|
Author
|
Topic: International Association of Police Polygraphers
|
Gordon H. Barland
Member
|
posted 08-05-2007 08:37 AM
 
Ted,I appreciate your directness and passion. The main problem [Issue number 1]: is the presence of unaccredited (unregulated) schools which are not required to meet any standard. The graduates of those schools face hurdles in obtaining continuing education (e.g., they find it difficult to join professional organizations). The solution is to have states license examiners. There are no unaccredited schools in Utah. Every state licensing law that I’m aware of requires graduation from a school accredited by the APA. I know CAPE has tried – and failed – to get California to enact a licensing law. Plan better. Try harder. Succeed.
Issue number 2: Bolivian CQ
The examiners are already in place, daily doing the best they can to stem corruption. We can walk away and hope they fail and hope the administrators try again. Neither is assured. Or we can establish post facto a system of standards and supervision. The purpose of my going there is personally assess the situation and to present the case for quality control oversight. The government will decide if they want that or not. If they do, the situation likely will improve. If they don’t, the situation continues on its present trajectory, for better or for worse. At 68, I can do without all the administrative hassle required to create an effective program, assemble top examiners, ensure they meet the standards and have trained at DACA, to say nothing of the risk of being sued. If I do it at all, I see my role as being to get the oversight program in place, then turn it over to a young turk with fire in his soul and a determination to make the world a better place. Peace Gordon
IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 08-05-2007 09:11 AM
Dr. B,Sorry for the rant! ( It is amazing what a couple of 12oz cans of courage and a computer can do!) I agree that you are the man to fix the problem. I also agree that we should continue or push for a law in California to require a license. As always, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Ted IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 08-05-2007 09:44 AM
I like quotations, because they make me feel wiser than I really am. So here's one:"The result of becoming an expert in any profession is to become intimate with its ugliness." I've never found out where that's from, so if anyone knows, please tell me. ---------- To simplify the actual ethical quandaries here, regarding QC for a possibly underdeveloped program, They are: 1) deontological (kantian) concerns about duty for decency to all individuals - there are a lot of individuals involved - and decency goes beyond things like not picking their nose or drawing funny pictures of them. Moral obligations for decency, in addition to things like not harming others, and not helping people who are harming others, might include a form of obligation that says "if you can help, then you must." Certainly there is a need for help with the mess in Bolivia - both the corruption and the polygraph program. Which might be another example of corruption, having gone about it the wrong way with perhaps the wrong people. There is no moral obligation to help where (or in ways in which) your efforts will do no good. 2) consequential/cost ethics - (Cui bono) - certainly the arranger of the QC service benefits from the inclusion of the expert services of someone like Dr. Barland - perhaps even enough to market further services - I'm not sure the people who desperately need QC would achieve enough benefit to really fix the problem, and the cost to Dr. B and the polygraph profession might be noticable (even if only in terms of internal discomfort). 3) values-based ethical concerns about doing the right thing, personal integrity, and being a member of a community (both a professional community, and a community of persons who share the same oxygen and oceans) - definitely a concern for the anyone who gets involved in such activity as that described about Bolivia. I had previously expressed my leanings toward the contractual agreements and obligations of a professional polygraph community. Now I see that Dr. B is thinking more broadly. ----- Lawrence Kohlberg was a Harvard professor who gave us a very interesting model for moral development in children and adult persons. He outlined three levels and six stages of development of moral judgment: They go something like:
- Level 1 - preconventional morality (typical of children):
[list]
- stage 1. consequentialist morality - what happens to me (personal consequences) - do I get rewarded or punished - satisfied or frustrated, warm-fuzzies or cold pricklies - kumba-ya or lectures.
This is an infantile stage of moral development typical of thugs and criminals. In its more natural form, this is the stage of developmental narcissism, in which children sometimes decide what are good or bad choices by the anticipated outcome or consequences for them. Parents have to be judicious in frustrating wrong choices, like hitting, pinching, stealing, throwing loud fits, or making funny noises in public. The problem is that children take everything personally (because they don't know that they aren't the center of the universe - perhaps they are), so too much frustration or negative experiences can cause resentful and rebellious children with "low self esteem." So, parents have to be careful to shape the overwhelming volume of experience in favor of satisfying proper and successful efforts - that way those developmentally narcissistic children have plenty of good experiences to take personally and incorporate into a healthy self-concept or positive self esteem. - stage 2. self-interest morality - This stage is an advancement of stage 1, because it is the onset of the formulation of contracts or agreements with others, but its limited to quid pro quo ethics (which are really just another version of "what's in it for me"), and we see parents making deals with younger children at this stage. stage 2 ethics is still limited to an individual's concern over what happens to them as an individual. This is the type of moral judgement that allows people to sell all kinds of snake-oil and tonic to remmediate problems that may or may not exist. It may underly the decision to sell services that are inadequate to the task at hand - things like fidelity polygraphs that are unlikely to really rectify a dysfunctional relationship (and cross dangerously into the realm of regulated professional activities), or an underdeveloped anti-corruption polygraph program - when one may not have the proper background or certifications to do that correctly.
