posted 10-12-2012 01:02 PM         

The column is taken, evidently, from Barry's acceptance speech at APA on September 20th.

If that's actually the case, then I estimate that Barry was about one minute into his speech when he brought up “art” and the polygraph.

I'm glad I'm making an impression on our senior change agents, because this debate is only just beginning.

In his speech, Barry quoted a little chapter and verse from the APA's mission statement.

As our own Gen'ral Cornpone hisself might say, “Looky heah:”

The goal of the American Polygraph Association is to provide mankind with a valid and reliable means to verify the truth of the matter asserted by:

o Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons

o Encouraging and supporting research, training and education to benefit members of the Association as well as those who support its purpose and by providing a forum for the presentation and exchange of information derived from such research, training and education

o Establishing and enforcing standards for admission to membership and continued membership in the Association

o Governing the conduct of members of the Association by requiring adherence to a Code of Ethics and a set of Standards and Principles of Practice

It's that first bullet point that really commands my attention. Let's look at it again:

Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons

If that prime principle really means anything, then how can we, as a profession, ever expect to be taken seriously if our methods include sleight of hand, trickery and psychological manipulation?

If we're serious about being taken seriously, why don't we purge those antics from our methodology? Just get rid of 'em.

Is it because the polygraph “works” (or works “better”) with sleight of hand, trickery and psychological manipulation?

If that's the case, then we have problems. Big problems.

But let's move on.

In his column, Barry suggests that changes in individual and institutional accreditation are coming our way. In fact, there may be a two-tiered form of “creds” for individual examiners: a “technician” level and a “professional” level for those with advanced degrees. Competency testing is part of the package, of course.

I see the two-tiered system as being troublesome and divisive. It sets us up for a form of class warfare within our own ranks. It will be not be unlike these age-old workplace battles: enlisted against commissioned, labor against management, blue collar against white collar.

Beyond that, these additional stepping stones toward “real” certification mean that another cottage industry takes flight. More CEU$ will be needed, of course. More tuitions, more fees, more hoops to jump through. More more more.

Man, that polygraph indu$try juggernaut just keeps on rollin'..

And to what end? These burdensome certifications only equate to putting a very expensive Band-Aid on a malignant tumor.

We need to get to the root of polygraph's “problem,” the one that dare not speak its name.

I speak of manipulation. You know, the games we play in the pre-test, in-test and post-test phases of our “scientific” exams.

In our many discussions on this great forum, Barry, and others, namely Ray Nelson, have talked about the need to earn the respect of the scientific community. That's a laudable goal, but it ain't gonna happen if manipulation continues to be part and parcel of the polygraph experience.

Mind you, NONE of this quest for scientific vindication and acceptance matters one speck of fly dung to fed'ral gummint, state and local agencies who rely on “practical polygraph,” as Don K is fond of saying. They are the true utilitarians. After all, they're many of the same folks who use VSA. (Because it “works.”)

What does that tell you?

But let's put that aside too.

If we, as a profession are “serious about being taken seriously,” then let's get on with it in a substantive and meaningful way – not with mere window dressing.

How can we do that? Here's my five point plan:

1. Purge ALL manipulation, trickery and sleight of hand – in other words all of that BULLSH*T – from school curricula and polygraph methodologies

2. Adopt a true open-book approach to polygraph testing, so that clients don't come into the process with blinders on

3. Accept Maschke's AP countermeasure challenge and destroy the CM myth once and for all

4. Conduct (and publish) blind and unbiased studies which demonstrate polygraph's efficacy in the field – not with lab-rat crap and monte carlo hallucinations

5. Require competency testing for examiners

That, my friends, is how polygraph will earn the respect of the scientific community.

Yes, we will have to turn the guts of the “liebox” inside out.

I applaud Barry for mapping out steps to advance the profession, I really do.

But until we exorcise the demon of psychological manipulation (with all of his attendant mind games) from the polygraph process, those superficial efforts of higher-level certifications will only amount to an obviously empty and needlessly expensive form of mental masturbation.

Dan

posted 10-12-2012 01:57 PM            

The real purpose for my post is to advise APA members that the APA Magazine announcement went out earlier this week. If you did not get your notification, you may not have had a chance to read Barry's "President's Message" for yourself. Be sure you're registered on the APA website (www.polygraph.org). If you want to avail yourself of all of the Association's electronic services (voting, listing on the PCSOT certification page-pending, access to PR materials, archives of Polygraph and the APA Magazine, job postings, your listing on the public side of the site, research resources, bulletin board, notification of pending legislation, training opportunities, etc.) you need to have your email address up to date in your member profile on the site. More services to come.

posted 10-12-2012 04:25 PM         

quote:

---

I'll not comment on this kind of post. As we've repeatedly seen, it produces more wasteful heat than illuminating light. You may see it differently. I encourage others to give a quick read of similar posts before deciding whether to engage.

