- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Nov 20, 2014, 03:21 PM"If you are as open and honest and up front with your clients exactly what do you tell them?"
Prior to prospective clients sending the requisite 50% deposit, I tell them the following:
Prior to prospective clients sending the requisite 50% deposit, I tell them the following:
- Polygraph's absolute accuracy is unknown and in fact unknowable
>The alleged science behind the test is largely BS (Belief System) driven
>Any polygraph test is a crapshoot, i.e., it's a gamble with an uncertain outcome
>Polygraph "testing" seems to be biased against the innocent
>Polygraph tests can be beaten
>Any polygraph test result is far, far below a reasonable doubt
>So-called fidelity "tests" are usually a waste of time and money
>caveat emptor
Posted by 1st4th5thand6th
- Nov 20, 2014, 11:13 AMDan, yes we are going around in circles
You claim that you are open and honest with your clients...
as I said previously: (see page 2 of this forum)
If you are as open and honest and up front with your clients exactly what do you tell them?
You claim that you are open and honest with your clients...
as I said previously: (see page 2 of this forum)
Quote
Dan, I don't see any of this :
1) There is no scientifically accepted (systemic) way of mapping physiological responses to lying (nor truth, deception, happy, glad etc)... This means that the wiggles on the polygraph are meaningless...interesting maybe...but meaningless without this scientifically proven "connection"..
2) Given number 1, the polygraph machine is just a prop
3) The real goal of the polygraph is to con test subjects into believing that it works so they will confess....
4)Clients who have Knowledge of the all of the above renders the test useless...and usually disqualifies them
anywhere on your website....
BUT...(and I apologize for not thinking of this first)
if you're telling me that you verbally describe items 1-4 (or something similar/equivalent) with your clients BEFORE testing them, then I would certainly concede that you are making a concerted effort to properly and truthfully inform your clients.
So.....Yes or No Dan...Do you explain Items 1-4 to your clients verbally?
If you do...kudos sir...but why not put it on your website in big plain letters?
If you don't ...then I would be of the opinion that you ARE omitting very relevant pieces of information...
FWIW, IF you had placed this information clearly on your website then neither I nor anyone else would have any cause to question it... would we?
I mean...after all, If the used car ad says "Flooded" - the condition of the car is clearly stated.... right?
If you are as open and honest and up front with your clients exactly what do you tell them?
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Nov 17, 2014, 08:58 AM1st4th5thand6th, I kindly ask that you pay closer attention to my posts. Meanwhile, I'll break it down for you...
I never said polygraph has no scientific basis. Rather, I agree with NAS in that there is the strong suggestion that polygraph works in incident-specific applications, but the exact scientific basis has yet to be confidently identified.
There are parallels in the drug industry. If you read the voluminous disclaimers that come with certain medicines, you will sometimes see the phrase "mechanism of action is unknown." In other words, the stuff works, but the drug makers don't know exactly why. The same applies to polygraph. Remember what the research eggheads say: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That said, I concede the error rate is likely huge, compared to pro-polygraph claims.
As to why I do polygraph exams and consulting, it's all supply and demand just like most other businesses. But my approach is different in that I EDUCATE THE CONSUMER FIRST, or at least I try to. Most potential clients, once they learn that polygraph is a very risky crapshoot, elect to avoid taking the "test" -- at least with me. (Sometimes, the polygraph-exam shopper ignores my advice only to be convinced by another examiner, often to ill effect.) The remainder of my clients are either required to take a polygraph, or are just hopelessly caught up in the allure.
In some cases, it's just like a car salesman telling a Corvette buyer who's on a budget that the bargain-priced model he's looking at was flooded and is being sold as-is. The guy hears the warning, but all he wants is that shiny 'vette for a bargain price. He signs the disclaimers. Consenting adults are allowed to do dumb things.
