- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jan 12, 2015, 09:37 PMQuote from: quickfix on Jan 12, 2015, 03:22 PMQuote from: danmangan on Jan 11, 2015, 08:11 PMquickfix, let's straighten this out.
Fly into MHT and make your own arrangements to stay for a couple of days. My office is less than 30 minutes away.
You can review a pile of my exams -- including video, of course -- and then report your findings here.
On top of that, I can waltz you around to a few nationally known APA figures, who know of my work product, that happen to be located right in my geographical backyard.
C'mon, quickfix, it'll be fun.
At least for me.
Interested?
You appear to have lots of time on your hands to make such an offer. I guess that's what happens when you spend the majority of your time talking clients out of your services instead of providing it to them.
You already state that polygraph has a "huge" error rate. So why would I want to look at your cases? To guess which calls are accurate and which aren't? Is that how you do it? Which part of the Backster course was that taught in?
I respectfully decline your invitation. File it with your other idea of a "challenge series",
quickfix, I am not only a polygraph examiner, but I am a polygraph consultant.
Is there anything sinister about that?
By the way, you dodged my earlier questions.
Here's your second chance...
>What's wrong with informing the consumer? [About the risks, realities and limitations of the "test".]
>Do you have something against efforts to reduce victimization by polygraph?
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
www.polygraphman.com
Posted by pailryder
- Jan 12, 2015, 05:58 PMAunty
I don't always know, but sometimes subsequent events confirm both false positive and false negatives.
I don't always know, but sometimes subsequent events confirm both false positive and false negatives.
Posted by quickfix
- Jan 12, 2015, 03:22 PMQuote from: danmangan on Jan 11, 2015, 08:11 PMquickfix, let's straighten this out.
Fly into MHT and make your own arrangements to stay for a couple of days. My office is less than 30 minutes away.
You can review a pile of my exams -- including video, of course -- and then report your findings here.
On top of that, I can waltz you around to a few nationally known APA figures, who know of my work product, that happen to be located right in my geographical backyard.
C'mon, quickfix, it'll be fun.
At least for me.
Interested?
You appear to have lots of time on your hands to make such an offer. I guess that's what happens when you spend the majority of your time talking clients out of your services instead of providing it to them.
You already state that polygraph has a "hugh" error rate. So why would I want to look at your cases? To guess which calls are accurate and which aren't? Is that how you do it? Which part of the Backster course was that taught in?
I respectfully decline your invitation. File it with your other idea of a "challenge series",
Posted by Aunty Agony
- Jan 11, 2015, 10:30 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jan 11, 2015, 11:53 AMBy comparing my known errors before and after.How do you know when you've made an error?
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jan 11, 2015, 08:11 PMQuote from: quickfix on Jan 10, 2015, 01:03 PMQuote from: danmangan on Jan 09, 2015, 06:16 PM
Your mediocre credentials have nothing to do with your schooling. The Backster School is highly regarded, producing many fine examiners in the private and LE sector. You sir, are not one of them.
quickfix, let's straighten this out.
Fly into MHT and make your own arrangements to stay for a couple of days. My office is less than 30 minutes away.
You can review a pile of my exams -- including video, of course -- and then report your findings here.
On top of that, I can waltz you around to a few nationally known APA figures, who know of my work product, that happen to be located right in my geographical backyard.
C'mon, quickfix, it'll be fun.
At least for me.
Interested?
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jan 11, 2015, 01:44 PMComputerized scoring algorithms are a convenience in many respects, but they can become a crutch for some examiners.
Still, the algorithms really shine as a launching pad for a post-test interrogation. That is one of their chief attributes. Another attribute (or drawback) is that many polygraph consumers are inclined to believe the computer readout, and put it above the examiner's opinion should it differ.
Once in a while, the two most popular algorithms -- Polyscore and OSS3 -- will disagree with each other.
It is most unlikely, in my view, that such disagreement would be revealed to the test subject -- especially if the polygraph was conducted by a law enforcement or government operator.