---

Wow. Very telling. Very telling indeed.

You make it sound like engaging in thought-provoking discourse is bad -- at least if it means smashing a few time-honored icons.

Hmmm... Reminds me of how some religions control their flocks.

I'm confused, Don. Doesn't science want -- demand, actually -- critical thinkers?

I strongly suggest that every examiner out there study my post -- and react to it -- as if his or her future depends on it.

Because it does.

True, the sea changes that will ultimately sweep the "profession" will have little effect on those who are currently at or near the end of their careers.

But for everyone else, the polygraph game is destined to change in a very significant way.

Examiners need to be prepared to deal with today's new realities.

Like it or not, the days of us keeping our heads in the sand are over.

posted 10-13-2012 03:47 PM            

Whoa Dan! Demanding a reaction to your opinion is an interesting tactic. Ok , I may regret this but I will bite. The issue I have is not your message, it's the delivery. Maybe unintentionally, you seem to enjoy trolling more than communicating. Your points are: "setting probable lie comparison questions are psychologically manipulative ; research should all be conducted in the field; and the APA leadership is flawed". Nothing wrong with having debates on these things. Yet your points are hidden in hyperbole and rhetoric. Those that differ with you are then insulted as having our heads in the sand, greedy for more te$ts, child rapists for testing juvies, conspiring to create class warfare within the profession....
Wait- you probably assume I am a naive examiner, too new to understand. Even though I graduated from the examiner school only 19 months ago, I am an investigator with a healthy amount of skepticism who can start a private examiner business when I retire from the PD in 7 years. The issues you raise are important for our future. I trust few people because we all have some shady motives for our actions if we truly self reflect. I am familiar with the anti websites and believe some of their arguments are sound.( In fact, I believe DLCs are the solution to most of their concerns. They do not give a green light to CMs any more that PLCs by the way- smart examinees can easily spot the Cs regardless of which type they are). No. I am not an apologist for the APA ( not even a member due to their expensive annual fee). Yet I do trust their mission and efforts - and wish I had access to their journal articles! (I realize it is common practice for academic journals to control access to their journals, yet Polygraph is a professional, not academic, journal that should be freely and widely distributed. This simple change would flood the Internet with positive research, reframing public perception of polygraph- yet sadly it takes $ to easily access this body of knowledge- But I digress).

So, keep posting your critiques. I read them all- yet why insult those that disagree? We all are in agreement that the polygraph method works in assisting us in correctly identifying deceptive charts, better that chance. In addition, we all seem to forget that the polygraph has value as a structured interview to learn new information.

Corey

posted 10-13-2012 05:23 PM         

You raise some good points, as usual. But you haven't been in the polygraph racket long enough to develop an appreciation for the political and commercial forces that drive the industry.

As a police examiner, you are insulated from most of that. But things will change when you get into private practice -- more so if you have to depend on your private practice income to eat.

quote:

---

Polygraph is a professional, not academic, journal that should be freely and widely distributed. This simple change would flood the Internet with positive research, reframing public perception of polygraph-...

---

Please don't be insulted, but about this you are indeed naive. Positive research? It's positive alright -- positively stacked in favor of the industry. IMHO, Polygraph (the journal) is a tightly controlled house organ masquerading as a peer-reviewed journal.

Would the journal to be widely distributed and freely available, I think the articles would draw as much scorn and ridicule as they would garner support of the polygraph.

Think the APA bigs are ever gonna take that chance? No way.

Case in point:

A few issues ago there was a validation study on the Backster method. Problem is, there were few -- if any -- authentic Backster charts. The article relied on monte carlo hallucinations and federal-method charts supplied by DoDPI/DACA/NCCA to be scored "the Backster way".

I guess they felt it was close enough for gummint work...

quote:

---

We all are in agreement that the polygraph method works in assisting us in correctly identifying deceptive charts, better that chance. In addition, we all seem to forget that the polygraph has value as a structured interview to learn new information.

---

Right, Corey, but this is mainly utility. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

My beef is with the Polygraph Scientologists who are trying to build a valid skyscraper on a foundation of "styrofoam" -- i.e., the psychological manipulation around with the PLCQT is choreographed.

The way to win acceptance by the scientific community is not with more home-brew "certifications." It's with science.

How is that possible if sleight of hand, trickery and psychological manipulation form the basis of the "test'?

In his presentations, Don Krapohl often ballyhoos the fact that single-issue polygraph accuracy is on par with that of certain medical tests, namely film mammography. Accuracy is about 88%, he claims.

Does the patient's knowledge of how film mammography works affect that test's accuracy?

No, it doesn't.

Does the test subject's knowledge of how the polygraph "works" affect that test's accuracy?

There's only one honest answer, and I'll let Don provide it.