You mentioned "moral courage." Here's a true story: A couple of years ago I refused to polygraph an inmate at the state prison I worked at (as a state employee) because I felt it would be an abuse of both the prisoner and the polygraph function for which I was hired. My immediate boss was OK with my decision, but the fact that I privately queried the state AG on my obligations must have riled some brass at the DOC. Seems the higher-ups didn't like my end run, which I thought was simply due diligence. Anyway, I was doomed. My position was cut "for budgetary reasons" a couple of months later. Coincidence?
I see no conflict with being both a polygraph examiner and a consultant. Why must it be all or nothing? Such a dual role is common in many fields. As a consultant, I advise people on the pros and cons of the "test,", review exams conducted by other polygraphers, and occasionally give a talk.
Once more, with feeling... My approach is completely open-book. No one is being duped, unless by themselves via expectations or biases they can't shed. Those folks I caution quite sternly.
Finally, over the past ten years I've turned down hundreds of exams, most commonly because I caught a scent of potential domestic violence or other form of abuse that could be a by-product of the "test."
By the way, since I became somewhat of an activist in the past couple of years I've received several inquiries from people claiming to be seeking what I'll characterize as "special help." I find the timing of such inquiries to be most interesting.
I never said polygraph has no scientific basis. Rather, I agree with NAS in that there is the strong suggestion that polygraph works in incident-specific applications, but the exact scientific basis has yet to be confidently identified.
There are parallels in the drug industry. If you read the voluminous disclaimers that come with certain medicines, you will sometimes see the phrase "mechanism of action is unknown." In other words, the stuff works, but the drug makers don't know exactly why. The same applies to polygraph. Remember what the research eggheads say: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That said, I concede the error rate is likely huge, compared to pro-polygraph claims.
As to why I do polygraph exams and consulting, it's all supply and demand just like most other businesses. But my approach is different in that I EDUCATE THE CONSUMER FIRST, or at least I try to. Most potential clients, once they learn that polygraph is a very risky crapshoot, elect to avoid taking the "test" -- at least with me. (Sometimes, the polygraph-exam shopper ignores my advice only to be convinced by another examiner, often to ill effect.) The remainder of my clients are either required to take a polygraph, or are just hopelessly caught up in the allure.
In some cases, it's just like a car salesman telling a Corvette buyer who's on a budget that the bargain-priced model he's looking at was flooded and is being sold as-is. The guy hears the warning, but all he wants is that shiny 'vette for a bargain price. He signs the disclaimers. Consenting adults are allowed to do dumb things.
You mentioned "moral courage." Here's a true story: A couple of years ago I refused to polygraph an inmate at the state prison I worked at (as a state employee) because I felt it would be an abuse of both the prisoner and the polygraph function for which I was hired. My immediate boss was OK with my decision, but the fact that I privately queried the state AG on my obligations must have riled some brass at the DOC. Seems the higher-ups didn't like my end run, which I thought was simply due diligence. Anyway, I was doomed. My position was cut "for budgetary reasons" a couple of months later. Coincidence?
I see no conflict with being both a polygraph examiner and a consultant. Why must it be all or nothing? Such a dual role is common in many fields. As a consultant, I advise people on the pros and cons of the "test,", review exams conducted by other polygraphers, and occasionally give a talk.
Once more, with feeling... My approach is completely open-book. No one is being duped, unless by themselves via expectations or biases they can't shed. Those folks I caution quite sternly.
Finally, over the past ten years I've turned down hundreds of exams, most commonly because I caught a scent of potential domestic violence or other form of abuse that could be a by-product of the "test."
By the way, since I became somewhat of an activist in the past couple of years I've received several inquiries from people claiming to be seeking what I'll characterize as "special help." I find the timing of such inquiries to be most interesting.
Posted by 1st4th5thand6th
- Nov 16, 2014, 07:21 PMQuote from: danmangan on Nov 15, 2014, 10:53 PMYes, 1st4th5thand6th, that is exactly what I am saying.
To say that I find polygraph science "pretty weak" would be a colossal understatement....
ok...so....you are a polygrapher, you admit that there is no scientific basis for your polygraphs.... my question is Why do you do it?
Do you not have the moral courage to refuse the money?
