American Polygraph Association elections will be held the week of July 5th. The office of president-elect is being sought by myself and Patrick O'Burke, director of The Polygraph Institute in San Antonio, TX.
Given antipolygraph.org's widespread popularity with APA members and others connected to the polygraph industry, I invite Mr. O'Burke to join me on this forum to debate the issues.
Meanwhile, I am posting my official 500-word APA candidate statement -- (length limited by the association's election rules) -- which has been submitted to the APA for publication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRE-ELECTION STATEMENT OF DANIEL MANGAN, CANDIDATE FOR APA PRESIDENT-ELECT
The time has come for the polygraph profession to fully face reality. In 1997 the American Polygraph Association proffered a highly flattering report –
The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing – that spawned a lasting perception of near-perfect accuracy.
Here's a key excerpt from that storied APA-endorsed document:
The American Polygraph Association has a compendium of research studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The 80 research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380 polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following 2,174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%.The industry took that figure and ran with it.
Even after the highly critical NAS report was published in 2002, the APA doubled down on its claim of 98% accuracy, reiterating that assertion on its web site for yet another decade.
When the APA published its meta-analytic survey in 2011 it moderated somewhat on polygraph accuracy, but even today many APA members – including industry notables who should clearly know better – cling to that erstwhile claim of 98% accuracy.
Such hyperbole may be good for business, but is it's bad for the advancement of polygraph.
Beyond the misleading claims of astronomical accuracy, the polygraph profession continues to ignore a three-front crisis of ethics. Those issues are: victimization of innocent parties via false results; a lack of reality-based research on the effects of countermeasures; and, potentially harmful discrimination within the APA membership.
The APA's mission statement says in part,
"...establish the highest standards of moral, ethical, and professional conduct in the polygraph field." Further, the first of four separate goals that appear under the APA's stated mission is
"Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons."It seems the APA has lost sight of those prime objectives. Consequently, I am running for president-elect on this three-point platform:
- 1. A bill of rights for polygraph test subjects, similar in spirit to the checks and balances of EPPA, to elevate informed consent to a higher level and avoid potential harms
2. An ongoing countermeasure challenge series, integral to APA seminars, designed to better reveal polygraph's real-world accuracy and expose the troubling variations in examiner competence
3. Equality for all APA members regarding access to educational materials presented at APA events currently restricted to select groups, eliminating the inequities of a de facto caste society
Polygraph is all too often simply about money. While there will always be opportunists in our field, the APA should continually lead by example. That means living up to the APA mission statement. Clearly, gaining respect from the scientific and legal communities requires more than merely attempting to impress those entities with gobbledygook and home-grown statistics.
It's time to eradicate the APA's self-made legacy of unrealistic expectations, and be forthright about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph testing.
As president-elect, I will work tirelessly to bring truth, honesty and accountability to the profession.
--------------------------------------------
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
www.polygraphman.com
APA members, electronic elections begin on July 5th -- just one week from today -- and continue through July 11th. You will receive email notification beforehand from election coordinator Don Krapohl.
I urge every APA member to exercise their electoral responsibility and let their voice be heard.
Here's why...
>>>It's time to start cleaning house at the American Polygraph Association. This should begin by making changes in leadership. The revolving door of APA politicos has been the cause of stagnation in several key areas, in my view.
>>>Polygraph victimization is real and must be curtailed. A bill of rights for polygraph test takers -- fully informing them about the risks, realities and limitations of the test -- would be a good beginning. It's time to end the polygraph hu$tle.
>>>Another area of grave concern is that of polygraph's scientific validity. The APA should be open to having its research in that area scrutinized, and finally embrace a countermeasure challenge series. I'm confident the outcomes of both would temper the industry's misplaced exuberance.
>>>Problems involving professional misconduct and shady business ethics, particularly as they relate to PCSOT, need to be faced head on. Turning a blind eye to such shenanigans only perpetuates polygraph's already-battered image.
Make no mistake, this election is a referendum.
Do you want more of the status quo -- (APA members know exactly what I mean) -- or do you want real progress?
There's a reason why polygraph remains the Rodney Dangerfield of the forensic sciences: Respect is hard to come by.
We can help fix that by being honest with ourselves.
Please take a stand and join me in the march forward.
It's time to eradicate the APA's self-made legacy of suspect science, unrealistic expectations and preventable victimization.
Yes, the road to real progress will be a rocky one, but, with your support, I will work tirelessly to bring truth, honesty and accountability to the polygraph profession.
I ask for your vote for president-elect of the American Polygraph Association.
Dan Mangan
Earlier today I was informed by APA president Raymond Nelson that I have lost posting privileges on a private forum for examiners, www.polygraphforum.com.
That forum -- of which I've been a member for years -- is run by pro-polygraph establishment heavyweights Raymond Nelson, Mark Handler and Ben Blalock.
The particular thread that seems to be offending some people centers on the upcoming APA elections and my candidacy for president-elect of that organization.
While my punishment is ostensibly linked to, as APA President Nelson informed me, "an unwillingness or unability [sic] to work nicely with others," I think the aforementioned polygraph establishment wonks are more interested in quashing my brutally honest campaign message, or otherwise marginalizing me as a candidate.
That's my theory, anyway.
Therefore, I'll say here what I can't say there...
If the APA membership wants another polite politician to keep a steady hand on the business-as-usual tiller, they should vote for my opponent.
But if the APA electorate is courageous enough to turn the final page of the polygraph fantasy storybook, face reality head on, and give the indu$try a much-needed swift kick in the ass, there's only one choice on the ballot.
It's time to end the polygraph hu$tle.
Quote from: danmangan on Jun 29, 2015, 05:47 PMEarlier today I was informed by APA president Raymond Nelson that I have lost posting privileges on a private forum for examiners,
Thank you for having the courage to stand up to them at risk to your career. You can look at yourself in the mirror and feel good. At the very least, you've convinced me that there are some good polygraphers out there, something I never thought I'd ever say.
Wandersmann, from what I've seen, the polygraph indu$try is intellectually and scientifically in a world of its own.
In my humble opinion, some dutiful industry apologists are heavily influenced by the government's vested interested in polygraph -- although I could be mistaken.
After all, Uncle Sugar is "all in" with the liebox.
Hey, it's just a personal observation that's based on 10+ years of experience in the polygraph trenches -- over five of them in a prison setting.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But maybe I'm not.
In either case, I feel pretty good when I see myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night.
Why?
Because I'm dedicated to truth -- the truth about the "test."
In the interest of completeness, I will explain that Mr. Mangan is presently not permitted to post at a private forum for polygraph professionals. The reason for this is that Mr. Mangan has engaged in repeated insults towards others and a toxic level of aggression that others are simply tired of tolerating. This i
The private forum is not part of the APA, and not intended for marketing or campaigning. Mr. Mangan was permitted to start a discussion for his campaign.
Regarding Mr. Mangan's concerns about transparency and accountability in the polygraph profession and the science of polygraph testing, I will point out that Mr. Mangan is the "author" of a 2008 scientific study that claimed ~100% accuracy using a proprietary or boutique polygraph technique that is advertised on Mr. Mangan's website and appears to be part of his marketing plan to simultaneously criticize the profession and also claim deterministic perfection.
It strikes me as odd that Mr. Mangan criticizes the polygraph profession at large for overestimating the polygraph while simultaneously publishing and advertising claims of ~100% accuracy. There are many flaws in Mr. Mangan's study, and it appears that he himself does not actually believe the polygraph to be ~100% accurate.
Yet, Mr. Mangan has not yet taken the ethical and responsible step of retracting a publication that claims a ~100% accuracy rate that he does not believe.
It is also odd to me that Mr. Mangan is critical of historical overestimations of polygraph accuracy while also rejecting more conservative recent analysis.
For the record, I have enjoyed a number of fantastic and interesting discussions with Mr. Mangan regarding polygraph topics. We do not often agree on matters of polygraph, but have some shared interests outside of work. Despite our disagreements, the discussions that Mr. Mangan has sometimes raised - when not engaging in insults and social aggression - have been terrific if not sometimes rigorous. For these reasons I will always try to appreciate Mr. Mangan, though I sometimes get tired of the way he insults others, and I disagree with his reported conclusion of ~100% accuracy.
Mr. Mangan's career is not in jeopardy and I suspect that his oft-articulate spin will be welcome to some.
And finally, I cannot ever recall ever being referred to as a heavy-weight. I do consider myself fortunate to have some interesting opportunities to work hard and be of some usefulness to others in different ways.
rn
Raymond,
Your input is always welcome. I hope you will become a permanent member of this discussion board. It has evolved considerably and we need more individuals like yourself to participate and contribute to a balanced discussion.
Irwin Corey will be a 101 on the 29th, amazing.
I know Pat to be a good man. He has never done anything to harm me that I know of. I have broken bread with this man, have nothing but good things to say about him. He has been respectful to me and my wife, he will get the same back threefold from me until I know otherwise. Dan, I wouldn't make this personal. Keep it to the issues and to the facts. That is my two cents.
Dan, you're my friend and I dig you, but, I'm out.
This has marks on it where it has been touched with a ten foot pole.
Oh and big props to Ray nelson for standing up for himself and using his real name to do so. If only others had that integrity
Ray, why do you oppose a bill of rights for polygraph test subjects designed to fully inform them about the risks, realities and limitations of the "test"? Are you a polygraph victimization denier?
While you're at it, Ray, please explain your opposition to a countermeasure challenge series -- ideally held at APA events using the same kind of mock-crime methods favored by NCCA -- pitting countermeasure-savvy test subjects against randomly chosen polygraph operators. Are you afraid the "test" would fail miserably?
As for my marketing methods, I invite interested parties to visit my website at www.polygraphman.com, read every page, explore the four links highlighted as "Recommended Reading," then decide for themselves if I am being misleading or disingenuous.
Finally, I find Ray's complaint of my alleged on-line social aggression laughable, especially in light of the antics often applied by polygraph operators during certain parts of the "test." Seems that some polygraph bullies are great at dishing it out, but just can't bear even the slightest needling themselves.
So Dan, did you author a study claiming 100 percent accuracy for a polygraph technique? Harder question, can you limit your answer to a yes or no?
pailryder, I'm sick of dealing with on-line phantoms such as you, and getting the dodge from polygraph apologists such as Raymond Nelson.
I will respond to your inquiry after you have fully identified youself (and your identity has been independently verified), and APA president Nelson answers the questions I posed to him immediately prior to your post.
Fair enough?
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 01, 2015, 09:07 AMI will respond to your inquiry after you have fully identified youself (and your identity has been independently verified), and APA president Nelson answers the questions I posed to him immediately prior to your post.
Fair enough?
This is a 100% good point. If Ray Nelson was man enough to post under his real name, maybe others should follow that example.
It is easy to beat up on someone when hiding behind an "anonymous" screen name. Of course I have proven that there is no such thing as anonymous on the internet; just ask anyone at behavioral measures or TAPE. I traced libelous, racist, and threatening posts and emails straight back to a Board Member of TAPE and a managing employee of BM. But I digress
If one is going to join in the battle royal, be good and brave enough to ID yourself.
Be a man and own what you say. Even my 16 year old son knows better
Lets also remember Dan, if yes or no questions is the game he wants to play, than I say play it.
I would sell my soul to the devil for a yes or no question session with them
Perhaps quickfix (supposedly a federal polygrapher) will reveal his real name. My educated guess is that active federal polygraphers have been instructed not to post on the Internet, lest they inadvertently reveal sensitive information, or perhaps add fuel to the fire.
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 01, 2015, 08:01 AMFinally, I find Ray's complaint of my alleged on-line social aggression laughable, especially in light of the antics often applied by polygraph operators during certain parts of the "test."
Ah,,,,,, Dan there are times you can be a wee too aggressive to the situation. This usually only happens when elections come around.
It's one thing when you are fighting a personal war. After all, if someone chooses to make things personal, then "Jacta ales est"
But this is an election, you got really mean last time, and I think that hurt you. Keep it to the facts and the issues. Knock off the "apologist" talk. Tell people why you are a better candidate, and how you will change things for the positive. Stop harping on what is wrong and point out some things that are right, but you can make better.
Now, having said that, and in the interest of fairness, let me take a step as a totally independent party. I am not a member of the APA and therefore have no dog in the fight. I like and respect you, Pat, and Don.
You know I would be asking them tough questions also.
Could you please answer the 100% accuracy question. Just keep it to the facts.
Sorry man, but someone has to be the guy to ask the tough and uncomfortable questions. Let's all be fair and keep it relatively clean.
Joe, I just sent you email. I'll get into it further next time we talk, likely in the next day or two.
Thanks for the advice.
Changing the APA's groupthink mentality will take time. Last year I got about 15% of the vote. My goal for this year is to double that. Then...well, you get the picture.
Dan, you have to be fair here. Though I don't like that this pailryder guy chooses to hide behind a screen name, he asks a relevant and reasonable question.
It's unfair to ask for a debate and not answer fair questions. You know for a fact I would be just as hard on them.
I will say that keeping it to a yes or no is unreasonable.
Yes or no, then explain. This is fair Dan. Seriously man, people are watching. Time to shine
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Jul 01, 2015, 11:21 AMOf course I have proven that there is no such thing as anonymous on the internet
Actually, it's easy to post to this forum anonymously by posting as a guest via the Tor Browser (https://www.torproject.org/index.html.en) and not including a real e-mail address. In fact, one can register an account on this forum anonymously using Tor Browser, and even include a working e-mail address, so long as that e-mail address was created through, and is only ever accessed through, Tor Browser.
Good point GM. SO Behavioral Measures and TAPE just thought that they would get away with it if their guy got caught. So, they were either stupid and didn't think they would get caught; or they were arrogant in thinking they would get away with it.
As it turns out, Judge Evans of the 48th District Court in Tarrant County Texas let them get away with it. So much for "justice for all" huh Dave?
But the truth is out there. Behavioral Measures and The Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners condones the racist, sexist, and terroristic threats sent to me by a Member that was sitting in the TAPE Board of Directors and a managing employee of Behavioral Measures. They do this though their silence, lack of condemnation, and lack of taking responsibility for their attachment.
This is irrefutable and indisputable
Here is a good question.
What is your position on examiners engaging and getting caught in acts like listed above; should they apologize and take full responsibility for their actions?
Should polygraphs be used in Ethics Investigations when such a test can clearly settle the issue, as written in AAPP and Arizona Polygraph Association bylaws?
