posted 01-30-2008 01:10 PM            

I.WHERE WE ARE---TESTS, RESEARCH CHANGES, NEW COMPONENTS, CM'S, ACCURACY CLAIMS, ENTERTAINMENT TESTS, INTERROGATION.

Organizations,Goals, and People:

Indeed, the profile of the modern polygraph examiner has changed in the last 10 years. More females, more minorities, more global examiners, more schools (options), more instrument manufacturers, and more ways for examiners to communicate with one another at the ready. More examiners hold bachelor's degree's than ever before. More examiners hold grad level degrees than ever before also. We are seeing an increased demand for peer reviewed research studies, and through better research practices, the veil covering certain realities is being revealed. Such revelations bring good and bad news, either variety has a positive affect on the profession as a whole as no mindful examiner wants to be left in the dark so to speak. Newer organizations such as the Midwest Regional Polygraph Association and other regional organizations have answered the need to offer training and unity that doesn't have the costs and time-consumption of the national association seminars.

Research Directions and Secrecy:

We have a ways to go. Despite steps forward, we seem to be on a treadmill, sweating, panting, and working towards a lonesome goal of doing great work or great research for work sake. Such labor is of course beneficial to the profession as a whole, but on the face of things, are we going somewhere in a concerted effort? Do we have enough countermeasure studies to satisfy a majority of examiners---much less our scientific detractors? Do we have enough research on suitability? Are we getting closer to understanding the whys and whats of this test we seem to take so much for granted? Are we consulting multi-disciplinarians for research ideas ; an example was therapist/ hypnotherapist researcher suggested (pun) to me that he wondered whether the use of behavioral suggestion by an unwitting examiner unintentionally cause an examinee to pass or fail their test falsely----in other words, if an examinee is convinced that the examiner expects them to fail, are they more likely to fail by virtue of suggestion-----much the way a behavioral placebo might work? I told him that I doubt any such research was done. I dunno. To be sure, we make very memetic statements to our examinees in order to suggest accuracy prowess—and sometimes suggesting to our liars in hopes that we can help them "fail" and our “truthers” will pass. Does such suggestion “work”?--is it necessary?---is it to the detriment of success of any given test? This "suggestivity suggestion" came about over lunch and for good or bad, other disciplines certainly have much to add when we as a profession are not so secretive about our odd little test.

Accuracy Advertisement:

As I mentioned previously in another rant, we as a profession need a simple “bumper sticker slogan” stating the accuracy of our tests. If we are to use numeric values, than all examiners should use the same numbers/ figures (range). The private practitioners should rely more on their advertised experiences, human relations, efficiency, location, price index......whatever. Two examiners advertising different accuracy data is just silly.

Gizmos/Add Ons, Computers, Statistics----Keeping Up.

Add-ons such as the butt cushion are a powerful tool when conducting tests involving computers, and I predict that the more multi-disciplinary diversity gets implemented into polygraph, the more we will see far more savvy computer scoring and computer countermeasure detection and computer driven Monte Carlo statistic numeric generation for researchers. Perhaps our professional membership should keep up with these innovations such as the countermeasure cushion more expeditiously rather than giving examiners a decade of notice for compliance. Hell, the clumsy and megalithic auto industry moves faster i.e. the upgrade from CFCR12 to R134 coolant for AC. When the tools are proven to work, and the needs analysis has been finished, the tools need to be off of the shelves and into the testing rooms----by any means necessary.

Interrogation:

Interrogation practices have come some distance, but in attending lectures, there seems to be a one size fits all mentality. Such mono-linguistic approaches do not run consistent with any other field of behavioral interviewing. After all these years, I have yet to see specialization reach any notable mark such as a course on for instance, interrogating gang members, or interrogating sex offenders specifically. I maintain that one size does not fit all regarding interrogation, and that we as a profession should be able to name some precise motivations for false confessions. Polygraph examiners do more interrogating than most any other specific position within the structures of various authorities, yet our profession, our publications, and our training seems to give it a backseat. War stories and “gimme confessions” are not teaching anyone anything other than the speaker either doesn't really know why he gets confessions, or that he merely wants to impress rookies.

