posted 09-03-2007 05:18 AM            

Trust me- come on here and you WILL LEARN a lot (VERY QUICKLY)!!!!

We have 2000 members but I only see a handful here.

posted 09-03-2007 12:05 PM         

I know for a fact that I have ran cross -targeted tests that I didn't give enough thought to until during the intest (damn it!), multiple-issue false positives (suspected) and false negatives (confirmed later). These errors were made by me in spite of being cautious, talented, and "by the book." To admit such with your business and name attached on record (this site) spells trouble from competitors AND some of the more sanctimonious examiners who would rather ignore their shortcomings (both collectively and personally)than "keep it real.".
So, treat the discussion of errors with a wink and a smile. They exist in all of our pasts. My advice is to just avoid phoniness, and take good advice when it appears to be as such. ---------------stat

posted 09-03-2007 02:17 PM            

We all learn from others mistakes and war stories. That is the great thing about this web site. You can also learn other things. I actually learned how and where to strap guns onto my motorcycle and take aim (you will have to go back a while to read that thread). When I initally began posting here, I would ask questions and everyone was very helpful. You can even post charts and get feed back.

posted 09-03-2007 11:06 PM            

We all have and will in the future make “boo boos”. If there were a way not to make one, I am quite sure we would all be using the 100% accurate method.

I do not agree with stat’s call for anonymity though. If you cannot say or write something with your name attached to it, then it is probably something that you should not say.

Candor is welcome here. I can understand that some may have administrative or legal restrictions on what they can and cannot disclose openly. But when someone truly believes in something, they should be able to express their beliefs. Yes, this will cause those with differing opinions to debate the issue. However, I am of the opinion that good healthy discourse promotes the growth of knowledge.

Let’s face it, if everyone agreed there would be a great rose colored tint to the world but little, if any, innovation.

Polygraph and science in general are not based on set in stone theories. Theories are ideas that are always changing, evolving to fit the best known of the time (what can best be proven).

This is a professional, closed, forum that is graciously provided to us by Ralph for the purpose of discussing and, at times, debating different issues amongst our peers. The aforementioned is not the same as flippant and unprofessional banter. Those too have their place in jests that we all enjoy to lighten the serious nature of our careers or discussions of such but do not have much place in ad hominem arguments or attacks.

posted 09-04-2007 12:16 AM            

I agree that we've all probably done something we wish we hadn't or something that we learned from.

I for one, once mixed up my upper and lower pneumos... What was I thinking???

I wouldn't want to encourage people one way or the other regarding anonymity here. Stat summed up the pros and cons well.

Chaz was great about opening himself up for feedback, and I've always admired stat's candor about a great number of things. If Chaz has any chance at eventually regaining some reasonable credibility with others, his transparency will help in ways that anonymity could never approximate.

I think too much emphasis on anonymity and we would actually encourage a culture of fear and mistrust of each other. Stat, you may like feeling anonymous, but I think a lot of people know you are also completely unafraid to make personal contact. I believe you already know this, but that personal contact does as much or more than your postings to foster a sense of professional community and understanding. Developing a professional culture of real respect and trust can only be accomplished in the context of knowing who people are.

With the Internet and rapid communication, what goes on several states away matters to us is ways that it never did before. What Chaz does half-way around the world affects us all - including how courageously and thoroughly (or not) he follows through with any suggested corrective action or continued learning.

I would guess that a lot of people read this forum, and don't post much.

Ralph deserves a huge thank-you for creating the private forum. Its pretty easy to underestimate the value of the networking that occurs here, along with the cross-training and dissemination of knowledge and perspective from various legislative and judicial jurisdictions - not to mention the good mix of activity from from LE, private and international examiners. We don't see much from them, but I know the equipment manufacturers monitor the forum. We also know that some of our government folks also monitor and participate from time to time. There may be no better vehicle for building a healthy sense of awareness and professional dialog about all of our common and diverse concerns. It may be advantageous that this forum is administered away from the APA website - as the fear of being in some kind of professional hot-water from the association is reduced, and we are free to fool around with discussions about motorcycles and photoshop type things.

--------

Hey Ralph; tell us which charity or non-profit was the luck recipient of the donation from the foo-man-choo-mangan/sharpie thing. I'd go for the rape assistance programs myself, but your choice is just as valuable. A number of people contributed (I'll withhold the names to protect the guilty), but they deserve to know who benefited from their funding of our foolery.

niters,

r

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

posted 09-04-2007 09:04 AM         

JB and Ray, I don't believe that there could be any more fear and distrust in our industry than already exists (fingers crossed).
When you have examiners buying degrees from foreign countries, giving shoddy training, and making outlandish claims to the public, the fear and distrust swells amongst the rank and file------and unfortunately, such impressions spill into the general public.I predict a great deal more shocking exposures in the coming months, and our world is seemingly decompensating before our eyes----for any number of reasons. It is not my intention to be overly gloomy or maccabre here, but trends are trends.The polygraph community seems to have a hard time asking one another "is my fly unzipped?"---the way many other organizations do.
We live in an era when the globe is shrinking----examiners are a mouse click away from modalities of testing in other regions----and news travels at the speed of light----news of "unzipped flies" that is. There are no more dark corners.
Behind the computer sits hundreds of Paul Reveres, both allies and enemies alike. Polygraph Place claims to facilitate "what's beating at the heart of polygraph." The "heart" of anything isn't supposed to have fear, pride, vanity, or ego.

posted 09-04-2007 09:17 AM            

quote:

---

JB and Ray, I don't believe that there could be any more fear and distrust in our industry than already exists.

---

Yes there can, and the answer isn't to hide more. The answer is to hide less, expect greater transparency, and cast increasing concern on those who make overstated claims without being willing to be scrutinized (like computer scoring algorithms that claim high rates of accuracy and amazing abilities with zero documentation or description of how they work - or scoring paradigms for which the developers don't understand their own math and logic problems).