Lastly
DO you think that a State Association should be held accountable and responsible if it is found that they have intentionally, willfully, and with malice, ignored or flagrantly disobeyed their own bylaws to achieve a personal vendetta; and what should be done to punish those involved with the unethical activity if they are APA members to protect the integrity of the APA?
cue crickets
Oh and no "jurisdiction" cop outs. I am asking what you feel should be done about these issues, and the unethical people that ARE members of the APA
Speaking of racism, I've always found it interesting that polygraph seems to be popular in states where the confederate flag is likely to be displayed.
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 01, 2015, 12:56 PMSpeaking of racism, I've always found it interesting that polygraph seems to be popular in states where the confederate flag is likely to be displayed.
ugh, so sick of the confederate flag thing. that is a freedom of speech issue. I don't like what it stands for, but a lot of people don't like what the original Irish Flag stood for either.
It's acts that make one racist, not a flag.
As we say in Boston, "irregardless," my question was not about flags. My question was about real acts that were taken by an Officer of TAPE and TAPE's efforts to avoid taking responsibility for those actions or even taking notice of them through condemnation and regret.
Ah we know the story and I have proven who the guilty parties are, hands down. Everyone who acted unethically in this situation, including the sitting TAPE president, vice president, and secretary; all also members of the APA and Maria a sitting member of the APA membership committee (according to her website). Guess we all know what my dances would be of APA membership if my app had to pass her corrupt and unethical eyes.
Should the APA step in to correct the unethical actions of its members and condemn TAPE for not following it's own bylaws, engaging in an unethical ethics committee investigation in which such a committee lied and made material misstatements of fact, obtaining a resignation of membership without affording the accused the due process afforded the accused laid out in Bylaws, or worse, Sitting president of TAPE 2009 Stuart Ervin obtaining the resignation through an act of fraud, as John Rios, Jack St. John, and Michale Chimeras indicated to when they say that no vote of the Board of Directors occurred.
Do these acts, by APA members, reflect poorly on the APA, and as such, should something be done to protect the APA's integrity? Um, other than punishing the whistle blower
Should the APA, condemn the clearly racist, sexist, and threatening emails? Should the APA condemn the coverups that TAPE and Behavioral Measures engaged in?
Should the APA at least say something that condemns actions taken by it's members that call the integrity of the polygraph community into question?
I think this is actually pretty simple stuff.
I have an idea, and lets keep this simple with one issue at a time. Dan, you are still on the hook for the 100% accuracy rate thing.
anyway
To either candidate or even to Mr. Nelson.
Should polygraph examiners be held to the test they sell under the following proposed bylaw?
If so, how would a bylaw like this be so objectionable?
If the bylaw is objectionable, why does the Arizona Polygraph Association have it in their bylaws and why does the AAPP have a similar bylaw?
2. Should the Ethics Committee deem a polygraph test necessary in an investigation of injurious conduct, the following shall be adhered to:
a. If the Ethics Committee's investigation of injurious conduct of a member indicates a polygraph examination of that member is desirable to refute or substantiate those injurious conduct charges..the Committee will appoint three (3) member polygraph examiners to conduct that polygraph examination. Those member examiners will conduct that polygraph examination at the direction of the Chairman of the Ethics Committee and submit their reports of the outcome and / or opinion of the truthfulness of the member subject in writing to the Chairman.
b. Should injurious conduct charges be made against a member by another member and the Ethics Committee deems it desirable to have those charges substantiated, they will appoint three (3) member examiners to conduct a polygraph examination on the member making the charges and report the results of the examination in writing to the Chairman.
c. Should the Ethics Committee deem a polygraph examination desirable on the accused or the accuser. the Committee must have the approval of 3/4 of the quorum of the elected members before the polygraph examination is conducted. The President would then Call a special meeting of the elected members for this purpose.
d. Members appointed by the Ethics Committed Chairman to conduct polygraph examinations on members regarding injurious conduct charges will serve without remuneration.
e. Should a member refuse to submit to a polygraph examination under any of the aforementioned terms. that member will be subject to termination of membership.
Joe, in my opinion, examiners should NOT be held to the standard of the test they sell.
I sent you a link to my study. If you have questions about that, call me -- but read the article thoroughly first.
I have to be honest, I have a hard time with people selling and making money of a product that they won't use themselves in the same or similar situations. This is problematic for me.
It's an integrity issue
Joe, read the NAS report.
Polygraph only works with naive subjects.
What fear would an examiner have with any CQ? Plus, an examiner would stand a much greater chance of beating the "test."
In all, the potential for error would be far too great.
Dan even in that study, it seems crazy that we wouldn't use our own test.
QuoteThe Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique correctly identified 100% of the innocent as truthful with no inconclusives and no errors. It further correctly identified 97.8% of the guilty as deceptive and 2.2% as inconclusive, with no errors. Inconclusives excluded, the Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique was 100% accurate in the identification of the innocent and the guilty. Inconclusives included, the utility rate was 98.6%. Blind scoring of polygraph charts showed extremely high correlations for the individual and total scores with a combined accuracy of 98.3%.
Why would someone not dig those odds?
I have to admit I am having a hard time with the numbers man. 100% accuracy with a 2% inconclusive rate? ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh I don't know, sounds too good to be true with all due respect.
Regardless, even with the APA study of 89 to 93%, I like those odds too.
If you're not willing to drink the koolaid, don't serve it up to anyone. To do otherwise is unethical, in my opinion. This is why when all this started, I thought polygraph was the way to solve the controversy once and for all. I found it hard to believe that we were an industry that didn't believe in its own product.
Like I said, it's an integrity issue.
So, what you and the rest of the polygraph industry is saying, is that I am an idiot for believing in the product I use to determine peoples future?
Ray, here is a good time to weigh in. Is polygraph accurate and reliable enough to sell honestly to the American Public? If so, why isn't it good enough to solve issues within our own industry?
If polygraph is not as accurate and reliable to sell hostly to the American Public, who are we allowed to sell it with the sales pitch we have been using in regard to accuracy and reliability?
If it is accurate and reliable enough to honestly sell, how can we do so while insisting that examiners are above the test we sell with any kind of credibility?
It's time for some clear answers that does not dodge or dance around the subject.
If the test is good, why is it not good enough or us?
If the test is not as good as we all say it is 89% to this 100% accuracy I just read about, why are the people at the top of the polygraph food chain feeding us studies that lead us to commit a fraud on our customers every day.
Let's get everyone on the record. Does the APA stand by it's studies? Dan, why does it seem you are not standing by the study you were involved with?
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 01, 2015, 05:04 PMJoe, read the NAS report.
Polygraph only works with naive subjects.
What fear would an examiner have with any CQ? Plus, an examiner would stand a much greater chance of beating the "test."
In all, the potential for error would be far too great.
If it would be an easy test to beat, why the fear of taking it?
If the other examiners involved can beat the test so easily, one would think that taking me out of the industry would be as easy as pie...... If we use that logic anyway
Moreover, why would the AAPP have the use of polygraph in their bylaws unless it could be done? Why would the Arizona Polygraph Examiners Association laid it out so carefully in their bylaws unless they thought it could be done.
We are not talking rinky dink polygraph associations. One being a recognized state level association and the other a national level. The national level organization, it should be noted, has a membership that includes every one of the polygraph examiners within the issue. So, by Holden, Hubbard, Parker, Rios, St. John, Ervin, Shepard, et al. running from the test, they are calling their AAPP bylaws BS? Or are they refusing because they know the test will expose them? it has to be one or the other.
Regardless, polygraph examiners being afraid of the product we sell to consumers is problematic for me as it should be for anyone.
Are there no non-examiners who have a problem with examiners being scared of the test we sell? How do DA's and defense attorneys reconcile sending people to a test that the testers are scared of themselves?
Is there only one examiner in the world who believes that product integrity is important?
Lastly, if I submitted to the test I said I would, according to your logic, I would come up as a false positive. Why where the other examiners not all over that like flies on shit?
This is becoming really problematic for me that I am the only examiner that seems to think we should hold ourselves to our own standards.
If we can't be trusted to fix integrity issues from within fairly, if we can't treat our own fairly and honestly, how can the American Public trust us to treat them fairly or honestly?
Maybe the problem isn't accuracy or reliability; maybe the real issue is integrity and the lack thereof some key influencers who hold positions of trust and are policy makers have within the industry.
All of my questions involve simple black and white issues, especially in regard to using the product we sell. To me this is an easy issue, it was to John Rios (TAPE President) too until I held him to his answer.
It is a no brainer to any business man. "Do you, or would you use your own product?" It is professional seppuku to say "no." At least it is in every other business but this one it seems.
If indeed the accuracy and reliability is not good enough for the testers to rely on the accuracy, maybe the industry needs to be shut down until we fix the accuracy and reliability problem. Because if it is not accurate and reliable enough for us, how can we say it is accurate and reliable enough for the general public?
So, whats the score. Is the test accurate and reliable, or is it not?
This is actually a pretty simple yes or no question, right pailryder?
Quote
Mr. Mangan's career is not in jeopardy and I suspect that his oft-articulate spin will be welcome to some.
Ray,
I'm not so concerned about personality traits, but, I would like to hear your take on Dan's idea of a Bill of Rights for Polygraph examinees.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jul 01, 2015, 06:32 PMQuote
Mr. Mangan's career is not in jeopardy and I suspect that his oft-articulate spin will be welcome to some.
Ray,
I'm not so concerned about personality traits, but, I would like to hear your take on Dan's idea of a Bill of Rights for Polygraph examinees.
A "bill of rights" means nothing when it addresses a test that the examiner wouldn't use for himself if he/she found him/herself in a similar situation.
Otherwise, it is a bill or rights based on a lie; it's a lie to sell a lie in that context. If the implied contract of accuracy and reliability mean nothing, why would anyone think that a "bill or rights" has any meaning.
Jesus, for the love of God, would someone stand up for our accuracy rates. There must be someone that trusts the studies the way I do/want to
Joe, the examinee bill of rights would help protect people from being hu$tled into the bullshit scientific "test."
Polygraph's absolute accuracy is unknown, and, in fact, is unknowable.
It's just a SWAG -- a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess, to quote retired CIA polygraph operator John Sullivan.
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Jul 01, 2015, 05:06 PMThe Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique correctly identified 100% of the innocent as truthful with no inconclusives and no errors.
If I recall in the Quadri-Track ZCT, Matte simply adds another spot, Fear of Error-Hope of Error. I'm curious to know how that would increase accuracy.
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 01, 2015, 06:51 PMJoe, the examinee bill of rights would help protect people from being hu$tled into the bullshit scientific "test."
Polygraph's absolute accuracy is unknown, and, in fact, is unknowable.
It's just a SWAG -- a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess, to quote retired CIA polygraph operator John Sullivan.
Ok, lets look at that argument.
the examinee bill of rights would help protect people from being hu$tled into the bullshit scientific "test."Using your logic, you want a bill of rights to protect an examinee from being hustled while they are being hustled?
If it's a "bullshit test," then the examinee has already been hustled.
With this logic, why would you continue to run tests?
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jul 01, 2015, 06:53 PMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on Jul 01, 2015, 05:06 PMThe Quadri-Track Zone Comparison Technique correctly identified 100% of the innocent as truthful with no inconclusives and no errors.
If I recall in the Quadri-Track ZCT, Matte simply adds another spot, Fear of Error-Hope of Error. I'm curious to know how that would increase accuracy.
That was a cut and paste from the study.
Looking at it and pondering on it, I have to admit, it's interesting. Having said that, 100% accuracy? ehhhhhhhhhhhh I am just to skeptical to believe that
Joe, you did a cut and paste from the abstract. You have not read the complete study, correct?
Further, my article was more of a micro-study, i.e., one examiner with 25+ years of experience running exams on clear-cut criminal issues in a police setting.
The fear/hope spot has been discredited by some of the higher-profile polygraph "scientists," but I disagree with them.
A countermeasure challenge series would help clarify things, but the dedicated-to-truth fakers say such a thing would just be a "circus stunt."
In other words, they're chicken.
As to why I run tests, it's all supply and demand. But at least I make sure the client knows that polygraph validity is grossly exaggerated. Additionally, more and more of my time with clients is spent consulting, not testing.
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 01, 2015, 07:54 PMJoe, you did a cut and paste from the abstract. You have not read the complete study, correct?
Further, my article was more of a micro-study, i.e., one examiner with 25+ years of experience running exams on clear-cut criminal issues in a police setting.
The fear/hope spot has been discredited by some of the higher-profile polygraph "scientists," but I disagree with them.
A countermeasure challenge series would help clarify things, but the dedicated-to-truth fakers say such a thing would just be a "circus stunt."
In other words, they're chicken.
As to why I run tests, it's all supply and demand. But at least I make sure the client knows that polygraph validity is grossly exaggerated. Additionally, more and more of my time with clients is spent consulting, not testing.
Yes, I did read it all and I'm still having issues with the 100% number. I do find the fear/hope spot an interesting concept though, and would like to see some independent analysis of the theory.
Anyway, yes I did cut and past the abstract and even said that I did. Remember when PP posts made fun of me for long posts. I try to cut it down, but sometimes things just need to be said lol.
I do not agree with the other examiners that the CM challenge would be a circus stunt. HOWEVER, I do think it would become a circus stunt by one side or the other for shameless self promotion. I also think it would become a three ring circus of excuses and accusations of hackery coming from whomever is on the losing side of the "contest." (lack of a better term)
Honestly, I think it would create more questions and controversy than answers and solutions.
As to your answer regarding why you still run tests, at least it was an honest and straightforward answer to a honest question. Better than what I get down here in Texas
Irregardless, the question still stands, how can any polygraph test be 100%? I believe that is what pailryder was trying to get at.
Just to be fair
Joe, the APA endorsed a half-dozen or so studies claiming perfect accuracy in their 1997 report, "The Validity and Reliability of Polygraph Testing," which stated polygraph's *average* accuracy at 98%.
The APA held firm on that figure from 1997 to 2011 -- ten years after the highly damning NAS report.
Clearly, polygraph is BS (belief system) based, not rooted in science.
But it sells, and that's what polygraph is all about.
well, this goes back to one of my original questions. If the polygraph industry truly believes in this accuracy rate, shouldn't the community demand examiners to submit to the test we insist is accurate and reliable to resolve issues only polygraph can within the industry?
If it is 98% accurate, what is the industry afraid of by enacting this bylaw across the board?
