posted 02-04-2013 01:08 PM         

The intrepid Ms. Taylor is digging -- real deep -- into PCSOT, EDA/GSR flakiness, and now, the polygraph "testing" of children (as espoused by the APA's Model Policy on Suitability).

She didn't believe the indu$try tests kids. Honest, she didn't, so I conveyed a few anecdotes.

Ms. Taylor didn't know the feds are into PCSOT, either. She thought it was strictly at the state/county/local levels.

By the way, I learned she tried to get to Krapohl, but he ain't talkin'.

Seems the gummint is very cautious about polygraph stuff and the press. Why?

Ya know, it's kind of funny. The gummint "gag order" doesn't square with Don's role as editor-in-chief of Polygraph.

Oh wait, how convenient.

Anyway, I'll be talking to Ms. Taylor again at length tomorrow. Anyone have any messages for her?

If it's something that can't wait, call her directly at 202-383-6164.

DEVELOPING...

posted 02-05-2013 06:53 AM            

Or as a critic of the polygraph?

Whisleblower?

Conscientious objector?

Or, if you prefer forced dichotomies... friend or foe?

Or a businessman in the retail polygraph market?

Researcher and author of a publication on the most accurate polygraph technique included in the NRC 2003 report?

Will you go anti-science?

Will you use the opportunity to sell yourself and your own expertise independent of science and apart from the rest of the profession?

Or will you talk as simply another professional who is struggling with the scientific and ethical implications surrounding the use of a good but imperfect test?

Let us know how it goes.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-05-2013 09:14 AM         

I'm just a polygraph realist, plain and simple.

Here are some polygraph realities -- previously discussed in this forum -- that are in the mix of my discussions with Ms. Taylor:

* As editor-in-chief of the APA's journal and magazine, Don Krapohl controls the global APA narrative.

* The APA endorses trick stim tests.

* The APA teaches trickery at their seminars.

* The APA does not have a problem with a polygraph-expert presenter misleading an audience by performing a rigged stim "test."

*The APA endorses the testing of (some) children as young as 12.

* The APA endorses the use of polygraph testing in domestic violence batterer-treatment applications, even though there is no independent evidence to show that such test results are scientifically valid.

* The APA endorses "practical polygraph" (i.e., utility tests)

* Scoring algorithms sometimes disagree.

* The president of the APA believes polygraph examiners are called by God.

* It is possible to beat a polygraph test by using mental countermeasures.

* The president of the APA says mental countermeasures don't work.

* The general consensus among active participants on this forum is that written-statement tests don't work.

* The LEPET test is essentially, a multi-dimensional written-statement test.

* Contrary to popular opinion, former APA president Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr. does not hail from Dogpatch, Kentucky.

* There are no independent, blind studies that validate specific-incident polygraph testing.

* There are no independent studies to show that PCSOT and LEPET screening tests are scientifically valid.

* Much of polygraph's cache -- i.e., its perceived "legitimacy quotient" -- is based on the government's (and LE's) wide use of polygraph testing.

* The Canadian approach to polygraph testing relies heavily on a memorized pre-test parable known as the "Jimmy Story."

* Some government entities, and many state/county/local LE agencies, also use voice stress as a "lie detector."

* The APA does not believe in voice stress.

* The APA believes that polygraph test accuracy (incident specific) is on par with that of film mammography.

* Increased use of voice stress is a threat to the polygraph industry's "rice bowl".

* All of the studies used in the APA's meta-analytic survey were contributed by polygraph insiders. No independent testing or studies were conducted for use in the survey.

* The NAS report relied on studies supplied by polygraph industry insiders.

There are more such polygraph-reality discussion points -- such as the money trails -- but you get the idea.

Now, let me ask you this...

It is generally acknowledged that the EDA is the most important channel. If a polygraph instrument had faulty circuitry in its EDA channel, could erroneous EDA readings result?

If so, is it possible that erroneous EDA readings could contribute to a false-positive result, which could mean, say, a false criminal accusation, the loss of a security clearance, disqualification from a job, or, in some jurisdiction for some people (such as sex offenders), even loss of liberty?

Lastly, is it fair to say that most polygraph examiners, after performing a functionality check, "trust the box"?

Dan

posted 02-05-2013 10:52 AM            

quote:

---

* The president of the APA believes polygraph examiners are called by God.

