please respond with them.  You have nothing to hide unless you choose not to respond.
dan

danv,

I have found a list of polygraphers in Minnesota and will post in a new message thread.

YOUR SON IS AN IDIOT!!!!!....THE MORE A GIRL THROWS HERSELF AT YOU THE MORE YOUR SON SHOULD HAVE STAYED AWAY.....YOU DID A BAD JOB RAISING THIS KID AND DID HIM A GREAT INJUSTICE FOR NOT PREPARING HIM FOR THE IDIOTS THAT SURROUND US ON THIS PLANET...YOU BEING ONE OF THEM....I CAN'T FORCE MYSELF TO FEEL BAD FOR YOU OR YOUR SON....WHEN IN DOUBT...KEEP YOUR PANTS ON....OR BE PREPARED FOR THE ENSUING TROUBLE THAT COMES WITH WHAT YOU DO....OBVIOUSLY IF THIS LITTLE GIRL TRICKED YOUR SON,SHE IS THE SMARTER OF THE TWO,AND ALSO HER MOM IS JUST AS MUCH A FAILURE AT PARENTING AS YOU ARE.....

Dear "shitty rogers,"

The fact that the people in this thread have some severe emotional and criminal problems does not detract from their argument that the validity of the polygraph is extremely questionable as used in their lives.  Criminals should be prosecuted and convicted according to reasonable evidence provided to a judge or jury.  The polygraph should not be the "sole" source of any criminal or private decision on innocence or guilt as it is in these examples.

Regards.

Can a person take a lawyer with them to the polygraph test?

needanswers1111 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2003 at 7:02am:

Can a person take a lawyer with them to the polygraph test?

If this question is with regard to a polygraph interrogation that is administered as a special condition of probation, your best bet might be to arrange a meeting between you, your attorney, and your PO.

My po and lawyer meet all the time.  He doesn't want the test done but she does.  It's a hugh battle and I don't know who will win, but from the sounds of everything I've been reading, it sounds like the test will be done and I will be out more and more money.  It's all about money, if not for the test than for the attorney.  I wasn't supose to have to move out of my home either as the condition of probation, but the po said no one could counsel me if I was living in the house, back to court and she won that round. Will she win the next round too?  The more you fight for what rights you are supose to have the more you loose.

Hello;

 I am in the same boat.  Just in the state of Geogia.  I have never been Convicted.  But the because I was falsely arrested for child molestation the Department Of Family and Children Services can force me to take a Sexaul History Polygraph.  If I do not pass by there standards I loose my children for good.  The trouble is test is looking for someone they feel is a preditor.  They are trying to prove me a preditor so they will read the test as I am a preditor.
 I trouble is not all sex crimes or arrests are preditor driven.  Many young girls"I.E. Teenage girls"are out looking for older guys.  This is most the arrests in the U.S.  No sex with little children but with girls between 15 and 17.  Why because it is a money cow just like polygraphing.  The next group of arrests come from fights between a mother and father.  How do you thank this fight turns out when one parent or the other plants a thought or story in a young childs mind.  Truth is preditors do live in sociaty but are less then you thank.  To keep the money and funding flowing they have to keep the numbers up.  The info I now share can be looked up.  It is a matter of public record.  Look at the public arrest records..They will shock you; they did me.
 Now with the polygraph they can up that number again.  Even though you can not use it in court; it still is a powerful weapon to get u to plea for a lesser charge.  If you do you are now a sexual preditor for life.  If you do go to court,  even if the truth is in your corner it comes down to popular fear-and in the eyes of most people, we are under attack by sick'o perditors.  So most people loose no matter how good a deffence they have.  The bottom line is money and keep the public in fear.
 Since I lost my children to DFCS, I have used all the resorces I have to study this.  I am a soldier fighting for peoples rights.  Now after over 13 years I'm starting to loose faith in what I have held so dear and close to my heart.  I would at one time die for thoughs same rights, God knows I cry for my children and pray someone will find a way to bring rights back that are slowly flow out of our Socialty.
 My daughter is 5 and comes from a family she was never hurt in...In her second foster home she was abused.  It about destroyed my wife, there was nothing we could do to protect here.  The worst part was the Foster parents where never punished, DFCS just let it go.  But me I was falsely arrested and I have proved that; but I must take there polygraph to get my kids back.  
 Thank you and God Bless.

I posted about a year ago in reference to my second maintainance poly....and I failed it...and I didn't lie.  I just took my 3rd maintaince poly and was told I failed it, even tho I know I couldn't have.   There was no stim test.  Several non-revelant questions.  There were 2 possible control questions...it wasn't clear cut.  1.  Have  you any pornography in your possession? 2.  Have you lied to your probation officer.  Since possession of porn is undesireable, but not illegal, this is the que. I assumed was meant for control.  After the test I was grilled, humiliated, degraded for over an hour.  I honestly didn't lie about anything, but he wasn't giving up until he had something.  I finally told him I thought I might have a magazine at home (which I don't).  I was so emotional.  I didn't want to give him the satisfaction of knowing he broke me down.  He was a pitbull.  I cried for 3 hours after the test...even tho I expected it to be bad.  He would ask me a question then when I would start to answer it he would tell me to shut up.  He wanted to assert his dominance and by the time I left I was a whooped puppie.  What was I to do.  He also accused me of making statements to the last polygrapher which were absolutely straight out lies.  When I said I never said those things he asked me if I thought he was stupid?  Oh everyone but you is lying..who are they going to believe?  You should be in prison.   Do these guys travel all over Texas and administer these polys?  Someone said they were from Austin but I am in Houston.   My PO was visibly disturbed on how distraught I was...he knows I am physically disabled and also being treated for post traumatic stress, borderline personality, and bipolar.  Apparently my meds and therapy is working tho because usually under that much stress in the past I have attempted suicide or at the least self mutilation.  I controlled it this time, altho I wanted to so bad.  Thanks for letting me vent.  

Barb  (adjudicated statuatory rape of a child over 13)

justagurl

I believe possession of porn by a convicted SO is a violation of probation/parole in Texas. It can, and probably will, cause you to serve your time if proved.

I LEO polygrapher can legally grill you, like you described (if you agreed to a polygraph), attempting to get a confession, but a private polygrapher cannot. His only legal action is to deem you DI, NDI or inconclusive and make a report of his findings to your PO. Now, if your test shows DI, your PO can involve the police and they can treat you about any way they want, excluding physical, but including searching your home, car, etc. without a warrant.

You should NEVER make a false confession. That's lieing. However, if you possess porn, I assure you they WILL find it and off you go. I will add "rightly so".

If your polygrapher was in the private ranks, then you should charge him with verbal battery and sue for damages.

F. Patterson

I sense rationalization creeping into your story.  You're either blowing smoke or not telling the whole story.  I agree that DCFS organizations nationwide are sometimes over zealous; however, you're now involved in something totally different with the "sexual history polygraph."  I suspect you've already pled to something somewhere along the line. ;)

Hey antiman, I'm sort of in the same boat as you. I was charged with assaulting a police officer, it was my first offense ever, and the officer wrote a completely bogus report that was completely a set-up to insure I did not receive a plea bargain short of the crime. It is almost laughable to read the things he said and nearly impossible to imagine anyone actually believing all of those things, but as you said It really doesnt matter, people take the word of police officers above all else, no matter how corrupt they are or how much they let personal thoughts and emotions guide their reports. I am now on probation, about 5 months now, I have 2 yrs to do. My P.O. is exactly the kind of person you described. Shes female treats me like im garbage, jokes about how im a felon, I can see the hate in her eyes when she looks at me no matter how friendly I am or how much I try to show her that I'm following my probation requirements to a T. I posted earlier in a different post but ill re-explain, im in Washington State and have a polygraph in a coupl weeks, now from what I hear they arent admissable in probation violation hearings, but my public defender (pretender) told me that evidence is lax in violation hearings. So what should i expect should i fail the test or have it come back inconclusive? I'm guessing she'll try to get me to sign a probation-agreement thing that will force me to take alcohol classes and probably some more community services, or will she try to get me on a violation? And if I do go to court on a violation, what is the likely outcome, assuming I've done all my community service and made necessary payments etc? Also, should I fail the test, will I be arrested on the spot and forced to sit in county jail till the hearing or what? I really cant miss classes and whatnot, I just want to hear everything I can from someone who has experience with small time probation and having a P.O. intent on making my two (+) years of probation the most miserable time of my life. I already spend every night thinking about possible jail time and thinking about having to drop out of college becuz ill be in jail. It's such a scary feeling to not know what is going to happen to you. Anything you can tell me would be great man, thanks alot.

Dude,
Your a fool not to check out the "Sting" method.
Using this method will ensure you pass the polygraph and any future ones.
I love my polygraph tests now.  I imagine the polygrapher is a chimpanzee sitting there asking me those questions.
When I pass I laugh at him and he thinks I am laughing because I am happy.
what an idiot.

Sam

You're on the road to a long hard life.  You obviously haven't accepted responsibility for your initial offense.  Sounds like the whole world's out to get you.  What a whiner.  I suspect you'll violate your probation (probably already have since you're on this site) and end up back in some form of incarceration.  

Okieboy

You're a clown.  Probably Doug Williams trying to steer some fools over to his site to buy his idiotic book.  You write much like him.  The thing that get's me is that you anti poly folks bitch about polygraph examiner's making money and then you knuckle heads go over to Doug's site and spend around $50 for garbage.  

Saidme wrote on Jul 21^st, 2003 at 3:57am:

Sam You're on the road to a long hard life.  You obviously haven't accepted responsibility for your initial offense.  Sounds like the whole world's out to get you.  What a whiner.  I suspect you'll violate your probation (probably already have since you're on this site) and end up back in some form of incarceration.

Yeah that could be true, or maybe just maybe some of the things people talk about on here actually do happen. How about opening your mind and thinking hey maybe this could have happened to someone. Maybe all cops arent the honest smiling heroes they'd like you to think they are?

Sam

I'm sure we're all aware of cops gone awry but until you look in the mirror and like what you see, you've got a tough row to hoe.  You need to (in the words of suethem) step to the plate and take big ole heaping of responsibility, lightly season it with humility and get your head out of your *&&^.  I should have gone to chef school.   ;)

Saidme,
Yes, I'm a clown because I have seen through the lies and bullshit that are the Polygraph test and have beat them.  This scares you, because it prooves something you hold dear is an absolute lie and now you think that maybe all of your right-wing, christian coalition, extremist views might be false also.
Do us a favor and go find some neo-nazi, right wing website and post there with your friends and leave this place to people with the ability to think rationally.
Thanks,
OkieBoy

Okie

Hey dipshit, you wrote:  

"right-wing, christian coalition, extremist views might be false also. "

Where the hell did you come up with those?  You sound like you're on the edge.  Jump!

Okieboy sure hates conservatives, that could be because of the increased pressure conservative organizations have put on states to increase penalties for sexual deviance & child molestation.

We already know he has commented a sex crime, my question is, was it a little boy or girl?

Maybe Okieboy will someday tell us... ???

Easy Rider

Thanks for clarifying the situation.  Maybe we should all join NAMBLA and throw out all of our values.  I'm sorry but I can no longer converse with a child molester, unless it's in a post-test interview.  Okieperv, I'm sure you can get the ACLU to join your little party. ;)

Peter Fonda,
Okieboy's politics would definitely seem to be quite a bit to the left of center. But a child molester ??? I think not. I believe he has pointed out in at least three of his early posts that his conviction was for committing an indecent exposure while in the midst of a drunken binge. Having been drunk before (as I'm sure you have, too), I don't doubt that Okieboy merely chose the wrong place and time to relieve himself of some beer. Of course, that's what he says, and we don't know that it is true. But just as you expect others on this board to believe your account of you "domestic violence" conviction, don't you think you should reciprocate by accepting their word about their convictions ??? Lets leave the conclusion jumping to the polygraphers ;)

Saidme,
NAMBLA ??? ???
You don't read the paper or watch the news (judging by your oft used phrase "I don't know anything about that" when a case in the news is mentioned) and you polygraph suspected criminals accused of a specific crime. Belonging to NAMBLA is not illegal, so it wouldn't be a question you would ask.
So how do you know it exists and what it is for ??? ???
Perhaps you're already a member :-/
Oops :o There I go, jumping to conclusions like a polygrapher :(

Knucklehead

Any good investigator is well aware of Nambla and there goals.  And although it's not illegal to belong to such a group it sure is an indicator of past and future behavior.  I noticed you didn't ask what it stood for.  Are you a card carrying member?

Sayswho,
Quite often you have commented on my knowledge of sex offenses and the psychology of those persons committing them. So of course it stands to reason that I know what NAMBLA is. Any good investigator would be able to discern that ;)
And no, I'm not a card carrying member of that organization.

>>>We already know he has commented a sex crime, my question is, was it a little boy or girl?

What a sicko, having deviant fantasies of this sort!!??
You need help peterfonda!
The fact is....my "victim" was a drunken sorority sister.
And as of next month I have no victim....I'm off probation and its erased off of my record.
I was the one made a victim, when I had to sit through weekly torture sessions and listen to old men talk about how they molested their granddaughters.
I was the one made to undergo Polygraph interrogaton for a drunken mistake.

Siadme, don't pretend your not a right wing wacko!
Your thinking betrays you, reveals you for the idiot you are.
Your kind tends to generalize....it is easier than actual thinking.  You make statements like, "all blacks are lazy, all arabs are terrorists, and all sex-offenders are child molesters".
I hate to break it to you but there are people in sex-offender therapy and taking polygraph tests for making out with a lover in their car, there are people there for pissing in a public place, there are people there for groping someones butt when they were too drunk to remember it.
And according to you all these people should be executed.
Do us a favor freak.
Go to hell....your hero Hilter is waiting for you.

-OkieBoy

Okieboy,

I owe you apology for jumping to a conclusion about your crime, or lack of. I did not do my homework as
Orolan pointed out and read your earlier posts. I assumed from your defensive postings that you were in fact
one of "them". Again sorry for the unfounded accusation.

Under your circumstances, being placed in group setting with the TRUE SCUM of the world, would be too
much for me to bear, it must have been horrible.  

I also was placed in a group setting, with woman beaters, when I have or would never touch a woman in a
way to harm or control. This was a cake walk compared to your case.

I do however, feel you are way out of line with that Right Wing Crap, Hitler? All blacks are lazy? Everyone
that disagrees with you is the Anti-Christ...Okieboy..Please!

I do not believe cases like yours should not be sex crimes, but I am sure you would agree if it had been an
intentional act, in front of woman or children, it would merit classification as a Sex Crime.


Peter

Peter,
Apology accepted.  Sorry I vented on you so hard.
I sucks to get grouped in with rapists and child molesters!  People don't give me a chance, jobs don't give me a chance, women don't give me a chance.  
Guess what law passed where I live?  Sex Offenders (ALL sex offenders) are no longer allowed to visit public parks or go within 300 feet of them.  Nor are sex offenders (ALL sex offenders regardless of crime) allowed to live in a house or apartment or mobile home within 2,000 yards of a public or private school or daycare.
In my city this limits the entire area to only a few blocks where sex offenders can live in.  By November if we haven't all moved out and into those areas or out of the city they will start writing tickets.  The first ticket is a $3,000 dollar fine and a misdemeanor and the second ticket is a felony and jail time.
I'm glad I'm off probation next month and this shit gets wiped off my record!!!
I really feel sorry, though for one guy in my therapy group who ran a pornography server.  Someone sent him pictures of a little girl and he didn't even open the e-mail.  He took his computer to Radio Shack to get worked on and they opened the e-mail and called the police.  This guy has two years of probation left and it isn't getting taken off of his record.
He is passing the polygraph tests and doesn't know about the Sting Method, though I told him if he ever has trouble with the tests to let me know that I could help him.
And just to let you know, I would never EVER tell one of the guys convicted of child molesting or rape about the STING method.  Even though the polygraph is a bogus lie I want those guys to suffer.  It seems that most of them don't want to change and end up re-offending, although I know that some of them do change.
-Okieboy

Okieboy,

Thanks for the comments, and I am truly glad to hear that you will be out of the system shortly, back on to hopefully a real bright future. But I must leave you with a little warning.

I told you I was convicted of Domestic Violence, what I did not tell you is that I was ordered to serve 30 days of work release.

For some reason our county places work release prisoners in mellow areas of the jail, still of the highest security though. This area also houses the sex offenders. I met quite of few of them, not at all like other prisoners, very nice, quiet and most facing huge amounts of hard time.

The one thing they initially all had in common was they were completely innocent. I really felt bad for some of them, you know, an innocent person being accused of child abuse.  Anyway, by the time I had finished my jail sentence the stories changed.

One guy who swore up and down that this was a horrible mistake, told me on my last day and his second court apperance that the real blame should be on the 8 year old slut he was baby sitting. She moved his hand on to her crotch when he was sleeping, when he "awakened" he was shocked to find his hand were it had been "placed". Of course a logical mind would wonder why he was sleeping with an 8 year old.

Anyway, be careful of the innocent guys from group. The last thing you need is to be dragged into another case by association.

Have a great night,

Peter

>:( :(     I have SO MUCH I would like to say about Texas, it's "sex offender" laws, "sex offender" probation, etc., etc. but I won't take much of your time. What I will say is that Texas is performing a WITCH HUNT on so-called sex offenders. My husband is facing prison time for something I know he didn't do. I was there the entire weekend, but regardless, let's just say that in the state of Texas (and others, I'm sure) they want to set their probationers up to fail. A polygrapher by the name of JOHN SCHWARTZ (sp?) is nothing more than a dirty, rotten, lying bastard hired by the courts of Harris County to perform these routine and RIDICULOUS exams on probationers. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO OUR CIVIL RIGHTS????  I won't go into much more detail. I don't want to cause any more problems for my husband but where does this all end? All it takes are three words from one person to ruin another person's life. (And possibly the lives of others such as their family)... Those three words are "He/She touched me... whatever whatever. Basically, it comes down to "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS." I have much opinion on this whole subject to voice, and you can bet I intend to do it SOON!!!!  But for now, I need to rest. My husband is due in court tomorrow...

By the way, if you don't live in Texas now, DON'T move here!!!!  (I'll be moving ASAP!!!)      >:( :(

Texaswife,

I’m definitely no expert in sexual predator/offender case law. However, I’m relatively certain that various other states also have strict sexual offender laws on the books.

If your husband was accused of, and more importantly, "convicted" of a sexual offender/predator related offense in another state, I'm certain that you would feel the same way about that particular state…

Case in point:
Would the state in question really change the way you feel? For example, if your husband were accused of the same offense in CA, would you then advise people against moving to CA.?



V/R
Triple x

Not necessarily. The judicial system in every other 49 states may be just as bad. I do feel that now it is guilty until proven innocent in the US period. In fact, we're not only leaving Texas but the US. Canada is a beautiful place and I think my children would love it there. We have nothing keeping us in Texas or anywhere else for that matter. Twenty-one months and counting.....
;D

texaswife,

I recently returned from a 180-day tour in Iraq. Personally, I wouldn't live any place else than the good old USA...!

Good luck in Canada.


Hooah!

triple x

I want everyone to know that my husband is in prison as a sex offender.  He did his offense when he was 17 and the was told a lie about a girls age.  She was shy for the age of 14.  So he was on probation ofr 6 years then the State forgot to do his last poly and so they eextended him then did his poly and passed but failed in the since that he told them that he was around my kids with my for 5 min one time.  They revoked him on that and now he is prison.  What crap is that.  I dislike this state.   >:( >:(

wrote on Feb 21^st, 2002 at 9:37am:

See Chapters 3 & 4 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to learn about the trickery on which these "tests" rely and how to pass them.

Okay George...helping convicted sex offenders is the lowest I have ever seen you go...

Willy,

That which is truly low is that the polygraph community, in its greed, falsely represents polygraphy as a valid method for the detection of deception and promotes its use for the post-conviction supervision of a population that includes some of society's most dangerous criminals.

Because polygraphy has no scientific basis, persons in post conviction polygraph screening programs who are abiding by the terms of their probation or parole face a serious risk of being falsely accused of deception, and it is because of this fact that I was willing to reply to Kansas' question.

All should be aware that information about polygraph procedure and countermeasures has long been in the public domain and readily available to any who seek it. I didn't make it up, and without AntiPolygraph.org it would still be available. Regarding the ethics of making such information available to the public, see my article, "A Response to Paul M. Menges Regarding the Ethical Considerations of Providing Polygraph Countermeasures to the Public".

In view of the fact that polygraph screening 1) has no scientific basis and 2) is easily defeated through the use of countermeasures that polygraphers cannot reliably detect, your outrage should properly be directed at those who have advocated the insane notion that polygraph screening is an appropriate way to monitor convicted sex offenders.

This is the first time i'm posting a message on this site.

I have been on probation for over 3 years now and have passed all my polygraph.  Recently, I took a polygraph and the results were "inconclusive" therefore i had to retake the test again and the result from the second polygraphs was inconclusive, so i was offered a third polygraph.  Unfortunately all three polygraph were inconclusive.  Now my probation officer thinks i'm deceptive and hiding stuff from both her and the polygraph examiner.  She has referred the case to her supervisor and now i dont know what actions will be taken against me.  

I want to ask the experts in here if they can help me with these three questions.  I have not comminted any new crimes nor have i violated any of my terms and conditions.

1.  Can a "deceptive" or "inconclusive" polygraph result alone constitute a violation of supervision?
2.  Can a Polygraph examination results and conclusions determine if a violation of supervision has occured and on that basis, can the probation officer request for revocation?
3.  Can a Polygraph examinations results be relied on as evidence of truth or deception if no new crime is reported, and be asserted as proof of any matter of inquiry by the examination in any proceeding. This includes a revocation proceeding or a court review?

Any help is appreciated.

Just a quick comment. Most probation officers will punish offenders that have an inconclusive result from their polygraph. It usually will be anything from phone curfew to house restriction until the inconclusive result is cleared up.

I'm a new user--and a polygraph Examiner. I have been a casual observer to his site for years. There are several consistant themes in this "post conviction" post--and that is denial. In the thousands of tests on SO's I've admisistered, I have regrettably seen and heard so many of these distortions, minimizing, and whining. I have a degree of respect for George's conviction---hell, the man is tenacious, intelligent, and has good intentions---but I sure wish posters could spend some time monitoring large caseloads of sex offenders. This is serious work--regardless of your pre-concieved notions of polygraph. The fact of the matter is polygraph works when in the right hands. I'm not the type of Examiner who will wholeheartedly defend fellow Examiners---as I am aware of some real crappy ones out there. At the risk of bringing the full wrath of this site down upon this lone Examiner, I will here and now say that If you are a sex offender on parole/probation, you had better hope that you don't get a talented Examiner. Your countermeasures will appear sophmoric, and your behavior will be scrutinized.----If your reading this message while on no-contact-with-internet stips---get off now--stay the hell away from children --innocent contact or otherwise(you temporarily lost that priveledge.) I would respect George M. more readily if he didn't invite sex offenders---they're people too--but they have more important things to do than linger around this site. Incidently, the whole sexual misconduct issues--18yr old having sex with a 14yr old issue is a concern--but soooo overplayed. As far as polygraph being right wing (my term)--that's bullshit. I'm as right wing as George Clooney. If a sitting president will lie about a mere blow-job, a person with few resources and on the run will lie about much more regarding sexual risk to community. Polygraph isn't god, but it works fantastically to assess risk in the clinical setting :-/.

palerider wrote on Feb 20^th, 2007 at 6:04pm:

I'm a new user--and a polygraph Examiner. I have been a casual observer to his site for years. There are several consistant themes in this "post conviction" post--and that is denial. In the thousands of tests on SO's I've admisistered, I have regrettably seen and heard so many of these distortions, minimizing, and whining. I have a degree of respect for George's conviction---hell, the man is tenacious, intelligent, and has good intentions---but I sure wish posters could spend some time monitoring large caseloads of sex offenders. This is serious work--regardless of your pre-concieved notions of polygraph. The fact of the matter is polygraph works when in the right hands. I'm not the type of Examiner who will wholeheartedly defend fellow Examiners---as I am aware of some real crappy ones out there. At the risk of bringing the full wrath of this site down upon this lone Examiner, I will here and now say that If you are a sex offender on parole/probation, you had better hope that you don't get a talented Examiner. Your countermeasures will appear sophmoric, and your behavior will be scrutinized.----If your reading this message while on no-contact-with-internet stips---get off now--stay the hell away from children --innocent contact or otherwise(you temporarily lost that priveledge.) I would respect George M. more readily if he didn't invite sex offenders---they're people too--but they have more important things to do than linger around this site. Incidently, the whole sexual misconduct issues--18yr old having sex with a 14yr old issue is a concern--but soooo overplayed. As far as polygraph being right wing (my term)--that's bullshit. I'm as right wing as George Clooney. If a sitting president will lie about a mere blow-job, a person with few resources and on the run will lie about much more regarding sexual risk to community. Polygraph isn't god, but it works fantastically to assess risk in the clinical setting :-/.

The CQT polygraph is just as dangerous a tool to rely on for screening/monitoring sex offenders for compliance as it is for screening/monitoring employees for espionage...

One, the polygraph has no scientific validity. Two, it's false positive and false negative rates are affected by the base rate of lying. With employees, you'll get high false positives. With sex offenders, you'll get high false negatives (e.g., the Joseph Duncans). Third, the only usefulness of the polygraph is to extract confessions from the gullible. It is merely a prop...

And you're not the only polygrapher to use the special pleading that "in the right hands, the polygraph is useful." The fact is even if this were true, you have no way of defining what "the right hands" look like. Does this mean polygraphers who can get suspects to confess? Or have low false positive rates? Or low false negative rates? Or have all of their cases result in clearance and/or conviction?

Finally, with sex offenders there is habituation/sensitization to the polygraph. Even if the polygraph had any accuracy or validity, serial use of it such as quarterly exams would diminish its accuracy and its utility to the point it no longer would work...

Lovely. It seems another person who is crying science is spouting claims which have absolutely no repeated basis in scientific fact. Where did you get your "false negative propensity on SO testing " blather? As far as false positives on applicant screening--where are your figures coming from? Walter Reed? Who establishes ground truth for those research projects? The pickle with lie detection research accuracy is always in establishing truth? Are you establishing your claims on the Academy of Sciences study? Are you thinking that lying about a mock crime in a lab by volunteer students who some of which are statistically likely to have committed a felonious crime within days of the project--are a reliable source for polygraph research. By the way, that sort of research setting is the classic sceptical approach to polygraph research---and of course, the results are typical.
As far as the countermeasure balony on this site---it is tantamount to spitting in a urine sample. Can the tester accurately diagnose drug use--probably not. The results will likely be inconclusive. Was the urine test administrater beaten? Please. The best countermeasure against a polygraph is to not take it.  Have any of you self-proclaimed countermeasure gurus actually seen George's (and others')countermeasures on a polygraph chart? It is like comparing a rain-made hole in the ground to a crisply dug grave. I was in a seminar with some other Examiners and we were viewing various charts on the overhead and a countermeasure chart came up unannounced and the group erupted into laughter. The presenter didn't have to announce the type of chart, we all knew what we were looking at. The problem with the countermeasures wasn't that they were bad countermeasures--they were pretty good--it's that it was a chart where a call of inconclusive was the result. For all the calls of "foul" and "pseudo-science" on this site---your countermeasures are tantamount to spitting in a urine sample. Talk about unsophisticated---take a look in the mirror.
Habituation by repeated testing? Yes, if the Examinee is completely indifferent to the test--I will be a little concerned. This is extrememly rare.

Why do so many posters on this site believe that Examiners want to fail people on their test?

Punishment for inconclusives by probation officers? Sounds like a jerk probation officer to me---unless the Examiner stated that he strongly suspected countermeasures.

Like ANY profession, there are hacks. Ask George if he has ran into some piss-poor translators in his profession who have jeopardized peoples lives and/or careers. sigh. yah sara

If telling the truth is called "gullable", than I am gullable. If I'm asked a question I don't like---I say piss off. It never ceases to amaze me why so many people want to get into law enforcement and or federal work and incessantly complain about the infringement of their rights. When you entered the workforce, did you want a BOSS, or a COMMANDER (IN CHIEF)? If it's the latter, than prepare to be bitch slapped--be it by polygraph or otherwise.
I do not represent the polygraph community---just myself.

palerider wrote on Feb 21^st, 2007 at 7:35am:

Lovely. It seems another person who is crying science is spouting claims which have absolutely no repeated basis in scientific fact. Where did you get your "false negative propensity on SO testing " blather? As far as false positives on applicant screening--where are your figures coming from? Walter Reed? Who establishes ground truth for those research projects? The pickle with lie detection research accuracy is always in establishing truth? Are you establishing your claims on the Academy of Sciences study? Are you thinking that lying about a mock crime in a lab by volunteer students who some of which are statistically likely to have committed a felonious crime within days of the project--are a reliable source for polygraph research. By the way, that sort of research setting is the classic sceptical approach to polygraph research---and of course, the results are typical. As far as the countermeasure balony on this site---it is tantamount to spitting in a urine sample. Can the tester accurately diagnose drug use--probably not. The results will likely be inconclusive. Was the urine test administrater beaten? Please. The best countermeasure against a polygraph is to not take it.  Have any of you self-proclaimed countermeasure gurus actually seen George's (and others')countermeasures on a polygraph chart? It is like comparing a rain-made hole in the ground to a crisply dug grave. I was in a seminar with some other Examiners and we were viewing various charts on the overhead and a countermeasure chart came up unannounced and the group erupted into laughter. The presenter didn't have to announce the type of chart, we all knew what we were looking at. The problem with the countermeasures wasn't that they were bad countermeasures--they were pretty good--it's that it was a chart where a call of inconclusive was the result. For all the calls of "foul" and "pseudo-science" on this site---your countermeasures are tantamount to spitting in a urine sample. Talk about unsophisticated---take a look in the mirror. Habituation by repeated testing? Yes, if the Examinee is completely indifferent to the test--I will be a little concerned. This is extrememly rare. Why do so many posters on this site believe that Examiners want to fail people on their test? Punishment for inconclusives by probation officers? Sounds like a jerk probation officer to me---unless the Examiner stated that he strongly suspected countermeasures. Like ANY profession, there are hacks. Ask George if he has ran into some piss-poor translators in his profession who have jeopardized peoples lives and/or careers. sigh. yah sara If telling the truth is called "gullable", than I am gullable. If I'm asked a question I don't like---I say piss off. It never ceases to amaze me why so many people want to get into law enforcement and or federal work and incessantly complain about the infringement of their rights. When you entered the workforce, did you want a BOSS, or a COMMANDER (IN CHIEF)? If it's the latter, than prepare to be bitch slapped--be it by polygraph or otherwise. I do not represent the polygraph community---just myself.

Sigh, you've strung together so many non sequitors, dangling participles, ad hominems, and stream-of-consciousness statements that it's impossible to understand your post. Given your background, I'll guess that you've probably never heard of Date's Incoherence Principle. It basically states that it is impossible to treat incoherence coherently. Therefore I'm not even going to try as it would be an exercise in futility...

At least LBCB could write coherently...

Upon having a second look at my post, I must agree that there are some grammitical errors. I'm sorry that you are unable to address any of the pulp in that post. I suppose you are writing that you require having one single point presented to you in order to parrot the "the use of polygraph is a fraudulant.........." statement which is typical of the antipolygraph m.o. of "begging the point." Certainly you are aware of the faulty debate tactic of "begging the question" and "begging the point." It appears to be the theme song for this sight.

palerider wrote on Feb 21^st, 2007 at 5:21pm:

Upon having a second look at my post, I must agree that there are some grammitical errors. I'm sorry that you are unable to address any of the pulp in that post. I suppose you are writing that you require having one single point presented to you in order to parrot the "the use of polygraph is a fraudulant.........." statement which is typical of the antipolygraph m.o. of "begging the point." Certainly you are aware of the faulty debate tactic of "begging the question" and "begging the point." It appears to be the theme song for this sight.

