posted 01-08-2009 03:57 PM            

*** warning - emotional dump in progress ***

To be honest, apathy and fear within our profession has won. I'm coming to an acceptance of that.

I'd like to say for the record, when the fit does hit the shan in a big way, a way that our community can no longer be in denial over, that I did my best to offer a solution.

A unified stand of all legitimate polygraph organizations in one voice had a good chance of raising awareness and putting a stop to the future nuclear explosion (EPPA to second power). Call me a heretic, call me paranoid, Just don't blame me when the fallout starts eating the skin off bodies.

*** emotional dump over ***

I realize my criticism doesn't apply to most of you who participate here. Thanks in advance for allowing me to take my emotional dump here.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 01-08-2009 04:19 PM            

[This message has been edited by Taylor (edited 01-08-2009).]

posted 01-08-2009 06:36 PM            

They know the truth, and they don't care. Nothing is going to change that. Look at the people on the show. Toolman was right at home with them.

I'm going to jump into pastoral mode here for a minute, so scroll down quickly if you don't want to hear my opinion:

Grogan is evil. He doesn't care about anybody but himself, and neither do the producers of that trash. They'll get theirs - eventually. They're all partying at somebody else's expense, and what goes around, comes around. (Read Isaiah 5:20-23.) People who are attracted to Grogan and his ilk don't care about the truth either.

posted 01-09-2009 09:27 AM            

Does the TV show "Scrubs" cause smart people to think that the medical profession is a bunch of nut cases and losers?

Does the show "The Practice" make smart people think all lawyers are nut cases?

Do the CSI shows cause smart people to think that you can do DNA in 30 seconds and find people in a database complete with photograph, address and phone number based upon a smudged fingerprint?

Do smart people believe that we have a special secret military unit that reports directly and only to the President as it is portrayed on "The Unit"?

I hope for our sake that the answer to all of those questions is "No" but stupid people might. That's true but stupid people also think that professional wrestling is real and the space program is all done in Hollywood.

In summary, although I hate it and wish they wouldn't do it, polygraph on television probably creates more attention and therefore more business for polygraph.

Do I wish it was more like Jack Trimarco and less like some of the others? Of course. Do I wish they would accept a competent technical advisor and post a warning at the front of the show telling everyone its not a real polygraph? Sure. Do I really expect that to happen with or without APA/AAPP intervention? No chance in hell.....

If we have another "EPPA to the 2d power" it will not be because of polygraph on some
Jerry Springer, Dr. Phil or "To Tell the Truth" TV show. It will happen when someone completes a "successful" maintenance test on some sex offender who has a dead child in the trunk of his car.

I believe that people get really fired up about two things. They really care about their money (income) and their children. We got slapped with EPPA because pre-employment polygraph and indiscriminate periodic use of polygraph affected people's livelihood and therefore their money. We (the polygraph profession) caused EPPA not Ted Kennedy. I remember examiners (and I use that term loosely) driving around in converted bread trucks to 7-11 stores and running 15 employees in one day for $50.00 each. One chart for each 10-15 minutes per employee and then people were fired based upon the results. Those folks gave us EPPA.

I believe that if we don’t get out collective act together, the next polygraph legislative “slap” could come from over dependence on polygraph results on sex offenders. It’s the most dangerous thing we do in polygraph. It’s far more dangerous than intelligence or security screening. Catch a spy that “passed” his last periodic polygraph and in two days the only place you can find anyone talking about it is on anti-polygraph.org. Miss a sex offender who is found to have been offending while “passing” his polygraphs and the country will be outraged and every “talking head" on every news channel will be talking about it.

posted 01-09-2009 10:29 AM            

I can see now that I gave the impression I was just referring to polygraph on tv. Actually seeing that one show was just the springboard into the thoughts I shared.

I'm referring to the combination of many things making a great big snowball heading for disaster and I couldn't agree more that PCSOT is one of those. I'm also referring to 'instant examiners' and 25 states in which they can operate with no real training.

Also, in conversations with folks on boards where there is licensing, I've been told illegal examiners can operate with impunity because they don't have the resources to enforce the violations.

A pseudo test by a pseudo examiner can easily end up in the same 'car trunk' scenario. The problem is the public does not see a difference between legitimate and non-legitimate examiners and we CAN do something about that but we are not.

When someone calls for a test now, I have to spend time explaining the difference between examiners and pseudo examiners as well as between voice stress. Because I get this regularly now "Well I called one guy and they said I could ask as many questions as I want and he'll do it over the phone for $125." you can guess who 'that guy' is.