If it is so accurate, than it won't cause any harm.... other than to the unethical and dishonest person
2. Should the Ethics Committee deem a polygraph test necessary in an investigation of injurious conduct, the following shall be adhered to:
a. If the Ethics Committee's investigation of injurious conduct of a member indicates a polygraph examination of that member is desirable to refute or substantiate those injurious conduct charges..the Committee will appoint three (3) member polygraph examiners to conduct that polygraph examination. Those member examiners will conduct that polygraph examination at the direction of the Chairman of the Ethics Committee and submit their reports of the outcome and / or opinion of the truthfulness of the member subject in writing to the Chairman.
b. Should injurious conduct charges be made against a member by another member and the Ethics Committee deems it desirable to have those charges substantiated, they will appoint three (3) member examiners to conduct a polygraph examination on the member making the charges and report the results of the examination in writing to the Chairman.
c. Should the Ethics Committee deem a polygraph examination desirable on the accused or the accuser. the Committee must have the approval of 3/4 of the quorum of the elected members before the polygraph examination is conducted. The President would then Call a special meeting of the elected members for this purpose.
d. Members appointed by the Ethics Committed Chairman to conduct polygraph examinations on members regarding injurious conduct charges will serve without remuneration.
e. Should a member refuse to submit to a polygraph examination under any of the aforementioned terms. that member will be subject to termination of membership.
Ya know I was just thinking. It seems like every time discussions happen in the public sector like this, it's usually because they pushed these debates into the public sector. Yet they will complaint that "dirty laundry" is being aired, but they either can't figure out that they put the basket by the clothesline; or that they are in denial as to their actions.
Joe, in my opinion, the polygraph industry does not believe in their own accuracy claims. It merely sells them. That's why a bill of rights for examinees is so badly needed.
Joe,
Stay smart.
100% accuracy is not a test. It is deterministic observation. it is perfect and infallible because human behavior and randomness have no role and no effect on deterministic models.
Here is the thing, if we want to evaluate some phenomena for which we can use perfect deterministic observation then we do not need a test. I've said this all elsewhere.
Sometimes the question is one of quantity and not strictly category, and so we might want to make a physical/linear measurement. Of course then we are obligated to describe the unit of measurement, and to verify that the data conform to the scale characteristics. Measurements are very good. But unlike deterministic models they are theoretically imperfect because they include physical measurement error. And of course, if we can take a physical measurement we do not need a test.
We need test whenever we want to measure or evaluate some phenomena for which neither perfect deterministic observation nor physical measurement can apply. Amorphous things, like personality, intelligence or math "skills" (as opposed to math performance/achievement).
Because they are used to evaluate amorphous phenomena, all tests and all test results are imperfect and probabilistic. The obligation of a test - as opposed to an unstructured clinical method that would be more subject to human bias or confirmation bias - is to use some structured procedure or instrument and some replicable analysis to quantify the margin of uncertainty surrounding a result or conclusion within some margin of error that has been previously defined as tolerable. This is how science and testing work. It is not expected to be perfect.
I have never seen Dan's research design for a countermeasure study, though he does not seem to correctly understand things like science, testing, research methods or randomness (conference participants are self selected not random, and research participants have to consent to participate). If the past is any indication, Dan's publication of test results of ~100% accuracy tells us nothing in reality about what to expect, because tests are probabilistic and not deterministic. Published claims of ~100% accuracy simply provide no information about what to realistically expect. It is simply pretending.
So where is the hustle here?
As for a Bill of Rights. It might be interesting to get some information from experience in other professions who have tried this kind of solution. My take on the matter is that it will be more effective to do this without added drama (but drama is fun for some when they are campaigning). Addressing this factually and neutrally will probably take a form similar to other professions that have come to terms with the concept of "informed consent" which implies that a person is adequately informed about what will be done and how it might affect the person, in addition to sometimes clarifying the boundaries and obligations of the person and the professional. Taken this way, it appears a lot more manageable than Dan's drama and marketing hype.
On the subject of using the polygraph to investigate or resolve conflicts among polygraph examiners... their is a broader discussion that Joe hints at regarding the concept of "injurious conduct" and whether it is or is not the role of a professional association to mediate or adjudicate personality or professional conflicts. If there is violation of a written code then that is different. But without submitting it in writing to the proper authorities that publish or enforce those code, most associations can and will do nothing without violating their rules and exposing themselves to more complex problems.
Attempting to adjudicate or mitigate a conflict in this forum will be impossible, and serves only to call attention to the issue. If that is the objective, then the message will be better understood if it is more brief (which not my strength) and more descriptive (hmm).
Getting more directly to the issue of the use of the polygraph within the governing and operation of the association... at the risk of some Kafaesque karmic cataclysm, yes. And I believe most polygraph examiners have actually taken polygraphs. Everyone is aware of the potential for problems when a profession does not clarify its boundaries and expectations and values in addition to its mission and goals.
This is exactly why the steady movement in medicine and psychology and forensics towards things like standards and quality control and continued education, and evidence-based practices that can provide results based on replicable analysis models that can realistically quantify the level of confidence and margin of error with norm referenced decision rules. you know... science, and all of the kinds of things that shed light on just how outrageous it is to try to market and publish claims of ~100% accuracy while carving a niche market out of those individuals who may be simultaneously anxious about or distrustful of the polygraph but facing circumstances desperate enough to prompt them to seek the kind false hope that is encouraged by the combination of aggressive criticism + claims of super-wizardry and ~100% accuracy. In the end we actually do need structure and we do need science to help us understand what can be realistically claimed or offered - without the need to hustle or pretend.
.02
rn
no wonder why people have been so pissed at me for calling Maria Holden et al. out to the carpet publicly. Moreoever, it is no wonder why they have been so silent on the issue.
Having said that, the industry, in Texas at least, has to make a choice. Either they will have to admit that they don't believe in their own test, or they will have to admit that someone in the group of Texas examiners has been lying and that person was afraid of being caught in their lie.
Because if they think I am letting it go now, they are out of their minds. I'll have been using it in my marketing and every defense attorney me and Karen will talk to will have a list of examiners who don't believe in their own tests. This will make for some interesting revocation hearings.
Not to mention that I am teaching defense attorneys to score charts, so there will be a lot more chart subpoenas in the future.
But this was their choice.
The days of 45% inconclusive rates and double dipping fees is coming to an end in Texas.
Anyway, Mr. and Miss Holden, along with all their buddies named in earlier posts are charlatans and snake oil salesmen/women. either that or they are liars and guilty of the racism, sexism, terrorism and libel I have been accusing them of.
IS this something that should not be addressed on a national level before the lack of integrity these examiners boldly hold dear infects the rest of the industry?
Ray, do you or do you not support a bill of rights for polygraph examinees?
Also, my study merely showed what *can* happen under optimal circumstances. It should not be construed as what *will* happen.
As for a countermeasure challlenge series, doing it your way means the randomness of examiner selection that happens in real life can't be achieved, rendering the method useless.
Polygraph's absolute accuracy is unknown and is unknowable.
People should be made aware of that.
It's a virtual racket, with precious little protection for the consumer.
People ought to know that too.
But that would be bad for business, so such "informed consent" will never be embraced by the industry -- and therein lies the polygraph hu$tle.
actually Ray, I am being smart. I am trying to get some answers to tough questions. Personally, I'd rather be getting the answers in private, but it seems I get more here than I get behind closed doors.
I know I am not brief, and I am trying to be more descriptive. Ugh, my issue is just such, to quote someone else "a colossal mess;" brief and descriptive together is hard if not impossible.
You know I am not totally on Dan's side in regard to accuracy, but the actions of some APA members is making me wonder.
On the subject of using the polygraph to investigate or resolve conflicts among polygraph examiners... their is a broader discussion that Joe hints at regarding the concept of "injurious conduct" and whether it is or is not the role of a professional association to mediate or adjudicate personality or professional conflicts. If there is violation of a written code then that is different. But without submitting it in writing to the proper authorities that publish or enforce those code, most associations can and will do nothing without violating their rules and exposing themselves to more complex problems.
I was brought before a disciplinary hearing over the past year over "personality and professional conflicts," so it seems when the conflict is directed personally to me, I can be held to account, but everyone else gets a free pass. I am forbidden to and have no desire to get into greater detail here, but sorry, and with all due respect, it seems associations are happy to hold my feet to the fire for personal conflicts, but this seems a one way street.
Moreover, it seems I am taken more seriously here than when I try to address the issue privately. I have begged for a peaceful mediation, only to be ignored, marginalized, or outright called a liar about my grievance, even with all the clear evidence that supports my accusations.
I'd rather work this out privately, but the examiners involved seem to want this to be aired here or ignore the situation totally in the hopes that I will get tired and walk away. I can say the latter won't happen.
I keep hoping that the influencers will influence a mediation and thus an end to this for the better of the industry.
You know, if the APA influenced TAPE to follow their own bylaws, none of this would even be damn issue right now. If there were consequences to TAPE not following their own bylaws, none of this would be an issue right now. Fact is, there is no oversight and state private associations are allowed to write their own fictional narratives and libel and slander those they see as an enemy to essentially blacklist someone because of a personal vendetta and nothing more.
When the APA doesn't even ask any questions, then they think this is acceptable behavior that can be engaged in with impunity.
I guarantee that between now and January of Next year, a private association will be asked to punish me over a personal conflict. I would bet dimes to doughnuts I will be punished for what you call a "personal conflict." Because regulating perusal conflicts is not the job of a professional organization, unless of course the complaint is about Joe McCarthy and then it's all fair game.
I keep hoping to be proven wrong, I want to be wrong, I WOULD LOVE TO BE WRONG; sadly the examiners involved keep proving me right.
Ugh, it baffles me when I think that this was all done last october until the Texas examiners made the decision that levying me alone was simply too much for them to agree and comply with.
Fact is, Maria et al have made it very clear that this will not be over till they run me out. So you tell me what I should do. DO I roll over and let it happen, or do I fight? Because ignoring them will not make it go away. I tried that from 2009 to 2014.
Now, off that soapbox.
Marketing a 100% accuracy rate, I will agree is a bad idea.
In regard to a "hustle," I think any hustle is unnecessary as if we do business honestly, there is more than enough for everyone.
Greed and power will be the eventual undoing of this industry. But hey, what do I know.
Sorry is I sound frustrated, but this is frustrating.
We do need to talk privately though Ray, it has nothing to do with this situation
Bottom line, I did not want to come here; this is where the conversation and debate was driven.
Ben made me realize that the conversation behind closed doors was not being taken seriously. As long at the Texas examiners were allowed to hide behind closed doors and the excuse makers like Ben, they will always be protected and untouchable.
I am not here because I want to be, I made every effort to avoid it. I am here because I have to be, there is no place left to get to be heard. If you have a better idea to SOLVE this, my ears are totally open. NOTE submission and ignoring them is no longer an option. I am done being told to curl up in a ball and take their abuse.
So is you get a better idea, I would love to hear it. my number and email is no secret.
Joe, I am hoping that a sizable number of responsible APA members will learn of the situation you describe, and choose to avoid putting another quarter in the election jukebox to play yet another Texas Two-Step tune, so to speak.
As APA president-elect, I would begin to set into motion a process by which the alleged shenanigans, if documented to be true as you say they are, would be subject to suffering close scrutiny by certain news media resources known to look upon polygraph with a jaundiced eye.
Allow me to emphasize that such an eventuality would occur only if there is ample evidence to justify unleashing a hungry pack of investigative reporting hounds.
In my APA candidate statement I wrote that as president-elect I will work tirelessly to bring truth, honesty and accountability to the polygraph profession.
It is my position that polygraph has serious credibility problems which must be addressed.
Quote from: pailryder on Jul 01, 2015, 08:22 AMSo Dan, did you author a study claiming 100 percent accuracy for a polygraph technique? Harder question, can you limit your answer to a yes or no?
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 01, 2015, 09:07 AMpailryder, I'm sick of dealing with on-line phantoms such as you, and getting the dodge from polygraph apologists such as Raymond Nelson.
I will respond to your inquiry after you have fully identified youself (and your identity has been independently verified), and APA president Nelson answers the questions I posed to him immediately prior to your post.
Fair enough?
So the answer to my first question was yes and the second no.
pailryder, I have no control over what you choose to believe, just as you have no control over those who believe anonymous posters are cowards.
I have a sneaking suspicion that pailryder is an active fed who has gotten a head start on the July 4th holiday weekend.
It reminds me of a "respected" polygraph instructor at NCCA whose online footprint suggests he spends a lot of time cruising personal-interest websites at taxpayer expense during the time-honored gummint work day.
Of course, I could be wrong, in which case I apologize to all of those hardworking polygraph professionals at NCCA.
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 02, 2015, 07:09 PMI have a sneaking suspicion that pailryder is an active fed who has gotten a head start on the July 4th holiday weekend.
I have had a lot of exchanges with pailryder and I believe he is a private examiner who has been around for quite a while.
Thank you Ark, you are correct I'm a private examiner. GM and others know my identity. I will tell you privately, one phantom to another, word in the poly circle is that Dan is a good guy, but it takes him an hour and a half to watch 60 Minutes.
Have a happy and safe holiday!
pailryder, if you're a voting member of the APA -- (only about 20% of the organization bothers to cast a ballot) -- I'd appreciate your support in the week-long election cycle that starts Sunday July 5th.
Please help me reduce polygraph victimization by paving the way for a bill of rights, face the Countermeasure Bogeyman head on with a CM challenge series, and otherwise shake things up in an industry whose insular qualities have mired it in 1950s thinking.
Oh, lest anyone forget that polygraph is seen as much as religion as it is science, I encourage them to read "Polygraph Examiner's Prayer" on pages 44-45 of the APA's May/June magazine.
It reads in part:
"Thank You for blessing me with the
knowledge to recognize truth and
detect deception;
Always help me to remember that my
skills have the power to clear the innocent
and capture the guilty"
And some people wonder why polygraph remains the Rodney Dangerfield of the forensic sciences...
dan, I hate to side with this pailryder guy, but it's not about personal feelings; it's about right and wrong.
His question is fair, but I do think his yes or no stipulations is over the top.
Having said that, I have noticed he is avoiding my yes or no questions.
So it seems that yes or no questions are a one way street. Having said that, you are running for office and in my opinion have an obligation to answer a fair question.
I think leadership is measures with answering the tough questions as well as the easy questions.