Oh Pale One. Your posts are a site for sore eyes. Grimmatically speaking of course.
I have formed a mental picture of you. It's not nice.

I don't need a mental picture of you----as I've seen you before. I've got two words for you '04.

Hair Plugs.

Also, based on your overwhelming flood of posts since joining the frey, I think you might need a hobby that doesn't involve textbook projection. I'll settle for my rushed and casual web-grammer over what amounts to be your style of embarrassing and even clinically serious displays of aggression. I think it was the last 90 or so comments in the last 3 weeks that have me worried. You are hilarious until you take that extra drink. And like the bimbo dancing on the table, you believe you hear cheers. sigh

p.s. Your keen forensic mind  :P has failed you as I am not a "surfer dude." As for comments in previous posts about your "natural" gifts and abilities in deception detection --------------------pure bison shit.  ;)



peace........on you

palerider wrote on Jul 6^th, 2007 at 3:24am:

I don't need a mental picture of you----as I've seen you before. I've got two words for you '04. Hair Plugs. Also, based on your overwhelming flood of posts since joining the frey, I think you might need a hobby that doesn't involve textbook projection. I'll settle for my rushed and casual web-grammer over what amounts to be your style of embarrassing and even clinically serious displays of aggression. I think it was the last 90 or so comments in the last 3 weeks that have me worried. You are hilarious until you take that extra drink. And like the bimbo dancing on the table, you believe you hear cheers. sigh p.s. Your keen forensic mind  :P has failed you as I am not a "surfer dude." As for comments in previous posts about your "natural" gifts and abilities in deception detection --------------------pure bison shit.  ;) peace........on you

At Last. Lured from it's lair, the beast bares it's fangs. I was so looking forward to your riposte.
Thank you. You make this all so worthwhile. But,,,
PS1 - You alluded to yourself as a surfer.
PS2 - Did I say I was gifted? (No)
PS3 - I have an exceptionally full head of hair, all original. Must have been a looking glass.
PS4 - I Dont touch alcohol. Neither should you apparently.

I wish I had a real photo of you and not this image of a circus chimp on a Shetland pony.
The words Mental Midget also spring to mind.

As an aside, you have to admit that there is not 1 word of aggression in this post of mine and note that I have not taken the peace out of you iro your grammer or spellink.
So be fair and beware. I have friends in the middle of the earth.

Quote:

In the thousands of tests on SO's I've admisistered, I have regrettably seen and heard so many of these distortions, minimizing, and whining.

No doubt you're one of those who believes that sex offenders have a near-100% reoffense rate, right? So what are the results of your "thousands" of exams? Would have to be either thousands of offenders returned to prison after admitting their latest crimes to you, or returned for failing the exam. Or will you say that "well, maybe they haven't yet but they WILL" ::)

Quote:

If you are a sex offender on parole/probation, you had better hope that you don't get a talented Examiner.

LOL. What's a "talented" examiner? One that lies better than the offender?

Quote:

If your reading this message while on no-contact-with-internet stips---get off now

I posted often on this board while on probation with such a restriction. Never got caught by DOC or the polygraph. Guess my PO was stupid and the examiner wasn't "talented"?

Quote:

I would respect George M. more readily if he didn't invite sex offenders

Hell, I'd respect George more if he didn't invite examiners. Makes us even I guess.

Quote:

but they have more important things to do than linger around this site.

And you don't? Sure I have other things to do. And I do them. Don't get by here as often as I used to because I'm too busy working so that people like you have to find an honest way to make a living ;D

Quote:

Polygraph isn't god, but it works fantastically to assess risk in the clinical setting

Risk assessment is about future behavior. Last I heard the poly sucked at telling you what I might have done last week, and here you are saying it not only does that but tells you what I'm going to do next year? I really have been out of touch I guess. Had no idea it had progressed to that level of sophistication.

You can debate the man or the machine as far as polygraphs or polygraphers go and get or go nowhere.
The law that started this mess is what is wrong.
As Texans we allowed our lesislature to make a law that is in direct conflict with the Constitution.
The government shall not force its citizens to purchase any service or product.
It is as simple as that.
Now, what are you going to do about it?

I was given a polygraph test post-conviction and failed miserably. I spent 3+ hours with the polygrapher going over Trial testimony, Police reports, and my version of "what happened". I brought a series of questions I wanted asked by the polygrapher based directly on the testimony of the "victim".  I did my research and formulated the questions in a Yes/No format which I believed was best suited for the test. I spoke to the polygrapher days before the exam to inform him there were questions I wanted asked and that he could ask whatever he wanted of me. When I arrived for the scheduled exam he had not prepared a single question for the test (or so he claimed) and he explained that any "good polygrapher" would not prepare questions in advance and that they would wait to confer with the person being examined to "formulate the questions together". His reasoning was that he wanted to hear my side of the story and that he only had the "victims statement" to draw questions from. I explained to him that It didn't matter what I had to say, the conviction was based on the "victims" testimony and that I would have expected him to be prepared (as I was). He insisted that he hear my side of the alleged events to get a more balanced view and to formulate the questions more accurately. As I stated earlier this took over 3 hours and what it boiled down to was a series of 10 questions which a monkey could have compiled in a matter of minutes including "What's your name?...and...Did you ever put your thingy in the victim". Apparently it took him 3 hours of re-hashing the entire Trial testimony to formulate these questions. My questions were more specific which would have covered this issue along with the details in which the "victim" lied...but it was explained that my questions were "Judicial questions" and not "Polygraph questions". Again, these questions were in simple Yes/No format...but he simply wanted nothing to do with them. As it turned out I failed with a -10. He explained the scoring method as follows...-15 to -4 is Deceptive...-3 to +3 is inconclusive...+4 to +15 is truthful. He reviewed the questions with me and showed me the score for each individual question and my highest score was a +2 (and there was only one of those)...everything else was lower. Keep in mind that each question was asked 3 times. Also keep in mind that, as I stated earlier, one of the questions was MY NAME! Based on this scoring I apparently even lied about my own name? I couldn't even score a +4 (which is only the begining of the truthful range) ON MY OWN NAME?

I've realized over the years that Law enforcement has absolutely no interest in the truth in these types of cases. Their only interest is in securing a conviction. By Hook or by Crook...the end always justifies the means. Until we deal with the TRUTH in these cases we will never be able to differentiate good cases from bad. We will continue with useless legislation and "feel good" laws that are not only ineffective but downright dangerous.

When will we as a Nation say...enough is enough?

When we're all on the registry?   :-X

LLPantsOnFire

Your research must not have included a visit to this site or you would know that only relevant questions are scored for truth/deception.  Of course, you wanted to answer questions about what some one else said instead of what you did.  Is your main complaint your polygraph result, which by the way you never said was wrong, or the "feel good" laws that prohibit the behavior you were convicted for? 
Just for the record, how old was the lying "victim" that you didn't put your thingy in?

pailryder wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 10:37am:

Just for the record, how old was the lying "victim" that you didn't put your thingy in?

Just can't break that urge to extract confessions?

stefano

Truth be told, I do love a good confession.  You might be surprized just how young some of these lying "victims" are these days!

pailryder wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 7:53pm:

You might be surprized just how young some of these lying "victims" are these days!

Yes, I agree, especially when their young impressionable minds are manipulated by tunnel visioned police, social workers, therapists, prosecutors etc. bent on molding the truth to fit their paranoid suspicions.

stefano

Do you really believe that police and prosecutors routinely manipulate children to convict innocent people of sexual offenses?

Not routinely, but often enough that when combined with the known false positive rates it becomes a real formula for disaster. Moreover, I don't suspect them of doing it intentionally, but rather as a result of their "witch hunt" mentality. Look for a dear hard enough and you'll eventually see antlers on your hunting buddy's head.

"deer" not "dear"

stefano

What is the know rate of false positives for sexual offender testing?

It depends on who you ask, Kokish, Levenson & Blasingame indicated 8 out of an N of 95, Madsen and Grubin 21 out of 51. There are others, but sample sets are smaller.

stefano

Are you citing Accuracy and Utility of Post-Conviction Sex Offenders, the British Journal of Psychiarty (2006) by Don Grubin, MD and Lars Masden MClin Psy?

That article states:

Conclusion

The results support the view that the polygraph is both accurate and useful in the treatment and supervision of sex offenders.

You and others have this view because you consider the false positives the price of doing business.

If you look past that warm and fuzzy conclusion, you will see the false positive rate was 16%.

pailryder wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 7:53pm:

stefano Truth be told, I do love a good confession.  You might be surprized just how young some of these lying "victims" are these days!

Your just as sick as the 'criminals' your trying to treat.
That whole 'profession' *cough, cough, I mean racket* is filled to the brim with people just as anxious to get off as the molesters that are in there.

wrote on Feb 4^th, 2011 at 3:57am:

I was given a polygraph test post-conviction and failed miserably. I spent 3+ hours with the polygrapher going over Trial testimony, Police reports, and my version of "what happened". I brought a series of questions I wanted asked by the polygrapher based directly on the testimony of the "victim".  I did my research and formulated the questions in a Yes/No format which I believed was best suited for the test. I spoke to the polygrapher days before the exam to inform him there were questions I wanted asked and that he could ask whatever he wanted of me. When I arrived for the scheduled exam he had not prepared a single question for the test (or so he claimed) and he explained that any "good polygrapher" would not prepare questions in advance and that they would wait to confer with the person being examined to "formulate the questions together". His reasoning was that he wanted to hear my side of the story and that he only had the "victims statement" to draw questions from. I explained to him that It didn't matter what I had to say, the conviction was based on the "victims" testimony and that I would have expected him to be prepared (as I was). He insisted that he hear my side of the alleged events to get a more balanced view and to formulate the questions more accurately. As I stated earlier this took over 3 hours and what it boiled down to was a series of 10 questions which a monkey could have compiled in a matter of minutes including "What's your name?...and...Did you ever put your thingy in the victim". Apparently it took him 3 hours of re-hashing the entire Trial testimony to formulate these questions. My questions were more specific which would have covered this issue along with the details in which the "victim" lied...but it was explained that my questions were "Judicial questions" and not "Polygraph questions". Again, these questions were in simple Yes/No format...but he simply wanted nothing to do with them. As it turned out I failed with a -10. He explained the scoring method as follows...-15 to -4 is Deceptive...-3 to +3 is inconclusive...+4 to +15 is truthful. He reviewed the questions with me and showed me the score for each individual question and my highest score was a +2 (and there was only one of those)...everything else was lower. Keep in mind that each question was asked 3 times. Also keep in mind that, as I stated earlier, one of the questions was MY NAME! Based on this scoring I apparently even lied about my own name? I couldn't even score a +4 (which is only the begining of the truthful range) ON MY OWN NAME? I've realized over the years that Law enforcement has absolutely no interest in the truth in these types of cases. Their only interest is in securing a conviction. By Hook or by Crook...the end always justifies the means. Until we deal with the TRUTH in these cases we will never be able to differentiate good cases from bad. We will continue with useless legislation and "feel good" laws that are not only ineffective but downright dangerous. When will we as a Nation say...enough is enough? When we're all on the registry?   :-X

Polygraphers either want to be your 'friend' or think they are 'Masters of the Universe'.

And yea, either way, Sex Offender treatment (at least the poly parts) are a racket. Plain, clean and simple.

I have read a lot of interesting information on this board and I'm hoping that perhaps someone can give me advice on my current situation.
I am currently on probation in the state of Texas and although I am not required to register as a sex offender, certain SO conditions were put in place for the tenure of my probation.
The Judge made multiple modifications to my probation conditions which included lessening community service hours, allowing for use of computers\internet and a few others. The most important modification involves the removal of required polygraph testing.
Recently I was informed by my PO that I am scheduled for a Polygraph. After reviewing my probation conditions I informed my PO that it is not a requirement. My PO informed me that in the past they have had a handful of probationers with similar modifications and they were not required to take the test. The problem however lies with the fact that they have a new Sex Offender Therapist and he requires all offenders in his program to take the test once a year.
I felt like I was receiving a threat or ultimatum since I was informed that I could choose not to take the polygraph however, the Therapist would likely remove me from the treatment program. Since i have to attend the program, this would in turn lead to the revoking of my probation.

The condition that the Judge removed starts like this: "Defendant shall submit to a clinical polygraph examination as directed by the Sex Offender Therapist......". The way I see it, it would appear that the Sex Offender Therapist shouldn't be able to over rule a judge and would then need to file for a change of conditions to the courts before I can be "forced" to take a polygraph.

Any helpful advice or opinions are appreciated. I am scheduled for the test this weekend. :'(

Polyfear,

I can certainly understand your frustration. This is a matter for your attorney. Nobody online can give you legal advice in this regard. Anecdotally, I know the judge normally just orders SO treatment, and if polygraph testing is a component, so be it. I encourage you to discuss this with your attorney now, before making any decision on submitting/refusing polygraph interrogation.

NSA_hopeful wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2012 at 2:48am:

So, I didn't know this before coming to the site, but poly graphs pick-up excitement that otherwise would manifest itself benignly. This could include a state of arousal coming from the questioning about what must correlate strongly with real-life events of a sexual nature. Understand that, in the brain, we have a set of schemas. I am no psychologist but, just maybe, a person might fail a polygraph because the polygraph's schema is of an absurdly fearful nature - unreliable and dangerous with one's future resting on it. Best of luck and may your wishes come true!

IDK about anyone else or how the brain functions in regard to a polygraph. But in my experience telling the truth then being told your lying really shook me up. So I lied on the next 7 poly's and the examiner said I passed every single one of them. I figured with treatment and poly's...I think I paid a total of around 12,000 what a waist!!

Quote:

Being too calm might mark you a psychotic / sociopath.

This statement here I couldn't agree more, I think that is also a plausible reason as well as the examiners b.s.ing their way on polygraph's. I think most of the time why people fail is merely just being nervous, anxiety or maybe even having a disorder.

anon12345 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2012 at 12:44am:

I think I paid a total of around 12,000 what a waist!!

Remember, anon12345, a mind is a terrible thing to waist.

Pailryder, you are like the monster in the lake, just when we think you may be extinct, you resurface with snapping jaws. Surely you can come up with something more substantial than being the grammar cop.

wrote on Mar 29^th, 2012 at 6:25pm:

Pailryder, you are like the monster in the lake, just when we think you may be extinct, you resurface with snapping jaws. Surely you can come up with something more substantial than being the grammar cop.

LOL I don't think he knows I was being sarcastic. Sometimes you have to throw a curve ball!!

Just wondering why are we derailing? Can we get back on topic?

Hey Mods can we clean this thread up a little and stop the derailing?

pailryder wrote on Feb 5^th, 2011 at 10:14pm:

stefano Do you really believe that police and prosecutors routinely manipulate children to convict innocent people of sexual offenses? Back to top

May I refer you to a tome entitled "The Politics of Child Abuse" by Paul and Shirley Eberle? Also "The Abuse of Innocence" by the same authors regarding the McMartin preschool trial. CLEARLY, the answer to your query is a sad and resounding YESYESYES!!!!!

A series of incoherent posts have been moved to the Discarded Posts forum. Further posts to this thread should substantively address the original topic.

Dear Worried Mom,
My son has been going thru this same crap for almost 3 years now, it's been hell watching him struggle with all the conditions.  He also got pursued by a girl who claimed to be 17 an she was only 15, she was also well known for dating and coming on to much older men.  My son was put on deferred adjudication for 10 years after serving one year in county jail, where he found out that 3 other men were in county jail after being with the same girl.  We did get an attorney to represent him, but he did not suggest he take his case to trial, nor did he ever let us review the case or look at the so called evidence against my son, nor did he speak with the other men that were locked up because of this one little *****. My son has since lost his full time job due to the fact that all these so called classes he has to attend, that are smack in the middle of the day, the company he worked for located to another part of the state about 2 hours from here, and his probation officer did not let him re-locate, yet they want him to pay all these outrageous fees in addition to having to pay for his own polygraph test.  It does make me very angry because the girl involved is now married to a 32 year old man, with the mothers consent at the age of 16.  You tell me just how screwed up this is.  Like his attorney said, it's not like he took a small child from a playground or off of school property, this girl was all over him to begin with.  Anyway, i do know for a fact that here are a lot of families going thru the same ordeal due to stereotyping every one who is marked a sex offender.  Our Justice system is the same way, instead of judging case by case, and giving the appropriate punishment, they punish all the same across the board.  Not only that, the probation officers are no help at all, instead of trying to reform and help them to be able to comply with all  conditions, they punish them even more by the additional conditions they add on.  I do agree however the the punishment should fit the crime, but come on in cases like these, they should look at not only the accused but the accuser also, and i am willing to bet that at least 80 percent of these cases would find the accuser is just as guilty if not guiltier than the accused.  Those are my thoughts. :(

Drained,
I understand your frustration as a parent. Those caught in the containment triad for SO treatment are indeed under an onerous ordeal. As much as we male members of the species can come under the spell of someone coming on to us, it is still up to the individual to not cross a line. If I were considering to be intimate with any female who looks under 30, I would insist on checking an ID. That's just the reality of the current world we live in. The advice that you can give your son is to be positive and work the program. One day he will be out, and probably be capable of making better choices. So, let go of the anger you have for the system and instead focus on helping him work his program.

When he starts on his polygraphs, I hope he can avoid the charlatans

Sexual History Poly, Isnt this the least reliable Poly there is? Since it would have many relevant questions? That is saying something I know. I have to take one, and will not lie, but am afraid of false postives Anyone have any experience that you can share? Thanks

fupolys, I am an American Polygraph Association certified PCSOT examiner who has conducted hundreds upon hundreds of these so-called "tests," most of them sexual history "tests," administered in a state prison for convicted sexual offenders in treatment for their societal transgressions.

My advice...

If your are GUILTY of any sexual offenses or associated deviancies, disclose EVERYTHYING (and I mean everything) prior to your sexual history "test" -- which is little more than a fishing expedition designed to gain admissions.

But... If your are INNOCENT of your alleged sexual crimes, learn everything you can about the sexual history polygraph "test," and, if possible, arrange multiple practice sessions with a certified PCSOT examiner prior to your official "test."

Why? Good question.

In my opinion, polygraph "testing" is biased against the innocent. Most pro-polygraph propagandists downplay that notion, but that's a separate conversation.

Now, let's get back to the sexual history "test"...

In polygraph circles, it seems that the world's foremost authority on sexual history polygraph testing is the current president of the American Polygraph Association, Raymond Nelson.

It may behoove you to see what APA president Raymond Nelson has to say about the sexual history "test" on his own web site:

http://raymondnelson.us/pcsot/pcsot.swf

Again, if you are guilty, there is precious little hope for escaping the polygraph. But, if you are innocent, it seems to me that pro-active protective measures are not irrational.

Good luck. In any case, you'll need it.

How come? Because polygraph "testing" has no proven and universally accepted scientific basis. What's more, examiner competence varies widely. Beyond that, a plethora of variables holds sway over each and every polygraph "test."

Even the American Polygraph Association's home-grown research -- thought by many to be wildly optimistic -- places best-case multiple-issue polygraph "test" accuracy at about 85%, meaning that the odds of an unfavorable outcome (i.e., a false result) are roughly equivalent to the odds in Russian roulette.

All things considered, then, the polygraph "test" is very much a crapshoot.

That's why United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in U.S. v Scheffer, said that even the best of polygraph exams are plagued by uncertainty. Learn more here:
http://www.daubertontheweb.com/polygraph.htm

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 12:43am:

If your are GUILTY of any sexual offenses or associated deviancies, disclose EVERYTHYING (and I mean everything) prior to your sexual history "test"

I think Dan is giving you good advice. However, I would add the following: if you plan on giving admissions to any undetected felonies, I would discuss it with your attorney prior to making such. He may be able to first seek an agreement with the district attorney to not bring additional charges.

Dan and Arch, Thanks, I will be honest, I have nothing to hide.  But even Dan had admitted this kind of multiple issue test is a crap shoot even while being honest.

Ok, this is important information for EVERYONE to have; examiners and others alike. 

I think it makes clear how the courts see the fifth amendment in regard to sex offender polygraph. 

It's important information for examiners and non examiners alike. 

---

Joe, thanks for posting this, very interesting. It is a conundrum. On one side, treatment providers say that the offenders cannot benefit from therapy if they do not disclose all paraphilia behavior. But, on the other side we have this pesky thing called the 5th Amendment. In most cases, additional charges are not brought against the offender, however, I am aware of one case in Washington State in which this happened. Perhaps it's dependent on just how egregious the admission is. If an offender is hiding serious felonies like a murder for example, he would be best to just do his time on the current charge rather than face additional prosecution. But, in this case, he is denied the treatment he needs. I would like to hear Raymond Nelson's input on this.

Ex Member wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 12:55am:

I would like to hear Raymond Nelson's input on this.

Ark, don't hold your breath.

Pro-polygraph cheerleaders such as APA president Ray Nelson are loathe to post on this site in a sustained and active fashion.

Why? Unlike other polygraph forums, this site is uncensored. That means the polygraph-science pitchmen would have to defend their make-believe science -- and face the tough questions head on.

Imagine that.

It's easier for the polygraph lobby to whistle past the graveyard. No surprise there, as polygraph promoters have more than enough gullible "polygraph science" believers as it is.

Make no mistake, the whole PCSOT scene is mainly about one thing: MONEY.

It's a polygraph ca$h cow -- conveniently cloaked in "community safety" psychobabble -- that's practically a legalized racket.

After all, skinners are a reviled underclass.

Right, Ray?

Ray, if you -- or any other of your fellow polygraph apologists -- disagree, then please point us to the (non-self-report) peer-reviewed studies that show PCSOT is scientifically valid and truly reflective of the flattering accuracy claimed by the American Polygraph Association.

[cue crickets]

Ex Member wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 12:55am:

Joe, thanks for posting this, very interesting. It is a conundrum. On one side, treatment providers say that the offenders cannot benefit from therapy if they do not disclose all paraphilia behavior. But, on the other side we have this pesky thing called the 5th Amendment. In most cases, additional charges are not brought against the offender, however, I am aware of one case in Washington State in which this happened. Perhaps it's dependent on just how egregious the admission is. If an offender is hiding serious felonies like a murder for example, he would be best to just do his time on the current charge rather than face additional prosecution. But, in this case, he is denied the treatment he needs. I would like to hear Raymond Nelson's input on this.

Both sides of the fence should find it interesting and helpful.

And Dan, play nice with Ray

Greetings,

Dan,

I was so glad when you stopped using the term "skinners" after I wrote my concerns about your persistent use of this term a couple of years ago in another online forum. It was nice that it did not take a lot of discussion at the time, and it has been nice not to have to observe your continued use of this term since then. I was dismayed at your use of the term "skinners" at that time - apparently before you turned into a polygraph consultant. I am equally uncomfortable with your renewed use of the term here. It is not a term that I have ever heard from any polygraph examiner other than yourself, and I have never heard from a clinical or law enforcement professional. I´ve worked around jails and prisons for a few decades now, and I simply cannot recall ever hearing another professional using the term - other than yourself. But it is perfectly clear - given the context in which you use the term - that it is a bit of prison slang term you adopted during your tenure as a part time examiner with NH state corrections is clear. When I ask other professionals who work in jails and prisons they recognize the term but uniformly indicate that they are not aware of the use of this term in professional discussions.

So I am glad that you ceased using the term.

It does seem odd to me that you re-inject it here, and I hope you do not continue using the term. I am not quite sure what the point of your using the term here is, but I do understand that you like to stir controversy.

Most of us are in favor of more language that is less de-humanizing. The tendency to de-humanize others is actually part of the problem of sex offending and it is impossible to imagine how any professional use of the term will lead to anything productive in terms of attitudes or understanding. How we treat others is more often not about who they are but more about who we are.

Ark,

I´m not sure what the question for me would be. There are a number of easy misunderstandings that get attached to both the polygraph and the sex offender treatment context. It is also rather easy to misunderstand "denial" in the treatment context. Denial is superficially similar to dishonesty, but it is definitely not synonymous. A broader view would say that everything in sex offense specific treatment - and perhaps other forms of mental health treatment - is about denial, including reducing denial and increasing a sense of personal responsibility, self-acceptance, and of course self-mastery and self-actualization. Denial, of course, will interfere with all this, and can result in all forms of distorted thoughts, feelings, and behavior. In the sex offense context it is obvious and tangible. Denial of behavior, denial of harm and impact on victims, denial of unlawfulness, denial of immorality, denial of deviancy, denial of the broader meaning of a pattern of behavior in terms of what kind of person one is, denial of dangerousness, denial of intent, denial of awareness and culpability, denial of awareness of the thoughts and feelings of others, denial of conscience, denial of propensity for continued behavior, denial that good choices matter - along with denial that bad choices also matter, denial of self-esteem  - along with destruction of self-esteem when we do something that we are capable of recognizing as dysfunctional if we stop and think about it. Virtually every topic in treatment is, in some way, about facing reality, reducing denial, and increasing one´s capacity to deal with life on life´s terms, given the limitations and issues that an individual has to manage along the way. Denial and avoidance, in its many forms, along with the host of other maladaptive coping and defense mechanisms, is the reason or basis for the need for treatment. It is not necessarily a barrier to treatment. It is why people need treatment.

It is also important to recognize that it is easy to confuse sex offenses with sexual deviancy and paraphilias. These are not synonymous. Oddly, some sexual offenses are not an expression of sexual deviancy, and not all sex offenses involve paraphilias. Some sexual paraphilias may not be unlawful. Some persons who have committed sexual offenses may not have problems with sexual deviancy. It is generally helpful for clinicians to first understand these concepts in general, and then understand the sexual behavior problem of the specific individual being treated.

.02

rn

Ray, with all due respect, the polygraph industry seems to have a problem with treating some within the industry in a humanizing manner.

I think we need to fix the industry from within first, then we can work on fixing it in other ways with honest and genuine intent.

Just my take.

Having said that, Dan does get a wee personal when it doesn't have to at times.  I look past this because, well, Massholes can understand our own language.  Irregardless (Boston Slang), see you next week

Joe,

I do have an idea why you write that. At the state fair I saw an advertisement that said "if our competition has to bad mouth us then we must be doing something right." Made me think of several things. Mostly, it reminded me that negative marketing is as destructive as negative campaigning - it is a disservice to the community because it causes more confusion than clarity. But it is an effective way to manipulate others if that is the main  objective. It should not be the main objective.

Regardless, it is always best to clean up our own side of the street first, if we want to move forward.

No doubt Dan seems to get personal at times. The back story on that is that I hurt his feelings some years ago in the old polygraph place forum. It is a well known and regrettable story. Regardless of whether unintended, it is actually not fun to hurt people. I wish I could change that part of the past, but sometimes all we can do is honor the fact than an issue exists. We can also address the issues at present. I have continued to try to look beyond anything personal and focus on the substantive discussion whenever there is substantive discussion. Some of Dan´s discussions have been useful; others feel a bit like an exercise in chasing one´s tail. Still other discussions feel like the well disguised marketing of a polygraph consultant, for which I cannot actually see any real benefit to the profession or to the community or to an individual (just a consultant taking a fee from a desperate client who is hoping someone can actually pull a rabbit out of a hat for them). But if they want to pay a consultant fee then I guess it is a free market as long as the service or product is legal.

.02

rn

wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

I do have an idea why you write that. At the state fair I saw an advertisement that said "if our competition has to bad mouth us then we must be doing something right." Made me think of several things. Mostly, it reminded me that negative marketing is as destructive as negative campaigning - it is a disservice to the community because it causes more confusion than clarity. But it is an effective way to manipulate others if that is the main  objective. It should not be the main objective.

Belive it or not, I whole heartedly agree with out, but it is bad policy to let others walk all over you without defending yourself or your position.  It sets a precedent of weakness.

Regardless, it is a discussion I would love to have, and, maybe after apa, a lot of the negativity between me and other can be put in the past before it gets bigger.  I am not going anywhere and neither are they, it is time we all come to an agreement to achieve an uncomfortable peace over a war of attrition 

I am hoping for the best and preparing for the worst.   

wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 5:26pm:

Most of us are in favor of more language that is less de-humanizing. The tendency to de-humanize others is actually part of the problem of sex offending and it is impossible to imagine how any professional use of the term will lead to anything productive in terms of attitudes or understanding. How we treat others is more often not about who they are but more about who we are.

That sounds like hug-a-thug PC horseshit straight from the "I'm OK, You're OK" school of rehabilitation.

By your way of thinking, ISIS terrorists are merely freedom fighters, and the Nazis were simply misunderstood.



wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Still other discussions feel like the well disguised marketing of a polygraph consultant, for which I cannot actually see any real benefit to the profession or to the community or to an individual...

Of course you can't, Ray.

To the believers, polygraph is a religion with only One Truth.

Polygraph apostates -- especially realists like me who advocate consumer protection -- are damned.

Make no mistake: Polygraph is all about money.

That's why the American Polygraph Association has condemned a bill of rights for polygraph test takers.

Dan,

Seems you have little idea how I feel about terrorists or sex offenders or Nazis. Feel free to speak for yourself, but please try to refrain from attempts at mind reading. You are not good at it.

Given your publication of a study showing ~100% accuracy for a proprietary brand of un-replicatable secret-sauce type expertise, I hardly think you are a realist.

But I do understand that your dialog is probably good for (your) business. Probably some people are desperate enough that they are vulnerable to the need for false hope and confidence that one can purchase from a professional who is angling himself against the profession.

.02

rn

wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 8:39pm:

Given your publication of a study showing ~100% accuracy for a proprietary brand of un-replicatable secret-sauce type expertise, I hardly think you are a realist.

Really, Ray?

Then endorse an APA-sanctioned countermeasure challenge series, and let's see who comes out on top.

Unless, of course, YOU'RE CHICKEN.
 
I'm calling your bluff, amigo.

[cue crickets]

Meanwhile, go humanize a skinner who rammed his dick into the vagina of a one-year-old baby girl, and tell him "I'm OK, you're OK," so let's talk about it...

Dan,

You are just being ugly.

We all know I am happy to control people for the rest of their lives if they sexually assault children.

There is a time and a place for the nitty gritty details: in therapy, in the polygraph, and in the legal context when deciding sentencing options. Sometimes in public discussions when we need a reminder that sex offenders are in fact dangerous and do in fact impact their victims in serious ways.

Any one of us can find any number of real and graphic examples of the horribly real details of an assault. Each of us has heard it all at some point, and probably more than once. And each of us is capable of selecting the most graphic and ugly language to make the most dramatic emotional impact on the listener - if that is our objective.

Here, your use of graphic and aggressive language seems to serve only to leverage your goal of appealing to people's emotions and not to any logical point or discussion of any real value.

So between your criticizing the APA and the polygraph profession for being imperfect, and your selling you own version of ~100% perfect accuracy to anyone desperate enough to hope you can solve their dilemma...

you can have the crickets now.



rn

So, in other words, regarding the CM challenge series, you're chicken.

Right, amigo?

[cue crickets]

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 12:42am:

Meanwhile, go humanize a skinner who rammed his dick into the vagina of a one-year-old baby girl, and tell him "I'm OK, you're OK," so let's talk about it...

UM wow, Dan

wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 5:26pm:

Denial is superficially similar to dishonesty, but it is definitely not synonymous.