To me, and this is just my opinion... admitting this is tantamount to admitting to being a used car salesman that sells flooded cars as used
(deliberately withholding the flooded part) and not having a problem with it...c'mon....
Now, if you were a polygraph consultant...who's only job was to educate both employers and employees on the process WITHOUT giving them, I would be ok with that... Your are serving as a consumer advocate for both sides...(both sides of which obviously desperately need educating).. But this is admittedly not what you do..... It's like your almost saying to both sides Hey look this is all bullshit... $1000.00 please....
Quote
In case you haven't put it together quite yet, that's why I'm an advocate for a bill of rights for all polygraph test subjects.
ok...but how does a customer bill of rights make up for the lack of science? Does a bill of rights magically make the scam no longer a scam? Like my previous analogy... Advertising a consumer bill of rights on a used (flooded) car website...doesn't make what the car salesman's deed any better... it doesn't give him a license to sell flooded cars as used... Nor does it excuse him from this type of "fraud"....
Quote
You and I have been at this for a while now... Are you finally starting to get the distinction?
Sir, with apologies, I'm afraid I'm not... help me....
What I think I keep hearing is: a smart, intelligent, educated, adult, male, who is rationalizing a way to participate in a scam (called polygraphy) for personal profit...yet amazingly, conveniently sees nothing wrong with doing so....
I'm left shaking my head in disbelief....
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Nov 15, 2014, 10:53 PMYes, 1st4th5thand6th, that is exactly what I am saying.
To say that I find polygraph science "pretty weak" would be a colossal understatement, hence my primary role in the so-called trade, as it were, is that of polygraph consultant.
In case you haven't put it together quite yet, that's why I'm an advocate for a bill of rights for all polygraph test subjects.
You and I have been at this for a while now... Are you finally starting to get the distinction?
To say that I find polygraph science "pretty weak" would be a colossal understatement, hence my primary role in the so-called trade, as it were, is that of polygraph consultant.
In case you haven't put it together quite yet, that's why I'm an advocate for a bill of rights for all polygraph test subjects.
You and I have been at this for a while now... Are you finally starting to get the distinction?
Posted by 1st4th5thand6th
- Nov 15, 2014, 10:00 PMQuote from: danmangan on Nov 14, 2014, 10:15 AM1st4th5thand6th, I think it would be instructive for you to read the 2003 NAS report "The Polygraph and Lie Detection."
That scientific body -- the National Academy of Sciences -- by stating that polygraph works at levels "well above chance but well below perfection," indeed gives credence to polygraph, albeit only in incident-specific applications.
Of course, NAS makes clear that all bets are off the table when countermeasure are present. Also, NAS hammered home the point that the quality of the field studies they selected for analysis was decidedly substandard -- a fact largely ignored by the polygraph community.
Dan, you're telling me that the "Scientific credibility" of modern polygraphy can only be traced to an 11 year old report that used field studies that were "decidedly substandard" and doesn't even apply to pre-employment screening polys? etc...
? As this is your chosen trade don't you find that pretty weak?
Posted by Ex Member
- Nov 15, 2014, 01:11 PMQuoteOutstanding!! Best comment on this site thus far!! Well said 'quickfix.'
Indeed, quickfix is known for his profound, articulate and thought provoking arguments. The two of you make quite a pair.
Posted by Ex Member
- Nov 15, 2014, 12:46 PMQuoteYeah, whatever Elmer, ya dick!!""I'm a mature person who has been guilty of taking life a little too seriously"
Just having an off day Mr. Wabbit?
Posted by Dean's Pro-Poly
- Nov 15, 2014, 03:58 AMQuotequickfix - It's your story, George, tell it any way you like.
Outstanding!! Best comment on this site thus far!! Well said 'quickfix.'
QuoteArkhangelsk - Hey Dean, I like you better as Mr. Wabbit.
Yeah, whatever Elmer, ya dick!!
