- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 21, 2017, 10:08 PMQuote from: danmangan on Sep 20, 2017, 08:52 AMJoe, I ask you again: What is the specificity of a 4-RQ PCSOT maintenance polygraph "test"? Please cite the research that supports your claim.
C'mon, Joe, the world is waiting for your reply.
Is your answer, as the APA obliquely suggests, over 90 percent?
Is it over 80 percent?
Is it over 70 percent?
Is it over 60 percent?
Is it over 50 percent?
Tell, us Joe...just how accurate is a 4-RQ PCSOT maintenance "test"? And, as a subset of your overall accuracy, what is the specificity of the aforementioned polygraph "test"?
[cue crickets]
Meanwhile, the PCSOT gravy train rolls on...accuracy be damned.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 20, 2017, 08:52 AMJoe, I know you hate it when I confuse you with the facts, but please pay attention.
*Polygraph "testing" is scientifically illegitimate (save, perhaps, for the rare CIT); there is no universal "lie response"
*The finite accuracy of polygraph "testing" is unknown and in fact unknowable
*A polygraph "test" can be beaten (or fatally confounded) by following simple instructions freely available on the internet
Yet, on its web site, the APA boasts the following claim: ...APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent.
People need to be protected from such wildly optimistic claims. That's why I have for years been advocating for both a bill of rights for polygraph test-takers, and a countermeasure challenge series to reveal the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph "testing."
Joe, I ask you again: What is the specificity of a 4-RQ PCSOT maintenance polygraph "test"? Please cite the research that supports your claim.
*Polygraph "testing" is scientifically illegitimate (save, perhaps, for the rare CIT); there is no universal "lie response"
*The finite accuracy of polygraph "testing" is unknown and in fact unknowable
*A polygraph "test" can be beaten (or fatally confounded) by following simple instructions freely available on the internet
Yet, on its web site, the APA boasts the following claim: ...APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent.
People need to be protected from such wildly optimistic claims. That's why I have for years been advocating for both a bill of rights for polygraph test-takers, and a countermeasure challenge series to reveal the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph "testing."
Joe, I ask you again: What is the specificity of a 4-RQ PCSOT maintenance polygraph "test"? Please cite the research that supports your claim.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Sep 20, 2017, 12:12 AMYOU ARE FUCKING KIDDING RIGHT?
CHA HING?
Can you tell me where that bank account is? I would love to know.
Dan, you talk a good game, but that is all you have, talk.
Only person with a history of running from questions, a documented history, is you. That is the truth. You have run from Pat, you have run from Raymond, you have run from every examiner who has ever confronted you, and you have run from me.
Sorry Dan, but there are two types of people, talkers and doers, people like you, are just talkers. All you got is talk.
You say I'm part of the "PCSOT indu$trial complex", when fact is, and you know this, I have done more in one year to fight the corruption in this "complex" in one year, that you ever have, and ever will.
I have paid the bill, excessively disproportionate to my perceived crimes against the polygraph establishment for telling the truth and exposing the corruption in Texas alone.
You have done nothing, taken no action, other than hide behind a keyboard, talk and run failed campaigns, where you didn't even do the hard work necessary to win.
Sorry Dan, but to win, you must first, pay the bill.
And you are overdue
CHA HING?
Can you tell me where that bank account is? I would love to know.
Dan, you talk a good game, but that is all you have, talk.
Only person with a history of running from questions, a documented history, is you. That is the truth. You have run from Pat, you have run from Raymond, you have run from every examiner who has ever confronted you, and you have run from me.
Sorry Dan, but there are two types of people, talkers and doers, people like you, are just talkers. All you got is talk.
You say I'm part of the "PCSOT indu$trial complex", when fact is, and you know this, I have done more in one year to fight the corruption in this "complex" in one year, that you ever have, and ever will.
I have paid the bill, excessively disproportionate to my perceived crimes against the polygraph establishment for telling the truth and exposing the corruption in Texas alone.
You have done nothing, taken no action, other than hide behind a keyboard, talk and run failed campaigns, where you didn't even do the hard work necessary to win.
Sorry Dan, but to win, you must first, pay the bill.
And you are overdue
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 19, 2017, 10:04 PMJoe, you run from facts, logic, reason, and rational arguments.
Polygraph "testing" is a farce. Have you not read the NAS report?
But I get it: You're part of the PCSOT indu$trial complex. CHA-CHING!
Polygraph "testing" is a farce. Have you not read the NAS report?
But I get it: You're part of the PCSOT indu$trial complex. CHA-CHING!
