Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 11:49am:


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, 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.

Ex Member wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 2:55am:



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.

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?

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.

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

Joe McCarthy wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:03am:

Excellent point. But, then again, people have a right to make a living.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 7:26am:


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.