WifeOfAGoodGuy,

Speaking as a lowly polygraph operator with a mere ten years of experience -- and speaking as a former (and future) candidate for president-elect of the American Polygraph Association -- I strongly suggest that you DISREGARD any and all comments from the phantom poster known as "quickfix."

If you really want to know the truth about the "test," please contact me privately.

Phone calls are preferred. I'm generally available between 9AM and 9PM EST.

I look forward to answering your questions.

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

George, you must be kidding!! That pub is dated 1991!!!  You're hanging your hat on that??? We didn't even have computerized polygraphs back then!  The schoolhouse no longer subscribes to that information, and that pub has long been put out to pasture.  If you're going to fight the polygraph profession, at least use "fresh ammo".

WifeofAGoodGuy:  I strongly suggest that you DISREGARD anything Mr Mangan has to offer in the way of information on polygraph.  He has no expertise in the counterintelligence field, is not a federal employee, and is totally unfamiliar with DOD polygraph policies and procedures.    He is a private examiner whose professional polygraph credentials are mediocre at best. Just ask any APA member who voted in the last APA election.

quickfix wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 7:48pm:


Perhaps my polygraph credentials are indeed mediocre at best. After all, my private polygraph "barber school" was only 8 weeks long, whereas quickfix's federal barber school was all of 14.

When I ran for president-elect of the American Polygraph Association last year, my platform consisted of three main points:

1. A "bill of rights" -- similar to what has long existed in the medical field -- for all polygraph test subjects. The main thrust of such an initiative is to better inform individuals as to the risks, realities and limitations of the polygraph "test," thereby reducing the wholesale victimization that plagues the polygraph industry. 

2. An ongoing countermeasure challenge series, made integral to APA national and regional seminars, which would pit randomly chosen polygraph operators against a crew of countermeasure-prepped volunteer subjects. (I predict that roughly half of the countermeasure ringers would prevail in such a scenario.)

3. Equal treatment for all APA members, primarily as it regards access to educational materials. (Federal and LE examiners are privileged; private examiners are clearly disadvantaged. Such limited-access "trade secrets" has created a caste society within the organization -- and put potential victims of sexual offenders undergoing PCSOT exams at a higher risk.)

My platform was highly criticized by many APA members, most of whom, by the way, are law enforcement or government connected. (Private examiners are a minority within the APA.) 

When the votes were counted, I lost by a six-to-one margin.

But that's OK, because now we have a schism within the Church of Polygraph, so to speak. I'll be running again this year, and that crack will most assuredly widen. 

Meanwhile, what does the APA electorate's rejection of such an open platform say about their faith in the scientific robustness of the "test"?

Dan Mangan wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:16pm:


Mr Mangan:  It says your "open platform" ideas are either idiotic (your #2 point), or unrealistic (#1).  As for point #3, the APA is a private organization.  The "limited access trade secrets" to which you refer contain materials which are actually classified and require a US security clearance.  Private and LE examiners do not possess such a clearance, and are therefore not authorized to receive such information.

Your mediocre credentials have nothing to do with your schooling.  The Backster School is highly regarded, producing many fine examiners in the private and LE sector.  You sir, are not one of them.  Someone who essentially states that they don't believe in the very profession that they have been trained in and earn a living at, shows a profound lack of confidence in their own abilities.  It also shows that they don't believe in what they're doing, but they will do it as long as it pays the mortgage.  In essence, you are not a polygraph examiner;  you are someone who operates a computer, asks a few questions, and hands the customer a bill.  Someone with such a lack of confidence in the validity of their profession is the weak link in the polygraph community chain.  And you don't understand why you were outvoted by a 6-1 margin? 

pailryder wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 2:54pm:

How did you measure that?

Aunty

By comparing my known errors before and after.

quickfix wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:


quickfix, let's straighten this out.

Fly into MHT and make your own arrangements to stay for a couple of days. My office is less than 30 minutes away.

You can review a pile of my exams -- including video, of course -- and then report your findings here.

On top of that, I can waltz you around to a few nationally known APA figures, who know of my work product, that happen to be located right in my geographical backyard.

C'mon, quickfix, it'll be fun.

At least for me.

Interested?

Dan Mangan wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 1:11am:


You appear to have lots of time on your hands to make such an offer.  I guess that's what happens when you spend the majority of your time talking clients out of your services instead of providing it to them.

You already state that polygraph has a "hugh" error rate.  So why would I want to look at your cases?  To guess which calls are accurate and which aren't?  Is that how you do it?  Which part of the Backster course was that taught in?

I respectfully decline your invitation.  File it with your other idea of a "challenge series",