And not all these callers are just about fidelity, these are serious accusations of molestation, abuse, theft etc.

Bottom line, my frustration is that we have the potential and power to present a unified message that could effect changes and maybe keep bombs from exploding on several fronts, but its like trying to awaken a sleeping giant. Why are our associations so afraid to take bolder public stances, to make the mission critical lines more clear to all.

I wasn't even in this profession when EPPA hit and I can see the fallout from that. I just find it shocking that people don't 'see' EPPA squared coming, on several possible fronts.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com

posted 01-09-2009 12:11 PM            

quote:

---

Bottom line, my frustration is that we have the potential and power to present a unified message that could effect changes and maybe keep bombs from exploding on several fronts, but its like trying to awaken a sleeping giant. Why are our associations so afraid to take bolder public stances, to make the mission critical lines more clear to all.

---

Okay, I get it now. If some here are willing to draft language for a web announcement, I'll submit it to the APA BOD for publication on the web. Maybe the other associations (states too) would also post the same info.

It would have to be factual, and they're not going to want to name names, but you could easily come up with a FAQ list of those questions you field along with answers and even cites to further research. We are right, and the web provides a nice place to share the truth.

posted 01-09-2009 01:51 PM            

I'm sure your question is "What's that have to do with this discussion?" Well, I'm sure that the above fact really pisses off American pharmacists and doctors. I'm also sure that they realize how dangerous it is to self medicate and they would love to stop it for obvious business reasons and ethical reasons (probably in that order).

I don't like the fact that many states don't have polygraph licensing laws or minimum standards for instrumentation or training but unfortunately it is the case. I'm also embarrassed that my daughter went to school longer than I did; took more medical courses, psychology courses, law courses and ethics courses than I had to take and she had to pass a national examination (written and oral) to become a massage therapist!

Yes, we've got problems in polygraph but quite frankly, posting something on our association web sites isn't the answer to our licensing problem.

If we don't standardize our minimum training, instrumentation and standards of practice first then we don't have a prayer for getting full state or federal licensing which would prohibit the polygraph in a box folks. We can’t expect states to create licensing until we have a viable profession to license and we’ve got a ways to go.

I personally feel that accrediting polygraph schools does very little to help our situation. We need to create a written and oral examination and require a minimum number of quality control reviewed examinations that qualify a student who has graduated from a school. We should inspect schools only for facility adequacy, equipment, teaching material, library and instructor qualifications. What they ultimately teach and for how long should be driven by what they know the graduating student must master in order to pass the entrance examination and successfully conduct a polygraph examination that can pass review. We could then convince states that no one who hasn’t passed this “national examination” conducted and supervised by the APA should be allowed to practice in their state.

If you look at the requirements for other fields of endeavor such as massage therapists, that’s exactly what state licensing laws require. There are 43 states out of 50 that have a license requirement for massage therapists and the other 7 are pending licensure. Virtually every license state requires 500-750 training hours and successful completion of the national examination administered by the Association of Bodywork and Massage Professionals (ABMP). It one tough test. I know because I helped my daughter prepare for it (and paid the $150.00 for her to take it)

We could do the same thing with a mutually agreed upon test administered by either the APA or AAPP (or both) that requries a written exam; oral review and video/audio tape review of a set number of polygraph tests to review pre-test and operational capability. Once that was in place, then states might be more apt to create simple licensing laws that require minimum equipment standards, traning hours and the national certification test.

Once in place, the "jack in the box" examiner is history and everyone who practices would be on a more even playing field. It might even get more of us to join our national organizations.

posted 01-09-2009 04:32 PM            

In Oregon I served several years on the licensing committee, where we have an internship that must include review of a specified number of examinations by examiners who already have a general license. Before the general license is awarded, the intern must complete 200 exams and pass a written examination. About half flunk on the first try. The intern must then come before the committee with a collection of his or her exams, which are reviewed before the intern is subjected to an oral interview. It's not a perfect process, but it's certainly better than nothing.

Licensing has failed in many states (and even been repealed in California) because those opposed to polygraph believe that licensing gives it more credibility. If we can't get licensing, we can continue the process of advancing the standards demanded by APA for membership, which will give that membership more significance.

posted 01-09-2009 05:39 PM            

quote:

---

We should inspect schools only for facility adequacy, equipment, teaching material, library and instructor qualifications. What they ultimately teach and for how long should be driven by what they know the graduating student must master in order to pass the entrance examination and successfully conduct a polygraph examination that can pass review. We could then convince states that no one who hasn’t passed this “national examination” conducted and supervised by the APA should be allowed to practice in their state.