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Sep 19, 2017, 06:43 PMLMAO
RUN?
Ok Dan, you lost ALL credibility there.
They been trying to make me leave Texas for years and have thrown everything they could at me. I'M STILL HERE.
Don't mistake dismissal for fear.
RUN?
Ok Dan, you lost ALL credibility there.
They been trying to make me leave Texas for years and have thrown everything they could at me. I'M STILL HERE.
Don't mistake dismissal for fear.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 19, 2017, 06:12 PMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on Sep 19, 2017, 05:59 PMOn that note, I am done with you.
i know your playbook and I'm as done with playing by your one sided BS playbook...
Readers, see Joe run.
Run, Joe, run!
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 19, 2017, 06:08 PMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on Sep 19, 2017, 05:15 PMOn one hand, you say it is pseudo science, while at the same time PRACTICING THE PSEUDO SCIENCE.
If this isn't hypocrisy in action, I don't know what is.
Joe, I am able to say that after much perseverance, my polygraph business model has evolved to the point where most of my time is spent in polygraph consulting, not in polygraph "testing."
In those cases where a "test" is administered, I always make it clear to consumers well in advance that polygraph is pseudoscience that has been roundly condemned by the legal, medical and scientific communities since the 1920s.
Yes Joe, my potential consumers are duly informed that the polygraph "test" is essentially without scientific merit. Still, some insist on moving forward.
Please explain how my providing a requested service to an informed and consenting customer is hypocritical.
Meanwhile, I am content to be the Harold Stassen of APA politics. (George McGovern came and went. Stassen was a perennial candidate.) I'm just a lowly polygraph operator speaking truth to power -- and the APA membership. My campaigns for APA president-elect put me on record as being the only vocal realist in an organization that claims to be dedicated to truth.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Sep 19, 2017, 05:59 PMOn that note, I am done with you.
i know your playbook and I'm as done with playing by your one sided BS playbook as I am done with TAPE's playbook and the other flying monkeys.
So you go and fight your cause, whatever that might be.
I will continue to bring the fight to the Texas examiners, until I am heard fairly and given the chance to compete in an open market place, where everyone benefits, and at least some of the corruption is phased out
i know your playbook and I'm as done with playing by your one sided BS playbook as I am done with TAPE's playbook and the other flying monkeys.
So you go and fight your cause, whatever that might be.
I will continue to bring the fight to the Texas examiners, until I am heard fairly and given the chance to compete in an open market place, where everyone benefits, and at least some of the corruption is phased out
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Sep 19, 2017, 05:15 PMDan, you make the implication that I am pro establishment it seems, if this is the case, even the people here will tell you, you're barking up the wrong tree. In fact, it seems that is all you can do; run to the end of your chain and bark. This is one of my suspicions why the APA, or anyone in the establishment, has no fear of anything you have to say.
Seriously Dan, no one has any fear of you. You are having zero impact, you aren't even warm.
Anyway, you have to know, some questions for me, are complicated. I say this, because lets face it, unlike you, anything I have to say, is not only watched, but taken very seriously, and open to internal disciplinary action. Which as you know, are often nightmare scenarios of long processes where I am left to fight the fight alone. Funny how people say they have my back, but when I need them, actually at my back, they are no where to be found.
Actually, I take that back. There has been one or two instances, behind closed doors where people have taken up for me. Having said that, I'd say, 90% of the time, I am on my own, and no matter how right I am, it doesn't matter because the card are stacked against me.
Now, having said that, examiners and associations outside the state of Texas, have told me, that while they may agree that I am being treated unfairly, they want nothing to do with what is going on in Texas. So as long as I keep this a Texas issue, I can do what I was so long as I don't cross the line into slander, libel, or badmouthing outside the Texas issue.
I have my opinions on accuracy and reliability, and while I may not share your opinions as a whole, there are a few that have merit. I have never said anything different.
To nutshell it.
I think some of your arguments are subjects of credible reflection and review. Its the messenger who lacks credibility, because you lack the balls to do that is necessary to go as far as is needed to even ask to be taken seriously, much less be taken seriously at all.
You can make the argument that I am wrong all you want. You can make the argument that one day you'll be APA president and you will rule from a, "bully pulpit." Dan, I got a newsflash for ya, it's simply not going to happen. You will never be elected into any office in the APA, because of your message. I keep telling you that, and you keep not listening.