I encourage you (and the lurkers) to look at this forum's threads over the past six or seven years. Look for the threads with the high reply counts. These are the exchanges that contain the stimulating on-line conversations. (Funny thing, my name is all over 'em.)

On the other hand, maybe everyone should do what Don Krapohl -- editor of both the Polygraph journal and Polygraph magazine -- suggests and don't "engage."

Translation: Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

Dan

posted 10-13-2012 07:56 PM            

"How is that possible if sleight of hand, trickery and psychological manipulation form the basis of the "test'?"

A good old fashion straw man argument. You assume that trickery is the basis for the test and then attack trickery ( similar to someone assuming that testing minors is rape and then attacking rape). PLCs have issues that you and the anti crowd call trickery and psychological manipulation yet are not those things at all. Psychological manipulation involves a person gaining power over a victim. Examiners set PLCs not to gain power and to victimize , but to ensure the innocent are cleared from suspicion. We work hard to provide the truthful examinee an opportunity to pass the test. However, that aside, you are also mistaken that setting the Cs are the basis for the test. I am not sure there even is a "basis of the test". However, lets put that aside too. If PLCs ARE the basis and we agree that setting them requires examiner deception ( not psych manipulation) is that unethical? Also , do you really think we are deceiving anyone in this day and age? If examiner deception is unethical, then so are many other other things: police subterfuge during an interrogation or UC operation, psych experiments, Santa Claus stories to kids, CIA covert ops, and even actors who lie in character. I would argue that police applicants know all about PLCs these days and know how to play along. They understand my role , accept it , and the poly still works. No victims.

posted 10-13-2012 08:16 PM            

quote:

---

The issue I have is not your message, it's the delivery. Maybe unintentionally, you seem to enjoy trolling more than communicating. Your points are: "setting probable lie comparison questions are psychologically manipulative ; research should all be conducted in the field; and the APA leadership is flawed". Nothing wrong with having debates on these things. Yet your points are hidden in hyperbole and rhetoric...

---

Regardless, I almost always enjoy the discussion and appreciate Dan's ability to zap us out of our zombie-shuffle and into some form of conversation.

Dan:

quote:

---

... Positive research? It's positive alright -- positively stacked in favor of the industry.

---

I'm not sure I agree with this. We recently published a rather critical and uncomfortable self-appraisal - attempting to make our own sense out of what we think we know about test accuracy. As it turns out, what we found was that many of the smarter and more responsible (and critical) thinkers along the way have been producing accuracy estimates that have actually been fairly consistent for a long time. We described for ourselves, a test accuracy estimate with a lower 95% confidence limit of .83 (mean .89) for single issue exams and a lower confidence limit of .77 (mean .85) for mixed issue exams. Not sure how that is stacked in favor of anything - its just what the data say. We also showed that polygraph can become more accurate if we follow the evidence.

We could pretend we know nothing, and we could pretend that it is impossible to know anything - but that would be a posture of avoidance. In fact it is possible to know something - though never possible to know everything.

You are simply wrong in your assertions that field studies are the only thing that matter. We need field studies, but they will never be able to answer all questions. So we need lab studies too. And your fear of statistics is just irrational. If we wait until we have the perfect study to answer all questions definitively then we will wait forever and we will do nothing until then. Actual knowledge is gained incrementally - and often in the context of imperfect studies that do not pretend to answer all questions at once.

No study is perfect, and we've been accountable and transparent about the limitations in design, method, sample data, and results of all the things we put in front of the profession.

Along the way we also had to contend with research that did seem decidedly apologetic and stacked in favor of something. You yourself even published a study suggesting the polygraph has nearly perfect accuracy when done a certain way.

So perhaps you could tell if you actually believe the test you studied - the test you advertise and use - to be capable of near perfect accuracy? Or do you not believe that? Is the test so bad that we know nothing about its accuracy and so flawed that we cannot begin to account for ourselves?

Why then would you publish a study reporting near perfect accuracy?

If your ethical conscience truly bothers you, and if you truly believe the test is an unscientific turd, then perhaps you'd be willing to contact the editors and retract your study publication describing near perfect accuracy. Simply heckling others to do what you think is the right thing is just... heckling others. As they say - it all starts with you. Editors are open to retractions - they actually want to help their professions understand what information professionals should and should not rely on. So what do you say Dan, do you let the study stand or does your conscience bother you enough to take action?

Regardless of all this. The conversations are highly informative and sometimes very interesting despite the rhetoric and hyperbole. So I hope you keep challenging us to think about things - action and change will become inevitable. And finally, Dan, it was good to get together for dinner in New Hampshire - so many interesting things to talk about. It is quite nice there at this time of year. I hope to take Nayeli with me when I return in the spring.

As always.

.02

r

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

posted 10-13-2012 09:11 PM         

Had I known your were picking up the tab Thursday night, I would have ordered the prime rib.

You dodged my question at dinner, so let me pin you down right here...

When are you running president of the APA? Before or after Mark and/or Marty?

