So it seems that MagicSteve appears here claiming to be a convicted offender, and then later claims to be a licensed professional working with convicted offenders (doing some undercover field research, maybe). Then declares polygraph to be fake and aligns with Dan Mangan (who published a "scientific study claiming ~100% accuracy for a technique that he also published a claim that it can "nullified the effects of countermeasures"). 

Also, Mr. Mangan and others should be aware that the APA does not "certify" PCSOT examiners. There is a subtle but important distinction between earning a certificate of training from an approved trainer and actually being "certified." Representing a certificate of training as "certified" is - in my view - questionable (some might even say it is misleading). 

The whole thing does seem troll-like. The question, as I understand it, is whether MagicSteve (the offender) could gain access to his polygraph report if it were submitted to the court as material or exhibit in a legal proceeding. The answer seems obvious. What is not so obvious is whether the examiner will submit the test data. An examiner who submits a test for consideration in a legal proceeding will probably be prepared to submit the data for review by the opposing counsel's expert. Whether that review is objective or subjective is another matter.

Keep in mind that printed polygrams are not actually the data. The printed graphs are actually just a picture of the data - but they are not actually the data. The actual data is a bunch of numbers in the recored time series data, for which some examiners will look at the pictures interpret subjectively and for which we can also compute probabilistic calculations - using empirical or theoretical reference distributions - to determine a statistical classifier. Note that all scientific test results are probabilistic (i.e., they are neither deterministic - for which we could expect the kind of perfection that is immune to human behavior and random chance - nor an direct physical/linear measurement (which require both a physical substance to measure and a unit of measurement) - for which we would use a physical measurement and not a test. Keep in mind that scientific tests are needed and used to measure and evaluate those super interesting things that are often (nearly always) quite difficult or impossible to actually measure physically. 

My guess - assuming MagicSteve is a convicted offender - is that you want the data to learn whether the analysis and test result is replicable. 

BTW the claims, as I understand them, are that you would be truthful but would use mental countermeasures to protect against a false-positive. This seems to ignore the presently conflicted literature indicating that mental CMs are weak and that truthful people who attempt CMs are more likely to be classified as deceptive. Also - assuming you actually did this and pass - it doesn't address the obvious possibility that you pass because of being truthful. 

Another guess - assuming MagicSteve is not a convicted offender but a licensed professional who posed undercover as an offender so that you could gain answers to some question (which may or may not be the question that was actually posed to this discussion) - is that you want the data to learn whether the test data analysis and result are replicable or are simply subjective.

I think there is a fairly clear trend in the scientific literature that objective replicable procedures and analysis have outperformed unstructured, subjective, and clinical methods. 

So if you really want to understand whether examiners are simply making up test results or are providing objective and replicable probabilistic test results (which are of course still not deterministic and still not perfect) then it might be good to contact some of the folks who can help you understand the science of the polygraph and not just the hyperbole.

So whereas folks like Dan are at once willing to pretend (publish claims of) perfection and also criticize others for imperfection, most of the polygraph profession is more concerned with the mundane task of merely understanding the level of confidence and margin of uncertainty that can be attributed to polygraph test results. 

MagicSteve if you are a therapist or other kind of licensed professional and you want to learn about the polygraph test then I invite you to someone for information that will help you to get beyond the drama, hyperbole and self-promotion of some consulting bidn'ess built on published claims of perfection and a non-existent certification. At the very least - in addition to learning the criticisms against old-school polygraph, you might benefit from some information about how science and probability theory play a role in the polygraph test today. 

.02

rn

I have been out of the loop for a bit, because I thought things in Texas have been resolved; it seems I was wrong, but the current situation is not germane to this string.

I am assuming that where we are talking about is the Wisconsin system of PCSOT.  I don't know much about this system, so I can't make any educated suggestion or judgements.  I will say, I know some good and honest examiners up there.  They are well qualified and are fair independent and unbiased, as far as I know.  That being said, I am very sure there are examiners up there, I am sure, who aren't; that can be said in any profession.

Regardless, I would be very suspicious of any PO forcing you to go to "their guy," because they know this, or that examiner, and they make threats off that.  

Remember what he said, "I know the guy."  Now, this could be an innocent statement; but it also gives rise to suspicion in that, "I know the guy" could indicate a closer relationship than one would hope for.  Given this, if he is using the examiner because he "knows him," this could also mean that if a pattern of sloppy work became apparent, it would be ignored in favor of the friendship which exists between PO and examiner.  

On the other hand, to be fair, "I know the guy" could also mean, "this is a square guy, he will do you right, and fair."  
Having said that, PO's and therapists that are trying to do you right, will typically let you pick another examiner.  After all, you want to hang yourself, so be it.  You may turn up with an examiner who is not in the business for the right reasons.  

My suggestion, hire a lawyer, Know your rights, and trust no examiner who won't give up his charts.  If an examiners is doing nothing improper, than the examiner has nothing to hide.  

Be immediately suspicious if your test is "inconclusive'" and you hear that a lot in group.  There is a Firm in the DFW area, that was once found to have a 45% inconclusive rate.  What happens when you are inconclusive? You have to retake the test.  I will let you do the math from there and draw your own conclusions.  

PCSOT, started with good intentions, but then it became the money maker that employment tests used to be before 1988.  After it became a money maker, it started becoming a racket.  