Level 2 - conventional morality (typical of adolescents and adults):- stage 3. The social role stage, sometimes referred to as good-boy/good-girl morality. We want our kids to play cops not robbers, and we worry about kids who spend too much time make-believing they are hannibal lechter. Stage three is the beginning of a morally relativistic thinking, and we see people begin to evaluate the rightness and wrongness of actions in terms of the consequences to their relationships with others - family, nation, or professional association. Of course, one has to be associated with a profession in order to have any obligations around how one's actions affect that profession.
- stage 4. the law-and-order stage. People begin to appreciate the value of rules and authority, for how they instruct one to pursue success with minimal frustration. This goes beyond the relativistic thinking of stage 3, because at this stage people begin to think about their group (family, gang, community, nation, etc.) Choice and responsibility are emphasized at this stage. While based on the social orientation of stage 3, this stage is only slightly different, in that we see more concern about things like culpability, and more concern about the feedback one receives from others. Again, one has to be a part of a profession in order to be concerned about that.
Level 3 - post-conventional morality (principled morality)- stage 5. the social contract stage (though not exactly in the same way described by that womanizing fiend, Jean Jacques Rousseau). In this stage, people become less interested in maintaining an authoritarian image of what is deemed right and what is deemed wrong and begin to think more broadly about social contracts that benefit both themselves and their group (profession, family, nation etc), based on things like consensus and democratic discourse. our systems of utilitarian ethics is based largely at this stage. In this stage we seem people think more flexibly, but still in terms of group/family/nation/profession (whatever). Its just that they might seek to adjust or re-negotiate agreements around roles and boundaries to assure proper benefit to all concerned. So we might see a polygraph trainer work in concert with the APA from the outset, in order to assure a properly developed anti-corruption polygraph program (as opposed to the rewarding ka-ching of a poly-school market).
Note: it is sometimes easy to mistake stage 5 for stage 2 and college students in particular sometimes look pretty regressive in this model. - Stage 6. the stage of abstract or universal ethical principles (most people never get to this stage), in which they loose interest in relativistic thinking (which tolerates the frustration of some in favor of the happiness of others), and become more interested in universal ethic principles that will transcend things like borders, families, groups, and prompt decisions and actions that are more likely to bring benefit to everyone. Stage 6 moral reasoning allowed Ghandi to believe he was ethically correct to violate the laws of his nation, in certain ways, in order to bring about certain forms of change. It allowed our founding fathers to conclude they were morally correct to take action that would be viewed by Britain as treasonous. I'm certainly not suggesting anyone has violated any laws here.
It is this type of reasoning that perhaps prompts Dr. B's interest in helping the Bolivian program. There is much that may not be right about the circumstances, and there is much that may yet go wrong. There may even be personal/professional costs for becoming aligned with the program, and it may seem like a compromise of our professional agreements for anyone to endorse the program at all. However, Dr. B might be uniquely qualified to help rectify the situation. Would it be morally correct not to do so, despite all the surrounding flaws?
[/list] Note: Some feminists have criticized Kohlberg model for moral development as patriarchal or flawed, but they have not suggested any more viable alternatives. I dunno. I'm just thinking about all this.