I'd really like to know because I want to run against you.

But more on that later.

I stand by my study. There will be no retraction. But let me be clear: The MQTZCT works because of the underlying art involved in its execution.

The Greeks, including Aristotle, called it techne. In the words of our own Gen'ral Jubilation T. Cornpone -- the greatest fightin' gen'ral in the history of polygraph -- "Looky heah:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techne

Tom Armitage has the knack, and that's exactly what it takes. On top of that, Armitage had -- and still has -- the good fortune to work (literally) at the elbow of the master, James Allan Matte.

It is my great fortune to have studied with Matte. He is a genius; his technique superior. Matte recognized the relationship between the art and science of polygraph, and in fact wrote a book about it -- over 30 years ago.

They say that those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That does not apply to me, certainly not polygraph-wise. I sought out Matte as my mentor years ago. It was the singular best thing I could have done to learn the craft of lie detection and truth verification.

It's a shame that you and the currently in-vogue polygraph intelligentsia haven't done likewise. But that wouldn't please your handlers, now would it?

Dan

posted 10-13-2012 10:12 PM         

No victims? As in NONE? Really?

How many tests have you run?
How many exploratories?
How many LEPETs?
How many specific-incident tests?
How many CITs?

What's the breakdown of DI(SR)/NDI(NSR)/INC?

What is your personal accuracy rating for each of these types of tests?

Just give us the numbers and the percentages.

posted 10-13-2012 11:57 PM            

Really.

Want my personal stats? Ha! No thanks, I won't play your game. However , I will rephrase your comment into something...you know, productive :

"Corey, In my opinion, setting PLCs and other pretest commentary require deception which I believe to be psychological manipulation of the examinee. Such tactics do in fact create "victims" . The victims are those that fall through the cracks because they cannot pass the gatekeeper examiner. The victims are those we tell 'You do not seem like the type that would masterbate excessively are you? ' We extol the virtues of truth yet manipulate the examinee into lying about past behaviors."

posted 10-14-2012 09:20 AM         

Consenting to the test does not inoculate oneself against victimization -- especially if the test-taker is a minor.

FYI, I stole the personal accuracy question from a Massachusetts superior court judge who presided over a pre-trial hearing on polygraph admissibility not long ago.

There were three polygraph examiners involved in the hearing. Two are relatively well known on the national stage, and the third is a big-time expert and researcher.

None could provide the judge with a definitive account of their own accuracy.

The motion to admit polygraph failed; the judge's decision was absolutely scathing.

As to my own track record, I have every confidence that it is exactly in line with the NAS estimate:

Specific-incident polygraph tests discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.

But let's get this thread back on track...

The APA president wants to earn the respect of the scientific community by, in large part, raising the bar on polygraph school accreditation and by requiring individual certifications.

I say that's just window dressing. To begin to be taken seriously by the scientific community, we need to get rid of that chief variable to which the scientific community most objects: psychological manipulation.

Again, here's my five point plan:

1. Purge ALL manipulation, trickery and sleight of hand – in other words all of that carefully staged, scripted and/or otherwise choreographed psych-out rain dance smoke-and-mirrors hokum – from school curricula and polygraph methodologies

2. Adopt a true open-book approach to polygraph testing, so that clients don't come into the process with blinders on

3. Accept Maschke's AP countermeasure challenge and destroy the CM myth once and for all

4. Conduct (and publish) blind and unbiased studies which demonstrate polygraph's efficacy in the field – not with lab-rat crap and monte carlo hallucinations

5. Require competency testing for examiners

Now, in all honesty, which approach do you think would earn us more credibility from the scientific community? Mine, or Barry's?

I'm calling out the deep thinkers, the heavy hitters, the in-house experts -- and everyone else, from new grads to old timers -- to say whose approach is the better one, and why.

Oh, and we're all still waiting for Don to answer this question:

Does knowledge of how the polygraph "works" affect the accuracy of the test?

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dan Mangan (edited 10-14-2012).]

posted 10-14-2012 01:57 PM            

I agree with you. Obviously we disagree that what constitutes psych manipulation, but that's fine. Maybe others can chime in on this.

posted 10-14-2012 05:38 PM         

A debate wouldn't settle anything, IMHO.

But beating AP's countermeasure challenge -- which has made us a laughingstock for over ten years -- would really get some attention.

Learn more about the challenge here:
http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1012236418

While you're on AP turf, visit the "reading room." You'll be amazed at the breadth and depth of polygraph info.
http://antipolygraph.org/read.shtml

posted 10-16-2012 08:09 AM            

As a shallow thinking, light hitting, not even an expert in my own house, not called by God or trained by a genius, I will still engage and offer my opinion on your points.

1. I agree, but don't understand how it could be done.

2. I agree, but all the info, as you pointed out, is already available at AP for anyone who wishes to educate themselves.