Still, the algorithms really shine as a launching pad for a post-test interrogation. That is one of their chief attributes. Another attribute (or drawback) is that many polygraph consumers are inclined to believe the computer readout, and put it above the examiner's opinion should it differ.
Once in a while, the two most popular algorithms -- Polyscore and OSS3 -- will disagree with each other.
It is most unlikely, in my view, that such disagreement would be revealed to the test subject -- especially if the polygraph was conducted by a law enforcement or government operator.
Posted by pailryder
- Jan 11, 2015, 11:53 AMAunty
By comparing my known errors before and after.
By comparing my known errors before and after.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jan 10, 2015, 02:35 PMquickfix, your comments remind us that polygraph is BS (Belief System) driven.
Still, I most certainly believe in what I am doing as it regards polygraph.
I'm merely being a realist about the risks, realities and limitations of the "test."
Sure, polygraph kinda/sorta "works" on some of the people most of the time, but, all things considered, the real-world error rate is huge.
Prospective test subjects should be made aware of that before they submit themselves to the process.
What's wrong with informing the consumer? Do you have something against efforts to reduce victimization by polygraph?
Finally, regarding the APA elections, I think it is noteworthy that of the nearly 3,000 APA members, only 500 or so bothered to vote. That means less than 20% of eligible voters determined the outcome of the elections. We simply don't know for certain what the opinions of the remaining 80+% of the APA membership are regarding my platform positions.
Still, I most certainly believe in what I am doing as it regards polygraph.
I'm merely being a realist about the risks, realities and limitations of the "test."
Sure, polygraph kinda/sorta "works" on some of the people most of the time, but, all things considered, the real-world error rate is huge.
Prospective test subjects should be made aware of that before they submit themselves to the process.
What's wrong with informing the consumer? Do you have something against efforts to reduce victimization by polygraph?
Finally, regarding the APA elections, I think it is noteworthy that of the nearly 3,000 APA members, only 500 or so bothered to vote. That means less than 20% of eligible voters determined the outcome of the elections. We simply don't know for certain what the opinions of the remaining 80+% of the APA membership are regarding my platform positions.
Posted by Aunty Agony
- Jan 10, 2015, 01:46 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jan 10, 2015, 09:54 AMI did several thousand polys before digitization and several thousand since and, speaking only for myself, I assure you that use of scoring algorithms, has, without any doubt, increased the likelihood that I correctly inferred deception in many cases.How did you measure that?
Posted by Ex Member
- Jan 10, 2015, 01:07 PMThanks for your comments pailryder, it's a good discussion. I have no doubt that it makes things much easier and having the scoring algorithms to back up your chart scoring is valuable and of great utility. My point however, can extrapolated to other systems where there exists an analog versus digital argument. Digital is not better than analog in respect to the intrinsic ability. Digital and analog polygraph systems produce the same charts and in this regard, the ability to detect deception is not increased. This is why vinyl LP's are making a comeback as staunch audiophiles prefer the "warm" audio that analog produces. I also personally believe that the appearance and sounds produced by an analog polygraph instrument better stimulate the subject....it would be an interesting experiment to see if what I postulate is true.
Posted by quickfix
- Jan 10, 2015, 01:03 PMQuote from: danmangan on Jan 09, 2015, 06:16 PMMeanwhile, what does the APA electorate's rejection of such an open platform say about their faith in the scientific robustness of the "test"?
Mr Mangan: It says your "open platform" ideas are either idiotic (your #2 point), or unrealistic (#1). As for point #3, the APA is a private organization. The "limited access trade secrets" to which you refer contain materials which are actually classified and require a US security clearance. Private and LE examiners do not possess such a clearance, and are therefore not authorized to receive such information.
Your mediocre credentials have nothing to do with your schooling. The Backster School is highly regarded, producing many fine examiners in the private and LE sector. You sir, are not one of them. Someone who essentially states that they don't believe in the very profession that they have been trained in and earn a living at, shows a profound lack of confidence in their own abilities. It also shows that they don't believe in what they're doing, but they will do it as long as it pays the mortgage. In essence, you are not a polygraph examiner; you are someone who operates a computer, asks a few questions, and hands the customer a bill. Someone with such a lack of confidence in the validity of their profession is the weak link in the polygraph community chain. And you don't understand why you were outvoted by a 6-1 margin?
