pailryder wrote on Jun 12^th, 2015 at 11:48pm:


That kind of business model should be in a bucket along with fortune tellers and psychics then. If the examiner cannot provide objective evidence that countermeasures were suspected, then he should not pocket the $400.

Ark

For purpose of this discussion, if we exclude screening tests and inclusive results, you would agree that there are four possible outcomes for any polygraph evaluation.

1.  True negative      subject truthful   examiner call truthful
2.  True positive       subject deceptive  examiner call deceptive
3.  False negative     subject deceptive  examiner call truthful
4.  False positive       subject truthful     examiner call deceptive

What is the worst call, from his point of view, that a LEA examiner can make?

What is the worst call, from his point of view, that a private PCSOT examiner can make?
   

pailryder wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 9:13pm:


False positives in my opinion are the worst calls. They falsely and unjustly brand a truthful person as being a liar and they may have a very long road to exonerate themselves. False negatives are more reason to not use polygraphy to mitigate risks.

Ex Member wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 10:52pm:


I love your post pailryder.  One minor point of disagreement;  there is no long road to exonorate a victim after a false negative, there is no road.  My first negative experience with the polygraph was thirty years ago and I am still in disbelief that these clowns can erase a lifetime of integrity and sacrifice with a bad day on the polygraph.  I have known and know of several wounded and decorated veterans who offered and almost lost their lives for their country who have subsequently lost their jobs or clearance after being determined "unreliable" solely due to the polygraph.  The current use of the polygraph by DOD and Executive Branch agencies is a crime.  People at the top like our DNI and other Executive Branch Intelligence and Security leaders should be held accountable for allowing this disgrace to continue.  God bless former CIA Director Deutch who had the moral courage to speak out against this witchcraft.  Maybe that is why he was "done in".   

I will say that I am impressed by some of the polygraph examiners who have appeared on this forum.  There does seem to be a change of direction by some responsible and ethical polygraph examiners who desire to return the polygraph to its use as a "tool" and not final judge, jury, and executioner regarding a person's reputation and integrity.   

In our glorious past, impugning a man's character and reputation with no proof or solid evidence gave legal grounds to a challenge under the code duello.  Today's polygraph examiners are lucky to be living in current times.  If they attempted to push this witchcraft 150 years ago, lots of them would be traveling to the Old Dueling Grounds in Bladensberg on a daily basis.

Dan Mangan wrote on Jun 15^th, 2015 at 3:14am:


Dan -  Not really.  I have been polygraphed eight times in the last  30 years.  I've passed some, been accused of countermeasures, been inconclusive and once found DI.  I know the horrible feeling of telling the 100% truth and being called a liar.  I know for a fact that it doesn't always work.  During this time I have been given many "scientific explanations" by polygraph examiners who I later learned were lying to me.

Ex Member wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 10:45pm:


Ark

Lets be clear.  Except for EPPA, which is a labor law regulating private employers, polygraph regulation is left to the states.  APA membership is voluntary.  The only real sanction they have is to refuse to accept your check for next years dues. 

They are a paper tiger, but the only one in town.

The APA drives the "polygraph science" narrative, which has a profound effect throughout the indu$try -- for members and nonmembers alike, not to mention a generally clueless public.

They've defined themselves as the torch bearers for the ethical pursuit of truth, something the APA should take more seriously, in my opinion.

A logical starting point would be a pro active role in consumer protection, as with a bill of rights for potential test takers designed to guard against victimization.

Unfortunately, polygraph and transparency don't mix very well...