3. Who would do this? You? Maschke would never agree for it to be fairly done.

4. Gordon asked you in another thread how to conduct double blind studies. I guess I missed your reply.

5. When most states don't even require a license, who could required and enforce competency testing?

Barry's approach is not as bold, but more practical. My score Barry 3 to 2.

posted 10-16-2012 09:27 AM         

So you agree with Barry that more window-dressing "certifications" are the way to earn credibility and respect in the scientific community?

This kind of thinking is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.

We need to stop with the Band-Aids and address polygraph's underlying malignancies.

Just because you don't know how something could be done doesn't mean it can't be done.

Perhaps others have some ideas.

posted 10-16-2012 12:16 PM            

You are missing the point.

Simply earning credibility with other sciences is not the goal in an of itself. The goal is to account for ourselves in a more scientific way. Credibility is then inevitable, though some may never actually want to admit it. The real goal is to continue to be afforded the opportunity to do good important work. Another goal is to regulate ourselves in a manner that we are more satisfied with and for which others will be more satisfied.

The alternative: do nothing, act like it is hopeless, put our heads in the sand, continue to say things that sound unrealistic (ie., perfect accuracy), tell people we don't care about science and accountability because we have the "knack" for perfect accuracy, and wait for the legislative processes to take place.

r

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

posted 10-16-2012 12:35 PM            

No, I totally agree with your desire for mandated certification. But I have served on a state polygraph board and I do not understand, as a pratical matter how mandatory certification could be enforced in states that choose not to license. Window dressing certification or diploma mill degrees will not bring us scientific acceptance, but is federal regulation your solution?

posted 10-16-2012 03:33 PM         

quote:

---

The alternative: do nothing, act like it is hopeless, put our heads in the sand, continue to say things that sound unrealistic (ie., perfect accuracy), tell people we don't care about science and accountability because we have the "knack" for perfect accuracy, and wait for the legislative processes to take place.

---

Why is this "the" alternative?

Aren't there other courses of action to take? Of course there are.

Meeting George's CM challenge can wait, as can competency testing.

But let's start with purging the hokum and by adopting an open-book policy toward polygraph testing.

Dan

posted 10-16-2012 05:45 PM            

"Meeting George's CM challenge can wait, as can competency testing"

Dan, how about being consistent.

posted 10-16-2012 06:07 PM         

The CM challenge would take months to orchestrate and then more months to complete.

I do not see it as a one-on-one face off.

There would have to be multiple examiners, multiple subjects, and many exams.

That's because a single test wouldn't mean very much.

We would need to assemble a cross section of examiners: i.e., licensed, unlicensed, "technicians" (no master's degree), "professionals" (master's degree and higher), fed, LE, private, etc., with all examiners being "certified" graduates from various APA accredited schools.

To make it fair, the examiners would be chosen at random.

Clearly, that would a very lengthy undertaking.

But starting RIGHT NOW, the APA can take steps to eliminate some of the things to which the scientific community objects.

I doubt that will happen, though. In fact, the profession will likely double down on the hokum that's kept the mystique alive for nigh one hundred years.

As Pogo so exquisitely put it some years ago: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Dan

posted 10-17-2012 08:31 AM         

quote:

---

...tell people we don't care about science and accountability because we have the "knack" for perfect accuracy,...

---

You make "knack" sound like a dirty word.

Let's go back to Don's comparison of polygraph's accuracy being similar to that of film mammography....

Does the x-ray tech need the "knack" for taking the picture?

Not really. Just follow the steps.

Does the radiologist need to have a "knack" reading the film?

Yes, I say he or she does.

What is a "knack" -- in this context, anyway -- but a special skill, talent or aptitude?

I'm sure you've encountered (or heard of) polygraph-school dropouts who voluntarily left because they saw that polygraph just wasn't their bag. And there are others who bail after being in the field for a short time, because they too recognize that polygraph is not for them.

I think it's fair to say that in many of those cases, they didn't "have a knack for it."

There are some things in polygraph that simply can't be measured.

Is an examiner more capable if he or she has the knack for:

o Establishing rapport?
o Formulating clean RQs?
o Developing effective CQs?
o Attaching the transducers just the right way and adjusting sensitivity settings to their optimum levels?
o Reading the squiggly lines?
o Reading between the squiggly lines? (e.g., a rise on butt pad tracing coincides with apnea, suggesting sphincter squeeze)
o Making the right call?
o Coaxing admissions?

Aside from making the right call, which can be independently verified in some cases, is there a way to measure the "knack factor" for the other items above? I don't think so.

You insist on "de-knacking" polygraph.

The feds and you Polygraph Scientologists have made great strides in dumbing down polygraph. In my opinion that has a side effect of limiting accuracy.

Like it or not, having the "knack" to conduct good polygraphs is a very real factor -- even if those attributes (of skill, talent and aptitude) can't be measured.