Peace,
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 08-05-2007).] IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-05-2007 11:52 AM
Maine requires a license, but the APA is never mentioned in the law. The Commissioner just has to approve the school, which means this one could make the list.IP: Logged |
Gordon H. Barland
Member
|
posted 08-05-2007 01:50 PM
Barry,In Utah, it's not in the law itself, but in the rules & regulations. R156-64-302b ("Qualifications for licensure - educational requirements"), subpara 4a states: "Graduation from a course of instruction in deception detectiion in a school accredited by the American Polygraph Association." Does the Maine commissioner make his determination by himself, or does the polygraph licensing board advise him? IP: Logged |
Gordon H. Barland
Member
|
posted 08-05-2007 01:55 PM
Stat,Thanks for your offer. Should the program ever come about, I'll post a notice here. You need not be an ex-Federal examiner to qualify, as the DACA Senior Examiner course is open to private examiners who are under contract to the U.S. Government (which would be the case with the Bolivian program). Peace Gordon IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-05-2007 02:55 PM
Gordon,It is similar here: The Commissioner decides for herself. But, if the truth be known, there is no list of approved schools, which means there'd be a problem if anybody challenged his or her school not being accepted as satisfying the licencing requirements. The real licensing authority is the Maine State Police Polygraph Supervisor (as the commissioner really doesn't have the time or know-how to make such decisions). He tells people schools have to be APA approved (which is how we've kept CVSA out as the APA hasn't accredited any - of course), but the rules don't state that, and we'd license Arther grads without an issue - so long as they survive the written test and internship. (That's the interesting part in this debate. We'd take an Arther grad - from a non-APA accredited school - and let him intern under an experienced, licensed examiner, and then license him if all goes as planned. Very similar issues as presented here, no?) We really do have a good licensing program, but an APA accredited / AAPP recognized school isn't a requirement. I'd argue it would be a good thing, and maybe we can tackle that in the near future. (I (and others) have some problems with some of our current "rules," which the MSP thinks they've implemented but really didn't as they didn't follow the law in regard to creating legally binding rules. We're looking at law changes, but our fear is opening Pandora's box. We could move polygraph ahead (from our perspective), or we could get hammered by the anti crowd since law changes (and rules are laws) require public input. IP: Logged |
J.B. McCloughan
Administrator
|
posted 08-06-2007 01:03 AM
Stat,I saw that in one of your posts you spoke quit frank on your feelings toward the polygraph profession. I would agree with you that there are some quite inherent biases built into the profession. Firstly, most of those who practice private polygraph in my area are ex-public examiners (e.g. law enforcement and government). I think the reason for this is spelled out in your first paragraph. These individuals have pensions with health care and are making a supplemental living off of conducting polygraph examinations, thus eliminating some of those areas that cause you overhead expenses. Even before that would become an obstacle, in my area just to get licensed requires quite an undertaking. Secondly, there are cutthroats in every business but given my first point polygraph has some unique aspects that make this an almost certainty from the start. Those individuals I spoke of can considerably reduce their bottom line. Also, they usually have a readymade clientele given the old adage ‘today’s prosecutor is tomorrow’s defense attorney’. The shenanigans you latter posted about regarding the examiner spreading rumors of another having a heart attack is not cutthroat but criminal in my opinion, “larceny by trick” or “theft by conversion”. I think that some form of QC, at the least peer review, should be in place for any examiner whether public or private. QC is not simply some entity contracting with a competing examiner to review your charts and giving their opinion, as in the case of the backstabbing example you gave. Lastly, bickering, whining, “circular logic”, debate, etc. can be healthy in some forms. I try to learn from everyone I come in contact with, as I am of the belief that everyone has something to offer at the “big table”. I do think that your one in three figure is a bit brash. Most of the examiners I run into are doing the right thing most of the time. No-one, including me, is perfect, so every one has a SNAFU every once in awhile. Also, polygraph has an error rate, so we are all bound to make mistakes. The goal is to make as few as can be possible by doing what is right. I have noticed anecdotally that those locations where there is little if any regulation/licensing seems to have more complaints than those who do. Anyways, thank you for being open in your ideas and contributing what you do here, as your unique thoughts and ideas bring something to the table that others do not. That which does not kill us makes us stronger.
[This message has been edited by J.B. McCloughan (edited 08-06-2007).] IP: Logged |
J.B. McCloughan
Administrator
|
posted 08-06-2007 01:15 AM
Gordon,I see that much has transpired since my last posting. I have heard you say on more than one occasion, “I don’t like asking rhetorical questions.” However given your intellect, I am quite sure you have much of the “right answer” when posing such questions (not to say you are not seeking input genuinely). Obviously your question is not the normal, everyday, run of the mill, garden type question, but still I believe that the aforementioned is true in this case as well. There are some areas in your potential situation that are both unique and sensitive in nature. As I am sure you are already aware, this is an atmosphere where there is, to start, US interests, criminal corruption, and cultural divides (a great breeding ground for internal corruption). Thinking of this reminded me of a question that has been posed by the anti-polygraph community quite frequently, “Who will polygraph the polygraphers?” As even the best security system money can buy is pretty much useless if one of its key components is defective from the start. Given all this and some of which my fingers are to tired to type, as some home woodworking and construction projects have made them sore, I still think that there needs to be some sort of honest check and balance in this process to ensure that the security system is up and running at all times. In my green to this area opinion, a robust QC program and a counter security screening group of examiners (to polygraph the polygraphers) with the right personnel might help to create a more good than bad atmosphere.
IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-06-2007 07:45 AM
I am the antithesis of Ted, in that I should really take up drinking. I have a strong river of bitterness towards my chosen profession for many reasons---mostly anecdotal. JB, as a man who has experience in an assortment of businesses, I must disagree with your implied statement that business is cut-throat by design. There are hundreds of examples in today's business world lacking such back-stabbing. Regardless, I am pleased with your response----and I agree with your thoughts on how many former municipal examiners have many afforded safety nets and assurances. Many of my competetors run exams for mere ski-boat payment reasons.I have a large family to support by myself.
One of my original dreams of starting a secure polygraph message board (before I discovered this site) was that all participants would be anonymous. The reason for this design is that there would be no "polycelebrities" who have reputations to uphold, and political and/or business pressures. Some examples of the value of the anonymous modality would be to ask ourselves (members here) what we are not discussing. To be sure, we have great discussions here, but let's ask what we aren't talking about. Notice that no one admits errors or poly failings----information that is worth gold in an anonymous realm for all examiners new and old, and worth "business gold" in the business realm in that a competetor who gets wind of failings or mistakes will pounce. To read the past 2 years' postings, from the perspective of the new examiner,you'd think we were all gods. Has anyone ever mentioned the pressures to call an inexplicable NDI with post-test confessions to the target, an N.O. or DI, to please the powers or to preserve polygraph usefullness? Has anyone ever had prolonged problems with their instrument---so much so that they feel like they were ripped off by the manuf. company? Has anyone ever had a competitor who claims 98% on a pre-employ/ or PCSOT test---and wanted to "out" that examiner as a fraud? Has anyone ever been beaten by countermeasures? (I have). Has anyone ever thought that some organization or leadership is FOS? Has anyone ever just "blew it" on a big test? Has anyone ever discussed money---without fear of disclosing business secrets to competitors? Has anyone ever felt like a scum-bag after a domestic test? Has anyone ever wondered why out of the numerous examiners who read this site, only 10 or so post?These questions/topics are just a handful of the subjects I had hoped would be discussed here. Instead, even if such taboos were breached, celebrities would call into question the examiner's skill---a "QC" type of response--rather than provide moral support and professional sympathy. Just 2 cents. ps, I expect that the only examiners who will publicly agree will be anonymous. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-06-2007).] [This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-06-2007).] IP: Logged |
stat
Member
|
posted 08-06-2007 08:12 AM
Ray, I have given much thought to Kohlberg's moral stages of development having read it some years back. It is by far the most popular and attractive model of it's kind. Kohlberg was a friggen genius!Don't forget about the ammended Level 4---the Jesus/saint level. [This message has been edited by stat (edited 08-06-2007).] IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 08-06-2007 10:39 AM
Just to clear the record, 4 states allow one to sit before the bar having graduated from a law school not accredtied by the ABA.
California, Massachusetts, Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama. There are several good law schools in thsoe states that fall into that category.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary the definition of accreditation is "to recognize an educational institution as maintaining standards that qualify the graduates for admission to higher or more specialized institutions or for professional practice."
I still say that the APA accreditation process and purpose fits that definition. IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-06-2007 12:08 PM
No Skip, there are more; however, they usually require practice in another state for a number of years before being admitted in that state. There may be "good" (unaccredited) schools in those states, but none are "prestigious." Actually, I think the only non-ABA schools are in California, but I don't recall off the top of my head. I agree with the Webster's definition; however, there is a bigger picture here, and that generic definition won't due. The government and the academic community give the term a more specific meaning, and the APA is accrediting schools - just like all the other accrediting agencies who have met rigorous standards as set by an outside, neutral oversight authority. Why the APA hasn't subjected itself the the same standards as others in the academic world is beyond me. It would give us nothing but more credibility. Skip, don't get me wrong, I think the APA accreditation is a good thing - and more than necessary. To cite an "unrecognized" accreditor in the academic world is a red flag that something's wrong, and that is my issue. Here's what the US DOE says to the public: quote:
The U.S. Department of Education does not accredit educational institutions and/or programs. However, the Secretary of Education is required by law to publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies that the Secretary determines to be reliable authorities as to the quality of education or training provided by the institutions of higher education and the higher education programs they accredit.