You're the George McGovern of the APA, you keep running hopeless campaigns that you know you will never win. Having said that, at least McGovern went out there and put his neck out and got involved. He took credible stands, at times, at great risk to his career. He went out there and met people, pressed the flesh, looked people in the eye. He took his stands, and wasn't afraid to look into peoples eyes and justify them. He didn't lack the courage of his convictions.
This is one of the reasons why you're not taken seriously, you lack the courage of your convictions. You avoid putting your neck out at all costs. You stay here, in your comfort zone, where you think you sit on high and can't be touched, because you're allowed to ignore any question put to you and no one calls you to the plate.
Hmmmmmmmm sound like what the polygraph establishment in Texas does, huh?
Why should I answer one of your questions, when you avoid giving any real, coherent, and honest, answers yourself?
You give only Hillary Clinton, double talk answers, and then fire out questions demanding detailed answers, and engaging in name calling and schoolyard bullying to deflect your vague answer. All this while shifting the burden onto other people to your demands. You rely on this to, "win the day."
Here is your playbook.
They are not presented in any particular order.
1. SHOW UP WITH YOUR TALKING POINTS. Make sure you have something that you feel will show your opponents in a negative light, and make that the subject of the discussion.
2. DEMONIZE YOUR OPPONENT. Attempt to cover them with shame, the same way you would a 4 year old that touches his pee-pee.
3. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DOING #2 ABOVE, SUPPORT HIM IMMEDIATELY.
4. CLAIM THAT IT IS "OLD NEWS" AND NOT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION.
5. QUOTE SELECTIVLY. Always quote the selectively, or describe things in a general manner.
6. IF ASKED FOR MORE DETAILS, IGNORE THE QUESTION.
7. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF A MENTAL DEFECT OR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE. Personal attacks of this sort are especially useful as the target will almost always try to defend himself, thus changing the subject.
8. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. Try to do this before he has an opportunity to. Try to infer that it you have given him multiple opportunities to do so. Do it even if the question has been answered. If he misses the question and asks you to repeat it DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR HIS BENEFIT).
9. RESORT TO INSULTS. Accuse your opponent of being a pig fornicator, then make him deny it.
10. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF BEING UNINFORMED. This works especially well when you are asked to provide your sources. It is especially effective if you work in a reference to someone you have already demonized.
11. SPEAK CRYPTICALLY. Try to make it difficult for people to divine your meaning
12. CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Try to get it back to your original talking points (see #1 above)
13. BAIT YOUR OPPONENT. Needle him, tease him, call him names until he makes an inappropriate post.
14. DENY THE EVIDENCE EXISTS. Ask for evidence of wrongdoing by those you support. When that evidence is presented, continue denying that it exists.
Now, to be fair, we all engage in some of these tactics, mostly unintentionally, but you have a pattern of doing this. I honestly believe, you do these things intentionally, and systematically. You do it knowing that people will just get sick of a pointless debate, walk away, and you can claim your tainted victory.
Sorry man, I want debates to actually go there, and I want to actually solve problems. I don't even think you really know what you want.
Interesting observation.....
You seem to be quite talented at walking the line and avoiding choosing clear sides on the issue. On one hand, you say it is pseudo science, while at the same time PRACTICING THE PSEUDO SCIENCE.
If this isn't hypocrisy in action, I don't know what is.
You say you hate the APA, or at east men it clear by your words, yet you give it money every year and try to run for office you know you will never win. Or is it that you are in denial?
WTF is that all about?
You are a walking contradiction.
Seriously Dan, no one has any fear of you. You are having zero impact, you aren't even warm.
Anyway, you have to know, some questions for me, are complicated. I say this, because lets face it, unlike you, anything I have to say, is not only watched, but taken very seriously, and open to internal disciplinary action. Which as you know, are often nightmare scenarios of long processes where I am left to fight the fight alone. Funny how people say they have my back, but when I need them, actually at my back, they are no where to be found.
Actually, I take that back. There has been one or two instances, behind closed doors where people have taken up for me. Having said that, I'd say, 90% of the time, I am on my own, and no matter how right I am, it doesn't matter because the card are stacked against me.
Now, having said that, examiners and associations outside the state of Texas, have told me, that while they may agree that I am being treated unfairly, they want nothing to do with what is going on in Texas. So as long as I keep this a Texas issue, I can do what I was so long as I don't cross the line into slander, libel, or badmouthing outside the Texas issue.
I have my opinions on accuracy and reliability, and while I may not share your opinions as a whole, there are a few that have merit. I have never said anything different.
To nutshell it.
I think some of your arguments are subjects of credible reflection and review. Its the messenger who lacks credibility, because you lack the balls to do that is necessary to go as far as is needed to even ask to be taken seriously, much less be taken seriously at all.