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 02, 2015, 07:36 AMJoe, I am hoping that a sizable number of responsible APA members will learn of the situation you describe, and choose to avoid putting another quarter in the election jukebox to play yet another Texas Two-Step tune, so to speak.
As APA president-elect, I would begin to set into motion a process by which the alleged shenanigans, if documented to be true as you say they are, would be subject to suffering close scrutiny by certain news media resources known to look upon polygraph with a jaundiced eye.
Allow me to emphasize that such an eventuality would occur only if there is ample evidence to justify unleashing a hungry pack of investigative reporting hounds.
In my APA candidate statement I wrote that as president-elect I will work tirelessly to bring truth, honesty and accountability to the polygraph profession.
It is my position that polygraph has serious credibility problems which must be addressed.
Let me just say for the record, I have met Pat O' Burke. I know him to be a good man that wants nothing to do with the Texas politics. He has never wronged me in any way and as far as I can see, he has not been involved in the Texas colossal mess. My wife went to his polygraph school and he treated her with kindness and respect.
Until I see or know something different than what I see or know right now, he will be treated with the respect he has showed me and my wife, plus three fold.
I'll make it more clear, I do not think he is a part of any "texas two step" conspiracy. In fact, he is one of about three or four examiners in Texas that I would trust as being unbiased in my matter.
Until he or someone proves me wrong, that is my position
Having said that, you are the only one that has said publicly that this issue deserves a review, which it does
The sentiments found in the aforementioned "Polygraph Examiner's Prayer" seem to be part and parcel of official APA events.
For example, APA seminars routinely begin with a Christian minister making an invocation to God, essentially asking the Supreme Being to imbue APA members with lie-detection powers.
If polygraph is scientifically valid, are are such supplications to the supernatural necessary?
Then again, it strikes me that the leadership component of the polygraph establishment has, through the years, been a WASP bastion primarily made up of older white guys.
I sincerely hope the rapidly growing international membership branch of the APA takes note of this and becomes more active in APA politics.
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 03, 2015, 08:32 AM"Thank You for blessing me with the
knowledge to recognize truth and
detect deception;
Always help me to remember that my
skills have the power to clear the innocent
and capture the guilty"
Is this serious ? This is scary. How about adding, ".....my [perceived] skills have the power to falsely accuse and condemn or allow the guilty to go free"
Yes, Wandersmann, it is serious.
I'm sure the APA will provide you with an electronic copy of their May/June magazine if you ask.
The prayer can be found on pages 44-45.
Dear Fellow APA Members,
Election week begins tomorrow, July 5th. As you vote, you should know that our Board of Directors is against Dan Mangan's candidacy and is re-writing our Bylaws to prevent him and others in his position from ever running for President in the future.
A working draft of the new APA Bylaws includes the following highlighted change:
Quote5.1 Nominations of President Elect. Any Member qualified under Article III to hold APA elected office and who has served during the two previous years on the Board of Directors may have his or her name appear on the ballot if nominated by at least one (1) voting Member. A voting Member may self-nominate. The nomination shall be made in writing and submitted to the APA's National Office at least ninety (90) days prior to the commencement of the APA annual seminar. Any form of written communication (e.g., electronic, facsimile, etc.) is acceptable, provided the communication can be authenticated, if necessary.
A comment on the draft by Walt Goodson states "The consensus of the BOD seems to support requiring the president-elect to be a prior director."
There is talk of limiting the requirement to one year, and not two, and of adding a requirement that anyone seeking election to the BOD must have attended the previous annual seminar.
The BOD is also afraid of an international takeover of the Association and is planning on excluding non-US citizens from becoming Members of the Board. While the current draft allows up to two BOD members to be non-US citizens:
Quote4.5 International Composition of the Board of Directors. At no time may more than two (2) Directors positions be held by a person who is not a citizen of the United States of America.
The Official Language of the APA is English and official correspondence must be in English. The official National Office for the APA must be in the continental United States (CONUS) with at least one annual meeting held in a CONUS location that is attended by a quorum. All Directors must agree and be capable of traveling to CONUS locations for all Board meetings. The banking institution holding the funds for the APA must also be in a CONUS location. The provisions in 4.5 may not be changed except by a three fourths (3/4) majority vote of the general membership.
see the comment in the margin by APA General Counsel Gordon Vaughan:
QuoteISSUE DISCUSSED AND UNRESOLVED BY BOD. RAY NELSON TO DRAFT PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT NO OFFICER MAY BE NON-US CITIZEN. NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT TO THIS PROVISION PER RICH BARR. GORDON HAS INCLUDED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THIS PROVISION A PROVISION THAT BUSINESS OF THE BOD WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ENGLISH.
So International Members are to be considered Second Class Members. Several members of the BOD make money giving polygraph training outside the U.S. and encourage their students to join APA. This draft shows what the BOD really thinks of them: happy to take their money, but unwilling to let them have any real influence on the Association.
Happy 4th of July, everyone!
;)
QuoteElection week begins tomorrow, July 5th. As you vote, you should know that our Board of Directors is against Dan Mangan's candidacy and is re-writing our Bylaws to prevent him and others in his position from ever running for President in the future.
I cannot think of a better endorsement for my candidacy.
Members, please join me in giving the APA's industry-insider white-bread establishment the swift kick in the ass it so richly deserves.
Elections start tomorrow. Cast your vote for progressive leadership, critical thinking, and fearless independence -- not for more jingoistic protectionism, insular 1950s groupthink, and good ol' boy patronage.
Please vote for Dan Mangan, APA president-elect.
Incredibly, the American Polygraph Association's week-long electronic election -- scheduled to begin yesterday at 0100 hours EDT -- has failed to launch.
According to Don Krapohl, the APA's election coordinator -- a "software glitch" seems to be the problem. Further, a speedy remedy may be compromised due to an extended July 4th holiday weekend.
For some years now the APA's electronic election process has gone off with nary a hitch. But this time around...
Polygraph operators are often suspicious and cynical. (I know I can be that way.)
The timing of this particular "glitch" indeed seems suspect.
Once launched, says Krapohl, the election cycle will still run its full course.
In any event, it gives additional time for each side to motivate the electorate.
So, the circus continues.
The aforementioned problem has been solved, it appears.
APA electronic elections are under way.
My sincerest thanks to Don Krapohl for straightening things out.
A special note to APA international members...
Electronic voting for American Polygraph Association officers ends at 12 noon (Eastern Standard Time in the USA) on Monday, July 13th.
Please help me put an end to the proposed hegemony, favoritism and seemingly guaranteed American (predominately white) privilege the APA appears to be determined to maintain.
Nationalistic superiority, discrimination, and virtual ethnic cleansing have no place in polygraph in today's world.
Of course, that's only my personal opinion, but I'm just one lowly polygraph operator who is trying to make a difference.
For more information about the APA's board of directors' strange and dangerous ideas -- again, that's only my opinion -- to limit international influence, please visit this link:
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2015/07/06/american-polygraph-association-seeks-to-limit-electoral-challenges-foreign-influence/
My international brothers and sisters, this is 2015. We are ONE people.
A vote for me, Daniel Mangan, as APA president-elect, is a vote for APA member EQUALITY.
Let's stand together on this.
Thank you for your support.
Dan Mangan
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
Certified Graduate, Backster School of Lie Detection (PE166)
Candidate for APA President-Elect
APA Election Results 2015
President-Elect
Votes Percentage
Daniel Mangan
J. 154 28%
Patrick O'Burke 394 72%
VP Law Enforcement
Votes Percentage
Daniel Violette 472 100%
Vice President Private Votes Percentage
Gary Davis 468 100%
Director 1 Votes Percentage
James Mc Cloughan 484 100%
Director 3 Votes Percentage
George Baronowski 318 60%
Brian Morris 208 40%
Director 5 Votes Percentage
Steve Duncan 321 60%
William Fleisher 212 40%
Counting the number of total votes for President of the APA, we arrive at the number 548. Less for the other offices.
APA's website states their total membership is 2800.
So the voter turnout is only 19.57%.
It would seem that only about 1 in 5 APA members are interested in voting for their leaders.
What exactly is the purpose of APA, and what benefits do its members receive? (Other than having membership appear on their business cards.)
The results of the race for American Polygraph Association president-elect speak for themselves.
Votes cast for Pat O'Burke: 394
Votes cast for Dan Mangan: 154
My message is resonating with more than a quarter (28%) of the APA members who voted. That's significant.
Voter turnout was up a little bit -- about 10% over last year's dismal turnout, when I received 15% of the votes for president-elect.
It's modest progress to be sure, but at least the numbers are trending upwards.
Meanwhile, the APA's collective mindset appears to be caught in a time warp of sorts, at least in my opinion.
Last week, I attended a three-day seminar sponsored by the Maine Polygraph Association and endorsed by the APA. Here are a few highlights...
o APA past president Jack Consigli presented data placing polygraph accuracy at 98%. [The information was from a 1997 report, which the APA sold on its web site for about 15 years.]
o Officials from the Texas Department of Safety presented information placing accuracy of the Directed Lie Screening Test at 86%.
o APA president Raymond Nelson -- who represented himself to the audience as a "scientist" -- displayed a bar chart suggesting that the NAS report of 2002 places polygraph accuracy at 86%.
o APA president Nelson then presented recently assembled data that places polygraph accuracy at approximately 90%.
o Nelson also claimed that polygraph testing is *not* biased against the innocent.
o F. Lee Bailey waxed eloquently about the virtues of polygraph testing -- recounting amazing feats of lie detection going back to the 1950s -- and spoke enthusiastically about polygraph's bright future.
So, the beat goes on.
I will continue to fight for truth, honesty and accountability within the polygraph profession in general and the American Polygraph Association in particular.
Also, I hereby declare my candidacy in next year's race for president-elect of American Polygraph Association -- if I'm permitted to run, that is.
Finally, I give my sincerest thanks to those 150+ courageous APA members who voted for me. They are indeed "dedicated to truth."
Dan:
I think you would have made a fine president of the APA.
The problem is the polygraph establishment and their inflexible mindset.
Regarding the polygraph accuracy percentages, I've seen numbers from the low eighties to the high nineties. This lack of consistency is deplorable from the scientific viewpoint.
In fact, there are two accuracy rates: the percentage of innocent subjects that correctly pass the polygraph, and the percentage of guilty subjects that correctly fail the polygraph. As the threshold is changed (composite numerical score, something between about plus/minus 20), one accuracy percentage increases but the other percentage necessarily decreases, and vice versa. In other words, a tradeoff must be established. Do you set the threshold to minimize false negatives at the expense of increasing false positives, or the other alternative? I see no reason that the threshold be set to equalize the two accuracy rates. And how do you deal with the issue of a very small base rate (less than 1 in about 1000 or so)?
Regards, Evan S
Raymond,
I would again like to emphasize that it would be great if you could be a regular poster on this forum. I think it's time for everyone to stop being so adversarial and have some candid discussions about polygraphy.
Ark, don't hold your breath.
From what I've seen, most of the influential "dedicated to truth" polygraph indu$try rainmakers have nothing but contempt for this site.
The last thing they want to do, in my view, is further legitimize it by virtue of their presence. (Odd, considering that A-P is clearly the world's most authoritative polygraph web site.)
Otherwise, in my most humble opinion, they'd be here to discuss the weighty issues surrounding the "test".
My take: The APA bigs prefer to dodge the tough questions, especially about their research methods.
Why the resistance? Good question.
My hunch is they have precious little to offer in terms of sound scientific methodology.
But maybe they'll prove me wrong.
[cue crickets]
Quote from: danmangan on Jul 30, 2015, 09:34 PMWhy the resistance? Good question.
My hunch is they have precious little to offer in terms of sound scientific methodology.
But maybe they'll prove me wrong.
Bingo Dan. They have nothing to offer and they seek power and money. The majority of the polygraphers and polygraph supporting administrators in our government agencies are absolutely no better than the KGB or East German STASI. It is true that our polygraphers do not keep people awake for days and keep their victims locked in a tiny cell between interrogation sessions (only because they aren't allowed to do so), but the actual mental torture and permanent negative consequences to an innocent victim is every bit the same.
What a terrible stain on the noble efforts of the rest of our intelligence and law enforcement community.
Wandersmann, from what I've seen, polygraph continues to be BS (belief system) based. It is far closer to a religious cult than it is to a hard science, in my opinion.
For example, the American Polygraph Association claims average accuracy for incident-specific exams is 89%. However, their research, to the best of my knowledge, does not encompass across-the-board randomness of examiner expertise, which varies widely. Further, the APA's research does not include a vigorous countermeasure component.
In light of those two fatal shortcomings, I'd say that real-world polygraph accuracy is far closer to 59% than it is to the APA's claim of 89%.
As for the government's use of polygraph, it seems clear that their security-oriented "war footing" mentality trumps concerns over collateral damage.
For example, we see the same justification in drone strikes targeting high-value targets. Innocents are often sacrificed in order to get the bad guy.
Save for the blood and guts, the same overall dynamics are at play in the gummint polygraph suite.
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 02, 2015, 11:52 AMAs for the government's use of polygraph, it seems clear that their security-oriented "war footing" mentality trumps concerns over collateral damage.
For example, we see the same justification in drone strikes targeting high-value targets. Innocents are often sacrificed in order to get the bad guy.
Save for the blood and guts, the same overall dynamics are at play in the gummint polygraph suite.
You are right on the money Dan. Collateral damage has always been a part of war. What is incredible in this case is that the collateral damage includes almost exclusively our heroes. Imagine being in the trenches, being wounded, offering your life for your country, surviving, and then coming home to lose a job with the government you protected because of an "inconclusive" on a polygraph. The above described situation has occurred and I personally know at least one of the people to whom it happened.
It is unconscionable. I can not think of any other time in history that such horrific betrayal has occurred. I've only seen it in James Bond movies when the bad guy sacrifices his loyal henchmen while calmly petting his cat.
Wandersmann, polygraph victimization extends far beyond federal government applications.
Such victimization is common in LE, PCSOT, and general retail polygraph "tests."
I find it interesting that the American Polygraph Association -- which has published multiple "model policies" for various testing scenarios -- has yet to publish a model policy for so-called "fidelity" testing.
Could it be that the APA lacks sufficient faith in the "test"?
I know for certain that polygraph cheerleader and APA past-president Barry Cushman -- a self-proclaimed polygraph scientist, police detective, and Christian pastor -- is opposed to fidelity testing.