Interesting Raymond, I have to admit that this distinction had never dawned on me. So the Sexual History exam's core objective is to break denial; the laundry list of behaviors having only a secondary utility to the treatment providers. If a person were to admit to a murder or other serious undetected crime as this particular exam unfolds, how do you reconcile the 5th Amendment aspect of his admissions? Although crucial to his treatment plan, disclosing all could put him into an even more dreadful legal quagmire. Are there any mechanisms in place to alleviate these conflicts?

Ark,

Let's be clear. Sex offenders are dangerous people. They harm other people. Often smaller more vulnerable people. Sex offenders can be manipulative. For example: many sex offenders can have sexual contact with children and get other people to not notice it. Or if others do notice it they convince others to tolerate or worse to endorse it. Just take a moment and think about the kind of manipulation it would take to convince a child to do something sexual with an adult. Then take a moment and think about what kind of manipulation it would take to silence that child - because children under stress often do not hide it well and tend to get fussy like something is wrong. So sex offenders can be capable of making use of things like secrecy and manipulation and lies and other forms of social power and control (including violence) - and also including denial and avoidance.

Then think about the fact that some sex offenders are actually not proud of what they have done, and are in fact shame-based people. And one of the things people do with shame - when they lack hope for any future alternative to shame - is put it away in some internal place of denial and secrecy.

Many years ago we used to hear the term "break denial" a lot from polygraph examiners and from other therapists. These days, I do not so much hear this term, except from some polygraph examiners. I do not so much hear this term from therapists who are current with the literature on evidence-based treatment and the role of denial.

The role of denial in the treatment process is not so simple, and it would be a mistake to attempt to impose a simplistic view on this complex issue.

Probably a better term is "reduce denial," and probably a better term would be to increase personal responsibility. Some of the most effective therapists I know get this rather clearly.

Breaking denial - as a function of a polygraph , or as a dramatic form of psychotherapeutic catharsis, or through the a confession obtained by a skillful interrogator - is of very little, if any, real value towards any therapeutic progress.

There is virtually no evidence, in the scientific literature on clinical work, that catharsis is a realistic component of change.

In fact - my personal view after all these years - attempts to forcefully break denial may add more difficulty and confusion to the clinical treatment picture. Think about this: if we have ample reason to believe that a person committed a sexual assault (sufficient for conviction) then we have ample reason to believe that a person might benefit from treatment to manage (in no particular order) empathy deficits and aggression and cognitive distortions and social deficiencies and  self concept issues and sexual behaviors that led to the assault.

But therapy and change is kind of an inside job, and if the person does not possess the motivation to do the work, then it ain't gonna happen much is it.

Now we can motivate people externally to some degree - or to any degree we want. Just hold a gun to someone's head (metaphorically) and they will comply. But that will only lead to change and therapeutic process if we are correct in the magical belief that going through a checklist of items with only superficial compliance will lead to change. If superficial compliance is insufficient to internalize change and progress, then it will mean nothing and will only confuse and obfuscate those persons who are in fact motivated to change with those who are not actually motivated to change.

Imagine a day in court with a sex offender who is massively resistant and yet does, with enough external pressure, pass a polygraph. In fact that the person is massively resistant and a danger to the community, might indicate a need for a safer treatment and supervision alternative than a sentence into the community. But passing the polygraph can be made to look as if the person is now "ready" or is now "doing exactly what we wan't." This is obviously incorrect. It will probably be better to leave the person in denial so that the denial and resistance can be more obvious and easy to observe and appreciate its meaning.

So the process of treatment and all the things we do is often to find ways to help a person find and develop some internal motivation for change. Certainly, external control, supervision and accountability are very important for community safety. But if we rely solely on external forms of motivation and external forms of benchmarking treatment progress then we may ultimately loose the opportunity to make any real progress towards change.

Now one of the hardest things for offenders is to give up the power and control and manipulative lifestyle. Directly related to this - in my view - is the difficulty in grasping the paradox: that they are dangerous and may only be safe around children when they remember that they are not and remind others that they are not safe around children. When they get the joke, and can still experience a sense of acceptance of themselves and acceptance by others, then maybe they can progress.

So, in the end, nearly everything in treatment is about reducing denial in some form and increasing personal responsibility and self mastery (which requires personal responsibility) - and this can occur internally only when a person can also maintain some sense self and and human value - which requires quite a bit of resiliency when we are talking about rather ugly and unpopular things. So, it does take a balance of intrusive discussion, confrontation of problem behavior, external motivation, lifestyle development and social support to do this effectively.

Along the way there can be a lot of denial, avoidance, resistance manipulation, power struggle, and other drama.

Therapists are typically nice people, smart and decent. And so they will tend to want to take small risks as a necessary part of their work with therapy clients - including sex offenders. This is their job.

Polygraph - as a tool for elucidating information and discriminating truth and deception at rates far greater than chance or unassisted human judgement - is simply a tool for helping to manage the inherent risks. So that therapists can do clinical work without becoming so optimistic that they play into an offender's dangerous potential for manipulation.

Polygraph, and information, and better knowledge about what to believe and what not to believe, are just tools for risk management.

I am certainly not a legal person, but there are procedural mechanisms in place to avoid conflicts around 5th amendment rights. The information interest to the clinical and risk management goals is the behavioral pattern. These exams are not conducted for criminal investigation purposes. Neither program policies nor examination procedures will require the disclosure of information at a level of detail that will typically result in a criminal investigation or criminal filing. As to whether those mechanisms are or are not adequate protection is for the courts. Of course, a victim of past abuse can always provide the information independently, and there will be no way to avoid an investigation or filing.

.02

rn

Ray, the American Polygraph Association model policy for PCSOT (https://apoa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/pcsot%20model.pdf) includes the following "tests"...

> Instant offense exam

> Instant offense investigative exam

> Prior allegation exam

> Sexual history exam I [victims]

> Sexual history exam II [behaviors/paraphilias]

> Maintenance exam

> Sex offense monitoring exam

What is the demonstrated accuracy of each of these "tests," and where can we find the independent peer-reviewed (non-self-report) studies that support your claims of each "test's" accuracy?

ah the good ole days when it was just

maint
mont
SH
and inst off

We have gone from 4 tests to 7 tests. 

I can see both ends of the argument on this; but in Texas, it seems it gives a lot of room for abuse for examiners who have a problem with the cop out word, "inconclusive."

For an industry (texas) that seems to love the words "because this is the way it's always been done", when it pertained to how business is handed out, they seem to be willing to separate themselves from that saying when it comes to more testing opportunities. 

Now, having said that, I do see the utility of a couple of these extra tests.  I just see room for abuse, especially in a market where profiteering has been kinda obvious.

Just my two cents

Joe,

The different types of exams merely attempt to clarify the different types of purposes that one might consider conducting these exams.

What Dan is doing is displaying either a disingenuous desire to confuse people or a genuine misunderstanding of scientific testing.

Any of us can choose to be dissatisfied with the present state of research on this, but that is no excuse for ignoring what evidence we do have to describe our knowledge at the present time.

You can find information on what we know about the accuracy of multiple issue screening polygraphs in the 2011 meta-analytic survey. For better or worse there may not at this time be a better source for information. Or we can pretend like we know absolutely - and subsequently pretend that the test is ~100% perfect in the vacancy.

Evidence at this time tends to converge at mean accuracy estimates in the mid .80s for exams of this type that are interpreted with an assumption (some would say a strong assumption) of independent criterion variance - with a corresponding confidence interval that describes where we expect to observe accuracy in subsequent studies and real world settings. Contrast this with event specific accuracy rates that are a bit higher.

Given that the results from laboratory and field studies tend to converge at similar levels - within an expected range of variability - there is no evidence at this time to support an assumption that polygraph accuracy would be very different for different topics. Perhaps some day our knowledge will be fine-grained and precise enough to support such an assumption, but at present it does not.

At the present time all that is assumed is that polygraph questions describe a behavioral issue for which an examinee is capable of knowing the truth about his or her past conduct. That is all. The thing that seems to have the greatest affect on accuracy is whether the set of test stimulus question describe a single issue - for which we make no assumption of independence - or multiple issues - for which we make an assumption of independence. The difference is a rather well known statistical phenomena called multiplicity. Simply put, making multiple statistical decisions is a mathematically and statistically more complex endeavor. More complex in this context means more potential sources of uncontrolled variance and subsequently lower precision and somewhat wider margins of error compared to exams that do not involve multiplicity.

Whereas Dan's publication of ~100% accuracy is simple opportunistic predation on people's desperation for certainty in a context of uncertainty, most educated people will understand that tests are not expected to be perfect. Perfection would require a deterministic observer. Near perfection (i.e., physical measurement) would require both a physical substance and a well defined physical unit of measurement - for which we would use a measurement not a test. Tests are needed and used when we want to quantify something that is neither deterministic nor subject to physical measurement. The purpose of any scientific test is to attempt to quantify some amorphous phenomena. Because the target phenomena are amorphous, tests are inherently probabilistic and inherently imperfect. They are only expected to quantify the margin of uncertainty using a structured and replicable analytic procedure.

If the procedure is not structured and replicable - if it depends on the personal prowess of the expert - then it is a clinical procedure. These are useful when we do not have a structured and replicable analytic procedure. But the problem is always subjectivity - it seems that there is always another expert with a bigger degree and more grey hair who is willing to offer the conclusion that is sought and bought.

And so structured analytic procedures have tended to rather flatly outperform clinical procedures over several decades of research across a variety of professional disciplines - even though expert practitioners have historically tended to sell near certainty around their conclusions, whereas structured analytic procedures simply quantify the margin of uncertainty.

As often occurs there are growing pains and professional (ego) conflicts among those who love the old-school models (claims of virtual certainty supported by self-aggrandized experteeism) vs analytic models for which the basis of validity is the process itself and not so much the persona of the expert.

Different types of PCSOT exams merely clarify the different types of purposes and objectives for these exams. They do not themselves form the basis of validity. Dan's argument is simply another example of his misunderstanding of science and validity.

As always, there is still more to learn.

.02

rn

Joe McCarthy wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:

ah the good ole days when it was just maint mont SH and inst off We have gone from 4 tests to 7 tests.

Yes, Joe, polygraph's most lucrative ca$h cow had calve$.

cha-ching

Ray "Believe me, I'm a scientist" Nelson sez...


wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 7:59pm:

If the procedure is not structured and replicable - if it depends on the personal prowess of the expert - then it is a clinical procedure. These are useful when we do not have a structured and replicable analytic procedure. But the problem is always subjectivity...

Personal prowess is the foundation of all polygraph testing. Subjectivity -- for example, bias in the form of sympathy or contempt for the test subject -- is a very real problem.

That's why the APA model policy for PCSOT has a strict rule limiting the number of times a polygraph operator can test the same subject:

5.7.2.
Number of exams per examinee. Examiners should not conduct more than four separate examinations per year on the same examinee except where unavoidable or required by law or local regulation.

If the polygraph "test" process were as scientifically valid and analytical as Ray wants people to believe, there would be no need for that rule.

The pro-polygraph propagandists often compare polygraph accuracy to that of film mammography. Can you imagine a similar rule being applied to radiologists and x-ray technicians?

Polygraph "testing" is all about the expertise of the examiner. There is precious little science involved.

Forgive my slow response Ray.

I see valid point on both ends and trying to find a way to articulate them.

Joe,

You and I and others, including Dan, were probably all taught in polygraph school that we should say that the polygraph is nearly infallible if you have a competent examiner. This is what was taught back in the day. It feels good because it both glorifies our expertise and also gives us our personal marketing angle.

Dan is simply adding confusion again. The need for restrictions on the number of exams was necessary to prevent the impulse toward practices in which the examination procedure is short-cut in time so that more exams can be completed each day. This is historically an issue for private examiners - and we've all heard the stories from the 1980s (Doug Williams era) in which examiners ran numerous exams each day, and the commodity of interest was the confession and not the test result. Government examiners today will often conduct only 1 or 2 exams per day, with sufficient time for each.

If the solutions embedded in the details and language of our published standards for examination scheduling seem to look odd or not completely satisfying then it is probably an reflection of the social and political difficulties involved in putting such a standard and restriction into place.

But yes, in old-school anti-science polygraph practice the basis of expertise is the persona of the expert.

The problem for us today is this: what we can actually describe and replicate, in terms of test precision and error rates, does not seem to agree with the historical claims of infallibility.

Dan has a unique angle on this because he has published a study showing ~100% accuracy - a study that others have panned as unscientific and a failure of the peer review process. To put this in context, none of us believe that Dan actually wrote the study - its reads exactly like the written language of Matte - and the journal that published it at the time was allowing authors to suggest their own peer reviewers.

Now look at Dan's procedure, and notice that there are 23 scoring feature in Dan's/Matte's model, along with 23 rules. This is a manual scoring protocol for which Matte reported a reliability coefficient in excess of .99. Which means manual scorers almost never disagree while using those 23 features and 23 rules. (For my part, I cannot remember 23 things let alone 46 things.) So it is suspicious. And we have the problem that those 23 features and 23 rules cannot be organized into a logical flow-chart or algorithm for which we could program a computer to achieve automated reliability. This highly complex model is in fact a subjective and unstructured clinical model disguising itself as an analytic model.

So what we have in Dan's old-school polygraph model is in fact a clinical process - not unlike the historical tradition in the greater polygraph profession of the 1980s.

Examiners who were trained before 2006 probably had to learn and memorize 23 or 25 scoring features - most of which were without scientific support - whereas today we tend to focus mainly or only on the things that are statistically significant discriminators, and these are smaller in number.

Also, notice that automated computer algorithms tend to make absolutely no use of dogmatic rules that have no scientific support.

Again, what we can actually replicate using structured and even automated procedures seems a lot more conservative than the ~100% accuracy reported by the clinical model of Dan and Matte.

In the end, it may be our choice: old school polygraph the way Doug Williams accuses - in which the test result is simply "tool" for gaining confessions - and for which examiners are secretly embarrassed about the test result because they cannot realistically quantify the margin of uncertainty around an old-school clinical process, unless they get a confession. Or we can have evidence-based 21st century polygraph, in which we attempt to realistically quantify the level of precision and uncertainty with which we should regard the test result.

At the present time we seem to be observing both old-school clinical polygraph (in which we can only adopt a form of blind faith that the examiner is in fact an un-biased expert with no subjective interference) the and new-school practices (in which we emphasize and evidence-base, norm-referenced, and standardized protocols for both test administration and test data analysis so that the analysis can be replicated). The tension we observe today is sometimes a product of the dynamic and dialectical process between these two professional practice paradigms: old-school polygraph would be called an "expert-practice model" (or the even older "experimental practice model" wherein the expert observer is simply experimenting and learning on each new case - whereas most professions today would view experimental practice with a lot of ethical caution unless we have both no existing solutions and the informed consent of the individual that will be subject to the experimental procedure). Most professions today will also look with caution at the continued use of an expert-practice clinical model - for which analytic procedures have been repeatedly shown to be potentially vulnerable to confirmation bias  (just see the 1986 Diane Sawyer event), and for which the analysis is largely unreproducible and dependent on the persona of the expert - at a time when there does exist some structured and replicable test administration and analytic procedures that do not depend on selling false-hope in an "infallible" conclusion as a basis for instilling public confidence.

Its our choice.

I believe the existence and interest in this particular website is some evidence or indication of a public desire for a replicable and accountable analytic solution for the lied detection and credibility assessment needs of our communities and governments.

Finally, Dan's confusion can been seen more easily when we consider that even an evidence-base, norm-reference and standardized test administration and analytic model will still require that we take the time to do it correctly. In fact, things like standardized practices become even more important when we agree or decide not to be satisfied with a test result simply because we are impressed with the CV or persona of the expert - unless that expert uses an evidence-based norm-referenced and standardized protocol for which the analysis can actually be replicated.

As always,

.02

rn

wrote on Aug 26^th, 2015 at 8:59pm:

The need for restrictions on the number of exams was necessary to prevent the impulse toward practices in which the examination procedure is short-cut in time so that more exams can be completed each day.

That's bullshit, just like much of what Ray says.

The reason why examiners are prohibited from testing the same examinee more than four times a year is so familiarization -- in any capacity -- does not contaminate the polygraph "test."

Again, I ask you... The pro-polygraph propagandists often compare polygraph accuracy to that of film mammography. Can you imagine a similar rule being applied to radiologists and x-ray technicians?

It's absurd.

If Ray truly believed in what he's saying about polygraph's scientific validity, he'd endorse both a countermeasure challenge series and a bill of rights for polygraph test subjects.

Why the resistance, Ray? Please explain. [cue crickets]

People, I strongly suggest that you do not buy into the polygraph-science snake oil. From what I've seen in my 10+ years in the field, it is but a mere pipe dream. Fortunately, the vast majority of the courts share my view.

The polygraph indu$try is all about money, and "scientist" Ray Nelson is a rainmaker of the first order.

Dan,

Which exact part is BS?

The part about your publication of an unrealistic ~100% accuracy for a manually scored polygraph with 23 features and 23 rules?

The part about an unrealistic reported reliability coefficient of .99 for you method - meaning that different manual scorers almost never disagree?

Or the part about scientific reviews converging at something lower than ~100% accuracy?

Or the part about the fact that I, and probably some others, cannot remember 23 features and 23 rules every day?

Or the part about the lack of an unambiguous logical flow-chart for those 23 scoring features and 23 rules?

Or the part about the history of polygraph originating in a clinical model for which the basis of validity or precision was assumed to be the examiner?

Or the part about the trend toward increased use of numerical scoring and quantitative analysis as a solution to argument and disagreement around unreplicatable clinical opinions/conclusions from experts who were acting subjectively in the absence of replicable quantitative models?

Tell us please which part is BS?

Keep in mind that there are some rather well known phenomena that can be expected to occur whenever a persons is presented repeatedly with the same stimulus. And while the exact influence of these has not completely quantified, there is some experience and evidence on which to base some reasonably cautious policy assumptions.

And you should also keep in mind that known phenomena associated with retesting and repeated presentation of test stimuli are not solely a function of either a clinical or quantitative analytic model.

So it makes little sense that you adopt and anti-science posture towards the polygraph - except when considering the market potential for a polygraph examiner who wants to sell ~100% confidence (over-confidence) in a unique and proprietary brand of clinical secret-sauce, for which the basis of validity is having been trained by a certain person. I get it, your kind of polygraph is definitely not science. And if your brand of polygraph ain't science, then what is it? Maybe it's just marketing, in which you pander to those individuals in desperate need of an anti-science polygraph examiner. (There does seem to be a market vacancy at this time.)

.02

rn

Ray,

Here are some examples of your BS...

You claim that I "market" 100% accuracy. That is false.

You claim that my business model is predation upon desperate clients. That is false.

You imply that my one study -- actually a micro-survey documenting the performance of a single expert examiner -- is to be interpolated as guaranteeing deterministic perfection for anyone who uses the MQTZCT. The study may be a true outlier, but highly experienced examiners have been known to have very lengthy stretches of perfection. I am totally forthright with all prospective clients about the risks, realities and limitations of the "test" -- regardless what technique is used and who is administering it. See my "Recommended Reading" web page: http://polygraphman.com/id59.html

As for your inability to remember a bunch of rules, I can't help you there other than to say "try harder."

Now, here's something that's not BS...

The pro-polygraph propagandists within the APA saw the kind of upward traction my realist position has been gaining over the past two election cycles with the progressives within the organization.

That trend has proven to be so alarming to the establi$hment, the board of directors decided to prevent me from running for president-elect in 2016.

I guess moving the goalposts was the safest short-term solution to avoiding of full-blown schism within the Church of Polygraph.

Dan,

I asserted that you published a study claiming ~100% accuracy, and that your ranting is simply part of your marketing your consultation services to individuals who are so desperate they agree to pay your fee after you have assuaged you conscience by providing them all the negative information you can find (and that your use of derogatory names, suggests that you lack concern for them as individuals). Call it what you want; to me it looks like marketing.

http://mattepolygraph.com/2008_fieldstudy_quadritrack.html

I quote you on page 23 (last paragraph) when you assert that your technique can "... nullify the effect of countermeasures... "

That is a position that was reargued by you (or whomever wrote the paper for you) in your published rebuttal to Iacono and Verschuere et al. who published their concerns about your conclusions.

Seems like marketing to me, but what do I know.

I suppose it is possible that you truly believe in these claims.

So perhaps you can clarify for everyone whether you believe your favored polygraph technique to be ~100% accurate and capable of "nullify[ing] the effects of countermeasures" as you wrote and published? Or, is this just a abuse of the publication process to achieve some slick marketing-and self-promotion?

If you do not believe that your claimed ~100% accuracy is reproducible or generalizable, and if not marketing and not mere self-promotion, then why not contact the journal editors to retract those publications? Would that be bad for business? Would that damage the your credibility or the authenticity of your message?

.02

rn

Ray, enough talk.

Let's settle things with an officially sanctioned countermeasure challenge series at multiple APA events.

Now, Mr. Scientist, bring on the excuses.

Dan

Man up and answer Ray's question!

Have the crickets got your tongue?

Oh there is so much I want to say here.  Both sides.

:X

pailryder, how noble of you to come to the aid of the reluctant scientist Nelson who is too afraid to put the "test" to the test.

Just as certain TAPE operatives are afraid of Joe McCarthy's polygraph challenge, the APA leadership is afraid of mine.

Does anyone see a trend here?

Little wonder, then, that the APA has quietly disposed of its erstwhile motto, "Dedicated to Truth."

Keep circling the wagons, boys.

Dan

Ray does not need my help and I am not an APA member.  I just don't understand why you refuse to answer about a study you put your name on.

The trend I see is a self promoter full of challenges but short on answers.

pailryder, I wouldn't use the technique if I didn't believe in it.

That said, I generally let the consumer choose the polygraph technique, depending on their specific goals.

Why is that?

Some clients, having done their own research -- or wishing to replicate certain conditions (e.g., a "police polygraph") -- will opt for the technique that is used in a particular venue. Others just want the most bang for the buck. Still others, who are more cautious about the scientific validity of the "lie detector," may insist on a Utah series.

In any case, it's essentially up to them.

As an independent consultant who is in the service industry, it makes no difference to me. After all, I simply provide information, discuss the risks and rewards of polygraph, make recommendations, and run the "test."

Let's talk abut promotion...  Promotion is the cornerstone of the entire credibility assessment indu$try. I'm just a one-man operation. So, who should I be promoting, the other guy?

By the way, I offer a 100% money-back guarantee when I use my preferred technique. Do you?

Dan there is a big difference between my challenge and the countermeasures challenge.

My challenge is about the truth and vindication.  It is about exposing these Texas examiners as the charlatans they are. 

All I wanted to do was solve this once and for all, using the test we insist other people buy.

The AAPP, have a bylaw in their Constitution that make provisions for such a solution, as does the Arizona Polygraph Examiners Association; so Ray and say this was not a good solution or unnecessary all he wants, fact is it is in the bylaws of two recognized polygraph associations.  So, I guess it was not such an outlandish request after all. I do also believe that Ray is a member of AAPP, so I doubt he would say it is a bad bylaw, so why would he say that using polygraph to solve my situations was a bad idea? 

Sadly, there are examiners in Texas, who belong to AAPP, who clearly think that a bylaw within AAPP is BS and would refuse to follow said bylaw if the president of the AAPP demanded it of them.  But then again, Jon Rios, Holden, Hubbard, Sheppard, Parker, Wood, Ervin, St. John, et al. seem to have disregard for TAPE's bylaws; why would they respect the bylaws of AAPP, APA, or NPA. 

Then again, none of these people can be counted on to act honorably or do the honorable thing, if one were to go off their history, which I can DOCUMENT through their own emails, documentation, and recordings.

But back on point.

What I proposed has actual utility.  It solves a problem; well the way I proposed it, it would have solved the problem.

The polygraph CM challenge, no matter who won, would only create a circus and more questions than answers.  It would be like deflate gate; all it would do is cause further divide and one side would point fingers and accuse the other of shenanigans. 

Neither side would admit defeat

Moreover, there is no existing provisions for any test to happen under those circumstances in any association bylaw.  Dan, things work out much better when you can throw their own bylaws in their face.  Then they have no argument in the eyes of the public.

This is why TAPE has been so quiet, because they can't justify not rolling their bylaws, and they are either unable or incapable of admitting they were wrong.  Cowards and charlatans often have a problem with admitting fault.

Anyway, let me close it with this.  I can prove that what I proposed was not a left field idea; there associations have provisions for what I proposed.  These leaves only one of two possibilities;

1, Holden, Hubbard (or as Jay Holden likes to call her COCONUT), et al. are afraid of being caught in their lies and their failure of a polygraph they insist have a 90 - 93% accuracy rate (by their own websites and documents), would end their careers and their easy money.

2, They don't believe in the accuracy of the test like they say they do; and they are too afraid of putting their careers on the line with a test they don't believe in, but insist other people buy

# 2 falls into your theory, personally, I think the issue falls with #1

My test proposed a final solution.  The liar walks and the truthful party stays.  Simple, easy, and direct.

Once I get my issue resolved, then I will worry about other issues.  My issue is dealing with industry integrity; or in Texas, lack thereof 

Joe, I'm curious to know what relevant questions you have in mind to be asked during this challenge.

Dan,



Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 3:36pm:

pailryder, I wouldn't use the technique if I didn't believe in it. That said, I generally let the consumer choose the polygraph technique, depending on their specific goals.

Your statement is confusing.  You say you will not use a technique if you don't believe in it, then make a statement about letting the client choose a technique.  You either believe in all techniques or are presenting a false argument.  You have stated several times you do not trust many techniques.  Please explain. 

Bill, I'm sorry for any confusion.

I believe in working with the client to identify what service package best meets their needs, and delivering that package.

In the final analysis, though, he who pays the piper calls the tune -- within legal and ethical limits, of course.

It's as simple as that.

Ex Member wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 6:34pm:

Joe, I'm curious to know what relevant questions you have in mind to be asked during this challenge.

Lay out all the alleged "libelous" and slanderous" Statements they they accusse me of making.  For instance

I have been accused by bill parker in stating that the Emails from lieguytoo came from behavioral measures in TAPE.  Wood states that there was no monopoly and I stated that there was.(facts and discovery speak for it self).  These are just a few examples as I don't have the file next to me.  Between the TAPE complaint and the NPA complaint, I have been caused of slander many times.  Yet not one Slander suit has of yet been filed to date. 

Lay them all out. Get my denials to each statement

1 DID YOU LIE IN ANY OF THOSE STATEMENTS WE REVIEWED TODAY?

2 DID YOU INTENTIONALLY MAKE ANY MATERIAL MISSTATEMENT TO DAMAGE OF DESTROY THE REPUTATIONS ANY OF THE EXAMINERS WE DISCUSSED TODAY?

I'm also the kinda guy that would be open to suggestion.  i am not closed mined to any question as long as they meet the rules and standards of what is taught in APA accredited schools and the kindness is retuned on their tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxrJsrsmFd8

For Maria, I would have actually taken a social test

DID YOU LIE IN THE STATEMENTS WE REVIEWED FROM THAT LINKED IN MESSAGE BOARD?

DID YOU STEAL ANY OF THAT DIGITAL MEDIA?

DID YOU USE THE TERM COCONUT AS A RACIAL SLUR?

Again, I would have been open to suggestion, and in hub bards case, we would have had the tests done at NPA.  That would have solved the NPA issues once and for all, and fairly and in an fair and unbiased manner to both parties. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c69bttNR7Eg
I wonder why she didn't take me up on it?

the other examiners would be tested in the same manner, two question test regarding my issue with that person.  The questions my be clearly polygraph able and will not cover intent or opinion.  only what happened or didn't happen.  I would bend over backwards to be more fair with them as they have been with me during the course of this law suit; as I have always been after the suit ended.

Regardless, that ship has sailed.  I made this offer and put it on the table no less than three times; each time rejected.  The last time I made this offer, I made it clear it would be the last time, and I put a deadline on it.  Now it's time for them to live with their cowardly decision.

If they want me to revisit it, my response will be simple.  You had your chance.

This six year conflict is easlally solvable, they choose not to put it behind them and their actions in April of 2014 and beyond have made it clear that they want this to be a war of attrition of mutually assured career destruction. 

Well except for the physical threats made to my life and saftey by an officer of the Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners. 

Regardless, I have seen to my security at APA to assure my safety

Oh and it should be pointed out, at one point I even offered to let Holden himself test me.  Even then, they wouldn't do it. 

Hmmmmmmm

Joe McCarthy wrote on Aug 29^th, 2015 at 6:09pm:

Dan there is a big difference between my challenge and the countermeasures challenge. ... My challenge is about the truth and vindication.  It is about exposing these Texas examiners as the charlatans they are.  ... The polygraph CM challenge, no matter who won, would only create a circus and more questions than answers.  It would be like deflate gate; all it would do is cause further divide and one side would point fingers and accuse the other of shenanigans.  Neither side would admit defeat

Joe, my idea of the CM challenge is not a one-shot Rumble in the Jungle. I have been calling for a countermeasure challenge series -- a continuum of events that would take place over a period of years, in conjunction with APA seminars.

The CM series would require strict independent oversight, as from the psychology department of a major university.

Polygraph operators would be chosen at random. However, there would be categories based on years of experience.

I predict that the CM ringers would beat the box at least half of the time, maybe more.

It would not surprise me if professional liability insurance carriers would soon take great interest in those polygraph operators who were beaten. The hoodwinked operators, would, in time, be likely to face an insurance surcharge, forfeit their insurance altogether, or be placed in an assigned risk pool with much higher premiums.

But in the grand scheme of things, the CM challenge series would in fact answer many questions -- and that, I contend, is what the indu$try is so fearful of.

But let that go.

After, say, 36  months, we'd know more about countermeasures than we've learned in the past 50 years.

Yes, there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

That's why, in my opinion, the pro-polygraph industrialists prefer to keep whistling past the graveyard.

OK, let me start with this,

There is now peace between me and Eric Holden.  Yes you read that right.  We talked everything out today, and as far as both parties are concerned, there is a halt to hostilities.  It is done, it is over, there is now peace in that regard.

We both agreed that there are some pot stirrers in the background that just instigated things to a point where they got to of hand.  Mistakes were made, and I am not blame free here; and those mistakes are now in the past.

I hope this will stabilize the market in Dallas and make all involved stronger and better. 

For any misunderstandings or angst I have caused Mr. Holden during the process of the past 6 years, I am sorry and I hope that things will move forward to a new era in Dallas of understanding and friendship.

If I have unreasonably wronged Mr. holden in any way, shape or form, I hope he accepts my apology again, and, we move froward with understanding and good future intentions.

Now, in regard to the examiners who don't want to let things go; I will leave you with this.

The opening keynote by F. Lee Bailey; the closing was fitting, and hit home for me

"if I were ever asked to take a polygraph (if he was in a situation where one was needed), how could I say no given my involvement in the polygraph profession."

F. Lee Bailey
Keynote speaker
APA 2015 conference

This statement by Mr. Bailey seemed fitting, relevant, and for me, VINDICATING.

On that note, after hearing that statement, by someone as important in the polygraph community as Mr. Bailey, I feel vindicated enough to move on from this. 

We know who the examiners are that will step up to their own test; and we know who will run.  We now know who the examiners are that will do the right thing in the ned and who will continue to "stir the pot."

I am done, and I am out.  This old dog is going back to sleep.  I think it would be best for certain examiners in Texas to let that happen and leave the sleeping dog in peace.  But make no mistake, and you know who I am talking to; kick a sleeping dog, you're gonna get bit.  Something to think about.

NOTE: I will still be using the fact that I am the ONLY examiner in Texas that believes in the product we sell, enough that I would place my future and career down on the table based on the results of that test.  I reserve the right to use this in my marketing. 