You can make the argument that I am wrong all you want. You can make the argument that one day you'll be APA president and you will rule from a, "bully pulpit." Dan, I got a newsflash for ya, it's simply not going to happen. You will never be elected into any office in the APA, because of your message. I keep telling you that, and you keep not listening.
You're the George McGovern of the APA, you keep running hopeless campaigns that you know you will never win. Having said that, at least McGovern went out there and put his neck out and got involved. He took credible stands, at times, at great risk to his career. He went out there and met people, pressed the flesh, looked people in the eye. He took his stands, and wasn't afraid to look into peoples eyes and justify them. He didn't lack the courage of his convictions.
This is one of the reasons why you're not taken seriously, you lack the courage of your convictions. You avoid putting your neck out at all costs. You stay here, in your comfort zone, where you think you sit on high and can't be touched, because you're allowed to ignore any question put to you and no one calls you to the plate.
Hmmmmmmmm sound like what the polygraph establishment in Texas does, huh?
Why should I answer one of your questions, when you avoid giving any real, coherent, and honest, answers yourself?
You give only Hillary Clinton, double talk answers, and then fire out questions demanding detailed answers, and engaging in name calling and schoolyard bullying to deflect your vague answer. All this while shifting the burden onto other people to your demands. You rely on this to, "win the day."
Here is your playbook.
They are not presented in any particular order.
1. SHOW UP WITH YOUR TALKING POINTS. Make sure you have something that you feel will show your opponents in a negative light, and make that the subject of the discussion.
2. DEMONIZE YOUR OPPONENT. Attempt to cover them with shame, the same way you would a 4 year old that touches his pee-pee.
3. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DOING #2 ABOVE, SUPPORT HIM IMMEDIATELY.
4. CLAIM THAT IT IS "OLD NEWS" AND NOT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION.
5. QUOTE SELECTIVLY. Always quote the selectively, or describe things in a general manner.
6. IF ASKED FOR MORE DETAILS, IGNORE THE QUESTION.
7. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF A MENTAL DEFECT OR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE. Personal attacks of this sort are especially useful as the target will almost always try to defend himself, thus changing the subject.
8. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. Try to do this before he has an opportunity to. Try to infer that it you have given him multiple opportunities to do so. Do it even if the question has been answered. If he misses the question and asks you to repeat it DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR HIS BENEFIT).
9. RESORT TO INSULTS. Accuse your opponent of being a pig fornicator, then make him deny it.
10. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF BEING UNINFORMED. This works especially well when you are asked to provide your sources. It is especially effective if you work in a reference to someone you have already demonized.
11. SPEAK CRYPTICALLY. Try to make it difficult for people to divine your meaning
12. CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Try to get it back to your original talking points (see #1 above)
13. BAIT YOUR OPPONENT. Needle him, tease him, call him names until he makes an inappropriate post.
14. DENY THE EVIDENCE EXISTS. Ask for evidence of wrongdoing by those you support. When that evidence is presented, continue denying that it exists.
Now, to be fair, we all engage in some of these tactics, mostly unintentionally, but you have a pattern of doing this. I honestly believe, you do these things intentionally, and systematically. You do it knowing that people will just get sick of a pointless debate, walk away, and you can claim your tainted victory.
Sorry man, I want debates to actually go there, and I want to actually solve problems. I don't even think you really know what you want.
Interesting observation.....
You seem to be quite talented at walking the line and avoiding choosing clear sides on the issue. On one hand, you say it is pseudo science, while at the same time PRACTICING THE PSEUDO SCIENCE.
If this isn't hypocrisy in action, I don't know what is.
You say you hate the APA, or at east men it clear by your words, yet you give it money every year and try to run for office you know you will never win. Or is it that you are in denial?
WTF is that all about?
You are a walking contradiction.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 19, 2017, 09:13 AMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on Sep 19, 2017, 01:43 AMI am done with your one way question and answer sessions.
In other words, Joe, you are afraid to respond to my question truthfully.
Your dodge is a typical (necessary?) tactic of the pro-polygraph lobby.
Ironically, the self-proclaimed dedicated-to-truth polygraph crowd is loathe to admit the truth about the "test".
In what might be seen as a desperate attempt to add an air of legitimacy to the "test," the polygraph apologists have resorted to trotting out the tortured machinations of Bayes' Theorem to help them hedge their hopelessly optimistic accuracy claims.