---

posted 02-05-2013 11:02 AM         

From one of my posts in 2012 referencing the same claim:

quote:

---

I cannot send you a copy, but the piece I referenced is in the July 2010 issue of the AAPP publication.

Barry's article runs from page 33 to page 35.

On page 34, near the top of the right-hand column, Barry states:

I've said it before, but it deserves being said again: We polygraph examiners -- whether we acknowledge it or not -- are called by God.

---

posted 02-05-2013 11:34 AM         

George Maschke, Katyln Sack, George Moore and now Marisa Taylor. You are are struttin' down the red carpet with the best. By the way, did Miss Taylor call you or was it the other way around? Come on Mr. Transparent, curious minds want to know!

posted 02-05-2013 03:51 PM         

Kind of sounds like: "I swear to God" or "On my Mother's grave" or......well, you know!

posted 02-05-2013 03:51 PM         

Ted

posted 02-05-2013 04:01 PM         

But who tipped her off?

One one hand, I think it's a sympathetic lurker here on the forum.

posted 02-05-2013 05:04 PM            

[This message has been edited by Bill2E (edited 02-05-2013).]

[This message has been edited by Bill2E (edited 02-05-2013).]

posted 02-05-2013 05:36 PM         

Maybe it was an UNsympathetic lurker. Corey has said he digs the drama. Just sayin'.

Maybe Skip cajoled somebody into it, perhaps in return for a couple of jugs of moonshine.

posted 02-06-2013 09:53 AM         

The central thrust of Ms Taylor's inquiries is "LX4000 EDA Deficiencies."

She sent me a PowerPoint bearing the same title.

I suspect she's looking into the legitimacy of the claims made in the slides, and, if true, their trickle-down effect.

That got me to thinking...

I've long made sport of the trust-us-the-data-is-cool approach to polygraph validity studies.

But what about the instrumentation itself? I'm just a practitioner, so I never really gave it much thought. If I get good looking tracings, I'm happy.

Ms Taylor's inquiry raises a very good question:

Do we need independent lab testing of instrument platforms and architectures?

And, by extension, should scoring algorithms be included?

But I don't know how it would be handled, or by whom. UL? ASTM? OSHA? ISO9000? Mil-Spec something or other? (I realize I'm just tossing out stuff here.)

Back to Taylor's snooping...

In my estimation, she doesn't give a rat's a** about our internal bickering about polygraph techniques.

Ms. Taylor is focused -- big time -- on this EDA issue.

I am still at a loss as to why she singled me out. FYI, since 2004 I've been generally pleased with my LX4000, and, when needed, Lafayette's customer service has been nothing short of superb.

Dan

posted 02-07-2013 11:44 AM         

After talking with Ms Taylor for about an hour yesterday, I get the sense she is indeed performing due diligence by talking to as many people in the polygraph field as she can to get different perspectives.

Taylor's biggest problem, as she describes it, is the lack of individuals who will speak on the record. This is especially true of her contacts with a federal connection.

She said that NCCA has been especially tight lipped.

Maybe it's time for AG Eric Holder to order an FBI raid on the place.

So, in order to get more info, Taylor is interested in hearing from anyone in the polygraph field who has something to say.

FYI, she is interested not only in the alleged LX 4000 EDA deficiencies, but in any flakiness of any instruments, including weirdness surrounding the self-contained scoring algorithms.

In addition, Taylor is probing into PCSOT testing and contracts. If you are aware of any corruption, cronyism, favoritism, lack of QC/QA, blatant injustices, or anything else that's newsworthy, you can let her know.

Taylor understands that some people need to speak off the record.

Oh yeah, the APA's trust-us-the-data-is-cool angle is being looked at.

Bottom line: The winds of scrutiny are gathering, and the polygraph indu$try's house of cards may well feel some effects.

Taylor expects to have something in print in a couple of weeks. Indeed, the piece may cause consternation (and some pain) in a few areas, but overall, it could be the wake-up call many have been waiting for.

If you would like to contribute, please contact Marisa Taylor soon.

This is your chance.

Direct line: 202-383-6164
Email: mtaylor@mcclatchydc.com

Dan

posted 02-07-2013 03:29 PM            

quote:

---

FYI, she is interested not only in the alleged LX 4000 EDA deficiencies,

---

posted 02-07-2013 04:40 PM         

quote:

---

Dan,
You appear to sweating quite profusely. There also appears to be the beginnings of a very slight bulge in the front of your Mickey Mouse pajamas. Please try not to over excite yourself. It might become embarrassing if someone enters your basement lair.

