- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jun 19, 2015, 09:02 AMpailryder, the polygraph is indeed an effective investigative tool. It functions superbly as a "psychological billy club," to quote Doug Williams.
But the industry, led by the APA, has been trying to affix an imprimatur of scientific legitimacy to the fatally flawed process of polygraph for decades.
In 1997, the APA promoted a report claiming polygraph was 98% accurate. They highlighted that claim on their official web site for about fifteen (15) years, including a full decade after the highly damning NAS report came out in 2002.
The polygraph industry took that 98% accuracy claim and ran with it. In fact, that very claim is still in wide use today, years after the APA's allegedly more rational meta-analysis claiming 89% average accuracy for incident-specific exams was published.
In both cases, the APA said, in effect, "Trust us, the data is cool."
It wasn't then (in 1997) and it isn't now, in my opinion.
Yet the polygraph-as-sound-science drumbeat goes on, with many examiners clinging to that belief with religious fervor.
Predictably, the polygraph industry geeks, technocrats and statistical alchemists who concocted the home-brew of spun-up synthetic test-tube tripe that's currently in vogue run like hell from any form of countermeasure challenge, not to mention a bill of rights for polygraph test subjects.
Such avoidance makes one wonder what the hell kind of scientists they are.
It's kind of funny...in 2004 I attended a presentation by Krapohl at which he described polygraph as being BS (belief system) driven.
That still applies today, even in light of the industry's allegedly scientific advances.
So, while some well-grounded polygraph utilitarians may continue to keep the limitations of their tool in perspective, more and more practitioners who buy into the polygraph science myth are creating problems of a different order.
Those problems need to be addressed.
Of course, all of this is merely the opinion of one lowly polygraph operator.
But the industry, led by the APA, has been trying to affix an imprimatur of scientific legitimacy to the fatally flawed process of polygraph for decades.
In 1997, the APA promoted a report claiming polygraph was 98% accurate. They highlighted that claim on their official web site for about fifteen (15) years, including a full decade after the highly damning NAS report came out in 2002.
The polygraph industry took that 98% accuracy claim and ran with it. In fact, that very claim is still in wide use today, years after the APA's allegedly more rational meta-analysis claiming 89% average accuracy for incident-specific exams was published.
In both cases, the APA said, in effect, "Trust us, the data is cool."
It wasn't then (in 1997) and it isn't now, in my opinion.
Yet the polygraph-as-sound-science drumbeat goes on, with many examiners clinging to that belief with religious fervor.
Predictably, the polygraph industry geeks, technocrats and statistical alchemists who concocted the home-brew of spun-up synthetic test-tube tripe that's currently in vogue run like hell from any form of countermeasure challenge, not to mention a bill of rights for polygraph test subjects.
Such avoidance makes one wonder what the hell kind of scientists they are.
It's kind of funny...in 2004 I attended a presentation by Krapohl at which he described polygraph as being BS (belief system) driven.
That still applies today, even in light of the industry's allegedly scientific advances.
So, while some well-grounded polygraph utilitarians may continue to keep the limitations of their tool in perspective, more and more practitioners who buy into the polygraph science myth are creating problems of a different order.
Those problems need to be addressed.
Of course, all of this is merely the opinion of one lowly polygraph operator.
Posted by pailryder
- Jun 19, 2015, 08:09 AMQuote from: Wandersmann on Jun 14, 2015, 10:37 PMThere does seem to be a change of direction by some responsible and ethical polygraph examiners who desire to return the polygraph to its use as a "tool" and not final judge, jury, and executioner regarding a person's reputation and integrity.Wandermann
You offer great insight and are entirely correct.
Government polygraph policy is set by those who run the agencies, typically not examiners. The federal and LEA examiners are mostly seasoned investigators, like you, who are good at obtaining confessions. In more than thirty years in this profession I have never met a single examiner who wanted to be anything more than a "tool".
Before anyone hits that softball, yes, I intended the double meaning.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 18, 2015, 06:49 PMDan there are some things we disagree on, but it is amazing to me how much we DO agree about.
Ya know only in the polygraph industry (speaking of the industry in Texas) are lies and deceptions fertilized and nurtured and the truth is seen as a noxious weed to be poisoned and exterminated.
TAPE's take on public integrity and transparency is to treat the public like mushrooms; feed them shit and keep them in the dark.
Ya know only in the polygraph industry (speaking of the industry in Texas) are lies and deceptions fertilized and nurtured and the truth is seen as a noxious weed to be poisoned and exterminated.
TAPE's take on public integrity and transparency is to treat the public like mushrooms; feed them shit and keep them in the dark.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jun 18, 2015, 05:44 PMJoe, I agree that catering to certain well-known personalities within the polygraph indu$try seems to be an organizational problem.
That bullshit has to change.
It's time to bring the revolving door of good ol' boy politicos to a screeching halt, replace them with unbeholden (no pun intended) individuals of character, and make the APA live up to its mission statement.
That bullshit has to change.
It's time to bring the revolving door of good ol' boy politicos to a screeching halt, replace them with unbeholden (no pun intended) individuals of character, and make the APA live up to its mission statement.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 18, 2015, 03:07 PMQuote from: danmangan on Jun 15, 2015, 07:27 PMA good time for the APA to fix things?
C'mon, Joe, you know perfectly well of the organization's don't-rock-the-boat mentality.
That's precisely why that boat has to be blown out of the water.
I have to believe that the APA will, in the end, do the right thing I least I hope that people within the APA, important people will stand up and separate themselves from the behavior in TAPE by condemning the behavior.
