Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 5:33pm:


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. 

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.

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?

Dan, if I get Joe's point correctly, it's kind of like someone becoming an astrologist, while not believing in the zodiac.

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

Ex Member wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 5:08pm:


And you are a bit of an apologist for the " test."

But Ark, in spite of the CQT's glaring deficiencies, you do believe it serves the greater good, right?

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.