On that note, I am done and moving on.  I would hope the Texas examiners would do that also; trust me, this is in everyones best interests.

I now leave the choice to them.

Kinda anticlimactic Joe..

Ark: What were you hoping for, gunfire?

Gosh, would never hope for that.... I guess I was getting enthralled in the juiciness...

Ark, it was largely an inside joke, the significance of which can be found in the Polygraph Place Examiners Private forum archives.

I can understand where that would be anticlimactic to people. 

But I think in F Lee Bailey's words, I found a degree of peace and vindication that demanding a polygraph from my detractors and offering to take one in return was Nita's crazy as other examiners say it was. I did the right thing and I feel that I sent a clear message that I believe in what I do enough to hold myself tommy own test.  I also feel now that I have shown the people that have not made peace are afraid of stepping up to the test they sell. 

I think to keep going at this point is beating a dead horse at this point.  I still have a lot of information in the pipe, but now that peace has happened with Holden, I am hoping this will cause a momentum.

6 years of fighting is a long time.  I have had two days in a row of peace and no hostility, even if I am in what I considered "enemy territory". This is significant to me and makes me think and hope that momentum may be going in the right direction for a change. 


Now, does that mean I will never release the really juicy stuff?  That depends on the others.  This dog is going to the corner to sleep, so to speak.  I know one person who has a hard time with leaving me alone, in my opinion, this person is a big liability to others and I hope they recognize that.  If history were to be the judge, I would say, others have no intent on letting this end, but that is their decision.  If they o make the decision to not let this end and make peace, well, that is the decision they will make and I will respond to that decision accordingly.

I can say if they do continue this, it will be a war of attrition that really, no one will win in the end.

What I do know, I have made peace with Holden, and I do feel he is being genuine.  Everyone knows I fight hard and I try to fight to win.  Having said that, I try to put the same energy into peace.  As long as the peace makers work toward peace, I will work just as hard toward it.

I leave this decision up to them.

I will answer any reasonable questions

And yes Dan, I did get the reference. I have to admit, the PP stuff is still hard to get over, butI do have to just get over it and time to move in and focus on work over working a war where o one will win. 

I have proven through my actions though, their ideas and beliefs that I am a "falling down" kinda guy, is just silliness.

wow I am never posting from my iPad again, autocorrect f'en sucks

I had once started perusing the PP archive, but soon felt like a voyeur, so I stopped. But, if you'd rather not open that can, I understand.

Yea, reading the stuff on polygraph place was hard for me.  On one hand, I can see why they were angry with me; but on the other, it made me look down on the people involved and even the industry, because it is pretty clear that some people enjoyed poking at me to get an outlandish reaction.  It almost seems like they made it a game.  I am happy to say, that outlook changed a lot last week.

There was a lot of swallowing of pride on both sides of the fence.  I feel Jay Holden was especially magnanimous and deserves special credit and recognition for his willingness to make peace and let it all go.  After talking to him for a small period of time, I realized I robbed myself of getting to know a pretty good guy over the years; but that is on me.

While I am on the subject, let me tell you, the reception on PP did not match the reception I received at APA.  I was welcomed with handshakes and smiles; the exact opposite of what I expected.  It was those handshakes and smiles that made me feel eager to return the goodwill and good faith efforts.

I also hope to point out to TAPE what can be achieved with some simple humanity and some basic respect.  More got solved in one day, in a few minutes, with honest and fair conversation at APA than at TAPE in October of 2014; and it cost no one nothing of tangible value.  All it cost was a wee bit of pride on both ends; but this is simply an investment in the future which will only pay dividends to those involved. 

I have always said that I love being wrong more than I enjoy being right.  I am happy to say that I was wrong about the APA.  I was expecting and preparing for the same reception I got from TAPE in 2008.  Instead, I was welcomed with smiles, handshakes, and amazing hospitality. 

I couldn't begin to say what I expected from the Holden's.  What I got, was the exact opposite, just like with the APA.  I am happy to say my expectations were wrong there as well.  As such, all of this goodwill created a positive environment I haven't experienced since my first NPA meeting. 

Now A lot of promises were made by both sides of the fence last week, and time will tell if those promises will be kept.  I will do everything in my power to keep mine.  I will make some more good faith efforts to keep the momentum moving.  As such, I have deleted texaspolygraph.net as a show of good faith. 

I have done this before, only to be slapped in the face by TAPE and received no reciprocity in the past for acts like this, but this is not about TAPE.  Some of the information on that site directly affected Behavioral Measures and Jay Holden.  It seems wrong and counterproductive to keep that website up while positive steps are being made in the right direction.

Now I know there are some pot stirrers that don't want to see the past in the past.  Some of these people had no dog in the fight from jump street, but decided to insert themselves into a fight in which they had no place.  It also seems these people have stood in the way of past efforts to put this to bed and bury the hatchet.  These people know who they are, and I do know for a fact that they check AP on a regular basis.  My advice to them is simple; don't kick a sleeping dog. 

Efforts are being made to end this.  I am not the only person who feels that this is best for all involved and the industry.  I also feel that the end of this will being some positive changes within, which frankly maybe needed to prevent this kinda clustercrappity smack from ever happening again. 

My goodwill and good faith should not be seen as, or mistaken as a sign weakness. I am not a doormat and kicking the dog will ruin this for everyone. 

In the end, if you can't be a part of the solution, stand down and don't be a part of the problem. 

Now the hard work begins.  I am ready to do what I need and what I feel is right to make positive future steps for the industry.  I would hope you would do the same.  You know who you are.

Oh and Ark, thanks for understanding

justagurl wrote on Jul 16^th, 2002 at 1:23pm:

egistered sex offender in Texas.  I am on 10 years of deferred adjudication probation for 2 counts of felony sexual assault of a minor.  My victim was just a month shy of 15, and I was 36.  I am a female. The sexual relationship lasted about 6 weeks, and altho he was a minor, it was consensual. I am required to take an annual polygraph.

Were you an educator? ::)

I am a therapist in Arizona and it has become know to the offenders in my groups that the polygraph administrators are practicing in a "double dip" scam.

The test taker is failed on the first appointment and then told to "clear up" the poly with the same test administrator.  Thus, they have to pay twice and magically pass the 2nd test despite being asked the same questions.  AKA the "double dip"...

It seems that if you get different results for the same questions with no new admissions then the polygraph administrator should come under scrutiny.  If I bring that up to my supervisors or the county I would be out of a job.

Jim

please message me.  you may have to register to use this feature

wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 4:55am:

The test taker is failed on the first appointment

Jim, are you saying results are being intentionally falsified? This would be a serious allegation.

"Jim",

I am a full member in good standing with the American Polygraph Association (APA) and an APA-certified PCSOT polygraph examiner.

From what I've observed -- and this is only my personal opinion after TEN (10) YEARS in polygraph (over five years of which were spent polygraphing sex offenders in a state prison) -- PCSOT "testing" is, on some levels, a racket that has been cleverly cloaked in the robe of righteousness.

Your clients might be on to something.

If you are serious about learning more, call me at 603-801-5179.

Generally speaking, I am available from 9:00AM to 9:00PM Eastern Time.

I look forward to hearing from you -- or from anyone else with an interest in the polygraph "test".

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

Jim,

I would caution against Dan's aggressive cynicism for the mere sake of aggressive cynicism (but I do understand Dan's marketing angle on this). Also, the APA does not actually "certify" PCSOT examiners, but approves trainers to provide a certificate of training to people who complete a 40 hour course.

There are some interesting things to discuss here.

Firstly, all credibility assessment and lie detection test, including the polygraph test (and despite Dan Mangan's published claims of ~100% accuracy and immunity countermeasures) will always remain fundamentally probabilistic. This is because lies and deception are not a physical substance that can be subjected to physical measurement. Also, if there were some simple deterministic observation (theoretically perfect and immune to both human behavior and random chance) that could answer a question about truth and deception, then we would not need a test.

So the question is actually about the level of precision that can reasonably be expected of the polygraph - which can also be discussed in terms of the margin of uncertainty (and the rate of error) - and what this tells us about the potential that two different probability events can be expected to produce the same or different results.

So the real issue is this: how often is it occurring that someone fails and then passes? The laws of probability tell us that this can be expected on some occasions. Also, it is not clear in your post whether the test results are statistically significant or are inconclusive (not statistically significant) - for which some concrete thinkers will force into an artificial binary pass/fail interpretation.

Additionally, what are the probability cutscores at which deceptive and truthful classifications are made? These can affect how often it can occur that different results do not concur.

Next, there is perhaps some important discussion about quality control.

Even more importantly, there is some discussion needed about the degree to which the analysis and results that you are getting are made subjectively (i.e., merely looking at the data visually to reach a form of expert clinical conclusion ) vs. actual probabilistic computations based on structured algorithmic procedures for which the results are more likely to be replicable.

.02

rn

Ray, are you saying that you don't know for certain how accurate polygraph "testing" is?

Dan,

Your questions about "certain" serve only to encourage misunderstanding and mythological expectations that cannot possibly connect to reality. All tests and all test results are probabilistic estimates.

If certainty were possible we would not need a test. Same with actual measurement. If measurement were possible we would use a measurement not a test.

Simply pretending ~100% accuracy, as you have done in your "scientific study," is not the correct solution. Neither is pretending we know nothing, simply because we are not 100% certain, a correct solution.

.02

rn

Ray, did the APA "pretend" when they claimed 98.6% accuracy for fifteen (15) years?

wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 7:09pm:

looking at the data visually to reach a form of expert clinical conclusion ) vs. actual probabilistic computations based on structured algorithmic procedures for which the results are more likely to be replicable.

Thought provoking idea Raymond. I know that probability is used also in attempting to determine the quality of digital communication systems, not to mention in quantum mechanics--the shape of the orbitals indicate the probability of the electron being in that area of the orbit at anytime. However, the average polygraph examiner may not have the aptitude or background to grasp discriminant analysis, Bayes Theorem or probability density functions. Future training may require additional prowess.

All this fancy talk doesn't negate the fact that for it's primary purpose,  polygraph is crap. Hell, even for secondary purposes.

Ex Member wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 5:48am:

wrote on Jan 12th, 2016 at 7:09pm: looking at the data visually to reach a form of expert clinical conclusion ) vs. actual probabilistic computations based on structured algorithmic procedures for which the results are more likely to be replicable. Thought provoking idea Raymond. I know that probability is used also in attempting to determine the quality of digital communication systems, not to mention in quantum mechanics--the shape of the orbitals indicate the probability of the electron being in that area of the orbit at anytime. However, the average polygraph examiner may not have the aptitude or background to grasp discriminant analysis, Bayes Theorem or probability density functions. Future training may require additional prowess.

Ark, your use of the word "prowess" is most appropriate.

APA president Walt Goodson, in a speech to APA members at that organization's national convention, claimed that a polygraph operator's swagger, confidence and command presence are more important than their academic credentials.

That should tell us all something about the alleged science behind polygraph.  Learn more about Goodson's comments here: https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1445560814/0#0

As for APA chairman Ray Nelson's gobbledygook, it smacks of "tooth fairy science" -- http://ethicalnag.org/2009/10/26/tooth-fairy-science/ ; But if the shoe fits...

Clearly, the polygraph indu$try continually struggles to affix an imprimatur of scientific legitimacy to the "test," but no progress has been made in that regard -- just as NAS predicted in 2002.

Regarding much of the pro-polygraph propaganda found in scientific journals, a key cadre of current researchers who gin up this self-serving tripe have a public connection (past or present) to polygraph instrument manufacturers. Coincidence?

Back to the original thread...

Conveniently, APA Chairman Nelson failed to comment on the "racket" aspects of PCSOT.

No surprise there.

Polygraph victimization is something that indu$try bigs prefer to ignore.

Let’s not kid ourselves. The average researcher or data analyst does not “roll-their-own" math or write the code for data analysis.

Most use computerized tools like SAS, STATA, SATA, SPSS, Excell, and these days a lot of R, and Python. These tools have built in functions and published libraries that do the esoteric stuff. Many of these libraries are build on known or existing libraries of coded solutions that can be ported or imported or recoded for a new implementation.

Behind those tools are the people that actually write the computational formulae and code to implement those algorithms - whether Bayesian, frequentist or MLE or AI.

Behind those practical implementations are the mathematicians and statisticians who work out the core problems at a more abstracted level.

And behind those mathematicians and statisticians are the philosophers who shape the way we thing about fundamental things such as what is is reality, what is knowledge, what does it mean to say we know something about reality, and what kinds of things can be known and even what exists and how can it exist, what caused it to exist, and if it exists where did the stuff come from to make it exists, and so on.

And behind those philosophers is sometimes a form of raw imaginative creativity that tells us that it might be possible someday to have a phone that includes live pictures - or other technological innovation that seemed at one time to be only science fiction.

http://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/files/styles/media_gallery_image/public/videoconferencing.jpg?itok=EOh-QIhl

But if people were expected to “roll-their-own” math and code for data analysis we would still see people doing a lot of Chi-squared analysis and a lot of Mann-Whitney U tests - which is what we saw in scientific publications prior to the widespread availability of computers and mathematical code libraries for analysis. This is because the math for these non-parametric solutions was simple enough that reasonably intelligent people can tolerate doing it manually - and because they actually work somewhat well for the problems people were working on the time.

But now that we have a lot of existing tools and libraries that can be, and have been, built into tools for the convenient practical application of our advancing knowledge - its a shame not to use them.

Practitioners are often educated at the level of introduction to the concepts embedded in their tools and methods, so that they have some fundamental knowledge of the principles and why some procedures are needed to ensure that usable and interpretable data can be obtained for meaningful analysis.

But scientific testing and data analysis today are a far cry from old-school eyeball analysis, and swaggering “trust-me-I’m-an-expert” type confidence.

Practicioners in many field can be, and are, trained and educated to understand and use tools, technology and methods that rely on some rather sophisticated analytic models.

.02

rn

Dan Mangan wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 10:09pm:

Ray, did the APA "pretend" when they claimed 98.6% accuracy for fifteen (15) years?

Dan,

I realize that you are going to frame everything in the most dramatic and concrete manner that suits your marketing objectives for your consulting bid’ness. But let’s assume, for the sake of attempted intelligent discussion, that we cannot actually read anyone’s mind.

And so we need to be aware that we are using the word “pretend" in a somewhat loose manner. But let’s clarify with some additional questions.

What might the APA’s historical publication of a ~98% accuracy rate indicate about the beliefs, attitudes or  or mental processes at the time? Similarly, what might your publication of ~100% accuracy (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938408000747) indicate? 

Did they - or did you - expect these estimates to concur with reality as we continue to study and observe it? If they did - if you did - expect these estimates to be observable in reality, is that pretending? Or is that merely an incorrect belief system? Does this really make a difference?

More importantly, did they know or suspect - did you know or suspect - that the ~98% and ~100% accuracy estimates are not likely to be observed in reality, and then proceed to publish them anyway? Or, was the level of scientific knowledge and education such that  - when coupled with a professional character of basically decent persons who are trained and selected in part for an ability to learn and follow rules and procedures without doubting or questioning, and to understand and believe that they are doing the correct thing and will be successful as long as they work within the rules, and to posture confidence - was there simply an uncritical acceptance and sense of desired comfort with the observed estimates?

In your case, as the author of Mangan et al 2008 “field study on validity…” - for whom we should be able to expect your capability to engage in critical thinking and scrutiny before publishing (to paraphrase the likes of Carl Sagan, Simone Pierre Laplace and Marcello Truzzi) what appear to be extraordinary claims (~100% accuracy and immunity to countermeasures) that seem to require extraordinary evidence -  was it simply another example of uncritical acceptance and enthusiasm coupled with personal confidence? Was it an issue of scientific competence? Or was it pretending? When faced with scrutiny, (Similarly, when faced with scrutiny (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938408001959) what does your reassertion (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938408001935) signify about your committed belief system? What does it signify about your scientific competence? What does it signify about pretending?

More importantly today, having noticed that other scientific estimates of polygraph accuracy tend to converge at probabilistic estimate that are something less than ~100% and ~98%, what should be done about that? Should the APA facilitate the publication and dissemination of different accuracy estimates that are more likely to be observed in reality and more likely to be reconcilable with other evidence https://apoa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/polygraph_404.pdf ? Or should the APA facilitate the publication of attempts to understand the issues and evidence and trends in polygraph accuracy research https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275956904_A_Brief_History_of_Scientic_Reviews_of_Polygraph_Accuracy_Research ?

So whereas the APA - having support the continued study and development of our knowledge of polygraph accuracy, and having noticed the discrepancy between reality and attempts to estimate or assert polygraph accuracy as infallible (~100%) or even nearly infallible (~98%), and having also observed evidence that seems to concur more with other more conservative estimates of polygraph accuracy - has taken action to increase the availability of information and training in areas of science, testing, probability, prediction, classification and inference that can be applied to the polygraph, and has taken action to correct the published record of information that is available for others to  try to understand the polygraph in terms of reality - what have you done to correct your publication record and the problem that your published estimates of ~100% accuracy are simply not realistic (i.e. not going to be observed in the real universe)?

What should a conscientious scientific critical thinker do - especially one who seeks payment for services intended to benefit individuals and communities who seek to make more intelligent use of information and results from a polygraph test - when one has now realized that one has published “scientific” results that cannot be reconciled with other evidence or with reality?

What kind of corrective action can be taken?

Does it help or correct anything to criticize others for an unrealistic accuracy estimate when one has published an even more unrealistic accuracy estimate?

Or should one simply claim that the published information is still somehow informative?

In the absence of any attempt to correct the published record of information available, should one still claim to have some useful credible message to sell?

Is that pretending?

.02

rn

Readers, speaking of pretending, note that APA chairman Ray Nelson was written not a word about polygraph victimization, PCSOT abuses, or APA president Walt Goodson's claim that swagger, confidence and command presence are what really count in the polygraph suite.

Dan

Actually I did address the resurrected topic from 1-11-2016 regarding the need for retesting.

Where you saw an instant marketing opportunity ( possible client looking to purchase the kind of aggression, drama and hyperbole that you sell ), I saw a need for discussion about some core issues:

- realistic expectations about polygraph accuracy
- awareness of the role of probability cutscores in errors and the potential for observing different results
- a more general awareness of the role of probability theory when use the results from a non-deterministic tests
- replicable analytic results vs the potential for subjective experteeism
- quality control
- etc

I also offered my concern that you misrepresent a certificate of training as "APA certified."

Peace,

Rn

Dan Mangan wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 1:26pm:

[quote author=65564F4C454A434148574F240 link=1006910562/164#164 date=1452664090] Conveniently, APA Chairman Nelson failed to comment on the "racket" aspects of PCSOT. No surprise there. Polygraph victimization is something that indu$try bigs prefer to ignore.

Mr.Nelson, I would really like you to speak on this issue, as well.

Swagger and command, Dan? Why, of course!  Without such theatrics, an examiner doesn't stand a chance. If the truth were common knowledge, polygraph examiners would be out of jobs rather quickly.

wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 2:43pm:

</snip> Mr.Nelson, I would really like you to speak on this issue, as well. Swagger and command, Dan? Why, of course!  Without such theatrics, an examiner doesn't stand a chance. If the truth were common knowledge, polygraph examiners would be out of jobs rather quickly.

MagicSteve,

There is quite a lot about the polygraph that is common knowledge. And if not common knowledge it is a least available knowledge. You can also find old-school swagger and theatrics of the type that Dan and some others sell.

Sometimes, when we want to understand something it is useful to to it unemotionally.

Here what you have done is to applaud and reinforce Dan's theatrics, and once again level simplistic and judgmental insults against others while asking for additional discussion.

I would hope that you, as a licensed professional (assuming for the moment that you are not a convicted sex offender), can understand the disruptive impact that has on any real communication or discussion.

Feel free to contact me.

rn

MagicSteve, bear in mind that the American Polygraph Association steadfastly clung to its pipe-dream claim that polygraph is 98.6% accurate for ten years after the National Research Council cautiously posited that polygraph accuracy was at best significantly above chance but well below perfection.

Of course, the NRC researchers further warned that the indu$try insider-supplied polygraph studies -- upon which the research panel drew their conclusions -- basically sucked, and that no precise level of accuracy should be gleaned from the report.

The scientific, legal and medical communities are overwhelmingly in agreement: polygraph is pseudoscience.

Don't believe otherwise.

Dan Mangan wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 3:44pm:

MagicSteve, bear in mind that the American Polygraph Association steadfastly clung to its pipe-dream claim that polygraph is 98.6% accurate for ten years after the National Research Council cautiously posited that polygraph accuracy was at best significantly above chance but well below perfection. Of course, the NRC researchers further warned that the indu$try insider-supplied polygraph studies -- upon which the research panel drew their conclusions -- basically sucked, and that no precise level of accuracy should be gleaned from the report. The scientific, legal and medical communities are largely in agreement: polygraph is pseudoscience. Don't believe otherwise.

I cannot believe that a group of grown men and women can hold on so dearly  to a belief that doesn't pass muster in any way, shape or form. It is almost unreal, in a way.

There is nothing valid about a 'test' that can easily be defeated by the 'test'-taker being informed and simply not believing in its validity. Think about that for a second. If science (which the polygraph claims to be based on) worked this way, we'd all be doomed.  If I chose not to believe in gravity, would I float away? Of course not! Gravity can be measured and the results accurately replicated. Considering the wide, wide plethora of human response to pretty much any stimuli - including the same individual and the same stimuli at various times - how could one even propose that they could accurately assess deception in any individual by claiming that the 'deception' response is the same or similar in all individuals? By the same token, how do you measure something that science cannot even proves exists?

Hogwash. Plain-speak, Mr. APA. Quit putting lipstick on a pig.

MagicSteve, just follow the money. It explains everything about polygraph.

MagicSteve,

(Still trying to assume you are a licensed professional and not a convicted sex offender).

You came here asking a question or seeking information, and you just offered up a bunch of straw-man arguments and insults that seem to have the effect of quashing and avoiding the discussion.

While we all know there is no such thing as a perfect test of any kind - because all tests and all test results are probabilistic solutions when we can achieve neither perfect deterministic solutions nor physical/linear measurement - there does not seem to be an convincing evidence to support your assertion that the polygraph can be easily defeated or that merely not believing in it makes all that much (if any) difference.

The NRC commented on this if you want an academic source from outside the polygraph profession. What they said was that claims that it is "easy" to defeat require scientific evidence, yet they were aware of none at the time. In fact they summarized the literature as contraindicating attempts to help oneself if one is truthful because of the increased likelihood of being classified as deceptive.

But yes there are some interesting, and fun, differences in human reactions to the same stimuli. But there are also more similarities than differences - and people tend to treat each other nicer and engage in less social and interpersonal violence when they remember this.

The overall balance of similarities and differences among people such that a lot about social and behavioral science is all about studying these things. Scientific tests, for example, tend to be built around things are going to be similar for most people most of time, and sometimes also make use of things that we can identify as more likely to be different in ways that are similarly predictable (though still noisy).

Data from humans are noisy. We know that. Otherwise, tests like the well-known MMPI and others would not need so many questions.

And, as you must undoubtedly be aware (being in a professional in which you offer up professional licensed opinions) many of the risk assessment models in use with sex offenders today also make use of multiple data points because the correlation between the data points and the criterion of risk (for some future event or type of behavior) may be statistically significant but is also noisy. Medicine has this same problem, and most diagnosis are made only after observing multiple symptoms. Data are so noisy that diagnostic work is actually difficult.

Despite the noisy data and individual differences there are still more similarities than differences. People smile when they are happy (mostly) and don’t smile when they are not (mostly). People sometimes hide their true feelings, but generally, laughing is a sign of enjoyment and pleasure and fun, and scowling is a sign of displeasure.

And we have the problem that some of the most interesting things to measure are sometimes quite awfully difficult to actually measure.

As you your concern about attempting to "measure something that science cannot even prove exists” … I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that you might be spending too much time inside with criminal offenders and not enough time thinking about science and how science works. According to Popper (among the most important philosophers of science during the 20th century) scientific statements are those that are “falsifiable” or capable of being proved false. This is because the limits of our human knowledge is such that we will probably never know everything, and so all of our knowledge is incomplete. To the extent that our knowledge and ideas are incomplete they are also wrong. Science is about finding out where our ideas are incorrect and then developing new knowledge and new ideas that are simply less incorrect. But we will never know everything and so we are always incomplete and always at least partially incorrect. Science is about learning to be less wrong. To do that, scientific statements need to be falsifiable.

Now some offenders would prefer to say that because we can prove nothing with certainty it means that nothing is real and therefore nothing matters. And because we cannot know with certainty then we can know nothing. These same offenders also tend to deny not only the facts and circumstances of their offenses but also the impact of their offenses and any related or resulting meaning about what kind of person the are or who they are a social and interpersonal and even existential level.

In the case of the polygraph and what it actually measures, try this.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/60215924/Publications/what_does_the_polygraph_measure/Nelson_2015_1-word-essay_what_does_the_polygraph_measure.pdf

But I get it. If we take the view there is no “real” difference between deception and truth telling - or the view that it means nothing, does not matter, makes no difference, or that there is no difference between doing something (such as committing a sex offense) and not doing something, then there would be in reality nothing to measure.

Conversely, if we take the view that behavior matters, because it means something, and because it has an impact on others, and because those others matter (i.e., the individuals have meaning in an existential and ethical sense) - then maybe there is, in reality, a difference between doing something (such as committing a sexual offense) and not doing it.

And if we choose to work in a licensed profession while holding reality view that behavior matters then we will want to make sure that our own choices and decisions are consistent with reality.

The boiled-down theory of the polygraph (or any credibility assessment test) is this: recordable changes occur in physiological activity as a function of deception and truth-telling. You can chose to reject the idea, but the evidence seems to agree that some noisy changes do occur and that some imperfect probabilistic inference of deception and truth is achievable.

But if we choose to work in a licensed profession while holding the non-reality view that there exists nothing to measure simply because it cannot be “proved” then maybe it really is all about the money for some. 

.02

rn

Ray, that sounds like apologist horseshit to me. Cleverly spun horseshit, perhaps, but apologist horseshit nonetheless.

But let that go.

Tell us, Ray...

In layman's terms, just how accurate is, say, a standard sexual history PCSOT polygraph "test"?

The boiled-down theory of the polygraph (or any credibility assessment test) is this: recordable changes occur in physiological activity as a function of deception and truth-telling. You can chose to reject the idea, but the evidence seems to agree that some noisy changes do occur and that some imperfect probabilistic inference of deception and truth is achievable.

Notice the highlighted word... theory. That is all that it is. The premise that one can distinguish a 'lie' from the truth using a polygraph has never been established as as fact... ever. As a matter of fact (using science instead of conjecture), we know that no one can distinguish one physiological reaction - fear, guilt, shame, anxiety and whatnot - from another using the combined measures taken during a polygraph exam. That is established fact, not theory.

I find it hilarious that you would offer up a document you wrote in support of your argument. You are not exactly an independent party. Another source to bolster your claim, perhaps?

You are correct on one thing, I'll give you that... risk assessments and what have you are probabilistic. Any psychological test or measure designed to make a determination is less than perfect, but the difference is that statistics and time have borne out the fact that the probability of the results of such efforts are reasonably accurate. I chuckle when those I deal with in my profession (in which I am licensed, as you love to point out) use such phrases as 'the research suggests', or 'studies have shown', but they are correct. Their measuring tools actually measure something that exists, and their results are able to be replicated to a reasonable enough degree of accuracy that psychology uses these tests and measures in a socially, legally, and most importantly scientifically accepted way.

But, nothing about the science of the polygraph is accepted. Courts don't accept the results, science scoffs at your 'theory' and have disproved it, and society is an unwitting pawn.

And I repeat - you cannot measure something that does not exist. There is no physiological or psychological 'tell' that someone is disseminating. Since there is no difference from one emotional/physiological response to the next, as being measured by a polygraph, how in the world can you, or anyone, purport to be able to measure that difference? The difference does not exist, scientifically. There is no room for probability in that. It either is, or isn't... and in this case, the difference simply does not exist.

I am not the only one to reject your 'idea'. Science rejects it. Having a reaction to a question doesn't mean you lied. Your argument seems to be 'well, it doesn't mean you 'DIDN'T lie, either'. If you cannot make a determination one way or the other at any level above chance, then you are just guessing. You cannot say factually that 'Well, he/she probably lied', because there is no difference to measure, and no results that are able to be replicated.

As for being able to make determinations at rates above chance, polygraph 'experts' use the most illogical means to bolster their claims of statistical significance. Just because you 'test' someone, they have reactions to 'relevant' questions, and then they confess to whatever because of the gestapo tactics used in a post interview, does not mean that their reactions to 'relevant' questions are indicative of dissemination. 'Aha!', the examiner claims, 'I was right... he WAS lying'. Yet again, no means by which to make this determination. You are essentially saying that because there was a reaction, that the person being tested was lying. That is as incorrect of a statement, scientifically, as there can be, because you cannot measure the difference that I alluded to earlier, because that difference does not exist.

Lastly, any 'test' that can be defeated by simply knowing the truth about it is not legitimate. Any 'test' that relies on trickery to be effective is not legitimate. Any 'test' in which the examiner has to elicit an emotional state in the 'test' subject (fear, as in fear of the test itself or it's ability to function as purported) is not valid. Combine all three, and, well... you have, as Dan so eloquently put it, HORSESHIT.

Magic Steve (the licensed professional who signed on initially as a convicted offender),

You seem to be stuck on the false notion or straw-man argument of "measuring" some form of single physiological tell or extracting some single physiological feature that will be indicative of deception. Let's be clear about the fact that this is not how the test works.

I get the ad hominem attack, the appeal to authority, the straw man and other logical fallacies in your critique. You've reached your conclusion and want to escalate to cursing (which is fun sometimes) to control the discussion. I'm sure you will find validation and support from like minded persons who read this forum. But there is probably no knowledge gained from the transaction.

Mostly, you seem to not understand the difference between a measurement and a test. Also, you seem to not understand what a theory is, or the differences between hypotheses, theories and laws of science.

I get it. You don't seem to want a conversation any more than Dan or others. Or you want to have a conversation with yourself arguing against your straw man.

Have fun in your licensed professional role in which to offer up licensed professional opinions.

I hope you are able to have more reasonable and straightforward discussions with your clients and coworkers than you have been able to have here.

Peace,

rn

Wow, Ray. That was some pretty lame.

MagicSteve is right on.

And you know it.

Dan,

I'm quite sure you enjoyed MagicSteve.

As to your question about a layman's version of the accuracy of the test, how's this:


(to placate your science-phobia and math-phobia)

the test is probably more accurate that some people wish, and also probably less accurate than some people wish, and, of course, there is no such thing as a perfect test of any kind.

-----

But if we are going to claim to be experts we have to eventually get beyond the simplistic and reductionistic hyperbole and quantify our knowledge about test accuracy. Then we will have to compare those quantified estimates to observed data and evidence and continue to refine them so that test accuracy estimates can hopefully increasingly converge with what we observe in the real world.

Neglecting to do this we will probably see what we've seen in the past... a continued impulse to expect or pretend deterministic perfection (or near perfection) where this is not realistic - for which your published study claiming ~100% accuracy is a good example.

Alongside that we can expect continued aggravation around the inability to achieve deterministic perfection (or physical measurement - subject only to measurement error), and continued avoidance of real discussion about test accuracy and the probabilistic meaning of test results.

We can also expect continued straw man criticisms around the inability to actually measure some single physiological index for deception (even though absolutely nobody today seems to be claiming to do that).

In the absence of probabilistic thinking we will see people attempt to make a living be selling confidence and bravado.