Are we not recognized because we are not a reliable authority? That's the implication in the academic world, and that's one place where we lose credibility. Why not get recognized? That's my point. It's not a major indictment against the APA. It's a goal to better our position in the community we serve. IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 08-06-2007 09:56 PM
Hey guys,Now we have something to look forward to ---------------- A week of Barry and Skip sparring in the Big Easy. pass the pretzels please.
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 08-06-2007 10:23 PM
Jim Sackett and Gordon Moore,Are you guys in Vegas on top of this one? Ted IP: Logged |
skipwebb
Member
|
posted 08-09-2007 02:16 PM
I won't be in "Nawlens" so you guys will have to fight with Barry on your own.Maybe we should change our wording to APA "recognized" schools rather than accredited. Same initial and continued inspections, same manual of requirements just a different term so as to avoid the accreditation word. IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-09-2007 03:47 PM
That was my point Skip - either that or get recognized, which I think we could do, but it would take time and money.I don't think anybody got the wrong idea, but just in case, I think the APA process - whatever we call it - is a good and essential process. IP: Logged |
J L Ogilvie
Moderator
|
posted 08-14-2007 06:27 PM
I am a little late to this discussion but after reading it twice I am wondering why the US Department of State would have a contract with someone who is unqualified to do what they are asking him to do? Do we not have Federal examiners in high enough places to, at least, question why this person was chosen. They must be able to come up with any number of examiners who could do a more professional job.Did they seek advice from DACA? I have a hard time beleiving that a government agency did not do a little research. I do think we need to be concerned about Polygraph testing anywhere it occurs. I also think we should help here ever we can. As to whether or not Dr. Barland should do quality control in this situation is a tough call. Personally I think if he did he would find the work sub standard and they would stop asking for his help. I think they are looking for validation of the program form Dr. Barland if they don't get it I think they will look else where instead of trying to correct sub standard testing. Jack ------------------
IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 08-17-2007 05:27 PM
Ted,just got back from a cruise. My mind has yet to gear up on the depth this conversation has morphed into. Dr B has to make a decision based on his morals and values. We can argue forever the right path. It is, in the end, his decision regardless of our bantering and opinionated input. Jim IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-17-2007 05:53 PM
Jim,Are you suggesting that what is ethical in the polygraph community must be decided upon by each examiner independently? IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 08-17-2007 10:35 PM
Jim,Passing out drunk on an air mattres and floating in the pool at the Las Vegas Virage for seven days is NOT a cruise. I think Dr. B is right on with this one. He has found a problem and he wants to fix it. There is merit to that and I support him! Ted IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 08-19-2007 12:01 AM
Barry,the answer is a definite and resounding, YES! Every examiner is responsible for their own ethical standards and values.............. providing those ethical standards and values of the individual examiner are higher than those established by the generally accepted professional community, as a whole (i.e. APA, AAPP ASTM, etc) AND the institutional ethical standards established by the organization he/she works for or is associated with through a professional relationship (i.e. therapists, sex offender providers as related to the psychological community, etc). Jim P.S. Ted, since when...? I saw lots of palm trees, bikinis and beer....sounds like a cruise to me! [This message has been edited by sackett (edited 08-19-2007).] IP: Logged |
rnelson
Member
|
posted 08-20-2007 11:52 PM
Thanks Jim,You nailed that one for me. I read Barry's concern as a kind of reaction to some of the more apparently convenient (or dangerous) implications of post-modernism (deconstructionism or constructivism - whichever you prefer), in which people begin to suggest that all of our referent values are internal, with little if anything outside our own epithelial bag of narcissistic carbon to measure our judgments about right and wrong. To neglect that is to deny both personal choice and individual responsibility. Just look at the Zimbardo's famous Stanford Prison study (or the circumstances of certain large foreign wars) to see what happens when people relieve themselves of individual ethical choices. That is the dark side of it. The bright side is that good things can happen when certain individuals realize they are in a unique situation to perhaps make a certain helpful difference. I'm no expert on religion, but I know there is discussion on post-modern ethics among both religious and non-religious persons. On one hand constructivism sets the stage for attitudes of tollerance and pluralism, in which we might not be required to go to war, slaughter each others, and blow each other to tiny smithereens (in thy mercy) simply because we believe something different (or butter our toast on the wrong side - if you like Dr. Suesse). On the other hand, some people express concern that pluralism depletes our awareness of some truth - by allowing people to find their own truth. But that is usually the point where the converstation gets off track - truth - because we are forgetting to have the corresponding conversation about the definition of truth, including the conversation about what kinds of things can be "true" and what does it mean to say that something is "true." (and whether religious beliefs are the same thing as "truth" in consideration of our answers to those two questions). Peace,
r
------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)
IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
