Ex Member wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:22pm:


He has gone off the deep end on this one.  It also goes to support that he is more destructive than constructive at this point.   

No member will support the editorial power being taken away form the APA, in their own journal.  While I will agree there is much that needs to get done within the industry, what he is proposing is political suicide.  People will not vote for someone that has a platform of total and complete destruction.  People will vote for change and the improving of the profession in general.   

I've tried to get through to him, but who am I to stop him from digging where the ground has gone sour.   At this point, even if you took the shovel away, he would dig with his hands; but with a platform like this, he will find himself with a big hole that cannot be filled. 

He is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, when he has been told that it is more possible to fit a round peg into a square hole.

But hey, what do I know?   

Besides, this is the APA we are talking about.  At this current moment, I have no dog in this fight.  If I was a full member though, I would toss my hat into the ring just to balance the equation.

That actually brings up an interesting question. Hypothetically, I wonder what would happen if the two most radioactive examiners ran for APA president at the same time?  Now that would be a politically interesting battle.

Are you talking about Cushman Ark?

Ark, I dare say that a pause and reflection is in order to contemplate the scientific legitimacy of the "test."

On that score, APA past president Barry Cushman -- a police detective who moonlights as a church pastor -- seems conflicted.

How so? Well, in the eyes of the good reverend, polygraph is reliable enough to establish probable cause for the cops, but not good enough to be endorsed by your garden variety minister in cases of sexual infidelity. 

Barry, if I'm wrong, please chime in. And then explain the disconnect.

[cue crickets]

I'm relatively confident he's lurking. After all, everyone who's anyone in the polygraph racket watches this site like "rejected spinsters" watch daytime soap operas.

Joe, how long have you been mainlining the Kool-Aid?

Dude, you'd totally fit in with the "new, improved" APA -- at least in the hospitality suite.

Joe, you still aren't seeing the big picture.

My reforms will likely bring significant financial harm to the polygraph indu$try, but they will advance the polygraph profession.

If you have to ask what that means, you'll never understand.

Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 3:11am:


The industry needs someone who will advance the profession, our work product, integrity, opportunities, accuracy, reliability, instrumentation advancement, examinee rights, tougher antitrust rules or policies, and also advance the profession in a way that encourages growth and a level playing field.   

Over the past year I have seen improvements in some of these areas.  What you are proposing is to break the positive momentum and institute a scorched earth policy; a policy that is unwarranted at this point.

We also should be finding ways to encourage examiners, even new ones, rather than knock them down.  Where fiefdom markets and monopolies do exist, the industry needs to step in and foster a level playing field and competitive environment based off hard work and marketing over entitlement.  We need stop making excuses for people engaging in anticompetitive beaver and unfair business practices, simply because they sit at the popular kids table.   

Our ethics procedures need to change, and polygraph should be used in ethics investigations where such issues in dispute exist.  Moreover, we should publicize that we do so, when someone does fail the test.  This alone will up the credibility of the industry, because now, we are not asking our customers to do anything we wouldn't do ourselves.  This also needs to be enforced, across the board; even for the privileged in the industry.

I firmly believe, if polygraph had been used from the start in 2008, or back in 2014 for the situation I just went through, it would have saved a lot of people a lot of grief.  Funny thing is, everyone called me crazy for asking that polygraph settle the issue.  Well, until the end of last years key note speech, where F. Lee Bailey said, that he would take a polygraph if the need ever arose (paraphrasing).  Now the people who called me crazy, are suddenly silent.   

The longer we are an industry, that does not believe in our own product enough to use it for our own internal issues, the more we should be ashamed of ourselves.  The way to be leaders is to lead by example.  How is it that the one examiner, who is a pariah in Texas, (the perceived center of the polygraph universe; or so they think), took the lead to set the example, while all the other polygraph leaders either ran and hid, or called me crazy? 

The industry, as a whole should take this first, easy, and free step, in an all win, no lose way to step up the industries credibility.  This simple step, that costs nothing and no reasonable argument, within the industry, can be made not to institute this.   

Also I think this will be a great tool to inspire ethical conduct within the polygraph industry.  I also feel this will identify and eliminate unethical people within the industry, and maybe even act as a deterrent against unethical behavior.  I think such a rule will promote and inspire public acceptance of polygraph as well.  After all, would you eat at a restaurant where its owner and employees avoided eating the food they prepare?  I know I wouldn't.   

The only polygraph examiner who would object to a rule like this, is an examiner who knows they will have something to hide someday, or, that examiner does not believe in the product he or she sells to the public.  I could put a few names to this list here in Texas, but, we already know who they are.  Don't we?

The unethical will either straighten up in the risk of being exposed; or they will be weeded out. This makes room for other examiners to compete in an industry that encourages and mandates fair trade practices and an ethical competitive environment that is above reproach.  How is this a bad thing?

Actually I think a step like this will boost confidence in the test and what we do, which in turn, could boost the over all bottom line for the private sector.  Consumer confidence = a bigger bottom line.  Moreover, it will earn consumer respect for the industry as a whole.

This is a proposition that is, all win for everyone; with no down side.  It's as good for the big fish, as it is for the little fish.  Also, I can say from experience, it does make a good marketing tool.   

See Dan, consumer protection, while increasing the possibility of a better bottom line, by increasing consumer confidence that we believe in the product we sell.  Leading by example, and marketing by making an idea into an action.   

No talk about destroying everything, or bully pulpit.  Ideas that any ethical and reasonable examiner would support and vote for.   

Actually, they are more like snarky comments than attacks. I don't know the rules of the APA, but many organizations frown upon such things as referring to someone's religion, sexual preferences...etc.