We will also see continued frustration and aggravation from others who notice the posture of unrealistic overconfidence, over-reliance on bravado, and lack of credible explanations. For example: how many people still believe that the effectiveness of the polygraph requires that the examinee is naive about the test, or that the effectiveness of the test requires misinformation (which only seems to create a sense of permission to make up more nonsense)? How many people still believe that the effectiveness of the polygraph requires that people believe it to be infallible? (does anybody today actually believe the polygraph to be infallible?)

And, because perfection is not going to be observed in reality people will be both avoidant and embarassed by the test result itself. People will also intuitively begin to make decisions and compromises to optimize the kinds of outcomes that are most useful in a practical sense (while avoiding the test result) and also minimize the cost function (there is a Bayesian concept for you) associated with the types of errors that are considered the least tolerable.

But in the absence of realistic attempts to quantify our knowledge about test accuracy all of this gets driven by personality instead of data, and professional opinions will continue to  be overly subjective and un-replicable - as if professionals simply offer the opinion or conclusion that they are paid to offer.

Some day hopefully somebody can have a real discussion about these very important and very interesting issues.

But its not going to happen in the context of a lot of dramatic hyperbole and aggression because that kind of contempt will seem to be a barrier to any development or exchange of knowledge.

Peace,

rn

Ray, please...

For the love of God, tell us, the great unwashed.

How accurate -- in terms of a percentage -- is a PCSOT sexual history polygraph "test"?

Dan Mangan wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 2:09am:

For the love of God, tell us, the great unwashed.

Ha! you crack me up sometimes Dan. Yes, you may indeed shed the loin cloth! Probabilistic thinking tries to go beyond traditional logic as in Boolean algebra and instead uses probabilistic expressions to address the problems of uncertainty and lack of evidence. Despite the tools Raymond mentioned, practitioners will have to have some working knowledge of statistics and probability to engage in these types of esoteric analyses. I am not aware of much research on PCSOT Sexual History Exam accuracy--correct me if I am wrong about that.

*Raymond, by the way, where I can learn about Ipsative-Z as it applies to scoring?

The American Polygraph Association on test accuracy, 1997-2012:

Polygraph testing is 98.6% accurate.  8-)

The American Polygraph Association on polygraph accuracy, 2012-2015:

Polygraph testing is, on average, 89% accurate for specific-issue exams and 85% accurate for multiple-issue exams.  ::)

APA chairman Raymond Nelson on polygraph accuracy, 2016:

"The test is probably more accurate than some people wish, and also probably less accurate than some people wish."  :D

Dan et al,

The problem with assessing accuracy of polygraph screening is that there is virtually no construct validity to the testing paradigms, e.g., the National Academies of Sciences Polygraph Screening study was forced to use specific issue criminal studies (which have their own distinct construct validity issues) to draw conclusions because of a (almost complete)) lack of screening studies to include in its pool of examined studies. 

There is a world of difference between the fishing expedition we know as polygraph screening and a specific incident criminal exam for which it is at least known that a given crime took place.

Prior to the NAS report probably the best studies done were those of two former DoDPI researchers, Charles Honts and Shelia Reed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, resp. 

As I recall the former concluded that the chance of catching a spy with a screening exam was something on the order of two percent (I think far less, but further damning the process is the fact that Charles was, at least initially, prevented from publishing the study because of the results and conclusions contained therein).  Charles, if you happen to still follow APO and see this post, please chime in and elaborate.

Sheila was the principal researcher involved in developing DoD’s Test for Espionage and Sabotage (TES), a format used widely for many years (perhaps still is in some form).  Upon considerable reflection, Shelia many years ago concluded that this exam format was not valid and that its practice in the field should be immediately discontinued.  But once again, the (federal) polygraph community refused to listen to its own expert.

The underlying considerations for the PCSOT are essentially the same as for other screening applications.  I see no reason and no likelihood that it is any more valid as a diagnostic test than the TES, etc.

Dr. Richardson

I believe you may have confused a low poster probability with test sensitivity.

It is an easy mistake and I assume it is accidental. As I'm sure you known, test sensitivity is a descriptive proportion that does not change whether the frequency count is small or large.

What you seem to be referring to is the posterior probability when screening for an issue for which the frequency count is small relative to the population.

As you know, some interesting things can happen to the posterior under a strong prior - particularly the proportion of true positives and false positives.

But the actual test sensitivity level - the proportion of actual positive cases that are classified as positive - is not affected by the prior or frequency.

RN

Raymond,

Although I have made reference to Bayesian considerations of screening exams many times, the major point of my last post is that one can not determine the test sensitivity of a screening exam (examining a situation in which no probed-for crime or behavior is known to have been committed) by looking at specific issue criminal tests (either involving single or multiple issue(s) in which a crime/behavior is known to have been committed).  The considerations for both examiner and examinee are different; the examiner pre-test assertions to examinee are different in nature and scope, etc.  Confusing one with the other leads to construct validity issues in experimental design.


Although not mentioned in the last post, I think it is quite likely in the real world of criminal specific incident testing that perceived test sensitivity is higher/artificially inflated in a manner not available with screening exams, i.e., I think it is highly likely that examiners are influenced by more-likely-correct-than-wrong investigative hunches passed on by case agents/investigating detectives.

Drew Richardson wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 5:43pm:

I think it is highly likely that examiners are influenced by more-likely-correct-than-wrong investigative hunches passed on by case agents/investigating detectives.

What you appear to be saying here is that the scoring of the chart is influenced by the examiner's impression of the test subject... am I getting the wrong impression? And, if that is the case, then what does that say about the validity of polygraph examinations?

Also, how does that work for sexual history polygraphs, when there is no known wrong-doing?

MagicSteve,

Yes, I do believe that polygraph examiners can be and perhaps likely are influenced by non-exam considerations such as the investigative hunch that I referred to in my last post.  This influence may well be reflected in the conduct of all phases of the exam to include the intonation of the words in exam questions as posed to an examinee during the in-test phase of the examination.

In general the investigative-hunch influence would not apply to screening exams, but if such a hunch were passed on by a court appointed psychologist (meeting on a regular basis with a convicted sexual offender) to an examiner, the aforementioned considerations would apply. The difference being that the court appointed psychologist may well have less of a basis for the hunch than the criminal investigator bringing a suspect for an exam.  I'll leave that for others to ponder/argue.

Dr. Richardson,

You and I, and a number of polygraph examiners, share the same concern about the importance of objective analytic models in credibility assessment, and the potential hazards associated with subjective analytic methods.

Just so that I’m not feeling that this is some simple game of “punk-the-chump,” - as if this is a real discussion ...

we should remember that the lack of an “exact” or “precise” statistical estimate for an input parameter (test sensitivity) does not prevent the use of Bayesian analysis. The point for Bayesians seems to be to define what we have to start with, and then use the test or experimental data and Bayes' theorem to improve on that.

Bayesians could simply treat the test sensitivity parameter as a random variable. Bayesians often quantify unknown parameters using anything from blunt or thin available information to subjective belief (a hunch or suggestion) to markov chains or stochastic simulation or monte carlo methods, and other solutions to estimate the unknown parameter.

Or we could simply use a known input parameter.

If one starts with a single hypothesis or theoretical assumption that some recordable changes in physiological activity are loaded onto different types of test stimuli as a function of deception or truth-telling (or concealed information) relative to the investigation target stimuli (NAS/NRC, 2003 wrote “ … discriminates deception and truth at rates significantly greater than chance…”).

Sure, anyone can choose to reject the data and evidence, but that does not change the data and evidence that support a conclusion that the recorded physiological data can and does discriminate deception and truth-telling at rates significantly greater than chance.

The subject/hunch argument is entertaining for some, but if mere subjective intuition were driving the polygraph test then we would need to somehow explain the effectiveness of contemporary statistical algorithms. It’s more likely that there is something important in the recorded physiological data.

The null hypothesis to all of this is that all physiology is random and not correlated with deception or truth-telling (or concealed information) in any way.

The theory that some recordable differences in physiology are loaded onto different test stimuli as a function of deception is not completely lost on other. Your own research on Brain Fingerprinting and the Concealed Information Test is basically premised on the same overarching idea that some noisy but real changes in physiology are loaded in response to different types of test stimuli (key or target stimuli and the other stimuli) . Other groups of scientists have also begun to study the possibility of using data from different test configurations and different physiological recording sensors with statistical or machine algorithms designed to indentify subtle differences for credibility assessment tasks.

Having a working theory and some some sensors that have been shown to discriminate deception and truth in some noisy way, we still don’t know the test sensitivity do we?

Remember that Bayesian analysis can also be used to study unknown parameters such as priors and other things.

Or maybe we merely have to calculate a multinomial distribution of the combined scores from an array of sensors under the null-hypothesis that all data are random with how many presentations of the investigation target stimuli. And we could calculate the density of any test score against the random multinomial distribution. Then we could proceed to determine statistically whether the recorded data do or do not appear to be loaded systematically or randomly. 

But from a Bayesian perspective, we could use the multinomial density as the input parameter for our Bayesian analysis.

But we still need to be clear about the fact that we are talking about a posterior probability (still conditional on the prior as an input parameter) in the end.

Of course the prior is often another  known parameter, but that does not seem to stop Bayesians. Bayesians would use available information to quantify the unknown parameter, or simply treat it as a random variable. We could also use Bayes' theorem to improve refine our knowledge about the unknown prior.

Have a nice day.

RN

Good Morning, Raymond.  Thank you for the continued discussion.  I will soon be leaving home and be away for a couple of days, but thought I would address a couple of points that you made in your last post.


Quote:

The subject/hunch argument is entertaining for some, but if mere subjective intuition were driving the polygraph test then we would need to somehow explain the effectiveness of contemporary statistical algorithms. It’s more likely that there is something important in the recorded physiological data.

The investigative hunch impact that I referred may well lead to apriori examiner expectations about examinee guilt, and I don't believe scoring algorithms shed any particular light on the issue.  Admittedly scoring/conclusions drawn (either from manual scoring or from algorithms applied to digital data) are quite reliable. A class of second week polygraph students can more or less end up with similar scores for a set of charts.  But as I pointed out before, scoring is downstream of the damage done by the hunch and the expectations it provides, e.g., damage caused through word intonation in presented exam questions.  All scoring indicates is that we can reliably score a damaged process, but not necessarily recognize that we are dealing with a damaged process.

The examiner hunch is but one of several potential influences (I believe one of the most likely to occur in a field criminal setting) leading to artificial (unrelated to the polygraph exam itself) expectations. My first exposure to this phenomenon was early in basic polygraph training.

In the simulated-crime polygraph examinations we conducted, my classmates and I were confronted with more guilty/deceptive examinees than innocent/truthful examinees.  This was arranged intentionally by the instructional staff so as to give us practice conducting interrogations.  As one would predict, our overall scoring was reliable and correct with the quickly developed expectation and perceived probability of facing a guilty examinee.  What was initially surprising, but now quite understandable, was that when we encountered an innocent examinee after a string of guilty examinees was that our across the class scoring was again quite reliable, but we were nearly all reliably wrong with false positive results.  This happened on several occasions.

So, in summary, I don't believe the notion of examiner expectations is merely entertaining or a mere distraction from the business of applying inferential statistics to a data set.  The ability to successfully apply a scoring algorithm with a simulated crime in the absence of the aforementioned influencing investigator hunch really says nothing about its influence in the field or our ability to successfully apply such algorithms in that setting.

You mention one oft quoted statement from the NAS polygraph study:


Quote:

(NAS/NRC, 2003 wrote “ … discriminates deception and truth at rates significantly greater than chance…”).

The vast majority of the studies looked at were simulated-crime studies published in the polygraph literature having little bearing on understanding/estimating the validity of field exams and virtually no bearing on field screening exams.  As you may or may not know, the initial goal of the NAS/NRC studies was to evaluate screening validity in connection with the sponsor's (DOE) desire to implement screening more fully in the national lab system.  As the members of the panel quickly discovered and politely made mention of, the quality of the studies given them was not only lacking but more troubling, with the initial goal in mind, was that the applicability to field screening was almost nil.  All of this is not in conflict with the assessment that you quote.

You mention in passing concealed information.  At some point I would like to direct our attention and future discussion there.  Although there is a great disconnect between our knowledge of brain biology and deception, such is not the case for memory encoding and retrieval.

Have a very pleasant weekend. 

Best, Drew

Can someone explain how you get a reading of deceptiveness out of a chart, when the only thing that is charted is basic physiological responses? Out of all these discussions, no one has come even close to addressing the fact that one physiological response is no different from another. I think we all agree, 100 percent, that the exams measure physiological responses to questions.

If there is no difference between one chartable response and another, then how do you know if someone is being deceptive?

You don't. Remember the whole 'you can't measure something that doesn't exist' thing I went on and on about? This is what I mean. Scientifically, the difference between the responses, as recorded by a polygraph machine (or any machine known to man), is not detectable. You can't find someone to be 'deceptive' when you have absolutely zero clue what 'deceptive' looks like scientifically. No one is addressing the fact that the reason that polygraph 'results' are essentially null and void, and the 'test' holds so little validity both scientifically and legally, is because no one can tell the difference between what a guilty, or deceptive, or frightened, or excited, or angry, or aroused (you get the gist) response looks like.

Literally, this is the core of why polygraph examinations are so ill regarded. The examinations simply do not do what they are purported to do. Plain and simple.

I have to admit, though... they are darned good at taking blood pressure readings, measuring breathing, heart rate, galvanic skin conductivity readings, and the like... darned good.   ::)

MagicSteve, while chart interpretation and polygraph scoring rules are, generally speaking, relatively well defined, here's an interesting excerpt from a document that speaks to the larger scope of the polygraph "test" and subsequent evaluation process. (Note: The document is reportedly included with some polygraph software.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


    There are verbal and non-verbal cues commonly observed in examinees who prove to be deceptive. The examiner should be observant during the entire testing process for these non-chart related markers of deception:

        The examinee made an attempt(s) to avoid taking the polygraph examination
        The examinee was late arriving for the examination without a legitimate excuse
        The examinee tries to limit the length of the polygraph session
        The examinee expresses distrust or non-belief in polygraph
        The examinee tries to dominate the conversation and talks incessantly
        The examinee complains of some physical ailment or medical condition prior to being asked about his health and physical condition
        The examinee is quick to volunteer information regarding medications and then asks “will that effect the test”
        The examinee tries to oversell his honesty / truthfulness / character / reputation, etc.
        The examinee gives excuses why he might fail the examination
        The examinee’s story is absurd, illogical or in direct conflict with case facts
        The examinee provides little details regarding critical parts of his story
        The examinee uses memory qualifiers to excess when answering questions
        The examinee answers relevant questions with half-truths
        The examinee minimizes the seriousness of the allegation / crime
        The examinee blames the person making the allegations or victim and provides reasons why he has been wrongfully accused
        The examinee avoids answering direct questions about the relevant issues with “yes” or “no” and provides evasive answers to those questions
        The examinee answers with a question
        The examinee tries to buy thinking time before answering relevant questions
        The examinee uses defensive statements when asked a direct question
        The examinee exhibits excessive physical indicators of unconscious stress relief such as yawning, stretching, knuckle cracking, throat clearing, sniffling, burping, etc.
        The examinee is “overly” anything
        The examinee deviates from his norm at critical times
        The examinee exhibits clusters of non-verbal cues
        The examinee makes small admissions designed to cloud the relevant issue
        The examinee exhibits an unusual interest or knowledge about polygraph

------------------------------------------------------------------
You can learn more about the genesis of the document here:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2015/11/15/leaked-documents-further-confirm-polygraph-communitys-inability-to-detect-sophisticated-countermeasures/

Dr. Richardson,

Thank you for the reply and discussion.

What your concerns and experience with manual scoring of polygraph data actually seem to speak to is this: a)  the importance of more standardized, perhaps even more automated, test administration procedures that can remain objective and robust against the influence of human intuition/fatigue/bias/etc. during test administration, and b) the importance of structured, perhaps even automatic, algorithmic analytic models that are similarly more objective robust against the influence of human intuition/fatigue/bias/etc., leading to greater reproducibility of analytic results and a greater ability to incorporate new emerging knowledge and information to possibly improve the precision of an analytic result.

Without clearly structured algorithmic methods the analytic process will continually subject to human factors and also to the need to train and develop those difficult-to-quantify "clinical" or expert judgement skills with every new class of professionals (which does not fully address the perishable skill problem).

These are issues that have been in consideration in testing and diagnostic work since at least Meehl (1954) and Nunnally (1967), and are certainly worth discussion.

The alternative what Meehl referred to as "mechanized" (antiquated term, but it makes the point) is to rely on less structured forms of professional or clinical judgement, for which the trend in the evidence has been somewhat clear for a long time.

Despite the clarity of evidence, learning to rely on structured solutions can introduce existential conflicts to minds of some professionals. Also, there are is a need for ethical discussion around what some have called the "sky-net problem" when allowing mechanistic (machine learning) processes to make decisions about humans. The ethical discussion here involves both what we should expect of structured machine processes, and also how to implement them in a manner for which human decisions remain human processes.

RN

I will also be away from home for the next week.

Safe travels

Raymond,

Thank you and safe travels to you as well. 

You mention my experience with manual scoring. 

You might be surprised to know that 25 years ago, I was the first DoDPI student to ever collect digitized data, use my own algorithm (a modified version of an industrial control process called cumulative summation (cusum analysis) to see small change points in time series data), and do so while simultaneously collecting analog data (perhaps the only student to have ever done so and long before students and practitioners were routinely using commercial digital instruments and scoring algorithms). 

Best again, Drew

Dr. Richardson,

After reading TLBTLD again today, I just realized who you are. It is an honor and a privilege to communicate with you.

With your background and credentials, I do not understand why people don't believe you when you say that the polygraph 'test' is not scientifically valid. If anyone should know, it is you.

And Dan - you were correct. Some great discussions by some very important people take place here.

MagicSteve, allow me to offer some thoughts on your question to Dr. Richardson...

First, understand that it is only a relatively small cadre of polygraph researchers -- many of which, such as Ray Nelson, have past or present ties to the polygraph indu$try -- who are behind the pro-polygraph propaganda. Even a cursory review of the literature reveals a fairly short list of the usual suspects behind these cheerleading efforts.

Second, many polygraph examiners that I know tacitly acknowledge that the test is pure pseudoscience, if not outright horseshit. In fact, the current president of the American Polygraph Association, Walt Goodson, told the APA membership in a speech at the most recent national convention that an examiner's "swagger, confidence and command presence in the polygraph suite are more important than ten college degrees." That's hardly a ringing endorsement of "test's" scientific underpinnings.

Third, polygraph has a tremendous amount of momentum behind it, thanks to a queer amalgam of pop culture (vis-a-vis daytime TV), a gullible public -- including the occasional dimwit or easily bamboozled judges --  solution-hungry sex offender treatment providers, and, of course, the government's increasing use of the "test." FYI, polygraph use is growing globally as well.

Fourth, with regard to PCSOT applications, even though polygraph test accuracy is unknown and in fact unknowable, the underlying sentiment -- and I'm speaking from experience -- is that the "test" is plenty good enough for pervs, sickos and skinners.

MagicSteve,

Thank you for the compliment-the pleasure is mine. 

Dan Mangan is much more in touch with the current polygraph community than I, so I suspect his answer to you is more observationally based (and closer to reality) than mine might be. 

That having been said, my summary feeling about the issue would be that some combination of a lack of critical thinking, ignorance, self preservation, and excess control on the part of those who "own the football" leads to the status quo of lie detection in this country.  Notice that I did not include widespread malice or wanton disregard for one's fellow man in this list.

Listening to or agreeing with me (or any other given individual) or not doing so is of no particular significance. 

Best Wishes, Drew Richardson

Dan Mangan wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 6:03pm:

Fourth, with regard to PCSOT applications, even though polygraph test accuracy is unknown and in fact unknowable, the underlying sentiment -- and I'm speaking from experience -- is that the "test" is plenty good enough for pervs, sickos and skinners.

I have a question about this, based on something I had read on these forums in the not-too-distant past. Someone had stated that even though the test is basically invalid, that its use as a psychological billy club in PCSOT cases warrants further use, considering the fact that sexual offenders pose such a risk to society.

I know, for a fact, that the recidivism rate of sexual offenders is quite low - lower, in fact, than the recidivism rates for every other crime except murder. Given these two conflicting view points - one based on society's ignorance (the high recidivism rate) and one based on research and empirical data/evidence - what is your opinion on the continued use of polygraphs as a screening tool, more or less, for sex offenders?

I have been told by SOT therapists that I have worked with that 'it's better than nothing' (which seems to be the same view on the Abel test, as well...don't get me started there). A hot poker in the eye is better than nothing, too, for the record... I believe that holding these offenders accountable is good - to a point. Holding them accountable for what, however, is a whole other topic. It is widely known that most SO's face much harsher restrictions than normal probationers/parolees.

Since we know that the polygraph exams - particularly the screening exams, such as maintenance and sexual history polygraphs - are invalid so far as science goes, then where is the line drawn? Are PCSOT examiners essentially just trying to force admissions of wrong-doing in their examinees? And if so, isn't that doing more harm than good, perpetuating the myth that polygraphs are effective as a screening tool when in fact they are not?

MagicSteve,

There are several things that contribute to the "perfect storm" of PCSOT mania...

o A reviled underclass of criminal monsters (the aforementioned pervs, sickos and skinners)

o The need to do something

o A solution-hungry population of frustrated SOT professionals looking for a panacea -- or at least another "tool in the toolbox"

Enter the American Polygraph Association with its wild claims about polygraph test accuracy.

From 1997 to 2012, the APA actively promoted the notion that polygraph is 98.6% accurate. Many opportunity-minded examiners co-opted that ludicrous claim for PCSOT use. In fact, the exact language of the APA's claim of 98.6% accuracy is still in wide use on polygraph operator web sites around the world.

In large part, the SOT community bought into the 98.6% accuracy myth. Understandably, when the post-test admissions came -- and they usually do -- that "proved" polygraph's efficacy. The pervs/sickos/skinners who made no admissions were (are) often thought to be in denial or otherwise holding back.

So, PCSOT "success", if you will, is a result of marketing magic, a gullible (if not eager) customer base, and a healthy dash of "proof" in the form of post-test admissions.

I have much more to say about this.

Dan Mangan wrote on Jan 17^th, 2016 at 2:42pm:

So, PCSOT "success", if you will, is a result of marketing magic, a gullible (if not eager) customer base, and a healthy dash of "proof" in the form of post-test admissions.

An interesting tidbit...

In Wisconsin, is says in the DOC administrative rules that an SO cannot be revocated soley based on a 'failed' polygraph, i.e. there has to be corroborating evidence, as in an admission of some sort. It is widely known by clients who are SO's that if you 'fail', and maintain your innocence, that probation and parole can do nothing to the examinee. Even the DOC in Wisconsin seems to relalize that a 'failed' exam does not constitute proof of anything. This administrative rule holds true for specific incident polygraphs, as well (where an accusation is made against the parolee/probationer, and no proof exists other than a written statement by a third party, or a 'hunch' by the agent).

A step in the right direction... or a covert acknowledgement of polygraph's failings? And, since this is widely know, then why bother 'testing' SO's in Wisconsin at all?

Since the public is unaware of the low recidivism rates of SO's and the polygraph's lack of validity, it seems to me that the public hysteria won't die down soon. That is unfortunate, as I find that a misinformed public makes for a bad forum to try and initiate necessary policy changes.

Wisconsin Lie Detector Program for DOC




DOC 332.17  Operation of lie detector program.
(1)  Selection of participants.
Upon the approval of an agent's supervisor, an agent may require an offender who is a sex offender to participate in the lie detector program. The agent may require an offender who is a sex offender to submit to the lie detector examination process based on the following:
(a) For an offender who is a sex offender and who is currently in prison but nearing the release date on mandatory or discretionary parole:
1. The offender's criminal record of sexual offenses.
2. The offender's adjustment under previous supervision.
3. The offender's participation in offense-related programming while incarcerated or institutionalized.
4. The offender's motivation or refusal to participate in continued programming in the community.
(b) For an offender who is a sex offender and who is currently on probation or parole:
1. The offender's criminal record of sexual offenses.
2. The offender's adjustment under supervision, including recent rules violations or recent consideration for alternatives to revocation.
3. The offender's compliance with current programming.
(2) Notice.
(a) An agent shall provide an offender who is a sex offender and who is selected to participate in the lie detector examination process written notice of the lie detector program requirements. The department may require an offender who is a sex offender to participate in the lie detector examination process without the offender's informed consent.
(b) An agent shall provide written notice to an offender who is a sex offender and who is required to take a lie detector test. The notice shall include the following:
1. Date, time, and location of the scheduled test.
2. Instructions to complete any preliminary questionnaires.
(3) Lie detector test questions.
(a) The lie detector examiner shall determine the questions to be asked during the lie detector examination process and shall consult with the agent in determining the questions to be asked. If the offender who is a sex offender is receiving treatment, the examiner or agent may consult with the treatment provider regarding development of questions to be asked during the lie detector examination process.
(b) The agent or examiner may consider any of the following in determining the questions to be asked during the lie detector examination process:
1. The offender's involvement in current offense-related programming.
2. The offender's level of denial.
3. The offender's recent pattern of rules violations.
4. The offender's noncompliance with treatment.
5. The agent's need to verify the offender's compliance with supervision, treatment or self-reporting.
6. The agent's need to document and verify the extent of the offender's sexual history.
(4) Test administration.
The department may administer lie detector tests or contract with an outside vendor to administer the tests. The department shall establish standards for the selection of lie detector examiners.
(5) Assessment of fees.
The department shall establish a schedule of fees in accordance with s. DOC 332.18.
(6) Sanctions.
(a) If an offender who is a sex offender refuses to participate in any portion of the lie detector examination process or to pay a lie detector fee, the agent shall investigate the refusal as a violation of a rule or condition of supervision in accordance with ch. DOC 331.
(b) If an offender who is a sex offender discloses a violation of a rule or condition of supervision during the lie detector examination process, the agent shall investigate the disclosure as a violation of a rule or condition of supervision, in accordance with ch. DOC 331.
(c) If an offender who is a sex offender discloses criminal conduct during the lie detector examination process, the agent, with the approval of the agent's supervisor, shall refer the disclosure to law enforcement authorities.
(d) Revocation of probation or parole of an offender who is a sex offender may not be based solely on a finding of deception as disclosed by a lie detector test.

Notice the very last part. Also, according to these rules, a sexual history polygraph, as a separate exam, is not mandatory, per(1)(b)... sexual history questions can be asked in a mandatory maintenance polygraph, however, per (3)(6). I have had several parole/probation agents ask my clients to do sexual history polygraphs, and they are always 'off-site', meaning not at the probation or parole office, whereas the maintenance polygraphs are done only at the probation and parole office. Also, these 'off-site' sexual history polygraphs are not subject to the DOC's payment plan - my clients have to pay the examiner up front, while the mandatory polygraphs done in the probation/parole office are put on a payment plan, per the DOC rules.

The polygraphs are administered by Behavioral Measures Midwest, out of South Eastern Wisconsin, and cost my clients $350.

MagicSteve, the PCSOT scene -- like polygraph in general -- is mainly about money.

I'd be very suspect of any PCSOT scenario wherein a single vendor is the sole source of "approved" polygraph exams.

If any of your clients feel they've been wronged, I'd be happy to discuss conducting an independent quality assurance review.

Dan Mangan wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 3:14am:

I'd be very suspect of any PCSOT scenario wherein a single vendor is the sole source of "approved" polygraph exams.

I thought the same thing. Offenders who have asked to use their own, independent examiners for voluntary examinations (such as a sexual history polygraph) have been told that the results will not be honored if they do so.

Another absurdity is that even though the sexual history polygraphs are out of the scope of the DOC's contract with their 'vendor' (even insofar as the DOC's own regulations go), the examinees are not allowed to possess the results - even the type-written summary - of their examination. The DOC won't allow it, and the examinee is forced to sign a document  giving up any rights to documentation AND freeing both the DOC and the examiner from any legal liability.

"...the examinees are not allowed to possess the results - even the type-written summary - of their examination. The DOC won't allow it, and the examinee is forced to sign a document  giving up any rights to documentation AND freeing both the DOC and the examiner from any legal liability."

MagicSteve, this is commonplace not only in PCSOT, but in screening situations for law enforcement and government positions.

So, why the secrecy and lack of access?

Simple -- the "test" is scientifically bogus, at least in my opinion.

Lack of access to the data is the only way that polygraph can endure in these crude culling applications.

PCSOT is here to stay. It's a CA$H COW that's wrapped in a bulletproof cloak of feel-good therapy, indignant self-righteousness, and (often) illusory community safety.

As I said to you in an earlier post: The DOC makes the rules.

Your clients are stuck.

Dan, since you have had 5 years of PCSOT experience, your assertions of it having become an enterprise aside, has it been your experience that PCSOT is not effective in the treatment model?

Ark, to clarify, I conducted PCSOT exams in a prison setting for five and one-half years, then transitioned to running PCSOT exams in the community for a few more years.

These days, I conduct PCSOT exams only on a consulting (second opinion) basis. The same applies to LEPET exams.

My business model has evolved over the years; I have precious little faith in screening exams, but am happy to review and critique them, or run an exam on someone who claims to have been wronged in a prior "test."

As for the effectiveness of PCSOT, it's a double-edged sword. Anecdotally, my sense is that therapeutic efforts are significantly aided in about one-third of the cases. But there is a corresponding one-third of SOs, that, in my opinion, are victimized by mislabeling, loss of liberty (to a degree), and the like. The remaining third are seemingly unaffected one way or the other.

On the probation/parole side, PCSOT seems to be generally viewed as a great and powerful tool. My sense is that the POs -- like the SOT providers -- have been oversold on the accuracy, however.

BTW, consumers of PCSOT and LEPET "tests" are fixated on accuracy expressed as a finite percentage.

So, is PCSOT effective? In many cases, yes. But it comes at the cost of collateral damage, which is all but lost on the reviled underclass of "pervs, sickos and skinners."

In the end, PCSOT -- like all of polygraph -- is BS (Belief System) based, just as Krapohl said. Thus, its value exists predominantly in the eye of the beholder.

The usual disclaimer applies: This is just the view of one lowly polygraph operator.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Aug 31^st, 2015 at 9:44pm:

OK, let me start with this, There is now peace between me and Eric Holden.  Yes you read that right.  We talked everything out today, and as far as both parties are concerned, there is a halt to hostilities.  It is done, it is over, there is now peace in that regard. We both agreed that there are some pot stirrers in the background that just instigated things to a point where they got to of hand.  Mistakes were made, and I am not blame free here; and those mistakes are now in the past. I hope this will stabilize the market in Dallas and make all involved stronger and better.  For any misunderstandings or angst I have caused Mr. Holden during the process of the past 6 years, I am sorry and I hope that things will move forward to a new era in Dallas of understanding and friendship. If I have unreasonably wronged Mr. holden in any way, shape or form, I hope he accepts my apology again, and, we move froward with understanding and good future intentions. Now, in regard to the examiners who don't want to let things go; I will leave you with this. The opening keynote by F. Lee Bailey; the closing was fitting, and hit home for me "if I were ever asked to take a polygraph (if he was in a situation where one was needed), how could I say no given my involvement in the polygraph profession." F. Lee Bailey Keynote speaker APA 2015 conference This statement by Mr. Bailey seemed fitting, relevant, and for me, VINDICATING. On that note, after hearing that statement, by someone as important in the polygraph community as Mr. Bailey, I feel vindicated enough to move on from this.  We know who the examiners are that will step up to their own test; and we know who will run.  We now know who the examiners are that will do the right thing in the ned and who will continue to "stir the pot." I am done, and I am out.  This old dog is going back to sleep.  I think it would be best for certain examiners in Texas to let that happen and leave the sleeping dog in peace.  But make no mistake, and you know who I am talking to; kick a sleeping dog, you're gonna get bit.  Something to think about. NOTE: I will still be using the fact that I am the ONLY examiner in Texas that believes in the product we sell, enough that I would place my future and career down on the table based on the results of that test.  I reserve the right to use this in my marketing.  On that note, I am done and moving on.  I would hope the Texas examiners would do that also; trust me, this is in everyones best interests. I now leave the choice to them.