But despite the polygraph indu$try leaders' newest efforts to polish the polygraph turd, the "test" remains a SWAG -- a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Sep 19, 2017, 01:43 AMDan, Jesus Christ could look into your eye and tell you are not 100% right, and you would deny him. So what is the point of arguing with you?
I am done with your one way question and answer sessions.
You fight your fight to destroy the polygraph industry.
I will fight mine to fix the corruption and problems.
You continue to fight behind a keyboard.
I will continue to fight mine by actually wanting to look my detractors in the eye. I'll keep fighting for the opportunity to be heard and ask questions that the examiners in Texas are afraid to answer, even in a room full of TAPE's own members; confronted with undeniable evidence of their lies, corruption, and unethical acts.
I'll continue to go to any polygraph meeting I can, and answer any question asked of me. Unlike you, I back up everything I say, in person, with documentation, and good intentions.
If only you can say the same.
I am done with your one way question and answer sessions.
You fight your fight to destroy the polygraph industry.
I will fight mine to fix the corruption and problems.
You continue to fight behind a keyboard.
I will continue to fight mine by actually wanting to look my detractors in the eye. I'll keep fighting for the opportunity to be heard and ask questions that the examiners in Texas are afraid to answer, even in a room full of TAPE's own members; confronted with undeniable evidence of their lies, corruption, and unethical acts.
I'll continue to go to any polygraph meeting I can, and answer any question asked of me. Unlike you, I back up everything I say, in person, with documentation, and good intentions.
If only you can say the same.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Sep 18, 2017, 09:08 PMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on Sep 18, 2017, 04:12 PMI'll say it again, and I will not back off this position.
The problem is not the test...
Joe, expressed as a percentage, what is the specificity of a 4-RQ PCSOT maintenance polygraph "test"?
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Sep 18, 2017, 04:12 PMQuote from: danmangan on Jun 15, 2017, 09:26 AMTheRealist19 -- or should I say Honest Joe McCarthy (aka "Amy Baker"),
sorry dan, not me... Fact is, I haven't been here since our blow out.
if it was me, I'd say it....
Moreover, I wouldn't have said most of the stuff he said; not even on fake SN.
Lastly, If I was going to pick a fight with you, or anyone for that matter, I would simply log in and start poking.
But thanks for thinking it was me, that guy has way better Grammar.
I'll say it again, and I will not back off this position.
The problem is not the test, it is the corruption within the industry and the people who are unwilling to stand up and demand better.
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Jul 20, 2017, 12:29 PMJ.J., thank you for your post.
You are not the first APA member to tell me they did not receive a ballot this year.
With a 40% drop in reported voter participation, something indeed seems amiss with this year's APA election.
When I ran for president-elect in 2015, I sent out about 350 emails to fellow APA members asking for their support. I received 154 votes.
This year -- campaigning with the same platform as in 2015 -- I sent out roughly 1,000 such emails, but purportedly received only 43 votes.
Since the APA does not release master-list email contact info of APA members to fellow APA members(!), there is no way to verify if ballots were actually received by all those APA members who registered their email addresses with the APA national office.
Further, without any independent third-party oversight, there is no way of knowing if all votes cast in this year's APA elections were in fact received and duly tabulated.
You are not the first APA member to tell me they did not receive a ballot this year.
With a 40% drop in reported voter participation, something indeed seems amiss with this year's APA election.
When I ran for president-elect in 2015, I sent out about 350 emails to fellow APA members asking for their support. I received 154 votes.
This year -- campaigning with the same platform as in 2015 -- I sent out roughly 1,000 such emails, but purportedly received only 43 votes.
Since the APA does not release master-list email contact info of APA members to fellow APA members(!), there is no way to verify if ballots were actually received by all those APA members who registered their email addresses with the APA national office.
Further, without any independent third-party oversight, there is no way of knowing if all votes cast in this year's APA elections were in fact received and duly tabulated.
Posted by J.J.
- Jul 19, 2017, 11:26 AM"Ark, frankly speaking, I'm mystified by the purported 40% decline in voter turnout for 2017 as compared to each of the previous three years."
INTERESTING OBSERVATION DAN, AS A MEMBER OF APA MYSELF, I NEVER RECEIVED A BALLOT FOR THE ELECTION BUT DID RECEIVE SUBSEQUENT RUNOFF BALLOTS AND YOUR SOLICITATION DAVE.
INTERESTING OBSERVATION DAN, AS A MEMBER OF APA MYSELF, I NEVER RECEIVED A BALLOT FOR THE ELECTION BUT DID RECEIVE SUBSEQUENT RUNOFF BALLOTS AND YOUR SOLICITATION DAVE.