Joe,

Stay smart.

100% accuracy is not a test. It is deterministic observation. it is perfect and infallible because human behavior and randomness have no role and no effect on deterministic models.

Here is the thing, if we want to evaluate some phenomena for which we can use perfect deterministic observation then we do not need a test. I've said this all elsewhere.

Sometimes the question is one of quantity and not strictly category, and so we might want to make a physical/linear measurement. Of course then we are obligated to describe the unit of measurement, and to verify that the data conform to the scale characteristics. Measurements are very good. But unlike deterministic models they are theoretically imperfect because they include physical measurement error. And of course, if we can take a physical measurement we do not need a test.

We need test whenever we want to measure or evaluate some phenomena for which neither perfect deterministic observation nor physical measurement can apply. Amorphous things, like personality, intelligence or math "skills" (as opposed to math performance/achievement).

Because they are used to evaluate amorphous phenomena, all tests and all test results are imperfect and probabilistic. The obligation of a test - as opposed to an unstructured clinical method that would be more subject to human bias or confirmation bias - is to use some structured procedure or instrument and some replicable analysis to quantify the margin of uncertainty surrounding a result or conclusion within some margin of error that has been previously defined as tolerable. This is how science and testing work. It is not expected to be perfect.

I have never seen Dan's research design for a countermeasure study, though he does not seem to correctly understand things like science, testing, research methods or randomness (conference participants are self selected not random, and research participants have to consent to participate). If the past is any indication, Dan's publication of test results of ~100% accuracy tells us nothing in reality about what to expect, because tests are probabilistic and not deterministic. Published claims of ~100% accuracy simply provide no information about what to realistically expect. It is simply pretending.

So where is the hustle here?

As for a Bill of Rights. It might be interesting to get some information from experience in other professions who have tried this kind of solution. My take on the matter is that it will be more effective to do this without added drama (but drama is fun for some when they are campaigning). Addressing this factually and neutrally will probably take a form similar to other professions that have come to terms with the concept of "informed consent" which implies that a person is adequately informed about what will be done and how it might affect the person, in addition to sometimes clarifying the boundaries and obligations of the person and the professional. Taken this way, it appears a lot more manageable than Dan's drama and marketing hype.

On the subject of using the polygraph to investigate or resolve conflicts among polygraph examiners... their is a broader discussion that Joe hints at regarding the concept of "injurious conduct" and whether it is or is not the role of a professional association to mediate or adjudicate personality or professional conflicts. If there is violation of a written code then that is different. But without submitting it in writing to the proper authorities that publish or enforce those code, most associations can and will do nothing without violating their rules and exposing themselves to more complex problems.

Attempting to adjudicate or mitigate a conflict in this forum will be impossible, and serves only to call attention to the issue. If that is the objective, then the message will be better understood if it is more brief (which not my strength) and more descriptive (hmm).

Getting more directly to the issue of the use of the polygraph within the governing and operation of the association... at the risk of some Kafaesque karmic cataclysm, yes. And I believe most polygraph examiners have actually taken polygraphs. Everyone is aware of the potential for problems when a profession does not clarify its boundaries and expectations and values in addition to its mission and goals.

This is exactly why the steady movement in medicine and psychology and forensics towards things like standards and quality control and continued education, and evidence-based practices that can provide results based on replicable analysis models that can realistically quantify the level of confidence and margin of error with norm referenced decision rules. you know... science, and all of the kinds of things that shed light on just how outrageous it is to try to market and publish claims of ~100% accuracy while carving a niche market out of those individuals who may be simultaneously anxious about or distrustful of the polygraph but facing circumstances desperate enough to prompt them to seek the kind false hope that is encouraged by the combination of aggressive criticism + claims of super-wizardry and ~100% accuracy. In the end we actually do need structure and we do need science to help us understand what can be realistically claimed or offered - without the need to hustle or pretend.

.02

rn