You finally have the opportunity to speak loudly, publically and authoritatively about your passion and can tell the world about the black APA helicopters and NCCA drones hovering over your house. Put your colander back on your head, cover yourself with aluminum foil and enjoy the notoriety. You’ll soon be a star like your hero “Georgie boy”.

---

Skip,

I'd be grateful if you would cut and paste your last post and put it in an email to Ms Taylor.

It might help her to get a better handle on things.

Know what I mean?

On second thought, don't bother.

I'll take care of it.

posted 02-07-2013 07:31 PM         

A series of articles published last year by McClatchy newspapers found that 15 federal agencies use polygraphs on more than 70,000 job applicants and employees each year to determine issuance of security clearances or eligibility for jobs. Yet many of these polygraph screenings included highly personal questions that applicants thought were intrusive to their privacy, McClatchy reported.

Depending on the agency, polygraph screeners ask a wide range of information that can include relationships with foreigners, sexual conduct and whether someone has leaked government information to the news media. Private thoughts and behaviors are recorded and filed in databases and shared across multiple agencies.

Some people that issued polygraph tests felt they were pressured to bypass ethical and legal boundaries by collecting information not directly related to national security during screenings, McClatchy reported. Polygraphers for the National Reconnaissance Office said they were rewarded with bonuses if they collected questionable information while those that refused were punished.

Six federal agencies, including the National Reconnaissance Office, focus on national security questions, such as whether someone has leaked classified information or has had inappropriate relationships with foreigners. These agencies are told to avoid asking personal questions such as sexual conduct and psychological issues.

However, nine other agencies ask polygraph screening questions related to prior drug use, undisclosed crimes and lying on their security-clearance application form. They see these questions as essential to discovering applicants or employees who are hiding crimes or unstable behavior that might affect job performance.

The series of McClatchy articles prompted an investigation by the National Intelligence agency, which found “inconsistencies” in polygraph use across the government, but that “all programs were operating appropriately,” said National Intelligence Director James Clapper’s office in a statement to McClatchy newspapers.

posted 02-07-2013 09:42 PM         

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on McClatchy News Service...

quote:

---

The McClatchy Company is a publicly traded American publishing company based in Sacramento, California. It operates 30 daily newspapers in 15 states and has an average weekday circulation of 2.2 million and Sunday circulation of 2.8 million.[2] In 2006, it purchased Knight Ridder, which at the time was the second-largest newspaper company in the United States (Gannett was and remains the largest). In addition to its daily newspapers, McClatchy also operates several websites and community papers.

---

I am hopeful that Ms Taylor's article will enjoy significant exposure, and be a vehicle for creating greater public awareness about polygraph "testing" -- as well as serving as a springboard to help get the attention of that great American activist filmmaker, Michael Moore.

posted 02-08-2013 12:30 PM            

You earlier accused Don Krapohl of "not talkin" and NCCA of being "especially tight lipped" regarding Ms. Taylor's attempts to get them to weigh in on the issues being discussed here. FYI, NCCA is a government organization under the direct control of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). As such, NCCA management (to include Mr. Krapohl) is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN from speaking to members of the press without the prior knowledge and permission of the DIA Public Affairs Office (PAO). If Ms. Taylor desires to speak with Mr. Krapohl or any of the myriad of highly qualified experts at NCCA, all she has to do is go through PAO and they will assist her in making it happen. As an experienced journalist, one would think Ms. Taylor would know the proper procedures.

posted 02-08-2013 01:26 PM            

The presence of the press is not unprecedented at NCCA. Just recently, the Discovery Channel & PBS (NOVA) each produced some very good quality segments about NCCA.

posted 02-08-2013 02:52 PM            

I am sure you would agree not all interviews of government officials are "masterfully crafted...dog & pony shows". After all, have you not watched some pretty tough interviews of government officials who were clearly uncomfortable answering the questions posed? I am not talking about "ambush" style interviews where some reporter shows up and shoves a mic in someone's face. I am talking about the routene "in the office" type interviews, which are in virtually every case are previously arranged through a PAO office...

My question remains, did this Taylor woman make any attempt to go through DIA Public Affairs to reach NCCA for comment? If she did not, then she was out of line (and knows it).