Posted by pailryder
- Jan 10, 2015, 09:54 AMArk
I did several thousand polys before digitization and several thousand since and, speaking only for myself, I assure you that use of scoring algorithms, has, without any doubt, increased the likelihood that I correctly inferred deception in many cases.
I did several thousand polys before digitization and several thousand since and, speaking only for myself, I assure you that use of scoring algorithms, has, without any doubt, increased the likelihood that I correctly inferred deception in many cases.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jan 09, 2015, 06:16 PMQuote from: quickfix on Jan 09, 2015, 02:48 PM
WifeofAGoodGuy: I strongly suggest that you DISREGARD anything Mr Mangan has to offer in the way of information on polygraph. He has no expertise in the counterintelligence field, is not a federal employee, and is totally unfamiliar with DOD polygraph policies and procedures. He is a private examiner whose professional polygraph credentials are mediocre at best. Just ask any APA member who voted in the last APA election.
Perhaps my polygraph credentials are indeed mediocre at best. After all, my private polygraph "barber school" was only 8 weeks long, whereas quickfix's federal barber school was all of 14.
When I ran for president-elect of the American Polygraph Association last year, my platform consisted of three main points:
1. A "bill of rights" -- similar to what has long existed in the medical field -- for all polygraph test subjects. The main thrust of such an initiative is to better inform individuals as to the risks, realities and limitations of the polygraph "test," thereby reducing the wholesale victimization that plagues the polygraph industry.
2. An ongoing countermeasure challenge series, made integral to APA national and regional seminars, which would pit randomly chosen polygraph operators against a crew of countermeasure-prepped volunteer subjects. (I predict that roughly half of the countermeasure ringers would prevail in such a scenario.)
3. Equal treatment for all APA members, primarily as it regards access to educational materials. (Federal and LE examiners are privileged; private examiners are clearly disadvantaged. Such limited-access "trade secrets" has created a caste society within the organization -- and put potential victims of sexual offenders undergoing PCSOT exams at a higher risk.)
My platform was highly criticized by many APA members, most of whom, by the way, are law enforcement or government connected. (Private examiners are a minority within the APA.)
When the votes were counted, I lost by a six-to-one margin.
But that's OK, because now we have a schism within the Church of Polygraph, so to speak. I'll be running again this year, and that crack will most assuredly widen.
Meanwhile, what does the APA electorate's rejection of such an open platform say about their faith in the scientific robustness of the "test"?
Posted by Ex Member
- Jan 09, 2015, 03:46 PMQuote from: quickfix on Jan 09, 2015, 02:48 PMWe didn't even have computerized polygraphs back then!Digitization of polygraph instruments has not increased your ability to detect deception one iota. They are great for data management. They also allow chart scoring via a few algorithms, but you are already supposed to have learned to do that in barber school.
Posted by quickfix
- Jan 09, 2015, 02:48 PMGeorge, you must be kidding!! That pub is dated 1991!!! You're hanging your hat on that??? We didn't even have computerized polygraphs back then! The schoolhouse no longer subscribes to that information, and that pub has long been put out to pasture. If you're going to fight the polygraph profession, at least use "fresh ammo".
WifeofAGoodGuy: I strongly suggest that you DISREGARD anything Mr Mangan has to offer in the way of information on polygraph. He has no expertise in the counterintelligence field, is not a federal employee, and is totally unfamiliar with DOD polygraph policies and procedures. He is a private examiner whose professional polygraph credentials are mediocre at best. Just ask any APA member who voted in the last APA election.
WifeofAGoodGuy: I strongly suggest that you DISREGARD anything Mr Mangan has to offer in the way of information on polygraph. He has no expertise in the counterintelligence field, is not a federal employee, and is totally unfamiliar with DOD polygraph policies and procedures. He is a private examiner whose professional polygraph credentials are mediocre at best. Just ask any APA member who voted in the last APA election.