The obvious question: Why?
For the past few years I've been advocating for a "bill of rights" for polygraph test subjects, which would sharply curtail polygraph victimization.
Indu$try opposition has been fierce.
Why the pushback?
My theory: Polygraph is mainly about one thing -- MONEY.
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 02, 2015, 10:16 PMI know for certain that polygraph cheerleader and APA past-president Barry Cushman -- a self-proclaimed polygraph scientist, police detective, and Christian pastor -- is opposed to fidelity testing.
Thanks Dan
Wow A Christian Pastor ? You've got to be kidding me ? No wonder there are so many people who hate Christians. I'm glad I don't go to church anymore (but I still believe). One of my favorite Commandments plainly says, "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor". Unless everyone this guy has tested has been independently proven to be innocent or guilty consistent with his finding, I'd say there's a real good chance he has borne lots of false witness against his neighbor and ruined said neighbor's life. Although we are all sinners, it sounds like this guy willfully sins in a most egregious manner and profits from it. My understanding of the
Good Book indicates he'll end up in a warm place.
Sorry to proselytize, but I've had personal dealings with Islamic terrorists and self-righteous, phony Christians and I think the Islamic terrorists are better people.
Wandersmann, Barry Cushman is a good guy. But, in my opinion, he's gone too far with this polygraph science narrative. If Barry were strictly an advocate for the utility of polygraph, I'd have no beef with that. But from what I can see this faux science madness is way out of control.
Oddly, given the PC times we live in, there is still a very vocal Christian element within the APA. (On the other hand, the organization is dominated by older white guys.) I have no idea how the built-in Christian themes -- dramatically illustrated by soulful invocations and benedictions at APA events -- is supposed to mesh with the science end of things.
Since becoming a polygraph examiner some ten years ago, I came to the conclusion that polygraph testing is inconsistent with Christian values. It became a real struggle for me. At one point along the line, I changed from being a polygraph examiner to a polygraph consultant. There's a big difference.
In my consulting practice, there is no client deception. All clients -- both direct and secondary -- are fully informed of the risks, realities and limitations of the "test." I school all parties on the pros and cons of the polygraph process, and point them to a range of literature for their further enlightenment.
By the way...once thus informed, over 90% of the prospective clients opt out of the polygraph process. Why? They realize, often with great reluctance, that polygraph's value is questionable at best.
That high washout rate is what the polygraph indu$try is so deathly afraid of.
For polygraph to endure, so must its surrounding myths.
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 03, 2015, 05:46 PMOddly, given the PC times we live in, there is still a very vocal Christian element within the APA. (On the other hand, the organization is dominated by older white guys.) I have no idea how the built-in Christian themes -- dramatically illustrated by soulful invocations and benedictions at APA events -- is supposed to mesh with the science end of things.
Interesting Dan. It is amazing how history repeats itself. These people are no different than the self-righteous zealots that burned
witches in the 17th century. None of the family members of the Salem prosecutors were ever accused or harmed. In a similar vein, I've also noticed that bureaucratic elites and children of bureaucratic elites never have a problem with the polygraph. I've seen lots of children of very high ranking government officials get jobs in their agencies and I've never heard of any big-shot's kids having a problem with the polygraph. I'm sure if it ever were to happen, the polygraph examiner and the adjudication lynch mob would miraculously discover the chart to be NDI.
Wandersmann, such things as you have described -- IMHO -- go far beyond direct hires for plum jobs destined for certain connected people in various and sundry federal gummint agencies.
To illustrate my point, please visit www.indeed.com -- the premier job search site in all of cyberspace --and do a keyword search on "polygraph."
Wow.
Some background...
Before getting into the polygraph racket in 2004, I spent over twenty (20) years in high-tech industry.
I have a sneaking suspicion that a very talented s/w programmer, for example -- or any other essential job candidate who has the right goods -- might somehow have the skids grea$ed to get the critical gig.
But, this is sheer speculation.
I assure you -- and this is God's honest truth -- it's only a hunch on my part.
Hey, what the hell do I know?
I'm just a lowly polygraph operator.
Right?
www.polygraphman.com
American Polygraph Association elections are looming. Now there's talk from APA headquarters of moving the procedural goalposts yet again.
In the January/February issue of the APA magazine, released yesterday, APA president Walt Goodson floats a trial balloon calling for a discussion on eschewing the advances of technology -- which enables APA members to vote electronically, regardless of their location anywhere on the planet -- and going back to holding elections at the annual seminar, an event that attracts a mere fraction of the APA's total membership.
Worries good ol' boy Goodson: "With the current process, our membership is invited to cast a vote based on a 500-word candidate statement and a photo. Unless you know the candidate, there is little chance for interaction or feedback to clarify a candidate's position on the issues. We don't have the luxury of televised debates, public appearances, and the media exposing the good, the bad and the ugly on our candidates. Thus, votes may be cast based on a photo and how well a candidate can write a compelling candidate statement."
Goodson's rationale is fatally flawed. As for any member seeking clarification on a candidate's positions, intentions or qualifications, that is easily remedied by sending an email or making a phone call. It's simply not an issue.
It seems to me that Walt longs for the days of an establishment-oriented electorate to coronate the next batch of politically reliable APA officers.
Otherwise, why would Goodson even consider efforts to summarily disenfranchise the vast majority of the APA membership?
By the way, when I ran against Goodson in 2014 for APA president-elect, I asked him to debate the issues with me in on-line polygraph forums. He ignored my request.
Dan,
As I was reading the article last night, I had a hunch your post would be present this morning. To play devil's advocate, I too have been frustrated in past union elections where I was supposed to properly evaluate a candidate by a blurb and photo. An interactive scenario is favorable. But, the logistics of being personally present at the seminar make it cumbersome for most members, especially the international members (which Mr. Handler makes a point of their importance in the same magazine issue). The solution would be to invest in WebEx or similar conferencing software so that others could join remotely. Also, you need to drop the name calling and innuendos (which by the way are not Italian suppositories).
Goodson's regressive proposal to effectively disenfranchise the vast majority of APA members is yet another colossal misstep of the "new, improved" American Polygraph Association.
Such a divisive move ranks right up there with the APA's board (reportedly) entertaining a virtual form of self-preserving nativism, designed to prevent non-U.S. citizens from ever holding office.
Lest we not forget the APA's recently abandoned goal: "To serve the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons."
It is becoming increasingly obvious why the APA leadership saw fit to dispense with that time-honored principle. Seems the polygraph bidness (politics and all) is primarily about power, control and money. Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons? Meh...that was then, this is now. Disgusting.
This latest blunder is yet another reminder that the APA's self-ordained illuminati -- and their dutiful lackeys -- have got to go.
Dan, if you were to be elected President of the APA, would that give you the power to enact all of these revolutionary changes?
Ugh, here we go again. As if dealing with the ranting of the barking dog and the hair piece were not enough to put up with this year.
Dan, Walt brings up good points. Ugh, I hate that I am put in a position to defend a Texas Examiner, but what's right is what's right.
It is impossible to make a rational decision about who to elect with a 500 word statement. How can you know someones character based on that and a picture? Also, I think making it so that you have to be present to vote, isn't moving the goal posts; in my opinion. It is encouraging attendance and involvement in the annual conference.
In any other association, including the NPA, if you are not there, you don't get a vote. If I was not at the NPA conference this year, I would not have been able to vote for current officers. I would not have felt disenfranchised. If I couldn't make it, I wouldn't be able to vote. If it was truly important to me, I would either make an effort to be there, or get on the phone and campaign for the candidate I did want in with people I know would be there to vote. There are more ways to be politically active than just voting.
Personally, I think someone should not be on the ballot, unless they are at the conference to meet and greet people also. This is simple Irish politics, Dan. How can people like you, when you don't even show up and press the flesh with would be constituents? kiss hands, shake babies.... wait, stop, reverse that, kiss babies and shake hands. lol
Sorry, had to insert a wee bit of my famous dark humor.
You do not endear yourself to voters by hiding away in a hole. Again, this is politics 101. Moreover, you are asking that people trust you to run an organization, that you don't even show up to meetings for yourself? That is like phoning in an "in person" job interview, and expecting to get the job over someone who did show up.
Dan, You would see a big jump in numbers if you started showing up and pitching to people, eye to eye, over mud slinging here. Come on, even the people here at AP has to see how that makes sense.
The people who get elected, are the people who show up to the game. You can't win the Stanley Cup, if you don't show up with your sticks. I think it should be a rule, that to be eligible for nomination for office, you should either
1, be actively involved in a committee
2, be present at the last conference, and be present to the conference in which the voting shall occur.
3, or both of the above.
Sorry, even at the NPA, I would have a hard time voting for someone, into office, that is not active in the association, either showing up, or being active in a committee. I certainly would never cast my vote to someone that wasn't there to accept office if he or she had run (unless there was a good reason for not being there; death in family, or family emergence, etc.)
Your attack on Walt (I still can't believe I am put into a position to defend a Texas Examiner) is one diminutional and unreasonable. I hope you will read what I have wrote and see it as me giving you tips on being more electable and a better candidate.
As much as I would jump on the band wagon to attack the Texas polygraph illuminati, I will not do it when I feel the position is wrong or unjust. I do not see his reasoning as "fatally flawed." I think his reasoning makes sense on some level and is not entirely out of line.
Now you having a different set of views, is also reasonable. What is unreasonable, is you run for office, and then you don't even show up to meetings to explain your position face to face. You say you want to debate the issues, then show up to the arena. You can't say people will ignore or avoid you; because my meeting with Holden, with Oburke and a few other officers being right there next to us, would not have happened. Holden is important enough to have avoided me there if he had wanted to, and I am sure he could have had people run interception also.
Fact is, I was a place where host conversations were encouraged; and for the record, people did ask where you were. People are interested to talk to you and hear your positions. Having said that, it is your responsibility, as a candidate, to reach out to them to sell your ideas. It is not up to them to reach out to you.
Run for office, Dan. I am happy to see you do it, and I admire the fight in the dog, not the dog in the fight. If you are going to be a candidate, fight to win; don't fight just for the fight.
Someday, I will run for office in the NPA; that day is coming. I wouldn't want anyone to vote for me, if I was never there, or have some role that showed my sincere desire to be involved in the support of the organizations positive endeavors.
I am not trying to discourage your candidacy, I am encouraging you to be a better, more winnable, candidate.
"There's two kinds of people in this world when you boil it all down. You got your talkers and you got your doers. Most people are just talkers, all they do is talk. But when it is all said and done, it's the doers that change this world. And when they do that, they change us, and that's why we never forget them. So which one are you? Do you just talk about it, or do you stand up and do something about it? Because believe you me, all the rest of it is just coffee house and bullshit."
Being a doer, takes a lot more than spouting off here. Time to show up to the game, guy.
So, what's it gonna be? Because you won't win an election like this. You want to be Donald Tump, but you're acting like Ross Perot
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 18, 2016, 03:02 PMDan, if you were to be elected President of the APA, would that give you the power to enact all of these revolutionary changes?
The power will come by way utilizing the office of APA president as a bully pulpit, co-opting the media, then shaming the board of directors into action.
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Feb 18, 2016, 04:41 PMPersonally, I think someone should not be on the ballot, unless they are at the conference to meet and greet people also. This is simple Irish politics, Dan.
Joe, I am not a politician, I'm a radical change agent who is steadily assembling an ideological insurgency. It's a totally different ball game that has its own playbook.
"Virtual ethnic cleansing", "ideological insurgency", "radical change agent", "shaming into action"...oh my!
I wish other APA members were more inclined to post here, I'd really like to hear some rebuttals. What say guys?--especially with the election looming?
Ark, don't hold your breath. Those APA establishment "dedicated to truth" fakers are CHICKEN.
HUH?
Wow, is this what I was like in 2008? Because if it was, no wonder why people got frustrated with me.
Excuse me while I go and bang my head against a brick wall to absorb and understand what you just said. I may need a bottle of Jameson and 10 Pints of Guinness to boot.
Dan, here are the common tactics of an "insurgency."
Insurgencies differ in their use of tactics and methods. In a 2004 article, Robert R. Tomes spoke of four elements that "typically encompass an insurgency":[21]
cell-networks that maintain secrecy
terrorism used to foster insecurity among the population and drive them to the insurgents for protection
multifaceted attempts to cultivate support in the general population, often by undermining the new regime
attacks against the government (authority)
Subversion — subversion as a term that could be lumped together under the name modern warfare, "as being interlocking systems of actions, political, economic, and psychological that aims at the overthrow of established authority
Of course there are other tactics, but I think you maybe going for subversion here. Regardless, under any tactic under the insurgency doctrine, one things is necessary as a "must have" in order to come out on top; the winning of hearts and minds. Historically, no insurgency has been victorious with that one all important factor; the winning of heart and minds.
Another problem you are facing, is once you are put into your despotic position, your game plan to use your new found seat of power as a, "bully pulpit," so you can "shame the Board of Directors into action," will fail as well. Despots do not do well in true Representative Republics or Democracies. You will not get anything done in the one year you will have, and you will not win a reelection with the manner you wish to run the show.
You're my friend and all, but I have to tell you, even if you do succeed, which I don't see happening at that point, your success will be short lived and you will have achieved little, if any of your core goals other than that of feeding your ego.
Let me ask you a question. Are you doing this because you want to make polygraph better; or are you simply trying to institute anarchy for anarchy sake? Because, the only thing I see, is you wanting to do everything to destroy polygraph, and little to improve it for the better of the industry and society in general.
All your goals for the industry seem destructive, over constructive.
What are your positive goals? How would it benefit me, to have you calling the shots?
Joe, pour yourself another polygraph-apologist Kool-Aid. Cheers!
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 18, 2016, 08:38 PMJoe, pour yourself another polygraph-apoligist Kool-Aid. Cheers!
For someone who hates the polygraph industry, you are good at picking up it's behaviors and avoiding answering perfectly reasonable questions.
I guess the industry rubs off on us in different ways.
You think I have drank the "apologist" kool aide. I will admit I have drank the accuracy kool aide, but don't assume I am and apologist for anyone.
You really don't understand the chance you have here; a chance, that frankly, you just blew.
People will vote for a constructive candidate, not a destructive candidate which despotic intentions.
If you want to win, you need to do away with the destructive intentions. Just my opinion, I don't think I am alone in it
Lets try this again.
Are you doing this because you want to make polygraph better; or are you simply trying to institute anarchy for anarchy sake?
