Dan Mangan wrote on Oct 5
th, 2016 at 8:24pm:
By "buddy system," I simply mean like-minded polygraph advocates who are seen as qualified examiners within the industry-- not politically reliable cronies. In other words, polygraph operators with whom you are on the same page, philosophically speaking. True believers in the "test."
Certainly, you'd allow your raw data to be reviewed by the likes of, say, Gary Davis, Ray Nelson, and your polygraph mentor of whom you speak so glowingly. I'm sure there are others.
Not true and I'll give you an example. Pleae understand, details are intentionally vague to comply with the law and protect privilege.
Recently I perfumed a polygraph where the request was made for the county to have their "expert" to review my charts. I have no issue with their "expert" reviewing my charts, knowing that 9 times out of ten, that "expert" will be an examiner from a company with a spotty history; you do the math. The one thing I won't do is surrender my charts, so they can sit in their file cabinet, do with as this unethical examiner pleases. If they want to review my work, they will do so in my presence and they will not be allowed to take care, control or management of any data.
If someone wants to look at my data, and they are authorized by the examine or lawyer of the examinee, I will allow them to look at the data. I do nothing wrong, I run good charts, a fair test, I have nothing to hide.
On another occasion, during the lawsuit, I was asked to let a county DA's office "expert" to review my charts. I was told it was going to happen at the courthouse and that I would be there for the review. When I got there, the charts were snatched from my hands by the DA's investigator, they walked away, and I never saw them again. I know those chard were being sent to Holden's office, as they were that county's golden boys at the time. I didn't fuss about it because I knew those charts, and the rest of the data were spotless. It's important to note, that my charts were still included in the Grand Jury packet, and my examine was acquitted , partly due to his passed test. If anything was wrong with those charts or the data, and I am sure, given the hostility at the time, they looked hard, my test would have been tossed and the GJ would not have seen the test.
SO yea, the idea of me not wanting to have anyone other than the above listed names looking at my charts, my history, says your assertion is bullshit.
Also, if Garry, Ray, or Don Ramsey saw my charts and something was wrong, I am 110% confident that they would toss me under the bus, after a long and unpleasant ass chewing.
Lastly, I have no cronies or minions. I know that I have no "friends" in this industry, in the same regard as they may have "friends." Whenever I would away from any examiner, I always check for a knife in my back after that meeting or discussion; and I am always suspect of everyone and their true intentions. The situation of Maria betraying me like a rat, made me realize that I should trust no one; EVER. In my eyes, everyone is a potential rat.
Thats a shame, because there are people in the NPA and APA, that I have great respect for. There are some, that if they called me at three in the morning, I would get out of bed and come running to help them in a heartbeat; but trust died inside of me in 2009. The rat did her job well.
SO yea, making me sound as if I am a part of any, inside good ole boys club, you are climbing up the wrong tree there; you will find no fruit.
Dan Mangan wrote on Oct 5
th, 2016 at 8:24pm:
By contrast, you would never allow your complete polygraph file to be reviewed by an adversarial polygraph realist such as myself.
The reason: Fear of having your work product shown to be so deficient that it warrants nullification of your "test."
You assume too much. I will say this, before I handed you charts, I would make damn sure everything was copyright protected to assure no unauthorized publication of my work. But as long as that protection were there, yea, I would let you look at charts and data. Good luck finding anything, because other than me talking like a sailor in pre and post test (F bombs, I am from Boston and all), you will find nothing that will nullify the test. Best of luck.
I do everything on the up and up, and I have no shame in regard to my work product.
My only concern would be your ability to be unbiased in your review. Sometimes Dan, I honestly believe that you lack objectivity and it is possible, you would let your agenda cloud objectivity. I don't think you do this for nefarious reasons, I believe that your intentions are well meant, just not totally objective; but we've had friendly debates about that before.
I think you need to put away your OCD in attacking reliability with your interpretations of studies and numbers that can be easily argued and dismissed, and focus on behavior, which is far more telling in regard to the real problem in this industry.
Because that is the true test of a product. If the product is that good, and that reliable, why is it that the people selling that product, or providing that service, avoiding using that product? Now there is an interesting question.
If I owned a restaurant, and I refused to eat the food doing out of my own kitchen, what does that say about my confidence in the product, and service I sell? Maybe my customers should call the health department, don't you think? I'll say this, I wouldn't be in business long.
It is easy to argue statistics and subjective interoperation of study data. It's behavior that tells the real story over the product sold or consumed.
have you noticed that Ray was engaging you, and waxing poetic on the subject when the argument consisted of interpretation of studies and rhetoric; but when I call to the plate actual behaviors of examiners, how those examiners fear their own test, and other examiners being critical of me for expecting us to use the product we sell to verify or refute the credibility of accusations made which are completely testable?
He can't defend their behavior and lack of willingness to submit to the very product we say is accurate and reliable. So the conversation ends, rather than him admitting, that their at ions might send a poor message to the public, that examiners feel that the test is good for everyone else, but not good enough for us.
The message I sent was, I believe so strongly in the product I sell, that I don't expect anyone to sit in a chair, i wouldn't sit in myself. Now that generates consumer confidence. That promotes polygraph, and promote ethical integrity within the industry.
The only message that the examiners involved in my situation send, confirm much of what you say.
Now I am gong to re ask this question.
If countermeasures are so good, and so undetectable, why didn't Maria et al just jump all over my offer, cheat the test, and get rid of me? If countermeasures work that well and are tat undetectable, you would think an examiner would know how to perform better than anyone.
Hmmmmmm I guess they don't really believe countermeasures are as effective as some believes. So I guess everyone is wrong. I guess that makes us all content.
You and I agree on so much, but have different end goals. I want to make polygraph better by cleaning up what is dirty, so what is left with is the real mission of who we should be.