---

We (the APA) is in the process of doing just that. The new exam (yet to be written) is to be based on the minimum amount of knowledge a student should have received at an APA accredited school upon graduation. The school directors have been providing input. I soon hope to have a "starter manual" in their hands for additional comment and input.

posted 01-11-2009 12:23 PM            

The problem with the profession being so handicapped by the task of educating the public with distinguishing phonys from legit folks is very simple. It's not that we lack a forum for FAQ/answers. It's the answers themselves that don't make sense to even the most intelectual inquiries. Polygraph is a very goofy test, and the fact that we require secrecy is for certain to always be the achilles heel. We all know how wonderful the test is, when done correctly. But explaining psych set, and the pretest setup---which is really required in order to bring outside forces into the camp (90%) is difficult for us to do----and sometimes even the educated aren't that impressed with the form.

Why can't we ask 10 relevant questions?

It's not the lack of outreach/education to legal and civil authorities that makes for ethical and level professionalism. It's that we need 8 weeks to explain it, and even then it doesn't always satiate the curious.

For local and state legislators, it's hard to entrust a profession with far- reaching regulatory powers or high formed legal dictates over citizens when that profession is either secretive, or has anything regarding it's execution of service requiring a behavioral ritual----something intangible-----something that requires emmense savvy. Something that even amongst ourselves holds debate, mystery, and revisions and changes that don't always appear to move forward.

I recall in poly school--when being informed of the great mystique of the CQT, being both amazed, and also a little disappointed.
I thought that the polygraph detected lies in a more straight-forward fashion. of course soon after learning the challenges of real polygraph, I was enchanted (we love challenges, eh?). But, had I dropped out (or ceased learning or engaging) from polygraph studies at that moment, I suppose I would have been far less impressed with the ongoing studies and efforts.

It seems that we can't have it both ways. Either we maintain a mystical profession---a profession that evokes awe and enchantment. Or, we dissappoint our fellow citizens by educating them on just how mind-numbingly puzzling and precarious the artform is as it exists today. Real polygraph isn't tidy, like the shows. My family physician---no idiot mind you----thought that polygraph detected lies in the prosaic sense. He saw it on tv.

And for those of you who hope for a happy middle---where we can maintain public awe while they simultaneously have some form of appreciation and regard for the same "professional standards" that we pine for---I tend to believe they are unrealistic. I sometimes think that polygraph has stayed around this long because of our ability to bore inquisitors (legal professionals) to death with polybabble when they start asking questions.

"Defining the problem, is half the battle."

posted 01-11-2009 01:23 PM            

We can hypothesize until the cows come home on how to make ourselves more professional, more educated, more capable, etc. We can whine about guys like Grogan, and how he is an embarrassment to "our" profession and should not be representing himself as such. But! Until there is a legal mandate, punishable by jail time and fines, there will always be chart rollers and hacks.

Rarely do we hear about fake doctors, dentists or fake lawyers. Why? Cuz they go to jail when they get caught! How many "hack" plumbers, auto mechanics, painters, etc are out there. How many fake polygraph examiners are there...?

Does anyone think that just because there is licensing in a state that there are not some unethical, immoral, untrained, incapable examiners (with licenses) performing as examiners? I think the last APA presentation on the survey on how and what polygraph examiners think remind me of this deficiency. We all consider our abilities as proficient, and have less confidence in other examiner's work.

Comparable to the adage about driving. Everyone who drives considers themselves a capable driver. We all have licenses to drive, right? However, how many times do we pass some "idiot" driving inappropriately. How many times are we passed, flipped off and are cussed out by another driver who thinks he is better than us. But Hey! I'm a good driver, he's out of control, how dare he insult me...get the analogy?

So, while we intellectualize the problem with lofty goals and academic aspirations, the bottom line is, this will be an ever present problem. That is, until we decide to come together and truly make this a profession, rather than a professional trade group referring to themselves as a profession.

Jim

posted 01-11-2009 02:23 PM            

quote:

---

Why can't we ask 10 relevant questions?

It's not the lack of outreach/education to legal and civil authorities that makes for ethical and level professionalism. It's that we need 8 weeks to explain it, and even then it doesn't always satiate the curious.