Tell us Joe, how does it feel knowing you're done in this business forever?  No one at NPA will stand up for you.  You were told to shut up, but you just wouldn't listen.  It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong.  The only thing that matters is the vote.  It will not fall in your favor.  You opened your mouth one too many times, Joey.  Even your wife won't stand by you.  Maybe she found some chocolate nuts, like the last wife?

You made a big deal about your "peace" with Rick.  You fool, it made him sick just to stand next to you.  You have no friends in polygraph.  We all hate you.  There is no way you will survive the vote, if you even make it to Vegas at all.  Bets are being taken if you'll show up.  Other bets include rope or a tailpipe.  The Irish do love their pipes.  You're too narcissistic to use a bullet.  I bet your wife will be happy that she can have chocolate nuts whenever she wants then.  The last one says, she's moved on to salty chocolate balls.  She's much happier now.  Maybe she found the Irish ones bland. We can introduce your current wife to something that tastes better after you’re gone.

It's funny that you really think this vote will go your way.  Why don't you just resign like you did last time?  If you resign, no vote will happen.  Isn't that better than embarrassing yourself in front of everyone?  Face it Joey, it's the only way out, other than the rope or tailpipe. 

We look forward to seeing who wins the pool. 

Enjoy Vegas Joey.  Be careful driving.  The Nevada Desert can be a dangerous place.  The vultures would love picking your fat ass clean.  We wouldn't want to see anything happen to you before you run out of the NPA meeting crying like last time.  This time, we will have our cameras out to record your baby fit for your fans here and on YouTube.  Won't Boston be proud.

There is no winning.  Save your money and what is left of your pride.

Me thinks TEXASPP has just released the Kraken.

Some people just don't learn.

wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 2:58am:

Tell us Joe, how does it feel knowing you're done in this business forever?  No one at NPA will stand up for you.  You were told to shut up, but you just wouldn't listen.  It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong.  The only thing that matters is the vote.  It will not fall in your favor.  You opened your mouth one too many times, Joey.  Even your wife won't stand by you.  Maybe she found some chocolate nuts, like the last wife? You made a big deal about your "peace" with Rick.  You fool, it made him sick just to stand next to you.  You have no friends in polygraph.  We all hate you.  There is no way you will survive the vote, if you even make it to Vegas at all.  Bets are being taken if you'll show up.  Other bets include rope or a tailpipe.  The Irish do love their pipes.  You're too narcissistic to use a bullet.  I bet your wife will be happy that she can have chocolate nuts whenever she wants then.  The last one says, she's moved on to salty chocolate balls.  She's much happier now.  Maybe she found the Irish ones bland. We can introduce your current wife to something that tastes better after you’re gone. It's funny that you really think this vote will go your way.  Why don't you just resign like you did last time?  If you resign, no vote will happen.  Isn't that better than embarrassing yourself in front of everyone?  Face it Joey, it's the only way out, other than the rope or tailpipe. We look forward to seeing who wins the pool. Enjoy Vegas Joey.  Be careful driving.  The Nevada Desert can be a dangerous place.  The vultures would love picking your fat ass clean.  We wouldn't want to see anything happen to you before you run out of the NPA meeting crying like last time.  This time, we will have our cameras out to record your baby fit for your fans here and on YouTube.  Won't Boston be proud. There is no winning.  Save your money and what is left of your pride.

are you people f'ing serious?  this is the way we are going to do this huh?  seriously?

UGH

Alea iacta est

I think what they are expecting here, is for me to go off like I did with the, lieguytoo, thing.  That would be the only reason someone would touch on that; also there is the veiled insults to my heritage, and the snarky comment about Boston.  Ugh, this is so old; but a nice try anyway.

I have work to do, and this post, from whomever this trifling bitch may be, is low on my priority list of fish to fry. 

I will give credit where credit is due here though; it seems they have given up on the slander and libel accusations, in favor of a more direct approach of the, how did they put it, "You were told to shut up, but you just wouldn't listen," approach. This is progress I think, and shows me that they now have a better understanding, that the honest approach is the best approach. 

none the less, it is not a totally honest approach.  I am sure it is not lost on anyone, that these people are so brave that they have to remain anonymous.  This just displays the courage of their convictions. Ya see me, I have always been upfront; I didn't hide behind screen names, I own what I say.  When I am wrong, I step up; when I am right, I stand firm. 

Joe, I don't get the vultures in the desert part....sounds like a script from some dystopian mad max movie..

Ark, in my opinion, it could be viewed as a not-so-subtle death threat.

I know right.  They are just trying to get me to react in a certain way. 

If I were to use their past actions, they are trying to either make me afraid to go, or they are trying to make me second guess myself or the intent of others.  They did this when they forced me to resign from TAPE too. 

If you were to see all the documentation I have from TAPE and all others involved; emails, text messages, private messages, etc etc., you would not be surprised with the post we see above in texaspp's post. 

UGH.

I have to be very careful what I say, because I can be disciplined for even responding to a provoking threat like above.  I am back into such a position, where I am expected to have my hands tied, while I am attacked with impunity.  Anything I say, there are consequences, because I am dumb enough to put my name on what I say.  Whatever the Texas Examiners do or say is fair game because they choose to hide behind screen names or anonymity. 

This has been the past 8 years of my life.  Honestly, it's getting old.

"dsytopian" is an interesting phrase, can you go further with that?

I corrected the spelling:

Dystopia is the opposite of Utopia--an utterly horrible or degraded society that is generally headed to an irreversible oblivion.

I looked it up so I get the meaning. I was just wondering about context.  Don't mean to nitpick, I just like to make sure I don't misinterpret meaning and context

It was just my impression of the post. It was morbid, cold, almost demonic in nature.

Wow, interesting way of putting it, but probably pretty accurate.

Anyway, I have to admit, I am pretty conflicted with this one.  Agreements were made between me and certain people, and I would hate to think they would go back on that.  I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I know better.  Giving the benefit of the doubt is not something I am famous for. 

On the other hand, it does shorten the list of suspects. 

You know Arc, your profile picture reminds me of something another examiner, for whom I have great respect for, said recently.  I think this quote is very applicable to this situation, and I think may give people a better idea why I fight as hard as I do.

"There is a reason Angels have swords...they know you can't sweet-talk evil into surrendering."

Evil will never stop attacking svn you turn the other cheek.  Evil has no reason or mercy
Evil does not take responsibility
Evil does not tell the truth
Evil does not quit, just because you do

Evil does take joy in inflicting pain on good people
Evil does take advantage of kindness
Because evil does see kindness as weakness
Evil will manipulate people and events to fit its own agenda
Evil will hide so it can be never held accountable or responsible
lies are the music that feeds the soul of evil and the wicked

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

I keep hoping, that someday, I will find more good men and women to step away from the mob mentality that evil creates as a cover to do their work.

Sappy? Maybe.  But it is the truth

To see an angel, you must see another's soul.
To feel an angel, you must touch another's heart.
To hear an angel you must listen to both.
-Unknown

Very interesting.

When I get a call inquiring about my polygraph services, I often ask if the consumer believes in angels, the devil, ghosts, UFOs, extraterrestrial aliens, etc.

If they answer in the affirmative, I consider them a prime candidate for the "test."

Dan Mangan wrote on Jan 30^th, 2016 at 2:51am:

Very interesting. When I get a call inquiring about my polygraph services, I often ask if the consumer believes in angels, the devil, ghosts, UFOs, extraterrestrial aliens, etc. If they answer in the affirmative, I consider them a prime candidate for the "test."

Wow, and this actually brings up another one of my points about why the past couple years has been completely (sorry George, but sometimes, there is just no other word for it), crappity smacked up.

I would love to address it, but addressing it with the truth, but I am forbidden to do so under threat of being punished.  While apparently, others have free reign to say awful things about my wife, make implied threats on my life, and encourage me to kill myself.

Wow

This is lieguytoo all over again.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Jan 30^th, 2016 at 9:46am:

I would love to address it, but addressing it with the truth, but I am forbidden to do so under threat of being punished.

Joe, I'm unclear on the details of this "vultures picking fat asses" cult. One of the most competent forensic psychophysiologists I know belongs to no organizations at all. Why bother? Go to Ireland instead of Vegas. By the way, I read the NPA agenda, it sounds kind of boring--they need Dan in there to stir things up.

In this country, you need to belong to a profession organization to compete for contracts.  Also a lot of therapists will not use you if you do not belong to one, and lastly, if you do not belong to a professional organization, you can kiss any court or parole board recognition goodbye.

That is the core of this.  This is anti competitive behavior on the part of TAPE and the complainant who shall not be named here, because doing so would be being critical and mean, and therefore forbidden.  They know if I get expelled, that will be the end of me being able to actively compete.  Because according to ATSM, any organization that follows ATSM standards, can not take anyone who has been expelled from any other professional organization; regardless of the reason for expulsion was legitimate, fair due process was given according to the bylaws (looking right at you tape), or if the bylaw that was the reason for expulsion was even legal or violated FTC law in regard to anti competitive practices, like that of TAPE.  (think about it guys, ask the APA why they are doing their anti trust stuff, I did, and got interesting and honest answers.

No, I would very much like Dan to stay away form the NPA, unless he is willing to work and play well with others.  I went to NPA to escape the BS of those who shall not be named, because it would be critical and mean, and they can't fight their own battles toe to toe and on a level playing field.  I did not bring the fight there, the complainant did. I think that was the mission.

TAPE and those concerned knows with the document ion I have, they can not win in court, so they go to professional organizations to force me into silence, or, expel me so I can't compete at all and Fenian goes out of business.

The mob mentality will be encouraged, and I have been told that I will not even have an opportunity to speak.  Sounds kinda like that email from TAPE in 2009 from Stuart Ervin huh?

Anyway, if I survive this; I want the NPA to stay out of a Texas Issue, let them fight their own battles, and refuse to be a tool or a weapon for TAPE and the complainant (an officer of TAPE) to do their dirty work.  We have better things to do at the NPA; LIKE EDUCATION.

Between 2009 and when this person was sent with their mission, things were nice and quiet.  I was not here, other than to give a few helpful comments.  TAPE and the situation was not discussed in public.  all was quiet, until 2014 when TAPE violated it's own bylaws by trying to keep me away from continuing education, this keeping me from renewing my license, and thus pressuring me out of the Texas Market. 

Seeing a pattern here.  TAPE violated many of it's bylaws in 2014, but there will be more about that that is being discussed currently with FTC lawyers.

As for going to the home country of my Grandfather, I hear it is beautiful.  But I am an Irish American, and a Masshole.  Also I, in the words of Obama, "cling to my guns."  Only in America will the encourage an Irish Republican to have a gun  LMAO.  Actually, I am a libertarian, the I'm sure you get the joke none the less.

Sorry to be long winded, but just got done packing, not looking forward to what I strongly feel will be a mob mentality or to be in constant concern for my welfare or safety given the post that got all this started. 

Having said that, this is my last stand.

Armed with only the documented truth, cameras, recorders and records, I go to war to try to achieve peace. 

I am not optimistic

---

wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 2:58am:

Tell us Joe, how does it feel knowing you're done in this business forever?  No one at NPA will stand up for you.  You were told to shut up, but you just wouldn't listen.  It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong.  The only thing that matters is the vote.  It will not fall in your favor.  You opened your mouth one too many times, Joey.  Even your wife won't stand by you.  Maybe she found some chocolate nuts, like the last wife? You made a big deal about your "peace" with Rick.  You fool, it made him sick just to stand next to you.  You have no friends in polygraph.  We all hate you.  There is no way you will survive the vote, if you even make it to Vegas at all.  Bets are being taken if you'll show up.  Other bets include rope or a tailpipe.  The Irish do love their pipes.  You're too narcissistic to use a bullet.  I bet your wife will be happy that she can have chocolate nuts whenever she wants then.  The last one says, she's moved on to salty chocolate balls.  She's much happier now.  Maybe she found the Irish ones bland. We can introduce your current wife to something that tastes better after you’re gone. It's funny that you really think this vote will go your way.  Why don't you just resign like you did last time?  If you resign, no vote will happen.  Isn't that better than embarrassing yourself in front of everyone?  Face it Joey, it's the only way out, other than the rope or tailpipe. We look forward to seeing who wins the pool. Enjoy Vegas Joey.  Be careful driving.  The Nevada Desert can be a dangerous place.  The vultures would love picking your fat ass clean.  We wouldn't want to see anything happen to you before you run out of the NPA meeting crying like last time.  This time, we will have our cameras out to record your baby fit for your fans here and on YouTube.  Won't Boston be proud. There is no winning.  Save your money and what is left of your pride.

I'm  not sure where your particularly nasty poster got the idea that Joe McCarthy's wife doesn't stand behind him, but here I am, and I do.

I'm not going to hide behind some stupid screen name and I am not going to use the Tor browser.  If I am going to post anything, I am going to be upfront about who I am and what I have to say.  I think those of you pretending to be someone or something that you aren't are cowardly and dishonest.

I don't really follow this site, so you can save whatever nasty anonymous comments you have.   If you can't restrain yourself, I might see them in a few months or if someone calls my attention to them.  But I truly don't care if you like me.  In fact, it would be pretty awful to have the approval of some of the scum in the polygraph industry. 

Joe is a good polygraph examiner and interrogator.  I believe this is why there is such intense hatred of him.  I've seen Joe interview on numerous occasions and a few of those times, I was honestly blown away by what he managed to get out of people, and found myself shaking my head, thinking “I can't believe they just told him THAT.”  I've seen lots of police interrogations in lots of jurisdictions, and you can believe me or not.

What I find shocking is an industry that is supposed to be about truth is trying so hard to keep him quiet.  He's never said anything bad about polygraph or its efficacy.  For heaven's sake, he was willing to be polygraphed on his own truthfulness.  Lest you think this idea is stupid, I've heard tell that at least one state polygraph association has that in its bylaws.

If an industry finds it necessary to restrict First Amendment rights, it's an industry with problems.  Nobody has made any allegations that his statements aren't true.  Nobody has filed a temporary injunction stopping any of his speeches or demanding retraction of any videos.  And you know they would.  So the speech that he was apparently “told to shut up” about is obviously legal, free and protected speech.  What else do they not want anyone to know?

Joe may have drunk the polygraph koolaid, but I'm also going to add that if this industry is upright and honorable, wouldn't they be proud of their product?  If the science is completely accurate, why aren't they having an open discussion with George Mischke about how they come to their conclusions and numbers?  Why would any examiner balk at turning over charts instead of just a conclusory report?  You do know, people, if you want to have any part of this polygraph thing of yours admissible in court every single aspect of what you did has to be discoverable and subject to cross examination?

Maybe nobody cares.  Maybe it is just a small enough industry to completely fly under the radar screen.  Maybe the fact that most of the injustices are being done to sex offenders means  nobody cares.  Who is going to stand up for a sex offender?

And for those of you who can't get over your obsession with chocolate salty balls, try this instead.  I don't have much of a sweet tooth so I can't verify how great these turn out.  http://www.geekychef.com/2011/08/chocolate-salty-balls.html

Joe McCarthy wrote on Jan 30^th, 2016 at 9:15pm:

In this country, you need to belong to a profession organization to compete for contracts.  Also a lot of therapists will not use you if you do not belong to one, and lastly, if you do not belong to a professional organization, you can kiss any court or parole board recognition goodbye.

Hmm, interesting. Ostensibly, this criterion appears as a quality control measure, which is understandable. However, its exclusionary tactic is not only open to abuse, it's unfair. There should be a mechanism whereby a private individual can properly demonstrate commensurate proficiency and expertise without forced participation in a "professional" organization.

Joe, you said:

"I would very much like Dan to stay away from the NPA, unless he is willing to work and play well with others."

No sweat, Joe.

My involvement with the NPA is way down the road.

My primary goal is to eradicate the cancer that exists within the American Polygraph Association.

I estimate that will take a few years following my imminent election as president

I'll deal with the NPA after that, if they haven't learned -- and changed.

In any event, time is on my side.

I'm a patient man.

The hell you are if I am there.

I am partly fighting to for a return to the way things were before the usurper came along and decided to get this organization involved with a fight they don't want any part of; or at least that is what I am told.

NPA, was a non political organization where this thing would once not be even entertained. Somehow, someone, we all know who, has manipulated people to take up her vendetta. In the process, it has become, "Joe roll over and take it, and they will go away"

Fact is, the stunt they pulled in 2014 made it clear they won't go away. And a few days ago, this went way too far and I can't count on anyone to call these people to the plate on it because calling them to the plate seems to be taboo.

I am sure I will somehow be blamed and I provoked that attack. That is the way it seems to go.

Anyway, if I can quell this situation with the usurper, and there is a return to everyone coming to Vegas without having to worry about this crap, and the fight in texas stays in texas, I don't need an insurrectionist coming in to mess up everyone's good time.

I don't mind having ya there, it would be nice to have someone around from the hometown,  but only if you play nice. We don't need someone coming for the soul reason of making trouble, where no trouble exists. We are already dealing with that with the usurper. God knows I didn't bring this fight to Vegas. I came here to escape the politics and BS. The usurper came for the purpose of causing problems and ruining a good thing. Sadly, she is being allowed to do it, and obviously, because she gets away with her antics, it's clear the Texas examiners just get bolder.

That is what these people don't understand. If you give these Texas examiners an inch, they take it as weakness and they push to the next level, just like what is happening now.

They have done this in the past, and when the judge let the lieguytoo thing pass without consequences, clearly they think the NPA will do the same. She will, no doubt, try to convince them that I provoked it; but she will be hard pressed to point out who what happened here is appropriate.

Problem is, this is a pattern of behavior for them.

What passes me off is, it seems no one is taking it seriously and probably won't, until they become so bold, that they actually do something, and I am forced to defend myself. I am sure that will be my fault too though.

No one seems to get the idea, that I only come here when I am marginalized or backed into a corner. And obviously, coming here or addressing it on a private message board, for examiners only, has the same result and consequences. At least here all the sudden, I am taken seriously, because they hate the truth being public more than me addressing it in private. So maybe TEXASPP is right, private or public, it comes right down to, how did TEXASPP put it, "shut my mouth," and play their whipping boy without defending myself or expecting them to be help accountable for this behavior that has become a pattern for the Texas examiners involved.

Maybe I am wrong about how I see their lack of concern. I guess I'll know soon enough

But no, if I can get things back to homeostasis, and politics and these games take a back seat again, I don't need you messing that up and ruining everyone's good time

If you do come, let's have some beers, do some ceu's, cause havoc at the tables, and have a good time

Keep the politics at APA, we don't want it.

Then again, if I am wrong and they are switching to the political game playing, have at it; but it will be a dime late and a dollar short for me.

Everyone tells me privately, they don't like some of these peoplen and some even roll their eyes when you even mention texas, but for some reason, i am.the only one with the balls to take a strong stand, and what the Texans want, the industry bends over and kisses their asses; right or wrong. It baffles the hell out of me.

Some even say I have been treated unfairly, but no one will dare say it publicly, because then they will be labeled as being just like Joe McCarthy. I have been told that is the mantra at TAPE, remember what we did to Joe

That I get that as second hand information.  But look at their histroy

Sorry if I misspelled things, typing on the phone, and not great with touch screens

What exactly are the chief differences between the NPA and APA?

Are they adversaries?

Ark, I suspect you are bullshitting.  You probably know the difference.

But for those who don't...

In my opinion, the APA is a hard core cult, while the NPA is more like the Unitarian Universalist Church.

Both are essentially about the religion of polygraph -- it's just a matter of degree.

Dan, yes I kinda knew what they were administratively, but Vulture Joe's last post hinted at certain nuances to which I am naïve. So I guess I was chumming for comments to sample attitudes.

Ex Member wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 12:24am:

What exactly are the chief differences between the NPA and APA? Are they adversaries?

No they are not.  In regard to differences, it depend on who you ask.  For me, the NPA is less politically based.  The spa, is more an international organization, than a national one.  The ape's numbers are greater, but the can be a wee bit more down to earth at their seminars.

Both associations have much the same to offer, but what is offered, is delivered differently.  Just like anything in this world, there are advantages to both.  Now that I've been to both seminars, I am not going to say that either is, inherently bad.  What I am going to say, is the NPA is simply a better fit for me.


Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 1:10am:

In my opinion, the APA is a hard core cult, while the NPA is more like the Unitarian Universalist Church. Both are essentially about the religion of polygraph -- it's just a matter of degree.

Seriously Dan? So you want to take over a cult for what, to change it to the Dan theology and canon?  Remember, you're a member of that "cult" Dan, just saying. 

You say things like this, and then wonder why you don't get elected president.  To win the presidency, you have to win hearts and minds; we talked about this.  I am not telling you not to be critical.  What I'm saying is, the way you deliver the message is not going to open any doors anywhere.

Comparing NPA to the universalist church, one word does match, universalist.  the NPA welcomes examiners properly licensed and regulated as full members.  They do not like politics, and, I can tell you from experience, they are not fans of internal bickering. We are all there to keep up on the latest data, and have fun.  If people are looking for awards or accolades, that only happens for the speakers.  They are usually given a cool leather bound binder or pen set.  LOL

The nuances between the two are very superficial; but there are differences. 

Now the differences between TAPE and NPA, or even APA, whole different story.  Those differences are as clear as night and day. 

Anyway, this little battle is done.  No one lost, and everyone came out winners.  It would be improper to go too much into detail, but the end result is as fair as the situation allowed. It has been my experience, that if every party in a situation doesn't walk away 100% happy, then it is a good end result.  Regardless, the end result was reached unanimously, and the issue is closed so far as the NPA is concerned.

This is a Texas fight, and they would very much like to see it stay in Texas.  So it looks like TAPE, and Ms. "Off With His Head," will have to fight me in Texas.  As an earlier post has made clear, hostilities are bound to continue.  Only this time, no one outside of Texas will take up the fight.  They can no longer use private organizations to silence the truth.  Basically, it is between me, TAPE and Maria (who feels she is the voice of TAPE.  Is she?)

I'll say it again.  I will continue to fight for, fair, independent, and unbiased polygraph testing in Texas.  I will continue to fight against the high inconclusive rates we have seen in the past until I am sure those high inconclusive rates are in the past.  I will continue to be vocal about my stance against monopolies and anticompetitive behavior.  I will continue to be an advocate for the use of polygraph, within our own industry to handle situations like this, should they arise again.

At this point, everyone involved has a choice.  I say this because I know the examiners in Texas are reading this.  Either we can settle our differences, and move on, or we can keep this up until we destroy one another.  One thing that will no longer happen, I will not roll over any more.  The leash, and gloves are off.  You guys picked this fight with your stupidity in 2014.

Now that the fight is contained to Texas, it forces the examiners involved to do one of two things

1. Make peace, we all play nice and move on and make things in Texas better

or

2.  We can continue this, which is just bad for all of us.

One thing is clear from the past couple of years, the advice I've been getting, "Ignore them and they will go away," is not a viable option.  The only one who has shown a true desire to move on and let go, has been me.  This is clear from my period of silence from 2009 to 2014.  Both TAPE and Ms. Hubbard resurrected this feud, take some responsibility.  For once TAPE, step up and do the right thing. 

I will no longer assume this is over.  Doing so has only ended in more bolder and unwarranted attacks.   Either we all agree this is done, or I will assume that TAPE supports and condones, and supports the actions of its secretary; and that the actions of its secretary is reflective of the will and pleasure of the TAPE Board of Directors and Executive Committee. 

People have choices to make, because I am done being a doormat. 

As always my phone is on.  I suggest some people use it.

In any case, the NPA is out of this fight now.  So, it's now me vs Hubbard and TAPE.  The choice about if this continues beyond this is theirs

Joe McCarthy said:

Seriously Dan? So you want to take over a cult for what, to change it to the Dan theology and canon?

Not at all, Joe.

My goal is to smash the APA's virtual-reality protective bubble and get the organization in sync with modern values.

That means embracing such concepts as consumer protection (with a bill of rights for polygraph test subjects), realistic research (including an ongoing countermeasure challenge series), and ensuring equality (including political opportunity) for all APA members, regardless of their citizenship.

Is that so unreasonable?

The APA seems to have a history of living with its head in the sand.

Here's an example...

For fifteen years -- ten of them after the devastating NAS report in 2002-- the APA steadfastly claimed 98.6% accuracy for the "test."

Over the past few years, the APA has walked back their accuracy claims to 89% (single issue) and 85% (multiple issue).

In my opinion, those claims are likely exaggerated, having been concocted by pro-polygraph indu$triali$t$ from the APA's very own de facto in-house research department.

It's time for some independent oversight.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

The APA needs a swift kick in the ass.

Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 2:25pm:

That means embracing such concepts as consumer protection (with a bill of rights for polygraph test subjects), realistic research (including an ongoing countermeasure challenge series), and ensuring equality (including political opportunity) for all APA members, regardless of their citizenship.

No there are not unreasonable things.  Your bill of rights though, is redundant however; there are already rules in place which over ethical treatment of examinees.  I would like to see rules put in place to ensure examinees are not taken advantage of; for example, an examiner, or firm with high inconclusive rates.  I also feel that safeguards need to be put in place, with certain type of testing to prevent monopolistic markets.  These are real problems, at least they have been down here in Texas.  A market that is monopolized by one examiner or firm, opens that market up for abuse.  Because the only people checking behind us, are other examiners within that good ole boy network. 

Having said this, the APA has taken huge steps to address issues of antitrust.  I think it is important to step back and give them a chance to work that policy and at some point, maybe enhance it.  I think the problem is, state associations like TAPE are being allowed to run with no accountability to anyone.  Like schools, maybe state association need to be regulated, and babysat, by a parent organization so there is a string of accountability to nationally uniformed standards.  Organizations like TAPE have shown that they cannot be trusted to self police themselves, or even abide by their own bylaws.  i will agree, there needs to be more accountability in this industry; just not sure if you are going about it in the right way.

Dan you belong to the APA; you're a full member, with full rights.  Serve on a committee, or as a member of the Board of Directors. Show up to business meetings; debate and vote on the issues.  When I was at APA last year, they were asking me where you were, and why you don't come and debate issues there.  They want you, as a full member to be a part of the process.  Frankly, you don't want to be a part of the process, unless you can run the show; it doesn't work like that. It is impossible to run for mayor of a town, and win, if you don't show up to city council meetings and make yourself and your ideas politically known.  You don't do this.

Just like I will call them to the carpet, I will do the same to you.  You are squandering your power as a full member, and then complaining about it.

I, this year have made it known, I want to be a part of the process at NPA.  I did not see a need to change any of this year's officers, because I am seeing positive progress within the organization, and this makes me optimistic for the future. Messing up the momentum is counter productive.  I have however put my hat in the ring in other areas, in which, I hope to make small contributions, to make things better.  This way, when the time comes and I do run for office, people see it is for the right reasons.  Also,  in a well run, organization, no one person holds all the power.  No one wants to elect a usurper, or insurrectionist.  We talked about your political image Dan.  There is a faster path to the goal you seek, you simply choose not to take it. 

Huge steps have been taken within the past year, that I would have never thought would back in 2009.  Things are changing and moving forward, lets help that momentum. 

Before you can kick an ass, you have to put yourself into a position to do so. 

Anyway, I have a long drive home ahead of me my friend.  Have to go back to a truly hostile market.  Seriously Dan, I wish I had your problems for a month

My bill of rights concept is redundant?

There is nothing quite like it out there, especially points three, four, five, six and seven. Read it carefully, item by item.

Allow me to refresh your memory:

> I have taken a stab at drafting a list of items to be incorporated into "bill of rights." Here it is from a previous post...
>
>
> 1. Considerate and respectful treatment from the polygraph examiner throughout all phases of the polygraph process.
>
> 2. Knowledge of the name of the examiner who has primary responsibility for conducting the examination, and the names and professional relationships of other examines who may review the test for quality-assurance purposes.
>
> 3. Receive, if requested, a statement of qualifications of the examiner, including the number of exams they have run and their own success rate with those exams.
>
> 4. Receive, prior to the test, information on the technique to be used and citations (or abstracts) for peer-reviewed research that supports such technique.
>
> 5. Receive information, prior to the test, about polygraph theory and the testing process, accuracy estimates as determined by peer-reviewed research, and the prospects for error -- all in terms the subject can understand.
>
> 6. Receive, prior to the test, a complete (as possible) list of potential reasons for a false or inconclusive result, including instrument-related (hardware and software) variances that could skew results.
>
> 7. Receive, prior to the exam, as much information about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph testing -- including opposing views from respected academic and legal sources -- the subject may need in order to better give informed consent.
>
> 8. The right to refuse the exam, or halt the exam at any stage of the process.
>
> 9. The right to be advised as to the reason for the presence of any individual besides the examiner during any portion of the exam process.
>
> 10. Receive, if requested, a complete copy of the entire exam, including full-length continuous video, charts, work sheets, score sheets (manual), computerized scoring output, notes, and any background information supplied to the examiner.
>
> 11. Confidential treatment of all communications and records pertaining to the examination. Written permission shall be obtained before the polygraph records can be made available to anyone not directly concerned with the immediate case.
>
> 12. Mandatory video recording of the entire examination process.
>
>


Joe, if you think this draft bill of rights is redundant, I'm afraid that makes you the ne plus ultra of polygraph establishment Kool-Aid drinkers.

The last thing we need is more apologists.

Joe, let me see if I have the beef understood. You are not allowed to be a member of TAPE, and as a result your business opportunities are being limited?

Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 5:33pm:

3. Receive, if requested, a statement of qualifications of the examiner, including the number of exams they have run and their own success rate with those exams. 4. Receive, prior to the test, information on the technique to be used and citations (or abstracts) for peer-reviewed research that supports such technique. 5. Receive information, prior to the test, about polygraph theory and the testing process, accuracy estimates as determined by peer-reviewed research, and the prospects for error -- all in terms the subject can understand. 6. Receive, prior to the test, a complete (as possible) list of potential reasons for a false or inconclusive result, including instrument-related (hardware and software) variances that could skew results.

Dan,

#3 may be unrealistic; how would an examiner know his own success rate?

The others (#4 through #6) I think may be a bit much for the average examinee to process.

Dan,

#3 may be unrealistic; how would an examiner know his own success rate?

That's precisely the point -- examiners generally don't know what their accuracy is, especially when it comes to screening.

Would-be consumers of polygraph "testing" should be made aware of that egregious intellectual disconnect, otherwise they're pretty much steered into believing the inflated 98% field accuracy rate the APA peddled for lo those many years...

Sorry I been out of the loop.  I don't want anyone to think I am ignoring them or running from questions.  It was a long drive back from Vegas, and I do that drive all in one shot; which is exhausting.  I'm an old man and it takes me a few days to recover (aka sleep and rest)


Also, I been handling a death in the family, that occurred while I was in vegas, so had to emotionally reconcile with that too.  I am sure you understand.

Lastly, a new situation came up invoking parts of this issue.  I feel it would be unprofessional to address that particular issue here or anywhere outside of the few I have consulted, given it's highly personal nature.  Also, my personal ethics won't allow me to go into any detail about it, because I am still unclear as to the true nature of the situation.

OK, now the niceties are done.

Dan

> 1. Considerate and respectful treatment from the polygraph examiner throughout all phases of the polygraph process.