II.WHERE WE NEED TO BE---TESTS, RESEARCH GOALS (EXTENDED VARIABLES/ SUITABILITY, CM'S, SURVEYS), INTERROGATION (MEMETICS, CNLP, COLLECTION OF SUCCESSFUL DATA AND METHODS), ABOLISHMENT OR MONITORIZATION OF ENTERTAINMENT TESTS BY APA, PUBLIC RELATIONS, SHARPER GUIDELINES ON LE/INTEL EMPLOYMENT TESTING, COMPUTER SCORING ALGORYTHMS.

Internet, Future Research Topics and Communication:

The profession needs a published (web or otherwise) laundry list of issues to be researched. It seems that research projects and or ideas are rather random and generally withheld until their release, unlike the rest of the scientific field which have a grasp on ongoin research before it is published. Now that researchers have long abandoned the old practice of naming a star after themselves when they “get it right”, the motivations should have a purity that didn't exist----or at least one would hope for as much. Some topics of interest are the relationships of polygraph testing with other disciplines such as neuro-linguistics, neuro-imaging, neurological psychology, and any other “ologist” researchers care to consult.

Larger Online Activity and Resources:

First and foremost, the society of polygraph examiners as a whole need to take advantage of the Internet in far better ways than at present. The Internet proves itself as being critical to the survival of every cohesive profession but ours. Half-hearted attempts to get examiners actively on line have shown small but strong gains. Our detractors who are neophytic activists have a better means of communicating than our field----a field charged with keeping children and the community at large, safe. An examiner should be able to consult in small chat rooms, chat forums, chart forums, format forums, specialized field forums----on line, and with an immediacy that matches that of all of the other professions big and small. Pity that I can get a response from a MG Midget (obscure British Motors car) mechanic on fuel pump disassembly in a matter of minutes, but one can't bank on an on line group of examiners with such specialization on the ready. There is simply no excuse why there isn't thousands of secure polygraph charts on line for examiners to score or see scored. It is a technological embarrassment and I envision a time when our fellow examiners will be bombarded with information on line in secure web forums with many subdivided topics of discussion, and a proper search engine within those forums that can allocate discussion points in order to minimize discussion redundancy.

Entertainment Testing/ PR

The APA and state bodies need to disassociate from entertainment polygraph exams that do not meet the muster. I suggest that any exam administered on a televised broadcast must be given by no less that 2 examiners. Since such exams in the US are either given in one of the big three cities L.A., New York, and Chicago, it should not be much to ask that there be strict format adherences and proven question types be used in that oft criticized modality. If you test on TV, you need a small team of 2 or 3 examiners to “get it right” and not be pressured by producers to dance an unethical jig. A designated and entertainment-specific APA monitor should be present (next room) for those tests, as our profession's public persona depends on the integrity of those tests and examiners in a far more substantial way than the other modalities. Call it “The Broadcast Polygraph Act of 2008.”

Attempts to Quantify Interrogation

We as a profession will need to quantify the cognitive and behavioral aspect of an interrogation in order to gain more success. We have learned that science can codify every aspect of human behavior when scientists have enough information. As any art, there is a recipe (algorithm) that can be measured. I believe that through multi-disciplinarian input, interrogation will become less art and more science as we (science as a whole) unlock the human mind through fields like neuro-linguistics (how we process and implement language) and Memetics (how we retain language that causes behavior) among other scientific disciplines. The formerly general field of interrogation will become specialized and distinct.

Applicant Testing Uniformity of Policy

Applicant testing must be given the measured gravity that it deserves. Data on multiple issue testing is less and less compelling, and so Human Resources practices must reflect as much diminished reliability across the country. In my opinion, in applicant screening modalities, breakout tests must be administered following an SR call. Expensive, time-consuming, breakouts are the only regrettable option in this writer's mind. I predict that if uniform adherences regarding SR tests are not given more measured weight when hiring individuals, the profession will continue to slowly erode through allegations of error and discrimination. Thoughtfulness must be afforded by examiners to address the inherent contradictions presented when testing people that may be made aware that the “hiring hurdle” of an applicant polygraph is actually not a bonified hurdle Indeed, the best minds in applicant screening polygraph need to publicly debate such issues---via secure web forums, rather than waiting for condensed Association Q&A seminars, a place constricted by time and meant for learning and fellowship, not debate and resolution.

------------------
" When I die I want to go peacefully like my grandfather, not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car...."