Thanks for stopping by
our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register
link
quote:As noted earlier on the blog, Larry Sinclair, who claims (thus far without evidence) to have used cocaine with, and performed fellatio on, Barack Obama in 1999 has accepted a $100,000 polygraph challenge from one-time Internet pornographer Dan Parisi, who runs the website WhiteHouse.com. Sinclair is to be polygraphed on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 by an as-yet-unnamed polygrapher in or near New York City. Political blog BigHeadDC reports that Sinclair, who stands to make $100,000 if he passes the polygraph, "is expected to hold a press conference in the coming days."
Parisi avers that the polygrapher performing the services is "a renowned expert who has been involved in quite a few high-profile cases," and that the results will be "verified by a second renowned expert."
This, and the TV shows, could be stopped, or at least slowed considerably, by a simple ethical declaration from the APA.
The declaration could state that APA members are restricted from involvement in the exploitation of the polygraph for media entertainment purposes. The APA could establish requirements for the ethical use of polygraph testing in connection with the news or entertainment media.
The goal wouldn't be to ban polygraph from media, any more than it would be a goal to outright ban fidelity testing. The goal would be to provide structure, and ethical standards that assure professional conduct on the part of examiners and participants in those events, and ensure long-term ethical and scientific credibility in the polygraph profession.
Ethical standards might include.
A declaration that polygraph testing is an important investigative science with serious implications in criminal investigation, risk management, and security, and should not be used trivially.
A requirement for review of the testing context (including target issues, techniques, examienr, purpose...) by the APA BOD, or Media Committee, or past presidents prior to the commencement of any activities
Requirements for proper testing procedures, including technique, equipment, scoring, questions, testing location or evironment, video recording
Examiner's themselves might be restricted from media appearances for a specified period after the actual media events (that way the test results remain a feature of scientific and testing principles, and not the personality or charisma of the examiner)
Requirements for independent QC by a process approved by the BOD/committee/presidents - prior to the release of the test results for media purposes
and anything else I've missed.
Of course, some language could be included that rogue polygraph involvement in news or entertainment media in any manner that is inconsistent with ethical requirements would be a basis for some form of censure or action.
Universities and institutions have ethical requirements for the use of human subjects in research - to make sure that some well intentioned or ambitious person never raises a boy-in-a-box again, just to see what happens. There is nothing wrong with the APA providing structure, so that all observers can more readily clarify what should be regarded as reckless activity.
Perhpas the BOD could even issue an immediate order to all APA members to refrain from polical or media events without first contacting the APA.
As Ted says, "lets kick it up a notch."
.02
r
------------------ "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room." --(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
[This message has been edited by rnelson (edited 02-24-2008).]
posted 02-22-2008 05:59 PM
Speaking of TV-check out the Maschke Man on U-tube about the Sinclair polygraph. Don't forget to wear your raincoat which you will need any time George speaks.
Reality is, you can't get 3 examiners in the hospitality room of any annual seminar to agree on anything (specific) regarding ethics, business practices, entertainment, chart evaluation or even TQC...
Jim
[This message has been edited by sackett (edited 02-22-2008).]
posted 02-22-2008 11:29 PM
Holy smokes(!) that guy is so uncharismatic it's astonishing. The speech impediment, the comb forward, the stammering, the constant sly stallonesque meally-mouthed slurring, and my favorite----the on and off again BUG EYES-----what, is this guy suffering from a thyroid condition?!
We are all quite lucky he is a geek.
[This message has been edited by stat (edited 02-22-2008).]
posted 02-24-2008 09:42 AM
The current photo on whitehouse.com is a FINE examble of how we, as a profession, continue to kick our own asses in the media spotlight.
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
posted 02-22-2008 01:51 PM
posted 02-22-2008 06:15 PM