Dan

posted 10-17-2012 01:10 PM            

Dan:

First, it would be great if you ran for APA office using this platform. If your ideas have the merits you think they do, you are a shoe-in. Go forth and fix the APA. New blood is welcome, even necessary if we are to progress. If your candidacy is not successful, we can move on. Either way, please do it.

I’ll share my experience with running for APA office. One challenge you will need to overcome is name recognition. Since you have never run for office, made an APA presentation, submitted anything for publication in the APA’s publications (more about papers in a moment), or helped on any committee to my knowledge, your exposure among the polygraph community is to a degree restricted to the impression you’ve made in this chat room. Before counting on the latter for support, do a sanity check by rereading these threads to see how favorably your posts have been received. Compare your style with those who have won office in the past. Tweak as necessary.

You do have something going for you: your 2008 publication in Physiology and Behavior. Not many examiners know about it, but this publication is peer-reviewed. Having a paper appear in a peer-reviewed publication is a big deal, and deserves recognition. You may wish to take advantage of it, recognizing there is some risk of exposure that scientists took not a little exception to its publication given some scientific niceties it failed to satisfy. This can be spun by, well, you know, attacking scientists.

After a short study, though, I uncovered a datum suggesting you were unduly persecuted for that paper. Not that any paper is perfect, mind you, but recent information suggests those shortcomings were not entirely yours. Let me explain. I’ve had a chance to use some free software to compare writing styles against a couple dozen papers. It’s the kind of software available to teachers and educators looking for plagiarism, but it is also pretty good at matching author to writing style, too. I routinely do double-checks of papers submitted to Polygraph to make sure we don’t violate someone’s copyright. Guess what. Based on sentence structure, word preferences and other variables, the software thinks the primary author of your paper was actually Jim Matte, and seems pretty sure of it. I don’t believe you would really front for Jim, but he was the best match among the 20-some other writing samples I had, and by a huge margin. The analysis was somewhat disadvantaged because the only published words I found for you were lifted from this chat room. Most people would agree that writing styles tend to be fairly idiosyncratic. Does anyone really need to read who the author was when Ray’s stuff is printed? Of course, this does not prove anything, but the style matches really do attract attention.
Returning to my earlier point about you running for office, sometime early next year I will post the nomination window for APA office. Watch this space for updates.

And finally to your question: Does the test subject's knowledge of how the polygraph "works" affect that test's accuracy? There actually is an answer in the published literature, and you’ll need to do your own homework.

posted 10-17-2012 02:10 PM         

My writing sounds like Matte's? I should hope so, as I went out of my way to imitate him.

The ponderous structure, the run-on sentences, the random capitalization -- all by design.

I did this to irritate those who have been most unkind -- often here on this very forum -- to Matte's writing style, to Matte's technique, and I dare say, to Matte himself.

I'm funny that way. Real loyal like, y'know?

Maybe not.

Prior to getting into the polygraph racket, I spent over 20 years in technical, marketing and corporate communications. I've written countless pieces of sales collateral material, press releases, customer testimonials, application success stories, video scripts, speeches for executives, and much much more.

Most of those vehicles called for a particular kind of writing style.

Translation: I'm very adept and flexible.

Should I have written my study in my trademark wise-cracking smartass style, rife with loaded words?

I don't think the editors would dig it.

Now let's get to name recognition and electability...

Look at the paltry number of votes it takes to become APA president -- it's just a few hundred. A few hundred! And that's UP from a scant couple of hundred the year before.

I could easily -- and I mean easily -- "buy" the office of APA president for a lousy few grand.

All it would take is a methodical and targeted multi-wave, multi-format direct mail campaign.

First, using email, I could start sending "The Mangan Report" to everyone who has an email address in the APA directory.

I'd get into the politics deep, real deep.

Then, using USPS snail mail, I would send oversize post cards, letters and other items to everyone whose snail mail address is in the APA directory.

Included in these pieces would be the kind of schlock that Ted Todd crows about -- the cheap giveaways often seen at trade shows, but on a smaller scale.

So, I -- actually, some marketing interns -- would simply insert message-carrying things such as customized refrigerator magnets, mini-calendars, mouse pads, trinkets (maybe joke-shop turds emblazoned with the words "NO SHINE ZONE"), etc. into the "aforementioned" direct-mail packages.

Naturally, every element of the direct mail campaign would deliver "the message" -- i.e., the absolute NAKED TRUTH about the polygraph racket -- according to DANIEL MANGAN, M.A., "Your advocate, and the next president of the APA".

You get the idea, no?

Of course, I'd also set up a special DanManganfor APApresident.com web site. It would be bursting with info, such as excerpts of our epic battles here on PolygraphPlace, links to newsworthy polygraph stories (including PCSOT contracts), details of my Five Point Plan, as well as my own regular editorials on the state of polygraph racket -- and how some of it can be fixed.