All your goals for the industry seem destructive, over constructive.
What are your constructive goals?
How would it benefit me, to have you calling the shots?
Say something constructive this time. Because you are telling actual voters how it benefits the polygraph community and the general public to have you in charge.
Insurgencies only work for revolutions; you want to win an election. There is a difference
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Feb 19, 2016, 12:22 AMHow would it benefit me, to have you calling the shots?
Joe, my campaign is primarily about consumer protection. But thanks for asking -- your "What's in it for me?" question illustrates the insular, self-centered nature of the polygraph profe$$ion.
BTW, I disagree. This
is a revolution, albeit a philosophical one.
Dan,
You explain you are all about consumer protection. Last night I posted the consent form I used with criminal defendants who had been referred to me by their defense attorneys. That consent form might possibly be thought of as the defendants "bill of rights," as it explains his protections regarding the voluntary nature of the exam, his right to approve all questions to be asked on the test, the confidentiality of the test, and whom to complain to if he felt the test was not properly conducted.
Would it be asking too much of you for you to post the criminal defendant consent form you use in your exams? I would be genuinely interested in how your form improves upon mine.
I'm not saying mine is so great. If I were still conducting exams today I can see several modifications I would make. I'm simply curious about how you word your form.
Peace.
Gordon
Gordon,
Thank you for your interest in the debate on consumer protection.
First, I wish to offer my deepest sympathies on the loss of your wife Kristin. From what I read in the APA magazine's obituary for her, Kristin led quite an interesting and rewarding life. Please know that you and your family are in the thoughts and prayers of the APA community.
Regarding consent forms...mine does not improve upon yours -- which you published a few years ago on a private forum for examiners -- in any meaningful way.
However, all of my exams are preceded by a chain of emails between the client and me. One of those emails is a boilerplate-based -- yet fitted to each client -- document that I call "Polygraph Pre-Test Instructions and Guidelines."
It is in that chain of emails that I identify the risks, realities and limitations of the "test," along with providing other information, that gives the prospective test-taker ample time to decide if polygraph is right for them, and, if so, to adequately prepare for the ordeal.
Best regards,
Dan
Hi Gordon,
I don't have any particular input on consumer protection and/or consent forms, but just thought I'd say hi.
It's been a while since we last had contact (I guess neither of us is here as frequently as in the past) and an even much longer time since we first experimented with systolic time intervals and cusum analysis during concealed information tests--but I've thought of you many times over the subsequent years.
Quite apart from anybody else in the field, whether in agreement on some point or not, you have always been the consummate gentleman. My sincerest condolences on the loss of your wife...
Best Wishes, Drew
Thanks for your kind words, Dan and Drew. I was totally blown away when I saw Kristin's obituary in the APA Magazine. I've no idea who sent it in, but I accept it as a very thoughtful gesture. Words utterly fail me in describing how wonderful she was.
And, Dan, you come across so gentlemanly yourself, when you wish to.
Peace
Gordon
Mr. Barland, so very very sorry for your loss. It was mentioned at NPA, and all thoughts and prayers were with ya.
Anyway, I saw you at a TAPE conference and found a lot of what you had to say fascinating. Won't go into detail here.
Dan, you think that, "what's in it for me," was about money? Oh I hope not. Wow clearly you don't know me as well as I hoped you did.
Nonetheless, still avoiding the relevant questions as much as you can, and deflecting with insinuations at something, that no one who knows me, would believe in a million years. Given that standing up for consumer rights, and a fair market place, FOR ALL EXAMINERS, left me ostracized for many years, and still financially recovering, your insinuation that I am here for the money is laughable.
You want to talk about tough, come down here to Texas, and I will show you what true hostility in polygraph looks like.
You want to "fix" things? Even if you got elected, you have no plan to fix the things you say you want to fix. Even if you did have a plan, It sounds to me, you'll be leaving out some important factors you will need in instituting said plan.
Anyway, lets try this again.
Are you doing this because you want to make polygraph better; or are you simply trying to institute anarchy for anarchy sake?
All your goals for the industry seem destructive, over constructive.
What are your constructive goals?
How would it benefit me, to have you calling the shots?
Is there anyone who thinks these are unreasonable questions for a candidate that wants to run the biggest polygraph association in the world into the ground?
And dan why are you avoiding them? One of the questions asks you to detail your platform. Tell the members of the APA, why they should vote for you to run their association? It's not your association Dan, it is every member's association; they are the ones you need to convince, you don't seem to understand this? They are the ones you need to convince, and you are not doing a good job.
Moreover, Because the APA's policies do affect me on some level, albeit small, tell me what is in it for me to hang your elections sign in my yard (so to speak)? Here is a hint, it has nothing to do with money. It does involve consumer protection and protecting the little guy of the business? Because All I hear about is how you want to destroy this business. I don't hear a damn word about how you want to improve it for ALL.
Do you even know who you'll be running against?
Joe, my reforms are primarily consumer oriented. Those reforms could have an adverse effect on a significant number of polygraph practitioners, on different levels.
Think of it this way... The Credit CARD Act of 2009 helped consumers immensely, but many banks felt a lot of pain. Was it the right thing to do? Absolutely. My reforms are similar in spirit.
The nomination process for APA officers occurs during the month of May. My opponent(s) for the race for president-elect will be known soon after that.
Finally, I do not seek -- nor do I want -- your endorsement.
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 22, 2016, 09:11 AMJoe, my reforms are primarily consumer oriented. Those reforms could have an adverse effect on a significant number of polygraph practitioners, on different levels.
Can you delineate these reforms and how you plan to implement them?
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 22, 2016, 11:58 AMCan you delineate these reforms and how you plan to implement them?
The two prime consumer-oriented reforms are:
1. A comprehensive bill of rights [previously detailed here] for prospective polygraph examinees, in which such individuals are told the full truth about the "test" -- including its inherent risks, realities and limitations -- well in advance of any examination; and
2. Transparent polygraph validity (accuracy) research -- to include a vigorous countermeasure component, as applied to randomly selected "forensic psychophysiologists" -- that is administered by a fully independent and financially disinterested entity, such as the psychology department of a reputable university.
Implementation is as I've stated before: I will use the office of APA president as a bully pulpit, leverage the power of the media, then shame the APA board of directors into taking action in an appropriate manner.
Do you think that polygraph research (other than by the govt) has lacked transparency?
How will you obtain funding for the university research?
Yes, I do.
Funding can come fron grants.
Meanwhile, a model policy bill of rights is immediately doable -- as is a model policy for fidelity "testing."
Which reminds me...the newfangled EyeDetect technology is deemed by its purveyors as unsuitable for fidelity tests. What's up with that?
BTW... EyeDetect claims their method is 97% accurate when used in conjunction with polygraph. Can anyone explain how they arrived at that figure?
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 22, 2016, 01:36 PMWhich reminds me...the newfangled EyeDetect technology is deemed by its purveyors as unsuitable for fidelity tests. What's up with that?
From what I have read, it's not that it's unsuitable, but that such a test has not been developed. I think it is just that they want to avoid the messy aspects of fidelity testing from the get go; they are focused (no pun intended) on detecting participation in theft, fraud, money laundering, bribes, drug use, identity theft, violent crimes, and receipt of inappropriate benefits at work.
Ark, what is your connection to Converus?
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 22, 2016, 01:57 PMBTW... EyeDetect claims their method is 97% accurate when used in conjunction with polygraph. Can anyone explain how they arrived at that figure?
See the attached.
No connection.
Thanks. Do you believe their accuracy claims?
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 22, 2016, 02:30 PMThanks. Do you believe their accuracy claims?
I do not.
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 22, 2016, 09:11 AMJoe, my reforms are primarily consumer oriented. Those reforms could have an adverse effect on a significant number of polygraph practitioners, on different levels.
Think of it this way... The Credit CARD Act of 2009 helped consumers immensely, but many banks felt a lot of pain. Was it the right thing to do? Absolutely. My reforms are similar in spirit.
The nomination process for APA officers occurs during the month of May. My opponent(s) for the race for president-elect will be known soon after that.
Finally, I do not seek -- nor do I want -- your endorsement. You are radioactive within the polygraph industry.
It's hard to argue with that final fact, I am radioactive in this industry. This is something you may actually want to tell yourself too. Because if it can happen to me what I had proof of what I was saying, they can do it to you for much less. The good part about that, people are finally looking at the truth in my case. People are also starting to see, as they meet and talk to me, that I am not the person, some portrayed me as; and that my intentions were not as nefarious as people would have them believe.
Sadly, I see that I gave people the ammunition in 2008, to believe I was that person. That part is on me. I let my anger and disgust get the best of me, and I became very short sighted. I would like to see you avoid that, and achieve your political goals. You're not going to be able to do that with your current insurgency platform.
This is an election, one where the polygraph examiners will be the voters, and you seem to think the consumer with be the reason you'll win. Newsflash, the consumer is not going to help you win the election. Some of the things you say may win business in the private market, but it will not win you votes for what you are attempting.
You have to convince members of the APA to vote for you. simple as that, and you are not going to be able to do that, when you send a message of destruction.
But hey, you want to assume, I am trying to vet you for my endorsement; well go ahead. Fact is, I am just trying to steer you into a direction where you do not become the next me; which you are on your way to becoming.
Anyway.... {Casino hands}, I'm out. Have fun with your insurgency; it won't win you the election.
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Feb 22, 2016, 07:35 PMIt's hard to argue with that final fact, I am radioactive in this industry.
From the fence, it appears that both of you are glowing in the dark.
Joe, I'm not out to win the race for president-elect this year. My goal is to reach 40% of the vote, give or take a couple of points.
In 2014 I received 15% of the votes for APA president-elect. Last year my level of voting supporters spiked to 28%, so I think that 40% is definitely achievable this time around. Should my goal be met, I'll be in it to win it in 2017.
My ideological insurgency is a slow (but steady) process, similar in nature to other (r)evolutionary changes that are taking place on the national and global stages.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 22, 2016, 07:47 PMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on Feb 22, 2016, 07:35 PMIt's hard to argue with that final fact, I am radioactive in this industry.
From the fence, it appears that both of you are glowing in the dark.
You are correct, we just embrace the glow for different reasons.
Right on, bro!
Dan,
Have you considered a campaign to recruit Japanese (and other international) scientists/polygraphers to seek APA membership in greater numbers than currently is the case (no idea what that would be)?
I would think those who only utilize CIT exams (and presumably criticize lie detection methods on an ethical as well as diagnostic-validity basis as do you) might support your candidacy.
Ark, do you believe the APA's accuracy claims as advertised in their meta-analytic survey?
I have already stated my position on this in a previous post:
"From what I've reviewed in the last 5 or so years, It appears that the CQT is capable of detecting deception (assuming single issue) at slightly higher than chance level. Beyond that, it is still fuzzy. I have more faith in the CIT, but meaningful field studies are sorely lacking. "
In other words, no -- so I take it.
If that's the case, we are in agreement.
In my opinion as a lowly polygraph operator, the APA's meta-analytic survey is a cleverly crafted -- and commercially driven -- escape from reality.
In my opinion, their analysis falls into the fuzzy domain, so at the present time, I cannot sign off on their conclusions.
Since I am not a member of the APA, and not privy to the politics, I cannot render an opinion regarding the results having been skewed by those with nefarious intentions.
I like this ark guy more and more. That was a totally awesome answer
Ark, if you are not a member of the American Polygraph Association, how is it you have immediate access to the APA magazine? Is your company an advertiser?
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 24, 2016, 07:27 AMArk, if you are not a member of the American Polygraph Association, how is it you have immediate access to the APA magazine? Is your company an advertiser?
A couple of the girls in my harem are members. ;)
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 24, 2016, 12:03 PMA couple of the girls in my harem are members.
Oh, that has marks on it where it has been touched with a 10 foot pole.
I knew you would like that one Joe... ;D
Speaking of APA propaganda, as president I will find a way to get rid of the current publications team of Mark Handler and Nayeli Hernandez-Nelson -- as well as their current pro-polygraph editorial board -- and put into place a panel of credentialed individuals who will bring balanced and realistic views about various aspects of the "test."
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 24, 2016, 04:06 PMI knew you would like that one Joe...
I know right?
Anyway, you don't seem like you go for that type.
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 24, 2016, 04:11 PMas well as their current pro-polygraph editorial board
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the editorial board of the APA is pro-polygraph.
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Feb 24, 2016, 04:40 PMAnyway, you don't seem like you go for that type.
I never said they were examiners. And you are correct, the matronly, rejected spinster type is not an element of my imago set.
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 24, 2016, 04:11 PMSpeaking of APA propaganda, as president I will find a way to get rid of the current publications team of Mark Handler and Nayeli Hernandez-Nelson -- as well as their current pro-polygraph editorial board -- and put into place a panel of credentialed individuals who will bring balanced and realistic views about various aspects of the "test."
Wow.
Spinster is not the word I would have chosen...... LMAO
That's the conventional wisdom, I suppose, but such flagrant self-interest bias in the APA's case -- an organization that claims to be "dedicated to truth" -- is narrow, hypocritical, and intellectually disingenuous.
Dan,
May I suggest you, Barry and James Allan go out on a fishing trip and process all this stuff out and be friends? I am not being sarcastic.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 24, 2016, 05:22 PMQuote from: danmangan on Feb 24, 2016, 04:11 PMas well as their current pro-polygraph editorial board
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the editorial board of the APA is pro-polygraph.
He has gone off the deep end on this one. It also goes to support that he is more destructive than constructive at this point.
No member will support the editorial power being taken away form the APA, in their own journal. While I will agree there is much that needs to get done within the industry, what he is proposing is political suicide. People will not vote for someone that has a platform of total and complete destruction. People will vote for change and the improving of the profession in general.
I've tried to get through to him, but who am I to stop him from digging where the ground has gone sour. At this point, even if you took the shovel away, he would dig with his hands; but with a platform like this, he will find himself with a big hole that cannot be filled.
He is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, when he has been told that it is more possible to fit a round peg into a square hole.
But hey, what do I know?
Besides, this is the APA we are talking about. At this current moment, I have no dog in this fight. If I was a full member though, I would toss my hat into the ring just to balance the equation.
That actually brings up an interesting question. Hypothetically, I wonder what would happen if the two most radioactive examiners ran for APA president at the same time? Now that would be a politically interesting battle.