BTW, keep in mind that sometimes less than ethical journalists purposely avoid PAO and contact an official deliberately knowing the only reponse they are going to get is, "I'm sorry, I cannot comment". This way the reporter can claim, "Officials of DoD were contacted and stated they had no comment". By doing this, the reporter is then able to paint the individual and the target agency in as negative a light as possible, which in many cases was the reporters goal in the first place...

posted 02-08-2013 03:17 PM         

By the way, Keith...

For a guy who's a full-time gummint employee -- chief instructor at NCCA -- you sure spend a lot of weekday time on the Corvette Forum.

Just how much time, exactly, do you spend surfing the web when you're at work?

Some of us taxpayers are curious.

posted 02-08-2013 09:57 PM         

Ted

posted 02-08-2013 10:12 PM         

You're a pretty smart guy. You know the drill.

Tell us...

How much time do YOU think Keith spends surfing the web during his typical gummint "work" day?

posted 02-09-2013 06:38 AM            

perfect!!!

Another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 02-09-2013 07:47 AM         

Movie clips aside, I find it deliciously ironic that someone such as Keith, who makes his living (at taxpayer expense) perpetuating the imprimatur of imaginary legitimacy, swoops in and impugns the integrity of a news reporter.

Classic. The blatant arrogance and entitlement mentality of gummint bureaucrats never ceases to amaze.

_____________________________________________

Now Keith, if you would be so kind...

1. Calculate the amount of time you spend surfing the web -- and doing other time-killing activities unrelated to your gummint mission -- while you're supposedly on the job.

2. Filter it through your pay grade.

3. Tell us taxpayers how much your flights of fancy, boredom, or dereliction of duty is costing us.

But before answering, I suggest that you take your time and do your calculations very carefully.

posted 02-09-2013 09:03 AM         

I'll check with "this Taylor woman" about going through the proper channels and then post her response.

Meanwhile, let's see how Keith -- a highly regarded polygraph examiner and gummint-agency faculty member -- justifies his apparent theft of taxpayer-funded resources while working at the National Center for Credibility Assessment.

posted 02-09-2013 03:59 PM         

>>>Monday February 4th I get a call from the same McClatchy News reporter who wrote a series of articles about weirdness in gummint polygraph programs.

>>>This time, it seems, the reporter is primarily looking into alleged "LX4000 EDA deficiencies" and emails me a PowerPoint of the same name. The presentation contains a lot of stuff covered in this very forum, including some quotes from Barry, Ray, and others.

>>>I don't know how the reporter got my name. My only connection -- as far as I know -- is that I've used an LX4000 since 2004.

>>>The reporter asks me about the LX4000 EDA. I tell her that I'm just a practitioner and refer her to Barry, who I know has all four instruments, is heavy-duty polygraph h/w and s/w nerd, an honest guy, and is much better equipped to answer her questions. She tells me she prefers field reports from grunts, not industry/manufacturer bigs.

By the way, I've known Barry since 2004 and have called on him many times for advice on technical, procedural and ethical issues.

>>>The reporter and I talk about a host of other polygraph topics, but it's clear to me that her focus is the LX4000 EDA issue.

>>>In the course of our conversations, I bring up the quote from Justice Thomas' majority opinion in Scheffer and use that as a backdrop to illustrate the "doubts and uncertainties" angle.

>>>I post some progress reports on this forum and invite others with input to contact the reporter. The usual suspects chime in, and the typical flaming, rancor and toxic sludge is in abundance.

>>>I send the reporter Skip's post about my Mickey Mouse pajamas, the slight bulge, my basement lair, etc. I embellish it a little by telling her I'm also wearing bunny slippers that are missing their ears. I blame the missing ears on my otherwise lethargic blue-tick hound dog, "Gen'ral Cornpone."

Now, let's get back to "this Taylor woman."

What do y'all think is going on? Commercial/industrial espionage? Victims of false-positives who are blaming their misfortune on faulty hardware? Gummint polygraph program insiders leaking stuff about flaky tracings being viewed as "good enough" for gummint work?

Let's kick it around.

posted 02-09-2013 05:40 PM         

Did I violate any sort of formal confidentiality agreement?

If so, then what about the guy who leaked multiple private forum comments concerning the alleged LX4000 EDA deficiencies? Should he get his ass kicked too?

Maybe you think he should get his ass kicked AND his head bashed in...then throw him in a cell next to Bradley Manning.