Off the cuff, my inclination would be to target the private examiners. You know, those guys who don't want to be bothered paying out of their own pocket for bogus "certifications" and being told what to do by a taxpayer-funded gummint-influenced cabal.

So, if you think name recognition would be a problem, think again.

But no matter how it all shakes out, Don, thanks for engaging.

Dan

posted 10-17-2012 10:51 PM            

Corey

posted 10-18-2012 02:24 AM            

I am offended by your last post. You seem to believe you can buy off APA members. There may be some that would vote based on "Gifts", the vast majority are interested in improving polygraph and staying current with issues regarding polygraph. I have been a member for 26 years, and have derived great benefit from the publications, research and educational benefits.

posted 10-18-2012 08:56 AM         

quote:

---

After your statements on this board, I have reservations about your ability to be elected to any office.

---

I totally agree with you! my posts here make me virtually unelectable. But my point is that so few people vote, it would not take much to build the requisite name recognition in the manner I described.

How many of the members read the journal and the magazine cover to cover like we do? Not many? How many have read NAS cover to cover? Even less. A lot less.

See what I mean?

So, as odious a proposition as "buying" the presidency appears -- and again Bill, I agree that it is a an odious proposition -- the numbers would likely work in my favor.

That's because the bulk of the APA electorate is like most of the American electorate -- that is, significantly disengaged.

My posts are hard-edged, I know that. But they are not designed to offend so much as they are designed to get attention. Except, of course, where Skip "Jubilation T. Cornpone" Webb is concerned. (That's a JOKE, son, that's a JOKE!)

I've said it before on this form: I'm polygraph's most passionate advocate, but also its harshest critic. I know that comes across as a dichotomy, an oxymoron, a conflict, whatever you want to call it. But I'm a realist.

Ray's right: The legislation shutting us down will come if we don't change. I'm saying that some of those changes need to be fundamental in nature.

posted 10-18-2012 09:01 AM         

The APA has some great attributes, but answer me this...

How can the APA endorse sleight of hand, trickery and psychological manipulation, given the prime principle of the mission statement?

Here it is again:

Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons

Please tell me how you square that circle.

Dan

posted 10-18-2012 09:42 AM            

[This message has been edited by dkrapohl (edited 10-18-2012).]

posted 10-18-2012 12:48 PM         

I did not write the aforementioned study in Jim's "inimitable" style out of respect for Matte inasmuch as I did to irritate his holier-than-thou detractors.

Ray Nelson has often referred to some of my similarly irritating posts as being a "stick in the eye" to certain segments of the polygraph community. The same MO applies to my study.

Don, the animosity between you and Cleve is legendary, and the animosity between you and Matte is painfully obvious.

Why is it there?

Sure, I can more or less understand why you might hate Matte's self-named technique and his "diploma-mill" doctorate.

But, at the root of it all, I think you hate the fact that Matte has probably forgotten more about polygraph than you will ever learn.

Matte developed a better mousetrap with the MQTZCT. And if an examiner has the "knack," it works better than anything else.

Get over it.

posted 10-18-2012 01:51 PM            

As for personal animosity against Jim or Cleve, boy have you got a wrong number. Check my publications and public statements, and check theirs. You might be surprised how far off the mark you are. Prove your case, or submit your correction. But at least, please, do your homework.

Don

posted 10-19-2012 07:26 AM            

On second thought, while confession is good for the soul, in this case it could bring more adverse attention to the polygraph profession than it did the first time it was published, and that was considerable. Image what the scientists would say this time. We'd never get past it.

I've made my point, and will not belabor it. I had another goal in mind for this exercise. Dan, I am willing to drop the entire matter if you can agree to be more civil in your postings from now on. No more deriding anyone's expressions of religious belief. No more name calling. No more empty bashing for the sake of bashing. Show the same civility your colleagues have afforded you, and I’ll never bring up that paper again. Deal?

posted 10-19-2012 08:55 AM            

I don't even mind the polemics that much – we all need cheap entertainment – but its not so fun when it gets personal.

Regardless of all this the conversation is actually informational and educative if we pay close attention to the issues and details and not the personalities. One of things Dan does well is to prompt us to talk about things we tend to avoid talking about – and prompt us to begin to question our assumptions. As a whole, we tend to not question our assumptions much – probably because it is bad form to do so in much of our professional work.

The potential problem is that if we don't question ourselves we will not learn anything new (which is OK only as long as we already know all the answers we will ever need), and we will be at risk for proceeding for a long time without improving much, - even though we make a lot of rules and standards.

Just look at the recent meta-analysis – which illustrates the very slow progress we make. Studies on the Reid technique in the early 1970s showed an average accuracy level of .871, which was extraordinarily realistic – during a time when other research was still reporting ~.98 or ~.99. The recent meta-analysis showed and aggregated accuracy of .869. Sure, there is more to the story than these simplistic numbers. But, the point is – and Dan's valuable contribution is – that we may need to question ourselves more about what we can do to advance ourselves.