I will agree, polygraph leadership can be hypocritical, narrow, and resistant to the concept of "on the level" in areas. But I do see things changing Dan
Are you talking about Cushman Ark?
Yes, he and Matte have been at odds over the Hope/Fear thing. In a way, I do admire Dan's loyalty to Matte and he is indeed, like him or not, a legend in polygraphy. But, I think when it migrates from spirited discussion to genuine angst, a pause and reflection are in order.
Ark, I dare say that a pause and reflection is in order to contemplate the scientific legitimacy of the "test."
On that score, APA past president Barry Cushman -- a police detective who moonlights as a church pastor -- seems conflicted.
How so? Well, in the eyes of the good reverend, polygraph is reliable enough to establish probable cause for the cops, but not good enough to be endorsed by your garden variety minister in cases of sexual infidelity.
Barry, if I'm wrong, please chime in. And then explain the disconnect.
[cue crickets]
I'm relatively confident he's lurking. After all, everyone who's anyone in the polygraph racket watches this site like "rejected spinsters" watch daytime soap operas.
I met Barry in Chicago and found myself talking to a different person than I expected. He was very kind to me, respectful and willing to not only listen, but iron out differences. I actually found a lot of that at APA. I went expecting the worst, but encountered the best parts of the industry and a willingness to put the past in the past. That is with one exception of someone I am glad to hear is not in your harem. lol
I think both hope and fear have a degree of validity, as they are opposite sides of the coin, so to speak. So this seems like a silly thing to argue about when people can work together and figure it all out.
People tried to warn me back in 2008, that pause and reflection were in order. Like Dan, I was so wrapped up in the fight, I didn't listen; and I was wrong for not listening more carefully.
If I had stepped back, nothing would have got done, no one would have listened, nothing would have been solved; but at least I would have been able to say, I tried and it didn't work.
I wish Dan would step back and listen. I don't want to see what happened to me, happen to anyone else. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. Actually, that was wrong; I can think of one person I would wish it on.
Anyway, I have met Mr Matte, and considered it to be an honor to have met him.
The Loyalty factor is typical of persons of the Masshole species. Guys like me and Dan, you make friend with us, we can be undyingly loyal to a fault. It's a code in some parts of Boston especially. We will fight with one another, may even say terrible things at times; but when the chips are down, you will find us coming out of the woodwork to defend each other.
If you weren't raised in it, it is hard to understand. lol
If him and I were in a bar, we might be ready to sing on one another, but five minutes later, having a pint, laughing and calling one another douchbags. God I miss being home.
Might be time for a trip home to Boston to recharge the batteries
Joe, how long have you been mainlining the Kool-Aid?
holy crap, you can main line that crap? Wooo hooooo sugar sugar sugar mmmmmmmmmmmmm
mix with vodka, spark up a few cigars, and we have a party.
Who's in? Party at my place. Bring your own koolaide and booze though.
Dude, you'd totally fit in with the "new, improved" APA -- at least in the hospitality suite.
If you would listen to me, I mean actually listen, you would remember we don't totally disagree about a lot. Granted, there are things we disagree with, and I think you are going wayyyyy overboard; but you're not 100% wrong.
The way you are going about all this is not smart, productive, or entirely logical. With some issues, and I say this because I am secure in our friendship, you're wrong. Of course I am sure you'll say the same to me, and have said that to me. That is the great thing about friends, we can be honest with one another.
Dan, the APA does want you to be more involved in a productive way. Again, people asked me if you were going to be there; and if you were, they welcomed you to stand and speak up at the business meeting. Dan, you have a voice, and you squander it.
Don't get me wrong, the more "off the reservation" you become, the less unreasonable I look. If I think about it, it is actually in my best interests to not try to talk sense to you, and in fact encourage you off the deep end. Doing that would make me no better than the guys on PP; and the way they had fun with my misery and at my expense.
I don't do things that way.
Dan, you really should step away from the ledge. If you keep saying things that send a message that you will do more harm to the industry than good, the people you need to vote for you will not count on you to represent their best interests, balanced with the best interests of the public.
You can't have one without the other. Both have to be equally important to you if you want to win.
That is just my take.
Joe, you still aren't seeing the big picture.
My reforms will likely bring significant financial harm to the polygraph indu$try, but they will advance the polygraph profession.
If you have to ask what that means, you'll never understand.
Dan,
What would happen if the APA suddenly considered you unworthy of membership and there was a consensus to simply give you the boot? I think by attacking the religious beliefs of fellow members, you are giving them grounds to accomplish exactly that.
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 24, 2016, 10:11 PMJoe, you still aren't seeing the big picture.
My reforms will likely bring significant financial harm to the polygraph indu$try, but they will advance the polygraph profession.
If you have to ask what that means, you'll never understand.
The industry needs someone who will advance the profession, our work product, integrity, opportunities, accuracy, reliability, instrumentation advancement, examinee rights, tougher antitrust rules or policies, and also advance the profession in a way that encourages growth and a level playing field.
Over the past year I have seen improvements in some of these areas. What you are proposing is to break the positive momentum and institute a scorched earth policy; a policy that is unwarranted at this point.
We also should be finding ways to encourage examiners, even new ones, rather than knock them down. Where fiefdom markets and monopolies do exist, the industry needs to step in and foster a level playing field and competitive environment based off hard work and marketing over entitlement. We need stop making excuses for people engaging in anticompetitive beaver and unfair business practices, simply because they sit at the popular kids table.
Our ethics procedures need to change, and polygraph should be used in ethics investigations where such issues in dispute exist. Moreover, we should publicize that we do so, when someone does fail the test. This alone will up the credibility of the industry, because now, we are not asking our customers to do anything we wouldn't do ourselves. This also needs to be enforced, across the board; even for the privileged in the industry.
I firmly believe, if polygraph had been used from the start in 2008, or back in 2014 for the situation I just went through, it would have saved a lot of people a lot of grief. Funny thing is, everyone called me crazy for asking that polygraph settle the issue. Well, until the end of last years key note speech, where F. Lee Bailey said, that he would take a polygraph if the need ever arose (paraphrasing). Now the people who called me crazy, are suddenly silent.
The longer we are an industry, that does not believe in our own product enough to use it for our own internal issues, the more we should be ashamed of ourselves. The way to be leaders is to lead by example. How is it that the one examiner, who is a pariah in Texas, (the perceived center of the polygraph universe; or so they think), took the lead to set the example, while all the other polygraph leaders either ran and hid, or called me crazy?
The industry, as a whole should take this first, easy, and free step, in an all win, no lose way to step up the industries credibility. This simple step, that costs nothing and no reasonable argument, within the industry, can be made not to institute this.
Also I think this will be a great tool to inspire ethical conduct within the polygraph industry. I also feel this will identify and eliminate unethical people within the industry, and maybe even act as a deterrent against unethical behavior. I think such a rule will promote and inspire public acceptance of polygraph as well. After all, would you eat at a restaurant where its owner and employees avoided eating the food they prepare? I know I wouldn't.
The only polygraph examiner who would object to a rule like this, is an examiner who knows they will have something to hide someday, or, that examiner does not believe in the product he or she sells to the public. I could put a few names to this list here in Texas, but, we already know who they are. Don't we?
The unethical will either straighten up in the risk of being exposed; or they will be weeded out. This makes room for other examiners to compete in an industry that encourages and mandates fair trade practices and an ethical competitive environment that is above reproach. How is this a bad thing?
Actually I think a step like this will boost confidence in the test and what we do, which in turn, could boost the over all bottom line for the private sector. Consumer confidence = a bigger bottom line. Moreover, it will earn consumer respect for the industry as a whole.
This is a proposition that is, all win for everyone; with no down side. It's as good for the big fish, as it is for the little fish. Also, I can say from experience, it does make a good marketing tool.
See Dan, consumer protection, while increasing the possibility of a better bottom line, by increasing consumer confidence that we believe in the product we sell. Leading by example, and marketing by making an idea into an action.
No talk about destroying everything, or bully pulpit. Ideas that any ethical and reasonable examiner would support and vote for.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 24, 2016, 11:24 PMDan,
What would happen if the APA suddenly considered you unworthy of membership and there was a consensus to simply give you the boot? I think by attacking the religious beliefs of fellow members, you are giving them grounds to accomplish exactly that.
Ok I must have missed something. Where have he attacked the religious beliefs of other examiners? Did I miss something.
Also, the APA, is the first organization in polygraph that has instituted an official antitrust policy. The FTC has made it very clear in past rulings, it does not like private professional associations restricting any truthful criticism of a competitor. It is my understanding that the FTC does recognize that slander and libel as a line though.
There are times that Dan walks that fence very carefully, and makes me nervous.
Anyway, the APA, is going to be careful not to do anything that would leave them open to that kind of liability. That is one of the reasons I am telling dan, that things are changing in a positive direction. When I heard them talking about antitrust issues at APA last year, I was encouraged and hopeful for the future of this industry for the first time in years.
Dan walks a fine line sometimes with the bylaws that are in place, which is why I pop up now and again in the hopes of talking sense to him, sometimes I will call him and say "are you out of your f&#king mind"
Again, I fear that someday, they will ostracize him the way Texas tried to do me.
I don't think that will happen, and I will tell you why bluntly. The only time I have ever seen the Industry (generalizing, but referring to Texas, rather than the industry as a whole. Just a disclaimer) go after anyone, is when someone can back up their claims against parts of the industry. The only person seen as a threat, is the person with evidence. They do not see Dan as a threat, because he lacks the smoking gun evidence to back up his claims.
I am a threat, because I can, not only back up my claims against TAPE, Andy Sheppard, Stuart Erivin, Woods, Hubbard, Rios, and the rest of their little clan, I have offered to step up to a polygraph about my claims, so long as they did so about their claims against me. As you know, they have run like hell from the very test they sell and that has been well documented.
I have been accused of libel and slander so many times, I have made some of my claims over and over again to keep a cause of action alive so they can sue me whenever they like. Fact is, they know I have evidence of my claims and a libel and slander claim in court would easily be proven to be frivolous.
No instead, they try to file ethics complaints on me, within the industry, because they know I will be forced to fight it, cost me money, stress, and angst. Going to court with a frivolous lawsuit will cost them money, and public embarrassment. An ethics complaint within the industry costs them nothing, and there are no consequences for lying in the complaint. They also do it in the hopes that other organizations will march in lockstep with Texas and expel me for telling the truth; and have the ability to prove what I say.
Dan has said much worse than I ever have that brings the industry, as a whole, into discredit; with little to no, smoking gun evidence, to back up some of his claims. This is not in dispute. Personally I think Dan does it to poke the bear. But these same people who file ethics complaints against me for the documented truth about them, haven't, and won't file a complaint against him, because he is not a threat.
But if someone ever does, the APA will no doubt tread very carefully in proceeding, and no doubt, consult legal council in regard to any FTC issues. If the APA does proceed with any complaint, it means that all their ducks are in a row and Dan has an uphill fight.
I think Dan will have to cross a pretty big line for that to happen
Actually, they are more like snarky comments than attacks. I don't know the rules of the APA, but many organizations frown upon such things as referring to someone's religion, sexual preferences...etc.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 25, 2016, 02:10 AMActually, they are more like snarky comments than attacks. I don't know the rules of the APA, but many organizations frown upon such things as referring to someone's religion, sexual preferences...etc.
Yea but unless it is libelous or slanderous, any organization leave the door open to potential liability. Stifling critical truthful speech, or opinion that is not libelous or slanderous, is potential anticompetitive behavior. The only thing in the Ethics bylaws that he has to worry about is bringing the APA, or the industry into discredit and slander and libel. He walks a fine line with brings the industry into discredit. I do wish he would be more careful.
But again, I don't remember me seeing him bring anyones sexual preference or religion into play. where did that happen, I missed that?
I do also hope, if he thinks of joining the NPA, he does so with the intention on playing nice. We have just put down one person who wanted to bring trouble to a peaceful organization. That was stressful enough.
I don't need an insurgent messing up a good thing with this crap
There was nothing about sexual preferences, only comments about being a pastor etc. I don't want you to get the wrong impression. I take back the word "attack" and replace it with "refer to."
ah, that is just a masshole thing. a tactic to get under someones skin and provoke a response. Kinda like the believing in heaven, unicorns, and jesus things he loves to use; and has used with me once.
Some people think of that stuff as attacks, its just our way to try to provoke a response. There are special classes for that where we come from lol.
Ark, the polygraph indu$try has run roughshod over too many people for far too long. Meaningful change is needed, and should come from within.
It's like talking to a wall
Joe, I've been an APA member since 2004. I have yet to see an article -- or hear of any seminar lecture -- that deals with polygraph victimization in a substantive way.
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 25, 2016, 12:28 PMI have yet to see an article -- or hear of any seminar lecture -- that deals with polygraph victimization in a substantive way.
Really? That does surprise me.
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 25, 2016, 08:32 AMArk, the polygraph indu$try has run roughshod over too many people for far too long. Meaningful change is needed, and should come from within.
I think there are two levels to this abuse. On the private side, it's all about money. On the government side it's more about empire building and power.
I think if the government admitted the polygraph was fallible, they could rest on their laurels that it is 80% effective, or whatever they claim and justify more money be spent on follow-up investigation for the 20% that fail. Instead of terminating these applicants or on-board personnel, they could milk more money out of the system with follow-up polygraphs and BI's.
I believe they are afraid that if they admit less than perfect accuracy their cash cow might be taken away. Also, I think many of the law enforcement polygraphers are just thugs or incompetent investigators who enjoy ruining anybody's life, guilty or innocent. Why work your tail off to prove a case when you can get credit and incentive awards by successfully condemning someone by only analyzing a chart and writing up a half-assed interview report.
Wandersmann, the (in)fallibility issue is the crux of the matter. For fifteen (15) years, the APA peddled the myth of 98.6% accuracy. In my humble opinion, their capricious exuberance screwed up a lot of lives. Now it's time for the APA to do the right thing. Recognizing polygraph victimization would be a reasonable first step, followed by a model policy for a test-taker bill of rights.
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 25, 2016, 04:03 PMWandersmann, the (in)fallibility issue is the crux of the matter. For fifteen (15) years, the APA peddled the myth of 98.6% accuracy. In my humble opinion, their capricious exuberance screwed up a lot of lives. Now it's time for the APA to do the right thing. Recognizing polygraph victimization would be a reasonable first step, followed by a model policy for a test-taker bill of rights.