Yes, I think some examiners out there need to be reminded of this.  Having said that, this is already listed in the standards of practice in every reputable polygraph association.  Nonetheless, I will agree it is something we all need a reminder of, and only takes a second.


> 2. Knowledge of the name of the examiner who has primary responsibility for conducting the examination, and the names and professional relationships of other examines who may review the test for quality-assurance purposes.

I don't see this as unreasonable


> 3. Receive, if requested, a statement of qualifications of the examiner, including the number of exams they have run and their own success rate with those exams.

When you are talking success rate, I assume you mean DI/NDI/INC


> 4. Receive, prior to the test, information on the technique to be used and citations (or abstracts) for peer-reviewed research that supports such technique.

So, examinees are going to read stake of studies in the polygraph room?  Seriously?


> 5. Receive information, prior to the test, about polygraph theory and the testing process, accuracy estimates as determined by peer-reviewed research, and the prospects for error -- all in terms the subject can understand.

This is done already in pre-test.

> 6. Receive, prior to the test, a complete (as possible) list of potential reasons for a false or inconclusive result, including instrument-related (hardware and software) variances that could skew results.

Enlighten us dan, with empirical evidence, what are the reasons for false or inconclusive results? I will help out a little here

Inconclusive:  I would say, most of the time, inconclusive results are a direct result of "piss poor test."  I think we will be hard pressed to find any examiner who disagrees with that.  Well, unless you're asking some examiners, in a certain County in Texas. lol.  Other times, inconclusive can be caused by all kinds of outside factors; including but not limited to performance of countermeasures.  (I use the term No Opinion when I see or suspect countermeasures.) 


> 7. Receive, prior to the exam, as much information about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph testing -- including opposing views from respected academic and legal sources -- the subject may need in order to better give informed consent.


Information about limitations, I do not see as unreasonable.  However, I run a polygraph room, not a classroom.  Also, to assume people aren't already doing this, is silliness.  I do think we should be realistic, and I do talk to my examinees about limitations of the test already; as do other reputable examiners.


> 8. The right to refuse the exam, or halt the exam at any stage of the process.

It is against the law to run a polygraph, on a person who does not give consent to the process.  This is the most redundant thing on your list, Dan.  Also, it is a ethical violation of any polygraph association to test someone who does not consent to the process. 

You're barking up an empty tree on this one.


> 9. The right to be advised as to the reason for the presence of any individual besides the examiner during any portion of the exam process.

This is already covered in ethical provisions and polygraph law in any licensing state.


> 10. Receive, if requested, a complete copy of the entire exam, including full-length continuous video, charts, work sheets, score sheets (manual), computerized scoring output, notes, and any background information supplied to the examiner.


Nothing unreasonable here. 


> 11. Confidential treatment of all communications and records pertaining to the examination. Written permission shall be obtained before the polygraph records can be made available to anyone not directly concerned with the immediate case.

already covered in ethical standards and practices, and in the law, in licensing states.

> 12. Mandatory video recording of the entire examination process.

Totally agree with this one 100%


Some of this stuff is already covered, Dan.  So yes, it is redundant.  But if giving someone a piece of paper that lists it will make people feel all warm and fuzzy, I see no harm in it.  If we are doing things on the up and up, one more 30 to 90 second step in the process, doesn't slow things down that much.

Anyway, Dan, some of what you are asking for, is to make a polygraph room into a class room.  That is not wheat we are hear for.  Now it does no harm to tell the examinee  of the limitations, chances of false results, and inconclusive results.  Personally, I think we should be required to make our inconclusive results public, you know I have always felt that way. 

Some of the stuff you are talking about are good ideas, but you are going about getting them implemented in the wrong way. 

Also, Ray Nelson, keeps trying to address with you the study you were involved with some time ago.  I think, to be fair, you should address those questions too.  I am not an apologist; I am fair, independent, and unbiased.  The worst part about that for me, it makes me an unpopular person, on all sides of the issue.  The best part, everyone knows where I stand, and I can sleep at night.  Lastly, I tend to be way harder on myself than anyone else.   

Joe McCarthy wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 8:44pm:

Some of this stuff is already covered, Dan.  So yes, it is redundant.  But if giving someone a piece of paper that lists it will make people feel all warm and fuzzy, I see no harm in it.  If we are doing things on the up and up, one more 30 to 90 second step in the process, doesn't slow things down that much.

Joe, you still aren't getting it. The information specified in the bill of rights -- especially that explaining the risks, realities and limitations of the "test" -- should be provided to the would-be chump well in advance (i.e., weeks, or at least days) of the appointment.

Think of it this way... When a person goes in for elective surgery that can go really bad and result in life-changing negative effects (including death) --the doctors take steps to help ensure the patient knows the risks, realities and limitations of that surgical procedure well in advance. That way, the patient can better make a reasonably informed decision on whether to proceed.

This window of protection-oriented enlightenment and reflection isn't limited to medicine. For example, in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, anyone applying for a reverse mortgage has to abide by a mandatory "cooling off" period -- and this is after they've been given the green light as an informed and willing consumer by a state-approved credit counselor.

Considering how common a ruinous chain of events can follow a false result of the "test," polygraph shouldn't be any different.

Speaking as a polygraph examiner, consultant and myth buster, anyone contemplating taking the "test" would be well advised to heed the information provided in this article by the American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

Dan, I have yet to see a person say "golly gee whiz, joe, I can't wait to take a polygraph.  Are you sure you don't take walk-in's?"

No one goes into a polygraph willy-nilly, Dan; come on, be realistic yourself on that one.  Also, I am not in favor of making a polygraph a two session process.  I'm working hard enough keeping costs down, and prices competitive.  To make polygraph a two session process, as you are clearly suggesting with your "cool down" period, you are suggesting more time, and therefore higher prices.  Many people taking tests are strapped to start with. 

I am all for incoming examinees and full disclosure, and blagh blagh blagh.  But I am running a business also. 

I think my examinees are treated extremely well.  I also know other examiners who treat their people very well. 

Dan, what business model do you follow?

Lastly, you call yourself a polygraph examiner, but sometimes you seem to be more intent on destroying the industry.

This makes me ask you a question, I have asked in the past, just maybe not as blunt.

My gripe is pretty clear, and is isolated in the texas industry, for the most part.

Who pissed on your Wheaties though? 

I ask, because while my efforts seem very focused on fixing what is clearly wrong in Texas, you just seem to not want to fix things as you want to destroy things.  If polygraph is so inaccurate, why do you sell it?  it's a fair question.  Doesn't that make you as bad as the people you call, alchemists or charlatans?

Joe, I am a polygraph consultant.

How can telling the truth about the "test" make me a charlatan?

Dan, if I get Joe's point correctly, it's kind of like someone becoming an astrologist, while not believing in the zodiac.

Ex Member wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 8:00am:

Dan, if I get Joe's point correctly, it's kind of like someone becoming an astrologist, while not believing in the zodiac.

It would seem so to the believers, I suppose.

But it doesn't matter.

The polygraph profe$$ion fashions itself as being in line with mainstream thought. That's a twisted view, to say the very least.

The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the legal community at large, and the scientific community at large all condemn polygraph.

Polygraph is a counterculture pseudoscience, but the indu$try bigs (and their zombie-like followers) steadfastly cling to a rickety belief system that strains credulity -- as when the APA touted 98.6% accuracy for 15 years, 10 of them after the devastating NAS report.

Ark, I ask you: Where is the harm in telling people the truth about the "test"?

I was asking, how do you call others charlatans, when you yourself practice the same profession?

Also, Here you go again with the 96% stuff while avoiding the subject of the study you were involved with.  You do this every time.

And saying that I follow "mainstream thought," is laughable to anyone who knows what I have been though for the past 8 years; especially in the past 2

Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 11:49am:

Where is the harm in telling people the truth about the "test"?

No argument from me on that, but you are a bit of an enigma.

Ex Member wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 5:08pm:

Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 11:49am: Where is the harm in telling people the truth about the "test"? No argument from me on that, but you are a bit of an enigma.

And you are a bit of an apologist for the " test."

Actually, as I've stated before, I think the accuracy of the CQT is unknown, and most likely unknowable. I did not mean "enigma" as something bad; I proudly display my enigmatic credentials daily.

But Ark, in spite of the CQT's glaring deficiencies, you do believe it serves the greater good, right?

A very profound question Dan, even for an angel. I am still on the fence.

*Joe, by the way, sorry for your loss man. It's always hard to lose someone close to you.

Sometimes an angel's job is to sit on the fence; some of the best angels are "watchers."

Anyway, thanks Ark.  Everyone in the family knew it was coming, but it still doesn't prepare for the reality when the event happens; just wish the guy had better timing. Making hard decisions in the way of imminent loss of a family member is hard when you are on your way to a seminar, with a lot at stake. But expecting it made decisions easier.

Anyway, Dan has called me an apologist on so many occasions, I just brush it off now. 

Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 11:49am:

The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the legal community at large, and the scientific community at large all condemn polygraph. Polygraph is a counterculture pseudoscience, but the indu$try bigs (and their zombie-like followers) steadfastly cling to a rickety belief system that strains credulity -- as when the APA touted 98.6% accuracy for 15 years, 10 of them after the devastating NAS report. Ark, I ask you: Where is the harm in telling people the truth about the "test"?

Good point Dan.  In the realm of polygraph testing used in Federal, state and local employment vetting, even the most vocal opponents of the polygraph would cease to object if the instrument was truly used as a tool as it's supporters claim it is used.  I believe high ranking government officials have lied under oath when they tell Congressional oversight committees that the instrument is never used singularly as a cause for adverse personnel action. 

If a person indicates deception on a question pertaining to drug use, focus extra background investigation on the possibility that the person may be concealing drug use.  If nothing of significance is found, take no adverse action. 

The extraordinary inaccurate and lame excuse used by administrators is that the extra investigation is too expensive.  Leave it to bureaucrats to find an excuse that is impossible to prove or disprove.  Background investigators in the government are paid a salary.  How many of them spend 2 hours at lunch and 2 hours in the gym, on the clock, in any given work day ?  I have no doubt if people with souls and a conscience were running our executive agencies they would find ways to ensure every individual's hard earned honor and reputation were protected.  Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

Wandersmann wrote on Feb 10^th, 2016 at 6:39pm:

If a person indicates deception on a question pertaining to drug use, focus extra background investigation on the possibility that the person may be concealing drug use.  If nothing of significance is found, take no adverse action.

Sorry, that makes way too much sense.  Can you complicate that, to make it more administration friendly 

lol

Wandersmann, in my opinion, the polygraph game is rigged on so many levels it isn't even funny.

Here's but one example...

Last month I was contacted by a sexual offender who vociferously disputed the result of his directed-lie maintenance "test" and wanted an independent review.

I told him the directed-lie polygraph "test" was structurally weak, and that I knew of no field studies that spoke favorably of its efficacy in PCSOT applications.

The SO relayed my sentiments to the firm that conducted the "test," and further requested that I be allowed to conduct a full QA review of their work product.

However, the state-contracted bidness who administered the "test" refuses to release the aggrieved party's exam to me.

Why?

I can't say for sure, but I have a theory: They know (or have at least heard) I tell the truth about the "test" -- and that's something they'd rather not deal with.

It seems these APA acolytes are indeed "Dedicated to Truth" -- their truth.

Dan, it would have been interesting to see the results if you had offered to break-out the issue of concern on the maintenance exam into a focused 2 RQ single issue PL ZCT.

Ex Member wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 2:55am:

Dan, it would have been interesting to see the results if you had offered to break-out the issue of concern on the maintenance exam into a focused 2 RQ single issue PL ZCT.

Indeed, but given the opportunity, I would have conducted a MQTZCT exam. When a subject claims a prior test outcome is wrong, the "fear of error" and "hope of error" questions are most revealing. Sadly, we'll never know in this case.

I've read Matte extensively. The hope/fear concept is interesting. I see it as fear of a false positive, hope for a false negative. Maybe that's a bit too simplistic.

Yea, I am not a total fan of DL's, but I have sued them with successful results.  Basically for me, the jury is still out.  I want to see how well it performs in the field when compared with PL's a wee bit more. 

Having said that, the benefits of DL is there is less "selling" of the control, and it is a more honest approach.  I need more time to pick a side on that subject.  But, I also come from a school, where the mantra was, right tool for the right job.

I have had the same problem down here when it comes to people getting charts.  The examiner, 9 times out of 10, knows who will be seeing the charts, and therefore avoid turning them over like the black death.  Now, having said that, in the cases where I do see the charts, what those examiners don't realize, about 80% of the time, I see no fatal flaws in the test or charts. 

I do see minor mistakes, that we all make from time to time, that do not affect the outcome.  The biggest things I see that offends me is when I see video and see deplorable treatment of an examinee.  Of course this is opinion; I just think being a jackass to an examinee is unnecessary 99% of the time.  But that is just me.

I have seen some worrisome cases though; and as much as I would like to discuss those cases, ethically, I can't; of course.

You see this in any profession though, and bad behavior is not exclusive to the polygraph industry.

I have been careful to develop a reputation for being fair and unbiased; even to my detractors when looking at their charts.  That is what fair and unbiased means, it means fairness to even the people who hate me, and frankly I hate right back.

I even had to stand up for the usurper on a few occasions, one time recently.  Pained me to do so, but fair and unbiased means that.  I do my best to be square in my actions professionally, and treat people, on the same level.  Sometimes, I am obligated to do so. 

Dan I think the problem that other examiners have with you QCing work, is you don't put off an air of being fair an unbiased.  If you look hard enough at anything, you will find something wrong.  Even if that one thing did noting to taint the outcome of an exam.  I am not saying that you do this; but I am sure it is the perception people have when they see an examiner with, what seems to be, 100% hostility to the test and the profession as a whole.

In the end, can you blame them?

Oh and the hope/fear concept is very interesting indeed

Try as I will, despite the laboratory studies , I am not comfortable with assuming that an innocent examinee would show more reaction to a DLQ than a juxtaposed RQ, especially with something at stake.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 3:33am:

Dan I think the problem that other examiners have with you QCing work, is you don't put off an air of being fair an unbiased.  If you look hard enough at anything, you will find something wrong.  Even if that one thing did nothing to taint the outcome of an exam.  I am not saying that you do this; but I am sure it is the perception people have when they see an examiner with, what seems to be, 100% hostility to the test and the profession as a whole. In the end, can you blame them?

Yes, I can blame them.

Let's get real.

If the "test" has scientific construct validity, and the polygraph operator's methodology and professionalism are at an appropriately high level, they should have nothing to fear from a QA review -- regardless of who does it, or that person's attitudes as perceived by the others.

From what I've seen, "buddy system" QA reviews are all too common in the polygraph rackets.

Does that mean the fix is in?

One has to wonder.

No the fix isn't in, well in my case anyway.  If I get charts from lawyers are other clients, I will stand up for those who hate me, and I will rip people who like me to shreds.  To me, it's not the person, it's the method, approach, and data.  I can't say the same for my detractors though.

I have even had one of my detractors hand over charts to a lawyer, knowing I would be the one to look at them.  Because, they knew I would call it how I see it, regardless of personal issues.

Am I saying the good ole boy system doesnt exist in QC?  I'd be a liar if I say it didn't.  What I am saying, is if you want to be trusted to be independent and unbiased, you may want to play the role.  We talked about this privately, and you know me, I would never say anything here, that I have not said or would not say directly.  The stance you take here is very biased, and you don't exactly take a step back all the time and look at the big picture. 

I know, one can make the argument of the teapot and the kettle; but if you look back, even to my earlier posts, you will see where I am a lot more unbiased when it comes to method, approach, and data, than most.

And if we are going to talk professionalism, equating polygraph to believing in santa, but taking money to look at charts, is not exactly a good start either.  If it's all BS, why not save the person some bucks, toss the charts aside and tell them, "paying to have someone look at santa's fictitious roadmap is a waste of money."  Wouldn't that be more professional than taking money to look at charts you think have no value at all?

just playing Devil's Advocate

Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:31am:

If the "test" has scientific construct validity

The CQT does not.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:03am:

If it's all BS, why not save the person some bucks, toss the charts aside and tell them, "paying to have someone look at santa's fictitious roadmap is a waste of money."

Excellent point. But, then again, people have a right to make a living.

I would never deny anyone to make a living.  Actually, looking at that, it was not a totally honest statement.  Let me re-phrase

There are a few people, I wish I had the power to keep from making a living as polygraph examiners.  Dan, believe it or not, is not one of those people.

Anyway, The statement was made in the following context.  It just seems more honest, to not even score charts you think are worthless.  If they are indeed, fairy tales, why get paid for interpreting them?

Give you a great example.  I HATE INFIDELITY TESTING!!!!!!  Let me actually expand on that a wee bit.  I hate it when people call me out of the blue for testing like that, who have not seen a marriage therapist.  If it is a reference from a therapist, whole diff ball game. 

Anyway, when I get the calls form the blue, I tell them, every time, that their money is better spent on a therapist, or a lawyer.  I refuse to make appointments for these people, because I think polygraph will not help their situation.  If I feel polygraph won't help them, I do not make the appointment, and I will not take money. 

I have also had calls from people who have had tests done, and want a chart review.  Again, I have, and will continue to turn these people away.  I don't think the test is appropriate for those cases, unless the test is requested by a therapist.  I feel money should be better spent helping the situation over making things worse.

Basically, I practice what I preach. 

If you are going to equate polygraph to believing in Santa, charging money to QC tests, is akin to me Charging someone money to look for a pot o'gold at the end of the rainbow, simply because I am Irish. 

It is more of a rhetorical question I presented, but if I know Dan, and he is a good friend and someone I trust, Dan will give an interesting and, no doubt, colorful answer.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 7:26am:

It just seems more honest, to not even score charts you think are worthless.  If they are indeed, fairy tales, why get paid for interpreting them?

It's simple. Whatever a reviewing examiner thinks about the validity of the "test" is immaterial. The request for a review is usually driven by forces outside of the third-party examiner-client relationship. As Krapohl said, polygraph is BS (Belief System) oriented. Consequently, as I often say, the value of a polygraph "test" is strictly in the eyes of the beholder.

Regarding fidelity polygraphs...  I reject (or successfully discourage) such "testing" over 90% of the time. The remaining cases proceed only after a mandatory two-hour consultation with the couple in person -- in which I spell out the risks, realities and limitations of the "test" -- that precedes the actual exam by a period of weeks if not months.

But well before any appointment for any exam is made with any would-be client, I make clear these inconvenient truths:

o Polygraph "testing" has no proven scientific basis

o The absolute accuracy of polygraph "testing" is unknown and likely unknowable

o Accuracy claims made by polygraph associations are likely exaggerated [I cite the APA's 15-year claim of 98.6% field accuracy, which they've since walked back.]

o Studies touting flattering polygraph accuracy are often, if not usually, connected to re$earcher$ with past or present connections to polygraph instrument manufacturers

o A polygraph "test" can be beaten (or at least confounded) by following relatively simple instructions freely available on the internet

Bottom line: The "test" is a crap shoot.

OK, if the test is indeed a crapshoot and can be easily manipulated, why, I wonder were the texas examiners o adamant about avoiding the test to get rid of me, once and for all; as I have offered in the past?

If it is so easy to beat, you'd think they know how, and if the didn't do anything, that would make it twice as easy to pass, right?

Got to admit Dan, it took some balls to stand up and offer to sit for the test myself as long as they did as well.  Anyway, if it can be beat so easy, why did the texass examiners jump on it?

Joe McCarthy wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:56pm:

Got to admit Dan, it took some balls to stand up and offer to sit for the test myself as long as they did as well.

No, I don't have to admit any such thing.

Your offer seems to be rooted in your own blind faith in the "test," and as such was a bonehead move.

Polygraph is biased against the truthful. Only the most devout of Polygraph Scientology Kool-Aid drinkers would sit for the "test" with everything at stake.

Count yourself lucky they didn't take you up on it.

Such a stunt could have blown up in your face.

I have to admit Dan is the one with the balls. Dan I'm curious to know how much of a following you have in the APA. Me thinks you don't get too many Christmas cards from that lot.

Ex Member wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 12:27am:

Dan I'm curious to know how much of a following you have in the APA.

Ark, I could easily drop a half-dozen names of well-known  polygraph professionals that would surely stun a lot of rank-and-file APA loyalists, but lets review some numbers instead...

The APA has nearly 3,000 members. Of that total, only about 500 bother to vote in APA elections.

When I ran for president-elect in 2014, I received 15% of the vote.

When I ran for president-elect in 2015, I received 28% of the vote.

In this year's race for that office, I expect to get 40% of the vote, and clinch the post in 2017.

Based on the backchannel support I've personally received, my core constituency includes two of the fastest-growing categories of the APA membership: international members and women.

I am least popular with the older white male APA establishment types, but those blowhards don't have the influence they used to.

My sense is that more and more APA members have an open mind and a realistic attitude about the "test." It seems an increasing number of those progressives, as I call them, are sick of the usual cadre of indu$try-insider re$earcher$, home-grown validity studies, and make-believe science.

My three-point platform of consumer protection (to curtail polygraph victimization), independent research with oversight (to include an ongoing countermeasure challenge series), and equality for APA members is steadily gathering momentum.

Does that help to answer your question?

Yes, thanks for those details. I still find it perplexing that people would be in an organization advocating something they perceive as less than genuine.

Ark, when I joined the APA in 2004, its primary goal, as stated directly below the organization's mission statement, was this:

Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons

Those words have always struck a chord with me, and that goal had been in place for decades.

But last year, the evidenced-based hipsters who run the APA -- and manage the current narrative -- chose to abandon that most noble guiding principle, scrubbing it from the APA web site.

It seems the illuminati who run the APA dog-and-pony show have chosen to take their act in a bold new direction.

Clearly, their values are not my values.

Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:55pm:

Your offer seems to be rooted in your own blind faith in the "test," and as such was a bonehead move. Polygraph is biased against the truthful. Only the most devout of Polygraph Scientology Kool-Aid drinkers would sit for the "test" with everything at stake. Count yourself lucky they didn't take you up on it. Such a stunt could have blown up in your face

LOL, only a couple of Massholes could get away with talking to one another like this.  I have to admit, I wouldn't let anyone else get away with it. Sometimes I wish you were in Texas; we'd keep them on their toes and keep em guessing.

No, Dan, that offer for the test went exactly the way I predicted it would.  Even if they did take the offer, I have no fear of the test. 

Ex Member wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 2:55am:

*Raymond, by the way, where I can learn about Ipsative-Z as it applies to scoring?

Raymond,
Maybe you didn't notice this question. It was sincerely asked. Do you have a published paper on this? I'd like to learn more.

I am always amused when the Ipsative-z result of OSS3  is opposite that of traditional scoring options within OSS3.

is there anyone  fighting in government at this time for taking away the mandatory polygraphs.  they are no chances of anyone surviving a charge with polygraphs having a 80/20 chance of passing.  you will almost be assured of failing at some points. If so i want to get involved who do you contact.  the sex offender program in texas is really screwed up.

It's a very long story. I suggest you start here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8NIOGgLPlk

Contact me privately if you desire more information about polygraph "testing."

Mandatory polygraph isn't going anywhere.  The system, as it was designed, works.  Now there is a key term here, "as it was designed." 

That is the problem.  Like many things, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  The system in Texas is not run, as it was designed.  It is run in such a way, that the sex offender polygraph industry is widely unregulated by the state or by responsible overseers. 

The Texas PCSOT industry is pretty much run by JPCOT.  JPCOT is run, primarily by The Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners.  They will deny this, but I have evidence that puts their denials in the garbage can, in the form of their own newsletters, emails and their actions. 

Maybe this will be the subject matter of the next video. 

Bottom line.  The industry is corrupt to the core, in Texas and at its highest levels.  When you are told that "you have to go to this examiner, or else, I would be very suspicious about that.  Especially if that examiner or office is that of Richard Wood.  Sorry Richard, no one should trust an office of "experienced examiners" that had a 45% inconclusive rate, at any time, and made no public recognition of it, or announced any corrective actions to fix whatever the problem was; though I can only think of two reasons why someone could ever have a 45% inconclusive rate.  Either

A, you suck that bad

or

B, you were double dipping.

Even notice that they never challenge me on that inconclusive rate number?  As yourself.  Why is that?  After all, if I am lying, this is libel.  Is it not?

The reason why they won't challenge me, is because it is the truth and I can prove it with their own admissions.

Anyway, you want the truth about what goes on here in Texas, I am the guy to ask.

Joe, let's get real.

When it comes to PCSOT, an inconclusive rate of 45% is not all that unreasonable.

Why is that, you ask?

Because polygraph "testing" can be easily thwarted by following simple instructions freely available on the internet.

FACT: A significant percentage of SOs know how to beat the polygraph "test".

And even if they don't beat the "test" outright, an inconclusive result is still win of sorts for the SO.

As for allegations of double dipping, that's another matter.

In my opinion, PCSOT is a vehicle that's most rife for racketeering. Thus, evidence of commercially motivated abuse of the cloaked-in-righteousness PCSOT "test" would not surprise me.

So...maybe you're right, Joe.

But remember, a lot of SOs can beat the "test" like a drum -- or at least generate an inconclusive result.

Mek, you have no idea just how messed up it is.  Sadly, no one cares, and as such, there is little that can be done to mix it, because no one is checking behind us, and the foxes are running the henhouse.

As for Dan.

There is not a lot you and I agree with, but we agree on some strong issues.  One of them is the financial underhandedness of the PCSOT business in Texas

PCSOT is mainly about money, so things will get very interesting when the EyeDetect forces start bidding on PCSOT contracts.

Compared to polygraph, EyeDetect is way faster, much cheaper, and can be run by a technician with minimal training.

Learn more here: http://converus.com/corrections/

They said that about vsa too. 

Looking at their web site, I see a few potential problems.  If you think polygraph has it's problems with abuse, if this catches on, it will be an opening of pandora's box of abuse.

I agree with you, In the state of Texas (I can't and won't speak for other places, because I have no basis to make opinions on other states and how they are run) it has become a money generator.  If one were so inclined, it is easy to rig the system to make more money and go unchecked. 

I say this, because here is a FACT.  In the State of Texas, no one is checking behind us, people.  This is one of the reasons why I teach lawyers how to score charts.  I have offered to teach probation and parole departments how to score charts too.  This keeps us, as polygraph examiners accountable, and honest. 

I encourage lawyers to ask for charts and encourage probation and parole officers to want to see charts as well, in cases where the result maybe in doubt.  For instance, Tarrant County CSCD, may want to start reviewing charts themselves.  This will keep examiners in their program honest, as there seems to have been a problem in the past. 

Honestly, and here is my advise for people.  If you hear the word "inconclusive," hire a lawyer and get the charts.  Examiners in Texas are very apprehensive to give up charts or allow a insight review of charts by an independent examiner; you have to force them.  The only way to do that, is through a lawyer. 

In Texas, the word, inconclusive, should be a huge red flag.  When I went to polygraph school, my instructor would say, inconclusive is just another word for piss poor test, note often than not.  I agree with that assessment.

Now having said all that.  Here is another warning for Texas examinees.  PCSOT in Texas is largely unregulated.  If an examiner does something outside of standards, they are almost 100% of the time totally unaccountable.  There is no organization for which you can file a complaint; this, in my opinion is by design.  More on this later.

This is why I am trying to get TDLR to ask Texas lawmakers, to take PCSOT out of the hands of the industry, and into the hands of regulation and licensing, TDLR.  Also to pass laws that anyone properly licensed can perform these tests without interference.  The monopolies, and appearances of impropriety that exist in the PCSOT community have to end to retain credibility of the program.  Again more on this later

Oh and I know the examiners in Texas will say something like, "we have independent quality control, encouraged through TAPE." 

Think about this, they all protect one another and have done do for years.  Also, it violates their bylaws to become adversarial to one another for any reason.  TAPE flagrantly violates it's own bylaws on a regular basis, when the bylaws don't benefit them at the time.  Lastly, the current president, is one of the people who owns that 45% inconclusive ret at Richard Wood and Associates.  So yea, go ahead and trust quality control, with an organization run by someone how has had massive problems with quality of product and quality control in the past. 

Bottom line, most examiners, (not all) in Texas avoid, truly independent quality control like the black death. 

Ex Member wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 12:27am:

I have to admit Dan is the one with the balls. Dan I'm curious to know how much of a following you have in the APA. Me thinks you don't get too many Christmas cards from that lot.

and probably even fewer bearing the ZIP code, "20505" !  lol :D

xenonman wrote on Aug 31^st, 2016 at 2:11pm:

Ex Member wrote on Feb 12th, 2016 at 12:27am: I have to admit Dan is the one with the balls. Dan I'm curious to know how much of a following you have in the APA. Me thinks you don't get too many Christmas cards from that lot. and probably even fewer bearing the ZIP code, "20505" !  lol :D

Using the past two election cycles of the American Polygraph Association as a guide, my following for the office of president-elect among the APA's active electorate is a solid 25 percent.

In other words, at least one out of four of the aforementioned members supports my platform of a bill of rights for polygraph test subjects, a countermeasure challenge series, and equality for APA members regarding educational and political opportunities.

BTW, I chose not to actively campaign this year. The reason: I lost a lot of heart when attempts to arrange an internet debate with my opponent were flatly stonewalled. Seems like some establishment honchos wanted the fix to be in -- or at least discourage a public exchange of the issues that plague the polygraph indu$try.

From my perspective, some of those troubling issues include the half-baked science behind the "test", advocacy research conducted by indu$try insiders, rampant polygraph victimization, and a "professional" organization (the APA) whose membership is mainly tradespeople -- i.e., polygraph operators without a bachelor's degree (or higher).

Perhaps the APA should change their motto from "Dedicated to Truth" to "Dedicated to the Almighty Buck."

Dan Mangan wrote on Aug 31^st, 2016 at 2:35pm:

xenonman wrote on Aug 31st, 2016 at 2:11pm: Ex Member wrote on Feb 12th, 2016 at 12:27am: I have to admit Dan is the one with the balls. Dan I'm curious to know how much of a following you have in the APA. Me thinks you don't get too many Christmas cards from that lot. and probably even fewer bearing the ZIP code, "20505" !  lol :D Using the past two election cycles of the American Polygraph Association as a guide, my following for the office of president-elect among the APA's active electorate is a solid 25 percent. In other words, at least one out of four of the aforementioned members supports my platform of a bill of rights for polygraph test subjects, a countermeasure challenge series, and equality for APA members regarding educational and political opportunities. BTW, I chose not to actively campaign this year. The reason: I lost a lot of heart when attempts to arrange an internet debate with my opponent were flatly stonewalled. Seems like some establishment honchos wanted the fix to be in -- or at least discourage a public exchange of the issues that plague the polygraph indu$try. From my perspective, some of those troubling issues include the half-baked science behind the "test", advocacy research conducted by indu$try insiders, rampant polygraph victimization, and a "professional" organization (the APA) whose membership is mainly tradespeople -- i.e., polygraph operators without a bachelor's degree (or higher). Perhaps the APA should change their motto from "Dedicated to Truth" to "Dedicated to the Almighty Buck."

I always regret doing this; but being fair, independent, and unbiased, in in an industry where that should be the order of the day, is like poising one self in a dark suit.  It goes you a warm feeling, but no one really notices.  Now all humor aside.

Dan, with all due respect, you did some avoiding too. 

Both sides are avoiding having a truth discussion about the issues.  Both sides want to have their discussion about the issues, not a discussion about the issues.

Just my independent and unbiased take.

Joe, I seriously doubt the APA wants anything to do with a public discussion that includes the truth about the real-world accuracy of the "test".

As I've said many times before, polygraph is mainly about one thing -- money.