Posted by quickfix
- Nov 14, 2014, 01:53 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Nov 14, 2014, 01:33 PMAnd Doug is correct. The claim that I employed polygraph countermeasures is bullshit.It's your story, George, tell it any way you like.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 14, 2014, 01:33 PMQuote from: quickfix on Nov 14, 2014, 01:19 PMIf he seriously thinks that I would send his charts showing the CMs, he is as narcissistic as Doug Williams.
I wasn't suggesting that you personally send me my charts. If you were to inform me what federal agency has a copy of them, I would file a Privacy Act request for them.
And Doug is correct. The claim that I employed polygraph countermeasures is bullshit.
Posted by quickfix
- Nov 14, 2014, 01:19 PMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Nov 13, 2014, 05:42 PMAnd now, you come along and say that he was using "CMs".Again, I say that's BULLSHIT!
The only bullshit is that which spews from your little brain and big mouth.
Dean/Arkhangelsk: I was as forthcoming with George as I would be with anyone else. If he seriously thinks that I would send his charts showing the CMs, he is as narcissistic as Doug Williams. Eisenhower didn't send Hitler his invasion plans for Europe, the Packers don't send their playbook to the Bears, and I don't send CM charts to George or anyone else (whether I have them or not).
Posted by Ex Member
- Nov 14, 2014, 12:51 PMHey Dean, I like you better as Mr. Wabbit.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Nov 14, 2014, 10:15 AM1st4th5thand6th, I think it would be instructive for you to read the 2003 NAS report "The Polygraph and Lie Detection."
That scientific body -- the National Academy of Sciences -- by stating that polygraph works at levels "well above chance but well below perfection," indeed gives credence to polygraph, albeit only in incident-specific applications.
Of course, NAS makes clear that all bets are off the table when countermeasure are present. Also, NAS hammered home the point that the quality of the field studies they selected for analysis was decidedly substandard -- a fact largely ignored by the polygraph community.
Still, I agree with you to a large extent that the term "polygraph science" is indeed an oxymoron. Why? Because it's the examiner's expertise -- not the alleged science behind the "test" -- that really drives favorable accuracy.
In spite of that inconvenient truth, the polygraph industry is quick to hang its hat on the NAS report, and intertwine the word polygraph with the word science, because it lends an imprimatur of legitimacy to the "test," thereby making pro-polygraph lobbying efforts easier. In other words, it makes for an easier $ell.
As for what the polygraph-linked clerics ask for when they make their supplications to God, I suggest you contact the polygraph organizations (APA, NPA, AAPP, etc.) that rely on such invocations and ask them directly. Many seminars are video recorded in their entirety. The aforementioned associations may, or may not, choose to divulge the content of those prayers.
As always, these are just the personal opinions of a lowly polygraph operator.
That scientific body -- the National Academy of Sciences -- by stating that polygraph works at levels "well above chance but well below perfection," indeed gives credence to polygraph, albeit only in incident-specific applications.
Of course, NAS makes clear that all bets are off the table when countermeasure are present. Also, NAS hammered home the point that the quality of the field studies they selected for analysis was decidedly substandard -- a fact largely ignored by the polygraph community.
Still, I agree with you to a large extent that the term "polygraph science" is indeed an oxymoron. Why? Because it's the examiner's expertise -- not the alleged science behind the "test" -- that really drives favorable accuracy.
In spite of that inconvenient truth, the polygraph industry is quick to hang its hat on the NAS report, and intertwine the word polygraph with the word science, because it lends an imprimatur of legitimacy to the "test," thereby making pro-polygraph lobbying efforts easier. In other words, it makes for an easier $ell.
As for what the polygraph-linked clerics ask for when they make their supplications to God, I suggest you contact the polygraph organizations (APA, NPA, AAPP, etc.) that rely on such invocations and ask them directly. Many seminars are video recorded in their entirety. The aforementioned associations may, or may not, choose to divulge the content of those prayers.
As always, these are just the personal opinions of a lowly polygraph operator.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 14, 2014, 04:04 AMDean's Poly-Pro,
Thank you for your psychoanalysis and counseling. I'll give it all the consideration it's due.
Thank you for your psychoanalysis and counseling. I'll give it all the consideration it's due.