Agreed Dan. Even if 98.6 % accuracy is true, that still means that they acknowledge that 1.4 innocent people may have their lives unjustly ruined. That figure is too high. I've been taught my entire life that, "rather 1,000 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison". Pro-polygraphers would argue that as long as no one goes to prison, no harm, no foul. When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the laws, however, the only significant way to deny a person "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was to put a person in jail. Today, people's livelihoods, and consequently life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, can be much more easily and arbitrarily lost due to subjective whims, such as polygraph condemnation. Ruining a person's reputation and ability to earn a living due to this pseudo-science is the most outrageous evil being conducted by our government. I am confidant that sooner or later people will figure this out and the entire industry might be scrapped. The only hope for polygraph supporters, as I see it, is to use this instrument strictly as an investigative
tool as currently described by our top-level bureaucrats when they lie to Congress on this issue. If deception is indicated then focus additional background investigation on the area of possible deception. If no further negative information is determined, no further adverse action should be taken.
Well put, Wandersmann. But the hell of it is that polygraph "testing" accuracy is disturbingly far below the APA's seemingly immortal claim of 98.6%. Screening exams for LE/gov/PCSOT applications are very close to coin-flip odds, with specific-issue polygraph "tests" usually being about 60%-70% accurate, in my opinion -- as well as that of a significant number of notable polygraph critics. That's why (at least in part) consumer protection is long overdue. Yet, the profession-leading APA remains essentially mute on the issue. Why? Polygraph is primarily about power, control and MONEY.
Quote from: Wandersmann on Feb 26, 2016, 01:39 PMI've been taught my entire life that, "rather 1,000 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison".
You are referring to Blackstone's Formulation:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Sir William Blackstone 1765
Dan, I respect you for your efforts to keep the consumer and the public from falling victim to polygraph abuse.
That being said, do you see any utility in the polygraph at all? If not, why bother being a member of the APA?
Indeed, Ark, polygraph has great utility -- just like VSA.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 26, 2016, 02:14 PMQuote from: Wandersmann on Feb 26, 2016, 01:39 PMI've been taught my entire life that, "rather 1,000 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison".
You are referring to Blackstone's Formulation:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Sir William Blackstone 1765
this is why our Constitution is written the way it is; and why it is the supreme law of the land, and a beacon of fairness and equity when applied correctly.
You are adroit at avoiding questions Dan.
Ark, I joined the APA to "serve the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons."
For decades, that had been the prime goal of the American Polygraph Association.
But, the evidenced-based alleged scientists who control the APA narrative decided just last year to flush that noble goal down the toilet.
Clearly, their values are not my values.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 26, 2016, 02:30 PMYou are adroit at avoiding questions Dan.
He is picky about what questions he answers
Again, I respect your valor and dedication to your cause. But, that didn't answer my question. I am not trying to paint you into a corner, I'm just trying to figure you out. It's perplexing that you want to be president of an organization that advocates something you are totally against and don't believe in. It's like Al Sharpton driving around with a Trump bumper sticker on his Lincoln Town Car.
I must have missed something. Hit me with your question again.
In Dan's defense on this one. he wasn't clear on the answer, but i do see it.
He joined when he thought the APA had certain values. Since then, he has felt disenchanted with the organization and, for some reason, feels disenfranchised.
As a result, and this is just my take, he wants to change the system to match his view of what things should be, while disenfranchising others.
Just my take.
I do see how he answered the question.
Dan, do you believe that the polygraph has any utility at all? And if not, why be a member of the APA?
Ark, polygraph has great utility, I've seen it countless times in PCSOT applications. It "works," but so does VSA.
I remain in the APA in part to give that organization the swift kick in the ass it sorely needs and richly deserves. It's pretty hard to stage a coup d'etat from the outside.
Now are we clear?
Yes, a bit more clear, thanks. Your dialog has, for some reason, fostered in me the notion that you considered the polygraph itself disingenuous.
When represented as a highly specialized form of detection-of-deception expertise, polygraph is not disingenuous. But when represented as valid science with simple cookie-cutter steps to evidenced-based "lie detection" that's touted as being 85%-89% accurate, it's highly disingenuous -- irresponsibly so, in my opinion.
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 26, 2016, 04:05 PMBut when represented as valid science with simple cookie-cutter steps to evidenced-based "lie detection" that's touted as being 85%-89% accurate, it's highly disingenuous -- irresponsibly so, in my opinion.
Ah okay then. So, now you have some objective feedback on how you come across which you can use to modify your discourse to be more congruent with your real perspective.
You may consider buttressing your argument by conducting your own research to show their results are suspect. If you have 180 plus followers in the APA, soliciting their help into conducting a study would be an achievable goal. You could write a paper and submit it for a peer review. You could also provide an addendum highlighting your assertion that the APA is turning a blind eye to the serious problem of consumer abuse.
Ark, get real.
Home-grown research and polygraph don't mix.
What's needed is a disinterested NAS-style approach, but with multiple new rounds of both lab and field studies that feature a broad mix of "forensic psychophysiologists" -- not more meta-analytic horseshit.
I would not consider you "home-grown", but unless you have access to some deep pockets (something that may be hard to get from the bully pulpit), I think my suggestion is novel.
In fact, I would even volunteer my time to QC the chart interpretations for you--nothing can escape the eye of the angel.
Thanks just the same, but I'm not interested.
By the way, chart interpretations alone are a false form of quality assurance.
The entire video must be reviewed, among a number of other things.
I would never allow charts to be reviewed by anyone who is not a certified graduate of an accredited polygraph school.
Dan to be real with you, asking someone like me if I have been to polygraph school is like asking a commander of the space shuttle if he has a private pilots license. Without empirical data, all you will be is argumentative noise emanating from the bully pulpit. Good luck.
Okay, Commander.
I'll have to take your word for it.
As for a winning communications strategy, we'll be using something new to the polygraph indu$try: victim impact statements.
Quote from: danmangan on Feb 26, 2016, 05:49 PMvictim impact statements.
You are in the right place for that; they are manifold here in AP.
Ark, when interpreting polygraph charts, how much weight do you give to EDA complexity?
Not much, although it is one of two secondary features, duration tends to be more diagnostic.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Feb 27, 2016, 11:57 AMNot much, although it is one of two secondary features, duration tends to be more diagnostic.
None of the physiological indices measured by the polygraph are "diagnostic" with respect to deception.
I agree George. It is only an indication of sympathetic arousal. Dan is just probing because he is bewildered that someone like me would know more than those who teach the polygraph schools.
Commander, I'm not bewildered in the least. Bemused, certainly, but not bewildered. Polygraph is seductive, and attracts all types.
Dan, If you want to effectively challenge me, you'll have to rise above the 320 hour barber school.
Here's one for you:
What is the value added in determining if your examinee is a beta or an alpha responder?
The value-add proposition in determining the alpha/beta responder issue manifests itself primarily in the interpretation of the cardio channel, of course.
All manifestations are not of value. I was hoping for more elaboration on its utility to ascertain whether an arousal was precipitated by a genuine OR or from the Startle Response. I suggest you spend less time in vitriol and more in expanding your knowledge base. You will need it once assuming the bully pulpit.
I am flying out on a transcontinental flight today. My posting will be spotty. Peace.
Thanks Ark, but showcasing a command of the theoretical effluvia that comprises the bullshit that is colloquially known as "polygraph science" is by no means a pivotal factor in the ideological insurgency that will fundamentally transform both the polygraph indu$try and the APA.
Safe travels.
As reported in the newly released March/April 2016 APA Magazine, current APA president and longtime polygraph establishment politico Walt Goodson's suggestion to effectively disenfranchise the vast majority of APA members has been soundly rebuked.
Of his slap down, Goodson admits:
"As I mentioned in my last [column's] message, the current election process has been called into question by a few of our members due to its limited capacity to offer candidates an opportunity to share their platforms beyond a 500-word candidate statement and a photo. ... After the publication of that message, I received considerable support for the current electronic election process. Moreover, informal discussions with APA board members during the Winter Board Meeting revealed unanimous backing for the current process. It is very clear to me that access to the polls is most important to us."
Elections are fast approaching. Let the games begin.
Dan,
What are the detailed requirements to run for APA president elect?
Ark, the requirements are minimal: one must be a full member of the APA.
The more candidates for president-elect there are, the greater my chances of winning.
In my opinion, the good ol' boys want a two-man race.
That said, I would not be surprised if certain nominees for APA president-elect were "discouraged" from running by establishment politicos.
Injecting a slate of straw candidates into the mix would be an interesting experiment.
Is a university degree required?
Dunno. Let's look into it. The by-laws are readily available on www.polygraph.org, the same folk who claimed 98.6% accuracy for fifteen (15) years -- ten (10) of them after the devastating NAS wake-up call.
As for a university degree, I'm not sure. At the last APA national seminar, the cool kids in charge foisted an ObamaCare-like massive redo of much of the terms, conditions and language of the association's constitution. So, nothing would surprise me.
But let's move on.
Maybe one (or more) of your APA-member harem could run for president-elect. I'd love to see a wide field of races, religions and genders throw their hats in the ring for all offices.
The APA political machine has been whitebread WASP for far too long.
Dan, I did mention it to two members who I know personally and they acted like I was trying to get them to kiss their mother-in-laws.
I wonder if such sentiments could be swayed by a financial incentive...
Dan, if you are looking to bring some international diversity to the APA, you many consider Mr. Enrique Gimeno from Spain. I can vouch for his knowledge and professionalism. I believe he is a full member.
http://www.poligrafo.us/index.html
Maybe someone will nominate him for president elect.
Dan,
How are your election efforts coming along?
Ark, I'm having second thoughts on running.
I fear that my platform of a test-taker bill of rights, realistic research vis-a-vis a countermeasure challenge series, and equal opportunity for APA members is simply a bridge too far.
Last year, when the politicos who run the APA decided to shitcan the organization's time-honored goal "to serve the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons," they really tipped their hand.
In my opinion, the "new, improved" APA is no longer primarily about truth, as it was in the days of Backster. Now, the APA seems to be dedicated mainly to sustaining the polygraph indu$try.
Truth -- especially the truth about the "test" -- be damned.
I have come to accept the fact that in life, sometimes (perhaps all too often) the bastards win.
Dan: Take the high ground and quit the damned APA.
What good are they and how does membership help your business?
So that you can put it on your business card ("Full Member, American Polygraph Association")
What got you so discouraged Dan? You normally have much more fire in the belly than this. Very recent events have shown that a brash, persistent and determined outsider can unexpectedly topple the ivory towers if he gets the message out.
An APA tribal elder -- someone for whom I have the utmost respect -- met with me and laid out a most convincing case as to why my efforts at reform will remain futile.
Here's the takeaway: The polygraph profession is mainly about money. Understandably, everyone wants to protect their own rice bowl.
As for curtailing polygraph fraud, abuse and victimization...not many practitioners care much at all, at least from what I've seen over the past 11+ years.
What matters most to the APA, it seems, is sustaining polygraph's commercial viability.
Given that my reforms would have a negative impact on indu$try economics, it's easy to see that amassing enough votes to win the office of president-elect is a most daunting task.
Most industry organizations are profit focused; hard not to be in a capitalist infrastructure. Pure altruism is usually not very cost effective, otherwise we'd have fresh baked bread every morning. But, ethics plays in the hearts of most non-sociopaths. Perhaps another more tactful approach may open doors?
Ark, while a more tactful approach may open a few more doors, I doubt it would have much of an effect on the cult-like zeal that dominates the APA.
Remember, this is the same outfit that peddled the myth of 98.6% field accuracy for 15 years -- 10 of them after the devastating NAS report.
In my opinion, the APA lives in a bubble the likes of which are seldom seen in other professional organizations. The group feeds itself on its own self-serving propaganda while looking askance at reality, similar to the operational models of many faith-based religions.
Dan,
The overwhelming probability that you are unlikely to become the APA president is neither particularly surprising nor particularly important.
While you are sharing with this community (essentially anyone in the whole world sufficiently motivated to search the subject on the Internet) of the substantial weaknesses of lie detection, you are not only speaking in opposition to the financial interests of the polygraph community, but you are presumably speaking in opposition to YOUR OWN financial interests.
I do not depend on the outcome of any of the above to evaluate lie detection, but for the typical visitor to this site (an individual who has no real basis for evaluating technical arguments as to the pros and cons of lie detection), one who claims to represent truth, and, by doing so, works to the detriment of his own financial well being has to be taken seriously.
I don't care how serious you are about seeking election, but if that is a useful vehicle, continue to use it for sharing the truth about the polygraph community and its practices.
Dr. Richardson,
I appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
Clearly, my motives as a polygraph consultant are not financially oriented. I'd say that less than ten percent of the inquiries I receive are converted into actual business.
The main reason for such a low conversion rate is simple: When prospective clients are candidly informed of the risks, realities and limitations of the "test," they either lose interest entirely or find an examiner whose claims about polygraph are more in line with their own twisted perceptions.
On the other side of the coin, some individuals who have been victimized by the "test" seek me out in hopes of finding a remedy, and I have been successful in that regard. By the way, those cases can be most telling of the ethics (or lack thereof) on the part of the examiner who administered the original "test."
As for continuing my efforts to become APA president-elect, I agree that such candidacy forays provide me with a platform, albeit limited, by which I can appeal to APA members to temper their financial motivations, think critically for themselves, and do the right thing.
But hey, I'm a realist. That noble mission is proving to be an uphill slog, and I appear to be well on my way to becoming the Harold Stassen of APA politics.
But I'm okay with that.
Why? Because the record will continue to show that this rogue member of the APA is not afraid to speak truth to power, tell the unvarnished truth about the "test," and strive to bring about reforms that are long overdue.
For me, that's reward enough.
Dan
SPECIAL POLYGRAPH EPISODE, PART 2
Seems I have cut a nerve in Texas, Lets see is I can cut a wee deeper
Seems the truth can be hard to swallow in Texas, but now I know I have their attention. I have had three, very angry phone calls about last nights show. What was their review, well, lets just say, it was strong.
There was also some discussion on anti trade, and anti competitive issues and that as APA members, I thought this behavior was frowned on.
If they were pissed at what I said last night, well, lets just say I won't be driving a convertible or washing dishes next to the kitchen window anytime soon; especially with the treats I have had in the past from Texas Association of Polygraph members.
Also we I'll be talking about his Dan is actually right about a few things. I know the texans will be listening.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/maxprovocateur/2016/06/15/special-polygraph-episode-part-2