Meanwhile, the APA boasts this claim, as posted on their web site: APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent.

I don't entirely disagree, and you know that.  If anyone knows that money is a huge factor in the PCSOT market, it's me.  Live my hell for a year, then you will have come thing to complain about. 

Because people just don't know when to not kick a sleeping dog, I have been more vocal, again, as of late.

Also, because I have to prepare for yet another inevitable battle with these people, I started looking through what I have started to call my , J Edgar Hoover, files.  While going though all these documents, and scanning them so they can be electronically distributed and published, should anything happen to me in the future, (NOTE: the picture of my car outside my office, posted by someone I can only assume, is from the Texas Polygraph Industry,  still has me very security conscious and vigilant) I came across a very interesting document that was buried in a folder labeled, "other discovery."

It appears to be some sort of internal document from the old Texas Polygraph Examiners Board. According to the fax header; and the transmission of this fax was December 21, 2007. 

I'll just drop this here, let anyone read it who wants to, and then discuss.  This document does bring up a lot of interesting questions, and should make for some interesting discussion. 

---

Joe, this soap opera is going on ten years. It's time for you to let it go.

The nativist Texan polygraph indu$try bastards won.

The outcast Masshole Irish dumbass lost.

Yes, the Texas system might be rigged.

If so, you're right; they're wrong.

So what. It's bidne$$.

You can't change it.

Move on.

I have.

Ok, I'll find another way to work it out.

You're right, this has lost it's effectiveness. 

What they do seems to work, maybe I'll start there.

Thanks Dan

Joe, when I said "move on," I meant in a philosophical, work-related or geographical sense.

I did not mean that it's time to change how you're fighting your war.

That war is over.

They won, you lost.

It's time to get over it.

Looking ahead, it appears you have three options:

1. Accept defeat and continue operating in your current capacity.

2. Change occupations, so you are removed from the oppression you are experiencing.

3. Move somewhere with a friendlier business climate.

Stop wasting your time and energy on a fruitless endeavor. Life is too short.

Dan, a line was crossed that can not be ignored, or go unanswered.


"I hate them for making hate necessary, and I'll do what I can to end it."
Michael Collins

Nuff said

Things didn't turn out so well for Michael Collins.

Ugh, they have physically threatened me a few times, including Maria personally threatening me and then running way, to see refuge in the crowd.  Cowards will be cowards, I guess. 

Anyway, if any of them actually tried to follow up the threats, I would actually have a small amount of respect for them; but like many bullies, they only time they are brave is when they can do as they please, and run, to hide behind the protection of others while pretending to be the victims. 

It's become very clear to me, their threats are little more than a form of trolling.  They are hoping that people in Polygraph Place are right, and I will snap.  I often wonder if people are disappointed that I haven't and won't. 

The Texas polygraph establishment can talk a good game, but they lack substance, credibility, or courage.

You say that I have lost; and for the bigger part of the picture, I agree.  However, there are a few areas, where I was able to correctly predict their behavior, and as such, they have handed me clear victories.  That is the great thing about the arrogant and corrupt, they're predictable.

From the first time TAPE and those within the Texas polygraph establishment said that my accusations were lies, one of my main goals was to prove their accusation false. 

I have done that.  I submit to you that the actions, or lack thereof, of TAPE, Maria, and other individuals, all but proves that what they say about me, or what I have accused them of, cannot be believed or trusted.  As such, in my opinion, they have no or little credibility.

When I was seeking out the advice of examiners, outside the state of Texas, mostly officers from other polygraph associations, everyones continued suggestion to deal with these people?  "Joe take it to court." 

Well, I can tell you from experience, being a plaintiff in a lawsuit sucks ass; it is also very expensive. Me taking them to court, simply was not a financial option for me.

However, when all this started up in 2014 again, and TAPE hired a Lawyer, he threatened to sue me for libel, slander and fraud.  After I had a friend look at the case, and my supporting evidence, backing up my claims.  It was decided that my response to this lawyer should be, and I believe it was, and I quote, "I look forward to seeing you in court, I'll bring the coffee and donuts." 

My lawyer advised me, that the best defense to a libel and slander lawsuit, is the truth. Let TAPE, Maria and everyone else sue you. 

With them bringing the lawsuit, the burden of proof that I am lying is on them.  As I don't file for summery judgment or a dismissal, chances are very good that it will go to trial. 

I am sure they were also told that they would leave themselves open to discovery, and to public cross examination.  Also, what they claim are lies, like that TAPE forced me to resign my membership under odious and unethical circumstances, would be subject to scrutiny and cross examination. 

Yup, I agreed with members of both the APA and NPA leadership.  If the APA won't or can't deal with this situation, lets handle it in court.  Being sued gives me exactly what I wanted in 2008, my day in court, where I would be given an opportunity, on public record, to show just how awful these people are, and how this industry in Texas needs to be reeled in and fixed. 

Sounds like a plan to me.  Again, My response to their lawyer was, "I look forward to seeing you in court. I'll bring the coffee and donuts."

Fast forward from October 13, 2014 to today, 2016. 

I'm still waiting. 

Why haven't I been sued?  Because I am telling the truth, and the best defense to a libel and slander lawsuit, is the truth. They just won't do it, because they can't prove that the things I'm saying are lies.  They also know, that I can prove that what I am saying is the truth.

If I was lying, I have no doubt in my mind, that lawyer along with Wood's lawyer would have sued me, and taken my ass to the cleaners.  They have the resources. 

But you can't sue someone for libel and slander, if they are telling the truth.  Well..... Ya can..... It's just a really bad idea. 

There is no ambiguity, I have told the truth about what is happening in Texas, as well as about TAPE, Maria, and the rest of the round up gang. 

The leaders on the national and world wise stage, feel the Texas issue should be handled in court.  I agree, TAPE's lawyer clearly agreed this should go to court to.  TAPE and the people involved promised to sue me if I kept going, yet here we are.  Two years later, and I am still waiting.  What's holding them back, the truth?  Ya, I can see where that is an inconvenient snag. 

Basically, they said that they would meet me at the flag pole after school, and they didn't show. 

Besides, they like a kangaroo court over a court of law.  Isn't that right Maria, Stuart Ervin, Jack St. John, Andy Shepherd, and the rest of the round up gang? 

And you all can be as mad at me as you want, because you're looking in the wrong direction.  Want to be angry at someone, slap Maria with a news paper, put a leash on her, and put her in her crate. 

If you people don't get her under control, eventually she is going to screw up where you people will be expected to answer for her.  As an officer of TAPE, her actions are a direct reflection of TAPE and it's membership.  Like it or not, that is how it is.

TAPE's leadership is either unable or unwilling to enforce its bylaws or restrain a member when necessary.  I suspect, given TAPE's current leadership makeup, Maria's behavior is not only condoned, but encouraged.  I have yet to see evidence otherwise.

The most important way I won though. 

I have offered, clear and convincing evidence, that the leadership and establishment of The Texas Polygraph Industry, including the current President and Vice President of TAPE, Maria Hubbard and Clayton Wood, are afraid of the very product that they sell and promote.

They either know they will be caught in their lies, or they don't believe in the accuracy and reliability of polygraph enough to trust their own lives to the result of a polygraph.

To think, they expect others to pay them top dollar, and trust their lives to them and the test is repugnant to my sensibilities.  Talk about misplaced trust. Wow, anyone who takes a test with these examiners are fools. 

The Texas consumer has won too.  Because they now know about the biggest embarrassment, or what should be the biggest embarrassment of the Texas Polygraph Industry and Establishment. 

I speak here of the *45% inconclusive rate of Richard Wood and Associates. A firm that the current President of TAPE has worked for since he has been licensed. He is also partial owner of the above mentioned, 45% inconclusive rate. 

Think about that for a minute.  That means almost half the time, the examiners at Richard Wood and Associates  couldn't tell if someone was deceptive or non deceptive. 

What did you say at that one TAPE meeting in Fort Worth Richard?  "I did nothing worng."  Wasn't that what you said?  Well, you got 90% of the business, almost half the time you and your people couldn't tell the truth from a lie, and to put icing on the cake, a sex offender was beating more than one your tests.  I know this, because I caught what you missed. 

In any other industry, you'd be out of business with piss poor results like that.

To think you people are the preferred polygraph examiner in Tarrant County?  Wow, Tarrant County could do better.  They did once, but they ran their best examiner in the county off because you couldn't handle the competition.

I would say that, if you put my product up against the product of Richard Wood and Associates, I am clearly the better choice; but the fact that I have never had an inconclusive rate of 45%, makes my case kinda obvious. 

Am I lying? Sue me.  I saved all the discovery, and can prove that 45% number. 

The people of Tarrant County should ask themselves a question.  Was corrective action taken by the county to make sure the poor performance in polygraphing the county's convicted sex offenders 's at Richard Wood and Associates?  To the best of my knowledge, no. 

In fact, no one, including TAPE seemed very disturbed by this number at all.  Is there still a chance that there is still a large inconclusive rate at Richard Wood and Associates, I guess we will never know. 

The State of Texas does not require polygraph examiners to report inconclusive rates.  In fact, while the State of Texas does regulate polygraph, it does not regulate the Sex Offender polygraph Industry.

So anyone who has any issues of tests being run outside of standard, or in a way that is unethical, you have no one to complain to.  This is the way they like it in the State of Texas. 

With no licensing authority looking over their shoulders in the sex offender testing industry, examiners can do as they wish; and they will get way with it. Because the foxes are watching the hen house. 

Consumers also need to know that, no one is checking behind us independently in Texas.  In most, if not all, cases, QC is done by other examiners in TAPE.  Sometimes QC is done by another examiner, in the same office.  Given the documented history of the ,good ole boy system,  what are the chances those reviews will be independent and unbiased?

The Texas Polygraph Establishment is corrupted at its highest levels.  The Texas Sex Offender Polygraph Industry is broken at a fundamental level, and has been since 2008.  It is unregulated, and examiners can frankly do as they please, with no regulatory accountability or consequence. 

My advice to every polygraph consumer paying for his or her own test.  At the end of the test, demand the charts.  You paid for the test, you have a right to those charts, and it only takes a minute to print them.  If you go to Richard Wood and Associates, or are forced to go there, and you fail or come up inconclusive, DON'T LEAVE WITHOUT YOUR CHARTS AND QUESTION LIST. 

Do have your charts reviewed by an independent examiner of your choice.  Do demand the ability to retest with an independent examiner of your choice.  If polygraph is so standardized, an examiner who is properly licensed should be able to handle the test, so long as they follow the standards. 

Do get a lawyer. 

If you are being charged with a crime, do not take the DA's test or the police test, without the advice of an attorney. 

If you think your husband of wife is cheating, take that money and get a family therapist or a divorce attorney.  Polygraph is not going to save your marriage.  Pass or fail, it will only create more distrust. 

Remember, Fenian Polygraph Services is always happy to take a look at charts, at no cost.  Just know, no matter what my issues are with one examiner or the other, if they did it right, I'll defend them. 

If any of the examiners has a problem with anything I said or anything I said was libelous or slanderous, sue me.  I'll bring the donuts and coffee.   

So yea, while they win because they have DA's, some of the CSCD's, and other authorities duped. The Texas Polygraph Industry has leaders of questionable integrity and possibly questionable skills. 

Also the leadership in the Texas Polygraph Industry has a credibility problem, when they talk about accuracy and reliably of the test.  Their credibility should also be in question with the consumer.  Why should someone by a product from someone who refuses to use the product themselves.

But yes, I have lost in regard to revenue.  Having said that, if the Texas market were I level playing field, i would be making a lot more money, and some examiners would be put out to pasture, where as others would just be out. 

Given a choice, I'll take my integrity over money any day of the week, and never look back.  I worry about the integrity of the test, the consumer, and then the integrity of the industry.  I only wish that TAPE and it's leadership did the same.

As God as my witness, I will fix what is wrong in Texas,  because silence and capitulation has not worked.  If I'm going to be continuously attacked, I might as well give them a reason to do it.

Saddle up buckaroos
 

Joe McCarthy wrote on Dec 4^th, 2016 at 1:37pm:

If you think your husband of wife is cheating, take that money and get a family therapist or a divorce attorney.  Polygraph is not going to save your marriage.  Pass or fail, it will only create more distrust.

Joe, if polygraph is as accurate as you think it is -- you continually offer to stake your career on a polygraph challenge to TAPE, after all --then why should the outcome of a so-called fidelity test create more distrust?

You have articulated a double standard.

Do your PCSOT polygraph outcomes create more distrust?

Do your LEPET polygraph outcomes create more distrust?

Do your criminal-case polygraph outcomes create more distrust?

Either the specific-issue CQT polygraph result is trustworthy or it isn't.

Please explain why only "some" polygraph outcomes should be considered reliable, and why fidelity-test outcomes are uniquely untrustworthy.

Because couples are petty and distrustful.

If the accused passes, they often feel resentful of having to take the test. 

If the accused fails, well, self explanatory, shit hits the fan.

Someone is wrong, and someone is right, and neither side will ever let the other forget it.  You been married long enough to know at least that. 

I never said it's not accurate or less accurate. I feel the test was accurate enough to bet my future on; unlike some of my competition in Texas. 

I just feel that a therapist is a more useful tool to resolve those issues than a polygraph.  If it has gone too far for a therapist to help, how does one think a polygraph will be any better?

Clearly something is not good enough for someone, and lets face it, people are, by nature horrible. 

A person is kind, rational and reasonable; but people; are horrible, hateful, vindictive, and mistrustful; and you know it.

Come on Dan, you've been married and have seen enough people get divorce to know this.  It's life 101.

Nice try though bro in putting words in my mouth, better luck next time.   

I'll say it again, in case you missed it.  Polygraph is accurate and reliable enough, that I offered to sit, for my own test, publicly, and bet my license and future on the result.  You don't get more of a product endorsement than that.

I said polygraph wouldn't fix a marriage, when people already hate and are mistrustful of one another.  (I stand by that)  What I didn't say, was that infidelity was inaccurate or unreliable.

Got to brush up on your reading comprehension bro.

If you want someone to join your inaccurate and unreliable bandwagon, go to the next TAPE meeting.  You'll find lots of people there who are petrified of the test.  Start with Maria Hubbard.

Hey, she would know a lot about the infidelity thing too....... Ya know, being a "specialist" in infidelity and all...... I mean she has it all over her website.

Joe, let's put the tortured dynamics of personality aside.

The APA says a specific-issue polygraph "test" is 90+% accurate. Do you agree?

Is there any reason to believe that said accuracy would be less for fidelity polygraph "tests"?

Please see previous answer.  While I hate polygraph examiners here in Texas, and hate the corruption that is allowed to occur down here, as people turn a blind eye to some of the  PCSOT examiners down here being no better than pre EPPA examiners, (they know who they are) I do not hate what I do for a living. 

And again the communications process has broken down.  I am not one of those examiners who touts an accuracy rate and then don't follow it up with action.  To this day, I'm the only examiner to have publicly offed to not only sit for the very test I sell, but I also bet my entire career on the results of that polygraph. 

If that makes me an idiot, it makes me an idiot with integrity; and I will wear that as a badge of honor on my sleeve. 

If you are looking to attack the integrity, reliably, and accuracy of the test, lets call on Maria Hubbard, Richard Wood, Clayton Wood, Andy Sheppard, Stuart Ervin, Jack St John, and others involved with the 2008 lawsuit and 2009 TAPE ethics committee and Board of Directors. 

They are the ones who seem to possibly have a problem with the accuracy and reliability of the test.  Either that, or they believe in the test like I do, and they don't want to get caught in their lies.  There really is no third option. 

As for your very interesting and misguided belief that I said or implied that infidelity testing is somehow less accurate and reliable, please look at what I really said.

I was not faulting the test, I was faulting the idiots who think it will somehow fix their marriage.  Polygraph will do more damage than good, because someone will either, not accept the results, or resent the other person for making the test necessary. 

When it comes to infidelity testing, the problem is not the test.  The problem is people want a quick fix to a bigger problem that is better solved with the help of a trained therapist, a priest, or, if it's gone too far, a good divorce attorney. 

You say to take personality out of it, when you deal with this kind of testing, you're going to be dealing with difficult personalities. 

You and I have agreed on many things; but one thing we will not see eye to eye on, is the issue of accuracy and reliability.  And you can't accuse me of being one of the good ole boys, or a part of the establishment.  Because, I'm so on the out side of any "in crowd," you're probably liked by the establishment more than I am.

Hell, if all the sudden the polygraph establishment were to embrace me into the in crowd I would lose the business I have.  One of the reasons some of my lawyers use me, is because I am anti establishment. 

Joe, in your professional opinion, how accurate is a specific-issue polygraph "test"?

I have an idea,

I know some of the people I am talking about is watching this string.  I also have little doubt that people who thought my polygraph solution, was a, and I quote, "stupid idea" and "thats just not the way things are done."

They are the ones with problems with accuracy and reliability rates, or they wanted to keep the truth hidden.  Lets ask them to chime in.

Hey Maria, is it you didn't want to get caught in your lies, or is it that you are afraid of the accuracy and reliability of the test?  I'm just wondering, because if you are so convinced that you've been tell the truth, and Ive been lying, the polygraph solution would have achieved what you wanted. 

If I failed and you passed, I would have kept my word and left the industry.  Having said that, when you failed and I passed, I would have expected you and others to your end of the bargain.  I suspect you were more afraid of getting caught in your lies, but only you know for sure.

So which is it?  Were you more afraid of getting caught in a lie, or do you thing the test is not accurate and reliable enough to gamble on?

Dan, they are the ones with a problem with the test.  Why don't you call them out?  You might get the backup you want from them about the lack of accuracy argument.  Just saying. 

I gave you the answer to your question.  It is accurate and reliable enough for me to bet my livelihood and income on. 

You feel the same way, if what Ray has stated in the past was true.  Is there I study with your name on it, that had a 100% accuracy rate?

Joe, clearly an experienced polygraph professional of your stature can attribute a rate of accuracy -- or at least a range of  accuracy -- that both TXDOC personnel and the average consumer can understand.

So, in your estimation, how accurate is the "test"?

Please tell us, Joe.

Is the "test" at least 90% accurate?

Is it at least 80% accurate?

Is it at least 70% accurate?

Joe, please state for the record how accurate you think the polygraph "test" is.

As for my study showing 100% accuracy under certain circumstances, it is true -- under certain circumstances..

In my study, those circumstances may have included -- but are not limited to -- the influence of outside information providers, such as case detectives.

In any event, my study is an outlier. The results are not to be generalized.

But you work day to day in the trenches.

Given that, Joe, how accurate is your own polygraph "testing"? What proof do you have that your calls were correct? Confessions and admissions?

Now, let's get real.

For some fifteen (15) years, the American Polygraph Association endorsed -- and peddled (for $25.00) --  a report of a half-assed meta-analysis that claimed polygraph is 98% accurate.

The APA-endorsed report cited multiple studies claiming 100% accuracy.

Has the APA disavowed those studies? No.

In any event, my study came many years later.

The takeaway message is this: Be wary of polygraph studies that are indu$try friendly.

As for Ray Nelson, I suggest you look deeply into his own polygraph indu$try connection$ before putting too much stock into his claims.

Dan Mangan wrote on Dec 5^th, 2016 at 1:24am:

Joe, clearly an experienced polygraph professional of your stature can attribute a rate of accuracy -- or at least a range of  accuracy -- that both TXDOC personnel and the average consumer can understand. So, in your estimation, how accurate is the "test"? Please tell us, Joe. Is the "test" at least 90% accurate? Is it at least 80% accurate? Is it at least 70% accurate? Joe, please state for the record how accurate you think the polygraph "test" is. As for my study showing 100% accuracy under certain circumstances, it is true -- under certain circumstances.. In my study, those circumstances may have included -- but are not limited to -- the influence of outside information providers, such as case detectives. In any event, my study is an outlier. The results are not to be generalized. But you work day to day in the trenches. Given that, Joe, how accurate is your own polygraph "testing"? What proof do you have that your calls were correct? Confessions and admissions? Now, let's get real. For some fifteen (15) years, the American Polygraph Association endorsed -- and peddled (for $25.00) --  a report of a half-assed meta-analysis that claimed polygraph is 98% accurate. The APA-endorsed report cited multiple studies claiming 100% accuracy. Has the APA disavowed those studies? No. In any event, my study came many years later. The takeaway message is this: Be wary of polygraph studies that are industry friendly. As for Ray Nelson, I suggest you look deeply into his own polygraph industry connection$ before putting too much stock into his claims.

I believe I have already been on the record in my videos about this.  I believe, based on the data out there, coupled with my personal experience, that 90% is a reasonable number.  I always had a problem with the 98% number after a few years.  It just seemed a little too, "pie in the sky." 

Anyway, Karen and I argue about this all the time.  After a while, I get sick of arguing about it, and flip the "Charlie brown Teacher switch" in my head to, "wha wha wha.... wha wha wha wha."  So debating you on accuracy will probably get less attention in the long run.  Sorry man, I have to live with her, not you.  lol

In regard to my DI tests, I have a very respectable confession rate.  In fact, and this is probably one of the many reasons my competition hates me. Some of my examinees come to me after a couple of failures with my competition; and when they get to me, I will often get the confession my competitors couldn't, sometimes, pretest.  I actually credit this to my intern instructor.  I'd be nowhere near as good at what I do, if it wasn't for him, and if I could be 5% the examiner or that man that he is, I'd die a well achieved man. 

It's my understanding that he is retied now; and although I am very happy for him, I think the industry is less one of the best and most ethical examiners I have ever met.  Every day I'm in the polygraph room, it's his standard I try to live up to, in regard to integrity. 

Anyway.

I also have a consistent, under 5% inconclusive rate. This year, I have only had 2 inconclusive tests.  This is something I am particularly proud of.  I guess a guy has an off day once and a while.

But if we are going to accuracy and reliability.

Again, you should be talking to examiners who refuse to take a polygraph examination to resolve an ongoing dispute.  A test that would have ended this whole issue, once and for all, within two hours, a long time ago.

Instead, they opted to take the long way around and go with a prolonged libel and slander campaign which has lasted for ten years, and has only strengthened my resolve. 

Maria Hubbard claims that, "Correctly administered, a lie detector test utilizing the polygraph examination, can be 87% to 94% accurate when a trained polygraph examiner uses a reliable and validated testing format."  Her actions say different. 

She is also, according to her website

"Full Member of the American Polygraph Association; Currently a Member of the Texas Membership Committee; Awarded Certification of Advanced Training and Specialization/Post-Conviction Sex Offender Testing"

Why would a Committee Member of the APA, with advanced training, run from a polygraph when she knows it to be so accurate and reliable? 

Hmmmmm I don't know. :-?

Call her and ask her.  Don't be shy everyone, I'm sure she would love to talk to and educate people on the accuracy and reliability of the test she sells, but wouldn't dare take herself. 

Talk about a true leader.  Leading by example.  Such an inspiration.   ::)

Call John Rios, current past president of TAPE, and member of the APA.  Ask him why Maria and other ranking members of TAPE are afraid of polygraph. 

Opppppps I forgot, we already have the good New Braunfels, TX, Detective Rios, on video regarding this matter.  What did he say?  An examiner who's afraid of taking a polygraph, is someone who, "has something to hide." 

So clearly Mr. Rios believes in polygraph,  Having said that,  one can safely assume from his statement, that if he couldnt convince Maria or anyone else to take the test, maybe they have something to hide. 

Who else can we ask?

OOOOOOOOOOO Clayton Wood, the Current President of TAPE and member of the APA.  He is the president of a polygraph association.  Let's see if he will comment on the accuracy and reliability of polygraph.  Surely he will be in defense of the 93% accuracy rate.  Of course, then he will have to explain why he refused to take a test. Yea, I doubt he'd answer questions. 

OOOOOOO Here is a good person to ask.  Andy Sheppard..... Yea, he would be awesome.  I bet you can find his number in the APA Directory.

Anyway, he's an APA polygraph instructor, former Texas DPS polygraph examiner and instructor, former JPCOT Committee Chairman, former Presiding Officer of the Texas Polygraph Examiners Board, former Chairman of the TAPE Ethics Committee, Member of the APA. 

Wow I bet he would be able to tell you anything you want to know about the accuracy and reliability of polygraph Dan. I bet he will defend the accuracy rates; but again, problematic. Given that he too ran and hid from the polygraph challenge. 

Not good Andy, not good.  Doesn't exactly, inspire confidence that even you, are afraid of the test you sell.

Gosh, there are so many examiners, who scream about the accuracy and reliability of polygraph, but yet, recently ran from it like one would run from a train wreck. 

Yet, these people, who would no doubt defend the 93% accuracy rate, you might even find a chucklehead who will defend the 98% number, won't back up their confidence with action.

Hmmmmm maybe they know something I don't.  You know Dan, maybe the test might not be as accurate and reliable as they say.  I mean wow, some of the names involved are respected people in the field, and if they don't trust polygraph, why should anyone else? 

They can continue to lead by hypocrisy, by telling people, "hey look how accurate and reliable this test is.  Now give me money."  All along thinking "I wouldn't take this test no matter what the cost."

I'll lead by example.  I don't expect any of my examinees to take a test, that I haven't offered to sit for myself; and trusted my life with the results. 

What is wrong with that picture?

Yes Dan, asking me about my belief in the accuracy and reliability of polygraph is like asking if the Holy Father believes in the Trinity.  Its, like asking if Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback ever.  It's like asking if there are any bodies in Boston Harbor, or the Charles River.  Is the sky blue? Is the grass green?  Did Bill Clinton have sexual relations, with that girl, Monica Lewinsky? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, YES. 

(NOTE: It's a common joke in Boston about people wearing cement shoes in the Harbor or in the Charles River.  So anyone who wants to make silly phone calls, tell them I know where Jimmy Hoffa is too..... ugh.... ::) )

I would never gamble my future on something that I feel won't save me or sustain me.

When you ask me about the accuracy and reliability of polygraph, you become the dog that caught the car; chew on the tires all you want, in the end, all you'll have to show for it is a broken tooth.

Now let's explore the implications of countermeasures with this also. 

One would think, if there is anyone who would be good at countermeasures, it would be a polygraph examiner, right?  Espically polygraph examiners who are soooooooo smaht and educated; like Maria, Andy, Claton, Richard Wood, etc etc.

Solution would be simple, pull countermeasures, everyone passes, then I look like an idiot because there is no final and conclusive outcome. I would be forced to shut up, because they passed. 

If countermeasures work, and work so consistently, why did they not take that route?  Would it not have truly been the path of least resistance? 

Hell, lets look how far back they could have ended this. On April 20th 2008, I posted the first offer to test.

They could have ended this years ago. 

If countermeasures worked so well, why did they not just end it then and there? It would have been over, I wouldn't have lasted a year in this business after that kind of an embarrassment; because that would have dogged me until I gave up and quit. 

If countermeasures work, consistently, both when you want to prevent a false positive, and when you want to outright beat the test, undetected, why wouldn't the very people, who know more about the actual practice and administration of polygraph not use that to their benefit? Thereby shutting up a whistle blower who is rocking the boat and ruining a good scam. 

These people claim to be true experts on polygraph, some of them even wrote the JPCOT and APA guidelines. Yet they wouldn't risk a test performing countermeasures. What does that say about the true effectiveness of countermeasures, and that they can be performed consistently, and without detection?

Wow, I just made the best case on why countermeasures may not work as consistently and without detection as anyone ever has.  EVEN THE POLYGRAPH EXPERTS WON'T TRY IT.  Because believe me, if they knew they could do it and get away with it undetected, with everyone watching, this group would have done it.   

Joe McCarthy wrote on Dec 6^th, 2016 at 10:03am:

Yes Dan, asking me about my belief in the accuracy and reliability of polygraph is like asking if the Holy Father believes in the Trinity.

Anyone contemplating taking a polygraph "test" would be well advised to take such blind faith -- which runs rampant throughout the polygraph indu$try --into consideration before placing themselves in jeopardy.

I have said many times that polygraph is much more of a religion than it is a science.

From what I've observed in the last 13 years, the strongest believers in polygraph are those who profit from the "test."

The scientific, medical and legal communities have largely condemned polygraph since the 1920s -- and for good reason: polygraph is unreliable, prejudicial, and can be manipulated by both the examiner and examinee alike.

Wow, still don't want to ask the tough questions on accuracy and reliability to the examiners who tout it loudly, but their actions are contrary to their claims. 

One would think this would be important to your claims. 

Having said that, when you claim a 100% accuracy rate, it seems odd coming here and then claiming it does work at all and is "religion."  Claiming a 100% accuracy rate on one hand and claiming it doesn't work on the other and is, religion, is as confusing as someone starting an organization called, Christians Against Christ.

You're biggest and most documented chink in the armor, is Texas, because of the well documented abuses, restriction of trade, the intimidation and silencing of anyone who dare expose some of your points as true. 


Dan Mangan wrote on Dec 6^th, 2016 at 12:04pm:

From what I've observed in the last 13 years, the strongest believers in polygraph are those who profit from the "test."

Ok and this one just about made me laugh.  Are you crappity smacking kidding me?  Did you read any of what I wrote, or are you so wrapped up in hating the industry in which you make some of your living, that you have to make up facts.  Documented facts.

The most prominent polygraph examiners, in the State of Texas, some of the examiners which are partly  responsible, or the claim to be, for CSOT testing as a whole, are the examiners who are running from the test.  I promise you, they are making all the money.  The one guy, in the entire country, who is so confident in polygraph, that he literally bet his life on it, and I can say this with 200% certainty; IS MORE BROKE THAN GARRY COLEMAN AFTER HE BECOME AN ADULT. 

So, unless you know something I don't know, there is no way, that
Dan Mangan wrote on Dec 6^th, 2016 at 12:04pm:

the strongest believers in polygraph are those who profit from the "test."

.  Sorry, but that is one claim you can't back up.  Even if we go outside the state of Texas, many polygraph examiners called my idea, "foolish" and "thats not how we do things."

Given those two statements, we can only come to one of two conclusions.  Either they think it's a stupid idea, because the results would force them to suddenly acknowledge the elephant in the room, or they don't believe in the accuracy and reliability to let our own examiners be held to the test.  Good luck getting a straight answer on that one, I been trying for a couple years. 

If you were to use actions to gauge who is the biggest supporter of polygraph in the industry, that would be me.  So by your reasoning, I should be damn freaking successful.  NEWS FLASH............ I'm not.

In fact, the biggest believer in polygraph, is the one polygraph examiner, these people want gone.  Wow, talk about some messed up priorities.  The people who either, don't believe in the accuracy, or doesn't want to be exposed for being people you don't want testing anyones integrity, are the examiners making the most money, and making the rules. 

I will reiterate my argument on countermeasures.  Because frankly, the Texas Examiners, and their actions, do make for some interesting though in this area.

If charts can be manipulated, undetected, and consistently enough to render polygraph totally useless, why didn't the polygraph experts do it to get rid of me years ago?  You would think if that could be done, they would have jumped all over that to get rid of me, within a day; never to return. 

Gotta admit, this is food for thought.  I assure you, if maria hubbard thought she could get away with it she would have done it in a NY minute.  She has made it pretty clear, she hates me enough to take some amazing risks to get me kicked out, or to make me leave.  If she could do it in two hours and not risk getting caught, she would have put that blood pressure off on, so fast, you'd swear you smelt something burning.

So yea, your theory that it can be manipulated easily and consistently by the examinee, even the real experts didn't want to chance it. 

This also tosses out the idea of the examiner manipulating the charts, Because, if that could happen undetected, they defiantly would have done that.  How would an examiner manipulate the charts now a days, given the instrumentation we now have?

I would be very entertained to hear this one.