This forum is evidence that the answer to some of the problems with our professional culture is to get to know each other - and as you might say - to get real. Hiding doesn't accomplish that. I also think people should know that I don't believe you hide much, even though you don't use your name here. You are more transparent than most, and we all respect that.

Of course, I have nothing against a personal choice to remain discrete or anonymous as you do, and I would prefer to retain the ability to do so for people who are more comfortable with that type of public persons. In your case, you don't seem to make outrageous claims, but rest on the strength of your insights. For all we know you have strong personal or regional jurisdictional reasons for remaining discrete - but you must know that our confidence in you as an examiner and and as a real human being comes in large part from knowing more about who you are.

The better we get to know each other as professionals and as persons, the more able we will be to think through the difficult conversations about things like PCSOT standards, time-bars, frame-of-reference, comparison questions, cursing, and other important things - without someone having to run away with hurt feelings. I'm still sorry Dan left with hurt feelings. We've tried to make it clear that we respect him as a professional and as a person, and miss his input here. I believe that his inability to understand that is, at this point, about him. I still hope he comes back.

Think about this. If Chaz had come here under some disguize, it wouldn't take long to decipher who he is and we'd all think him a weasel for not facing a problem head on. In some way he must know that. One of the principles of testifying in court is that it doesn't earn and credibility to deny things that are obvious. He will feel this from us, everytime he retreats into some lame justification about that media problem - and we will all continue to learn from the experience.

r

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

posted 09-04-2007 01:29 PM         

I for one have made a number of mistakes in my career and learned from each one, I don’t hide the fact that I am not a perfect examiner. I do audio/video all exams and I do personally review my own work as well as have other examiners take a look on occasion.

I enjoy the free exchange of information on this site, I have problems with some practices and agree with others. This does not mean the “Other” practice is wrong, I may not understand it fully and this is the place to ask questions and get answers.

Recently changing computerized systems created some issues for me, I did not understand how to do templates and had to manually manipulate the questions to get them in proper form for the procedure I was using. Here I got the contact information and was able to correct my misunderstanding of the equipment used.

To Ralph, Thank you so much for this site. It is an aid to young and old examiners. We can all learn from each other. You have provided this opportunity for examiners to learn from others experiences and I do appreciate it very much.

By the way my Anonymous name is Bill2E, and is not meant to be anonymous, I am Bill Tuey, the cattle brand for Tuey is 2E and therefore not meant to be Anonymous. However I do respect the ones that want anonymous names.

posted 09-04-2007 02:31 PM            

being that I am truly shy and introverted, much like Ted, I think everyone should have the option to post their own name and be proud of their positions, opinions and spelling/grammar; or not.

Ralph set it up to accomodate anonymous postings so, if there are some who would rather not be associated with what they feel are poor posting issues, stupid thoughts or bad spelling/grammar then I say hide away.

Of course, there's always the; "the other day I was talking with another examiner and he said...." LOL

Best to all,

posted 09-04-2007 03:44 PM            

Obviously I have no problem with letting people know who I am. That is just my choice. A person not feeling comfortable posting without being anonymous should have that option. It is the free exchange of information that we are looking for. Do we really care if we know who gave the information or not? Don't we all evaluate and make our own decisions? I think B.S. is smelled out(pun intended)pretty quickly on this board and if someone has their feet held to the fire it is their decision whether or not to defend themselves.

Jim, I never thought of you or Ted as either shy or introverted. Rather more like Moe and Curly, I'll be Larry I like his hair do. Also Bill was that brand on your right or left cheek? Maybe you would rather not disclose that.

Anonymously, Jack

posted 09-04-2007 04:39 PM            

The real concerns are that we have a profession that is still outgrowing its own sense of mistrust. I believe this forum helps immensely, because we get to know each other.

Stat has a point about people holding back, and that's understandable. If someone really blows something in a big media-target kind of way, it should be up to them whether they open up that topic hear. That is perhaps more likely with private folks, because we don't have as many agency protocols to answer to. However, the point really isn't to have everyone pull their professional pants down in public, but to learn from whatever experiences we can all learn from.

Peace,

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

posted 09-04-2007 08:37 PM         

I am really very quiet and shy. I don't like to share my thoughts or opinions with anyone. I have to go now, my Axciton just exploded!

posted 09-05-2007 09:19 AM            

Jack

posted 09-06-2007 10:01 AM            

I just checked this after being tied up with non polygraph related work in the hustle and bustle of Sydney in the midst of the apec meeting a mile from where I live.

I did not have a problem coming on this site discussing my issue on open forum because although I agree I made big technical boo boos in procedure, my heart was always clean.

The comments that stat made about being a womaniser due to that lady's comments did hurt my wife as we knew the woman who made them was someone who had applied for a job some years back min our company and who did not get it so bitter revenge came into play.
The claim that I charge '$2000 for a test' fails to specify that it was actually for a TWO Examinee test 2 states and 1200 miles away.
The claim that I conducted an exam in an airline lounge failed to specify that Qantas actually provide PRIVATE Executive BOARDROOM ttype facilties away from the public traffic, to its Qantas Club members (designed for private and confidential interviews/meetings.

I think that if your heart is clean we should say who we are on this site and take any critism as constructive.

I applaud all including Stat who shared his boo boos with us (and I learn from that).

Stat had also made a comment that the other guy just calls his exams different to mine. I have no problem with that if it were 1 or 2 or 4 exams...except that he called the last 12 (DI) exams I did different He called them ndi. Even on the balance of pronability that doesnt add up.
I believe that the truth always comes out sooner or later with everything so why hide.Lets just learn and help each other.