Ex Member wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 7:10am:



Yea but unless it is libelous or slanderous, any organization leave the door open to potential liability.  Stifling critical truthful speech, or opinion that is not libelous or slanderous, is potential anticompetitive behavior.  The only thing in the Ethics bylaws that he has to worry about is bringing the APA, or the industry into discredit and slander and libel.  He walks a fine line with brings the industry into discredit.  I do wish he would be more careful.

But again, I don't remember me seeing him bring anyones sexual preference or religion into play.  where did that happen, I missed that?

There was nothing about sexual preferences, only comments about being a pastor etc. I don't want you to get the wrong impression. I take back the word "attack" and replace it with "refer to."

Ark, the polygraph indu$try has run roughshod over too many people for far too long. Meaningful change is needed, and should come from within.

Joe, I've been an APA member since 2004. I have yet to see an article -- or hear of any seminar lecture -- that deals with polygraph victimization in a substantive way.

Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 1:32pm:


I think there are two levels to this abuse.  On the private side, it's all about money.  On the government side it's more about empire building and power.  

I think if the government admitted the polygraph was fallible, they could rest on their laurels that it is 80% effective, or whatever they claim and justify more money be spent on follow-up investigation for the 20% that fail.  Instead of terminating these applicants or on-board personnel, they could milk more money out of the system with follow-up polygraphs and BI's.  

I believe they are afraid that if they admit less than perfect accuracy their cash cow might be taken away.  Also, I think many of the law enforcement polygraphers are just thugs or incompetent investigators who enjoy ruining anybody's life, guilty or innocent.  Why work your tail off to prove a case when you can get credit and incentive awards by successfully condemning someone by only analyzing a chart and writing up a half-assed interview report. 

Dan Mangan wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 9:03pm:



Agreed Dan.  Even if 98.6 % accuracy is true, that still means that they acknowledge that 1.4 innocent people may have their lives unjustly ruined.  That figure is too high.  I've been taught my entire life that, "rather 1,000 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison".   Pro-polygraphers would argue that as long as no one goes to prison, no harm, no foul.  When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the laws, however, the only significant way to deny a person "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was to put a person in jail.  Today, people's livelihoods, and consequently life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, can be much more easily and arbitrarily lost due to subjective whims, such as polygraph condemnation.  Ruining a person's reputation and ability to earn a living due to this pseudo-science is the most outrageous evil being conducted by our government.  I am confidant that sooner or later people will figure this out and the entire industry might be scrapped.  The only hope for polygraph supporters, as I see it, is to use this instrument strictly as an investigative tool as currently described by our top-level bureaucrats when they lie to Congress on this issue.  If deception is indicated then focus additional background investigation on the area of possible deception.  If no further negative information is determined, no further adverse action should be taken. 

Wandersmann wrote on Feb 26^th, 2016 at 6:39pm:

You are referring to Blackstone's Formulation:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Sir William Blackstone 1765

Indeed, Ark, polygraph has great utility -- just like VSA.