Dan:

quote:

---

You make "knack" sound like a dirty word.

---

Not at all. There is no question that knack or aptitude matters. And it is important not to view the issue of aptitude or "knack" as dichotomous or inconsistent with science. Of course, not everyone has the aptitude or knack for polygraph, just as not everyone has the knack of aptitude for medicine or psychology - both regarded as replicatable scientific pursuits. Examiner skill and experience will always be important.

But knack or aptitude is not our biggest challenge right now.

Our challenge is to show and account for the test accuracy at some replicatable level. Doing this will change the focus of conversation away from "what is your personal level of accuracy" and away from accuracy demonstrations of individual prowess toward a more useful question: "what is the level of accuracy when then exam is conducted according to established procedures?" And, “what are the necessary procedures that will ensure a reliably high level of accuracy.” And finally: “what is the level of reliability, and what is the level of accuracy that we can expect from most examiners with most examinees under most cercumstances?”

Nobody will every know there own level of accuracy unless they can confirm every case. Accuracy with confirmed cases is very likely to be an overestimation of accuracy as it will be the error cases that cannot be confirmed. This is one of the fundamental design issues with any 99% field study.

As for the CM challenge:

quote:

---

Why is this "the" alternative?

Aren't there other courses of action to take? Of course there are.

Meeting George's CM challenge can wait, as can competency testing.

But let's start with purging the hokum and by adopting an open-book policy toward polygraph testing.

---

You are correct, there are almost always alternatives.

And it is actually possible to measure and quantify some of the things you view as unquantifiable. As a marketing person you probably already know this. There is a lot we could learn from the sampling methodologies and statistical methods of market researchers and political polls. But that brings us back to science now dunnit.

.02

r

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

posted 10-19-2012 10:43 AM         

Let's get this thread on track.

Please tell me...

How can the APA endorse sleight of hand, trickery and psychological manipulation, given the prime principle of its mission statement?

Here it is again:

Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons

Please explain how you square that circle.

posted 10-19-2012 11:15 AM         

Rules, Policies, and Disclaimers

Registration for this bulletin board is completely free! If you agree to abide by our rules below, you should press the "Agree" button, which will enable you to register. If you do not agree, press the "Cancel" button.

This Bulletin Board is to be used to discuss the issues related to Polygraph in a COURTEOUS AND PROFESSIONAL MANNER.
We encourage probing questions, professional insights and other comments that will continue to IMPROVE(not attempt to undermine) the Polygraph Profession.

Please understand that our premise is that we believe Polygraph is a useful instrument with a basis in science that in the hands of a properly trained and experienced examiner, can effectively determine truth or deception.

If you are truly seeking knowledge and have doubts or questions, you are more than welcome, however, if your premise is that Polygraph has no valid use and you only wish to discredit polygraph, this bulletin board is not for you and your posts will likely be deleted.

All those who use profanity or personally criticize another member of the bulletin board will be banned immediately without any further warning or explanation and your posts will be removed.

I will be "starting with the man in the mirror".

posted 10-19-2012 11:16 AM         

[This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 10-19-2012).]

[This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 10-19-2012).]

[This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 10-19-2012).]

[This message has been edited by Ted Todd (edited 10-19-2012).]

posted 10-19-2012 01:49 PM         

The forum's registration "Rules, Policies, and Disclaimers" are clear as a bell.

And we all agreed to 'em.

Things have always been freewheeling here. I liked that from the get go. Through it all, the moderators let us have a long leash. Perhaps too long.

I personally regarded the APA forum as the "polite" venue and regarded the Polygraph Place Examiners' Forum as the "bareknuckle arena" of discussion.

We have quite a history, don't we? Goes back years. Years! The newbies should dig into those archives.

Some good stuff came out of our forum's fisticuffs and battles, no doubt. But some not-so-good stuff did too.

I am sorry for that, and I apologize to all those individuals who I irritated, disrespected, insulted, and otherwise hurt.

Honestly though, I will miss the Photoshop terrorism, the extreme cyber jousting, and putting a virtual horseshoe in my on-line boxing glove for when Skip wobbles out of his corner for the next round that takes place in the forum's ether.

Still, I will turn the page. Honest injun.

Rules is rules. I'd hate to be banned and have all my posts deleted.

After all, when I become APA president, I'll need to display the kind of decorum that's worthy of the office.

Might as well start right now.

posted 10-19-2012 08:30 PM         

Thanks for trying to facilitate things, but please don't hold your breath.

Meanwhile, back to our regular programming...

* * * * * * * * * * *

How can the APA endorse sleight of hand, trickery and psychological manipulation, given the prime principle of its mission statement?

Here it is again:

Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons

Please explain how you square that circle.

Anyone?

Anyone?