---

Well, let's try:

posted 01-11-2009 02:30 PM            

[/quote] Rarely do we hear about fake doctors, dentists or fake lawyers. Why? Cuz they go to jail when they get caught! [/quote]

That's a lot tougher to fake. You're talking jobs that take 4 to 8 years (plus) to get into, and you don't just hang a shingle to open up shop.

quote:

---

That is, until we decide to come together and truly make this a profession, rather than a professional trade group referring to themselves as a profession.

---

posted 01-11-2009 04:17 PM            

I sometimes write in fragmented/partial sentences because it causes the reader to stop, re-read it and say, "hey, I think I know where you're going with that..."

There is no "reasonable" solution. I believe the answer is national licensing. Some law, akin to EPPA, that has federal consequences, jail time and fines for impersonation or abuse, i.e. something with teeth.

The problem with this, of course, is the avalanche of professional arrogance, ego overload and politics involved with getting something like that done. Not to mention the money involved and legal attacks by AP and CVSA.

We shall probably never live to see it...but, I live to be the best polygraph practitioner that I can be and also recognize what little I can do to stop the Grogan's and george M's of the world.

posted 01-11-2009 04:32 PM            

quote:

---

We shall probably never live to see it

---

posted 01-11-2009 09:43 PM            

I too have read the posts placed here and agree with much of what has been said. The problem is that we are fighting on two fronts. One, with Maschke and his associated malcontents; and Second; with Grogan and his clones who act as our imposters. What's worse, it that Grogan appears to use Maschke's site to prop himself up, or tear others down, and that Maschke does not distinguish between Grogan / PEOA types and the real McCoys in APA and other professional groups; as this feeds his task as well in that unholy alliance that has been struck up between those two.

I am at a loss as to WHY DoDPI / DACA's legal advisor has not gotten into the ear of a U.S. Attorney about BOTH Maschke (International Menace) and Grogan (Domestic Fraudster) in protection of this technology, otherwise protected under the export trade act, and trading with the enemies act. Further, why DACA does not seek to protect polygraph materials from being reproduced for profit by those who claim in this modern era that they can legitamately "Preceptor Train" others in what is nothing more than a pyramid scheme for profit, and damages us and the consumer who would otherwise seek our services. Instead they get a Groganite clone, and if you have seen his questions and charts then you know of what value they are for diagnostic purposes equalling zero, but the consumer loses confidence in "US" / Our Profession, altogether.

I really never thought I would see the day, after having survived EPPA myself, where the APA would tolerate imposters among us, or a traiterous bastard like Maschke. I pray indeed for this profession, as it will take more than the work of just good men to save it I fear.

posted 01-12-2009 10:17 AM            

I am a realist. My opinion on how to solve the problem at hand is just that. My opinion, based on my observations and knowledge of our profession and those in it.

One thing I know will NOT solve the problem is our blustery chest beating on how more professional we are than "them", the academic rhetoric of how much more educated and knowledgeable we are than "those people" or the repetitious hyperbole in self promotion we engage in and within our own environment.

I agree, it is not much of a solution; however, I don't hear of any collective attempts to address this problem anywhere else. And hey! You and I know there are a lot of people out there smarter than me.

My idea is federal legislation. But getting everyone on board for that will be improbable. That was my point.

If anyone has a better solution, I'm all ears...

Jim

posted 01-12-2009 01:31 PM            

Realistically, Maschke's web site does not constitute anything that could be deemed a federal or state crime. I don't like it and I'm sure must polygraph examiners wished his site didn't exist but his right to have it is just that...a right.

Grogan on the other hand, I suggest, could be challenged in court by someone who has legal standing and could show harm and that would more probably be a customer than the APA,AAPP or DACA. If someone who paid money for a polygraph test could show that what they got was not a valid test and as a result they were harmed, I would think they would have a valid case that could be brought through a State Attorney General or in civil court.

Keep in mind, I'm no more a lawyer than Grogan is a polygraph examiner, I'm just giving my opinion.

We could certainly provide a link on our APA, AAP and state web sites with information on "What to Look For When Selecting a Polygraph Examiner" I'm sure any one of us could write it in ten minutes and Vickie could put it on the APA site with the approval of the board as could the other associations.

I checked a few sites on the web at random and found several associations of trades that have a section that does what I am suggesting:

The National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors offers "How to Hire a Contractor".