I have privately taken a lot of crap of my accusations of Rios and the TAPE leadership condoning racism. I'm thinking it is time to provide that evidence as TAPE has still failed to condemn the actions that was taken on their behalf by one of their Board Members and the covering up of that behavior by the Ethics Committee consisting of Andy Sheapard, Bridget Woodall, and Gary Hale Del ASantos; as well as the entires current Executive Committee, from the Secretary to President.
Thinking it is time to prove that up. This is already information the APA has as well as other big polygraph associations.
I believe that the APA and other associations want to do the right thing, but it's hard to do the right thing when some of the people doing the wrong things are important within the industry; like Holden.
BTW, sorry it's been a few days, I've been busy putting other ducks in a row
Posted by Wandersmann
- Jun 16, 2015, 02:12 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jun 15, 2015, 09:54 PMAm I right in assuming that all of your tests were compelled by your employer? Are you aware that persons employed by private businesses have had protection from forced testing since 1988?
Correct Pailryder. All compelled by the US Government or local government, all compelled by seeking a career in law enforcment/intelligence. The U.S. Government, like the old Soviet Government, claims that I took these tests voluntarily. The true nature of my voluntary act, however, involved taking the test or being fired for not taking the test.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jun 15, 2015, 10:08 PMpailryder, where is the research that shows polygraph screening exams to be around 80% accurate?
Posted by pailryder
- Jun 15, 2015, 09:54 PMWandersmann
Eight polys in thirty years, some NDI, some INC, accused of CM and one DI. If screening exams are around eighty percent that ratio seems about right. You have personally experienced and survived true negative, false positive, and inconclusive results. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinion.
Am I right in assuming that all of your tests were compelled by your employer? Are you aware that persons employed by private businesses have had protection from forced testing since 1988?
Eight polys in thirty years, some NDI, some INC, accused of CM and one DI. If screening exams are around eighty percent that ratio seems about right. You have personally experienced and survived true negative, false positive, and inconclusive results. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinion.
Am I right in assuming that all of your tests were compelled by your employer? Are you aware that persons employed by private businesses have had protection from forced testing since 1988?
Posted by Wandersmann
- Jun 15, 2015, 07:54 PMI think you have confused a false negative and a false positive. The test is positive for deception, negative for truth.
Thank you pailryder, I stand corrected.
Thank you pailryder, I stand corrected.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jun 15, 2015, 07:27 PMA good time for the APA to fix things?
C'mon, Joe, you know perfectly well of the organization's don't-rock-the-boat mentality.
That's precisely why that boat has to be blown out of the water.
C'mon, Joe, you know perfectly well of the organization's don't-rock-the-boat mentality.
That's precisely why that boat has to be blown out of the water.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 15, 2015, 03:43 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jun 15, 2015, 08:30 AMArk
Lets be clear. Except for EPPA, which is a labor law regulating private employers, polygraph regulation is left to the states. APA membership is voluntary. The only real sanction they have is to refuse to accept your check for next years dues.
They are a paper tiger, but the only one in town.
Maybe now is a good time for APA to fix this
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 15, 2015, 03:40 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jun 15, 2015, 08:18 AMThe private examiner may have different considerations. Word of mouth about a false positive call will and should cost him business.
Wow, so not true; at least in Texas
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 15, 2015, 03:29 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jun 14, 2015, 09:35 AMPerhaps they do not share an interest in self promotion.
For me it has nothing to do with self promotion. Though I have to admit that me being the only examiner who actually believes has been good for marketing purposes.
I would rather the industry in Texas do the right thing in regard to my legitimate grievances so I can blend back into the background of all this like between 2009 and 2014. Also I have an issue with the fact that our industry refuses to use the test we sell to settle internal issues that are testable issues.
I am not the only examiners who thinks this. Hell I have even been in touch with lieguytoo who thinks that I bring up some valid points. I find it strange how me and lieguytoo and act like gentlemen to one another but the rest of the examiners just can't seem to learn that I am easier to get along with than that want to portray.
As far as Dan being a self promoter, he is no more a self promoter than Holden. Only everyone, publicly anyway, seems to fall on every word Holden says as if it were Canon.
I don't agree with everything Dan says, but he does raise some valid points.
Anyway, I think I have proven that Holden and his cohorts are scared of their own tests. It does make one wonder, is it because they know everything I am saying is true, and they are afraid of having their lies confirmed? Or, is it because I am an idiot for believing in polygraph and they feel that the test is not worth them risking their lives on?
I would rather be having this discussion and debate privately; but the simple fact is, this is truly my last option to be heard fairly.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jun 15, 2015, 10:04 AMThe APA drives the "polygraph science" narrative, which has a profound effect throughout the indu$try -- for members and nonmembers alike, not to mention a generally clueless public.
They've defined themselves as the torch bearers for the ethical pursuit of truth, something the APA should take more seriously, in my opinion.
A logical starting point would be a pro active role in consumer protection, as with a bill of rights for potential test takers designed to guard against victimization.
Unfortunately, polygraph and transparency don't mix very well...
They've defined themselves as the torch bearers for the ethical pursuit of truth, something the APA should take more seriously, in my opinion.
A logical starting point would be a pro active role in consumer protection, as with a bill of rights for potential test takers designed to guard against victimization.
Unfortunately, polygraph and transparency don't mix very well...
Posted by pailryder
- Jun 15, 2015, 08:35 AMQuote from: Wandersmann on Jun 14, 2015, 10:37 PMthere is no long road to exonorate a victim after a false negative, there is no road
I think you have confused a false negative and a false positive. The test is positive for deception, negative for truth.