Fact is, without PCOST, the polygraph industry would die, period.  This is one of the reasons the industry is so protective over it.  Problem is, at least in Texas, they are protective over the territories, or as my intern examiner instructor called them, "fiefdoms," (his words, Texas examiners) more than they are protecting the actual integrity of the industry, and the integrity of the test.  Anyone wanting to do the right thing and not engage in their little fiefdom type system, will be silenced, slandered, libeled, threatened with physical harm, and punished in kangaroo courts, outside the eyes of the general public and any accountability.  Basically, and I know this is funny coming from a guy named Joe McCarthy; and yes, I get the irony; any voice of descent or whistle blower, will be Mudd.  If you don't get the reference, study your history.  

I am going though this again, right now.  

In fact, the Texas Polygraph industry is so corrupt, I feel the only way to fix it at this point is to suspend the practice until the FTC can be brought in to examine the private polygraph associations and PCSOT licensing. 

Oh wait, there is no licensing or enforceable standards of practice for PCSOT in Texas.  The Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners runs that show. Something I have already proven using their own news letter.  JPCOT is also quite secretive in how things get run there too.  

In the document TALEPI_JPCOT EMAIL, you can see the tricks Mr. Hendricks suggests people employ.  It should be noted that Mr Hendricks is current JPCOT Chairman, as one can also see, a very, very familiar name as well, Maria Hubbard.  And lets not even get me started with her right now. 

What I am saying is not unethical, it is the truth.  This is their own documentation.  And it is just the tip of the Texas iceberg.  

In closing, if you think the system in Wisconsin is corrupt, It would probably be a breath of fresh air for me.  

The Texas PCSOT system, is not only corrupt, it is dysfunctional, with 100% lack of State Government oversight.  It should be noted that Examiner run oversight of the polygraph industry, PCOST excluded, had to be taken away from polygraph examiners, because they could no longer be trusted to self regulate the industry.  Hey, don't take my word for it, look it up for yourselves.

There needs to be actual LAWS, which regulate PCSOT.  There needs to be government LICENSING, and oversight, that does not include internal industry oversight.  Moreover, laws need to be put in place that puts approving examiners for these tests, in the hands of the licensing board, and out of the hands of the providers and PO's.   

There are some who will accuse me of protecting sex offenders, this is not the case at all.  I am protecting the consumer.  Let me explain.

In parts of Texas, they are polygraphing DWI probationers.  How many of us know at least one person who has been though that?  Only takes one drink.  Parts of Texas has also started testing repeat drug offenders from what I hear.  There is also talk of testing domestic violence probationers.  This only takes, what is in Texas, a big racket, and makes it HUGE.   

No laws to govern it, little to no oversight, monopolies, anticompetitive behaviors from trade associations acting as "gate keepers"

Think it won't be you sitting in my chair someday?  Think again, because we all think it won't be us, until it is.

Right now. I wouldn't trust the Texas Polygraph Industry, under the guidance of the Texas Association of polygraph Examiners, with an E-meter, much less a polygraph instrument.   

What is really sad is, I have to come here to air these issues because there is no place else to go for help or relief.  How sad is that?  I have to come here, to AP, after all the fuss about coming to AP in 2008, there is still no place else to go to, so I can be heard, and to expose unethical practices in an industry that claims to protect the truth and ethics?

I don't want to have to come here.  I don't want to have to do this at all. I don't want to have to be forced to choose this over being a doormat.

Every time, I think things in this industry is changing for the better, TAPE and its officers does something that makes me see, this industry will die in my life time; and it won't be because of what I am saying here.  It will because of what I am saying here in an effort to save it, and the industry either couldn't or wouldn't listen.   

It is the lack of oversight, lack of accountability, lack of transparency, and anticompetitive nature of this industry that will bring us down.  That is the God's honest truth.   

Every time I see hope, I am reminded in Texas, that some of what Dan says might have a point.  I hate that TAPE and Hubbard make me feel that way, and I am starting to hate others for allowing it to happen.

I have said my peace

Sad I have to do it here

Dan Mangan wrote on May 8^th, 2016 at 1:00am:



Dan, I said it became a money maker.  I do not think, and call me silly for having a lingering belief in the good intentions of humanity (hanging on by a thread), I don't think it started that way.   

It is a good management tool, and believe in the test so much, I bet my future on it.   

I believe it still can be the good thing it was intended to be and everyone can still make a living, offering a fair test, at a fair price.  That is capitalism right?   

The establishment in Texas hates capitalism.  Texas runs, (words of Don Ramsey before I opened my doors) on a fiefdom system.  Sorry TAPE, not my words.  And for a period of time, he was a victim to that system.  He is a better man than I will ever be in many ways though.  One of the many things I wish would have rubbed off on me was his infinite patients.  It seemed that nothing ever bothered that man outwardly.   

I am trying to get there with a gavel and chisel, but there is a lot of stone to clear.   

Anyway, fiefdom.  The examiners exercise such tight control, and the money goes back and forth, there is a lot of quid pro quo.   

I firmly believe the only way this will get put into line, is another EPPA.   

Funny how a lot of examiners now say EPPA was the industries own fault, because we didn't regulate ourselves.  In the future, examiners like me will be saying, it was the industries fault because we couldn't regulate ourselves, and we destroyed the lies of people who tried to warn us.

I don't want things to go down that road.  I am yelling to get peoples attention to stop the direction we are in; sadly, no one is listening.  You want it to fall apart.  I just want it to be honest.

americanslave, 
So those who attempt to have victim empathy are the ones who abuse you? Perhaps you love your perpetrator so much that you have to hold others accountable.

Quote:


If it had been my daughter, your "client" would be pushing up daisies.

Ex Member wrote on Oct 20^th, 2016 at 1:49am:


Ark, are you saying that you would murder the aforementioned "client" -- or arrange for that individual's killing -- if said person grabbed your daughter's ass?

Please clarify your statement.

Poor fellow has so many "shades of gray everywhere"; I thought a dichotomy would provide some relief.