The American Physical Therapy Association has on their site "Choosing a Physical Therapist"

Both emphasize the important skills, schooling, continuing education, licensing and capabilities to look for in making a decision about selecting someone from their fields of endeavor.

posted 01-12-2009 03:04 PM            

Now back to the present day...I got to thinking...who at the State level would contemplate introducing "Polygraph Licensing" legislation? My own answer to myself..Probably not many!

Most person's perceptions as a blanket thought of "Polygraph" are that the Polygraph for the most part is "not admissible" They don't go to far beyond that and may assume that it has no place in state licensing.

Am I assuming too much?

Then I thought how could I pretty much be sure that this may be the case and thought I would throw this out to the group!

Post EPPA...how many states adopted Polygraph Licensing laws?

Has the mind set of "Pseudo Science", "Not Admissible" EPPA damaged us so much that we just aren't taken seriously by those that could help us with the change?

Do we wait for another EPPA type change to PCSOT or some other form of contention in our polygraph field before government sanctions come into play once more?

Maybe only then would we be hopeful (if not too late) of Federal licensing?

Tony

posted 01-12-2009 03:49 PM            

Seriously, getting 22 states to pass polygraph licensing laws is no easy task. In the past, the biggest hurdle is the states don't want to have to set up an office to administer the license and don't want to create the board to do the work of dealing with the license requirements, issuance, complaints, etc.. This is a usually a budget issue. If you propose licensing in a state you really need to have all the facts in hand and a solution to the budget issue.

1. The number of examiners in your state to be licensed and whether or not local, county, state examiners will fall under the licensing act. (a big hurdle).
2. The anticipated cost of the license (so that it helps cover the anticipated cost of administration) or:
3. A proposal to lump polygraph into another existing entity such as private investigations, security/alarm/fire protection companies who could handle the administrative burden.
4. A provision that your state association supply a board member to sit on the board and do the heavy lifting.
5. The proposed legislative wording complete with the minimum standards, (education, equipment, continuing education, ethics, etc.)

posted 01-12-2009 04:00 PM            

I did do my homework prior to making contact with the State Rep thanks to "Kentucky" and others...I guess though separate of what to do and how to do it, my questions are still

Post EPPA how many states adopted Polygraph Licensing laws?

If the answer is "Not Many, If Any" then is it because of the perceptions, and history that shoots us in the foot that makes us ineffective in achieving State licensing if not Federal?

Are we going to have to wait (insurmountable endeavor) for another EPPA situation before something changes nationally in our profession and hopefully with the remedy of Federal Licensing?

posted 01-12-2009 08:00 PM            

Tony, thank you for saying more clearly what I was saying so poorly.

Skip, scrubs does not make people believe that the medical profession is full of nuts and losers, but that is because there is already an accepted belief that medical doctors are doing their best and that what they do is based on science.

We don't have the luxury of that perception and not doing our best to inform and educate and unify and speak a cohesive message allows the maschke's and grogan's to perpetuate the myths.

And that is only one area.

Eric makes a great point, we don't even know what our message is or how we can express it so that people 'get it'. But I'm convinced, maybe delusionally, that we can figure that out together and certainly is at least worth the effort.

Accountability with teeth as jim mentioned is also an issue.

PCSOT is an issue.

Ego's in a small profession is a huge issue. Moving our standards making away from ego and towards science is crucial.

My point is, lets not resign ourselves to this is the way it is. Let's get uncomfortable.

I just watched the Valkyrie with my wife over the holidays. After the movie was over, she asked me sincerely...what good did it really do that these people gave up their lives. If they had just waited, the war was going to be over a few months later.

I had to think about that. One of the answers that came to me was this. My enter life, I have assumed that other than a few scattered dissenters, all of germany was in agreement with Hitler. That is what I was led to believe. Never in my schooling was I taught that it was just hitler, but it was germany with hitler at the head. But to understand that was not true, that people in hitler's inner circle disagreed and acted with their lives to try and protect their own countrymen, that allows more room in my thinking towards germany, it breeds a more accurate view of life and in my opinion, lessens the collective delusion of all humanity.

That is why we speak. That is why we act. Because Grogan & Maschke are f***ing with my countrymen! He is deceiving and manipulating in the name of our profession and my countrymen DON'T know the difference.

Maybe we can't solve it all for another sixty years and 5 more eppas, but why not try.

------------------
Ralph Hilliard
PolygraphPlace Owner & Operator

Be sure to visit our new store for all things Polygraph Related
http://store.polygraphplace.com