[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 02-09-2013).]

posted 02-09-2013 10:49 PM            

Yes

could contribute to a false-positive result

Yes

which could mean, say, a false criminal accusation, the loss of a security clearance, disqualification from a job, or, in some jurisdiction for some people (such as sex offenders), even loss of liberty?

Yes in some jurisdictions, not many

Lastly, is it fair to say that most polygraph examiners, after performing a functionality check, "trust the box"?

Yes

As editor-in-chief of the APA's journal and magazine, Don Krapohl controls the global APA narrative.

Not truthful allegation

* The APA endorses trick stim tests.

I have seen no published rule by the APA on this. Examiners I work with use a known number in the stim test.

* The APA teaches trickery at their seminars.

If using control questions and obtaining a false answer to a control question is trickery, Yes

* The APA does not have a problem with a polygraph-expert presenter misleading an audience by performing a rigged stim "test."

I don't believe the APA endorsed this, and remember You an I are what makes up the APA, along with every other member.

*The APA endorses the testing of (some) children as young as 12.

Yes

* The APA endorses the use of polygraph testing in domestic violence batterer-treatment applications, even though there is no independent evidence to show that such test results are scientifically valid.

What do you mean scientifically valid?

* The APA endorses "practical polygraph" (i.e., utility tests)

Explain exactly what you mean, I think you are talking about some of the test formats you use.

* Scoring algorithms sometimes disagree.

Not that I seen or experienced, and if so it is few and far between

* The president of the APA believes polygraph examiners are called by God.

Back off of this one, you have really worn it out. You are a disenfranchised Catholic, please don't put your non belief on those of us that have a belief in a Supreme Being.

* It is possible to beat a polygraph test by using mental countermeasures.

I am sure it is if the individual has had proper training.

* The president of the APA says mental countermeasures don't work.

Need to look at the full context of the statement

* The general consensus among active participants on this forum is that written-statement tests don't work.

And this is important because???

* The LEPET test is essentially, a multi-dimensional written-statement test.

No, only one RQ on the test is about a "written statement", their application.

* Contrary to popular opinion, former APA president Milton O. "Skip" Webb, Jr. does not hail from Dogpatch, Kentucky.

I have no idea and see no importance

* There are no independent, blind studies that validate specific-incident polygraph testing.

There are no independent studies because studies have been conducted by persons or entities with an interest in either promoting or destroying polygraph.

* There are no independent studies to show that PCSOT and LEPET screening tests are scientifically valid.

Same answer as above

* Much of polygraph's cache -- i.e., its perceived "legitimacy quotient" -- is based on the government's (and LE's) wide use of polygraph testing.

Yes and based on studies conducted by many others outside government and LE.

* The Canadian approach to polygraph testing relies heavily on a memorized pre-test parable known as the "Jimmy Story."

What is the purpose of this one??

* Some government entities, and many state/county/local LE agencies, also use voice stress as a "lie detector."

It has been used by federal, state, county and local entities. It is not what we were discussing at all.

* The APA does not believe in voice stress.

Yes

* The APA believes that polygraph test accuracy (incident specific) is on par with that of film mammography.

Do you believe that? Your part of the APA and I have not seen you publish anything in the APA publications about it.

* Increased use of voice stress is a threat to the polygraph industry's "rice bowl".

No

* All of the studies used in the APA's meta-analytic survey were contributed by polygraph insiders. No independent testing or studies were conducted for use in the survey.

Your really hung up on this. Your personal study which you published showed 100% accuracy. Did you intentionally lie in your published paper?

* The NAS report relied on studies supplied by polygraph industry insiders

Who else has done studies? What else could they rely on??

posted 02-10-2013 07:34 AM         

Thanks for your input. But rather than us going in circles, I strongly suggest that you contact Ms Taylor and convey your views to her directly.

That raises a question.

Why would anyone in our little circle, who cares about polygraph, NOT want to make their voices heard with McClathcy News? Hell, you should take advantage of this opportunity!

Here's something that might interest you:

"This Taylor woman" expressed no small degree of disappointment and frustration when she learned I had "outed" her call to me on this forum. I explained to her that if I were quoted in an article that was seen as anti-polygraph, it would look like I was an inside man on a journalistic hatchet job.

Clearly, I chose not to take that route, and in fact encouraged others on this forum to contact Ms Taylor themselves.

So, I reiterate: If you want your views to be heard, CONTACT MARISA TAYLOR.

That includes all you ass-kickin' tough guys.