Ark
You make a good point regarding the evolution of discussion on this board. Based on your posting history, I believe we, you and I, could have a worthwhile conversation. However, when this approach has been attempted in the past the thread was quickly hijacked by one side, the other, or both.
If you are interested post and I will reply to you, but I will not address other posters or postings on this thread.
This should be interesting to watch. Who knows maybe we'll all learn something.
Okay Pailryder, let's do it. I would like to ask the posters to not jump in and spoil this effort. If you have something constructive to add to the discussion, then by all means, but please be cordial.
So, here is my first item:
Twice now, the last one quite recently, individuals have approached me to ask my input on what had transpired during their polygraph exams. The scenarios are identical.
The latest example was a fidelity issue. The guy admitted to his wife that he had been unfaithful over a decade ago. Instead of doing the new age thing and respecting him for his honesty, she morphed into an unhinged shrew and is threatening to leave him at the drop of a hat; she thinks he's still fooling around.
So he reports to his polygraph examiner's office. I will not disclose the gentleman's name, but can say that he is on the West Coast. He performed a directed-lie CQT on him and told him that he needed to run the charts by another examiner and that he would email him the results later. When the email arrives, it simply states: You were using countermeasures on your breathing, the result is therefore inconclusive (of course the $400 was pocketed).
I did not see the charts, but the fellow swears he didn't try to manipulate the test. I said he should diplomatically approach the examiner and affirm such. The examiner told him it was against APA policy to have the same examiner retest him.
He subsequently hired another examiner who came to his house. This time the result was NDI. But, the hell-hath-no-fury-like-a-woman-scorned wife said that he got away with the countermeasures this time and called the second guy a quack. So, now he's out $800 and his wife is even more irate.
My questions are thus:
How is this examiner able to declare an Inconclusive just because he suspects breathing countermeasures? (no less on an exam where one is supposedly not supposed to score the pneumo).
Does the APA indeed disallow retests by the same examiner?
There is no recourse, nothing to verify if this guy was justified in pocketing the money. In all other professional services, there is transparency, second opinions etc.
Comments from examiners?
Ark
To my knowledge the APA does not prohibit retests.
If an examiner suspects cm, what call do you feel is proper? Can't call it DI. Can't call it NDI. Must call Inconclusive or No Opinion.
There is no transparency; what are his criteria as to what are countermeasures or not? Why not provide the examinee with a printout of those portions of the charts indicating precisely where the suspected countermeasures were deployed? If he is correct and therefore justified in taking the $400, then it should hold up under general scrutiny. But, instead we have this cloak of secrecy. Perhaps Dan's suggested bill of rights could bring this out of the shadows.
Given that Ark made mention of my bill-of-rights concept, I thought a quick cut and paste would be instructive. The following was posted on several polygraph forums over the past couple of years. Condemnation from the polygraph community was swift and universal.
Please note the the latter point made in item #3 would most likely be unknown in the vast majority of cases, but that's exactly the point: Potential test subjects could benefit from being informed that the examiner's personal accuracy rate is unknown.
>
> -------start of original bill of rights post -----
>
> "No test is perfect."
>
> And some -- like polygraph -- are far from it.
>
> What of the victims of polygraph tests? I speak of those individuals who suffer false positive results.
>
> Clearly, many such victims would be better off had they never taken the polygraph.
>
> Perhaps prevention -- and fully informed consent -- is the key.
>
> Although much is made of polygraph ethics, its scientific robustness, very favorable accuracy (which is often compared to that of medical tests) and purported court-qualified reliability, there seems to be one thing that is conspicuously absent: a bill of rights for test takers.
>
> It seems to me that if polygraph is to ever gain the respect that has been eluding the field for some 90 years, then a bill of rights would go a long way toward achieving that goal.
>
> I have taken a stab at drafting a list of items to be incorporated into "bill of rights." Here it is:
>
>
> 1. Considerate and respectful treatment from the polygraph examiner throughout all phases of the polygraph process.
>
> 2. Knowledge of the name of the examiner who has primary responsibility for conducting the examination, and the names and professional relationships of other examines who may review the test for quality-assurance purposes.
>
> 3. Receive, if requested, a statement of qualifications of the examiner, including the number of exams they have run and their own accuracy rate with those exams.
>
> 4. Receive, prior to the test, information on the technique to be used and citations (or abstracts) for peer-reviewed research that supports such technique.
>
> 5. Receive information, prior to the test, about polygraph theory and the testing process, accuracy estimates as determined by peer-reviewed research, and the prospects for error -- all in terms the subject can understand.
>
> 6. Receive, prior to the test, a complete (as possible) list of potential reasons for a false or inconclusive result, including instrument-related (hardware and software) variances that could skew results.
>
> 7. Receive, prior to the exam, as much information about the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph testing -- including opposing views from respected academic and legal sources -- the subject may need in order to better give informed consent.
>
> 8. The right to refuse the exam, or halt the exam at any stage of the process.
>
> 9. The right to be advised as to the reason for the presence of any individual besides the examiner during any portion of the exam process.
>
> 10. Receive, if requested, a complete copy of the entire exam, including full-length continuous video, charts, work sheets, score sheets (manual), computerized scoring output, notes, and any background information supplied to the examiner.
>
> 11. Confidential treatment of all communications and records pertaining to the examination. Written permission shall be obtained before the polygraph records can be made available to anyone not directly concerned with the immediate case.
>
> 12. Mandatory video recording of the entire examination process.
>
>
> Why a "bill of rights"? There are bills or rights for all types of situations...medical patients, mental health clients, even for consumers of commercial credit.
>
> A bill of rights for examinees would go a long way to demonstrating that polygraph is not the witchcraft that it's often made out to be.
>
> Beyond that, it would help prevent polygraph abuses, and provide victims of false-positive results with a solid platform from which to launch remedial measures.
>
> Again, this list is just a rough draft.
>
>
> -------end of original bill of rights post -----
>
>
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
Candidate for APA President-Elect
BTW, my policy regarding INC/NO results is to offer the client a choice between a re-test at no charge, or a 50% refund of the original fee.
No transparency = 45% inconclusive rates, at least where I am.
Even when an examiners shoddy or very questionable work is exposed, and is undeniable, there is little to no concern Examinees are told they have no rights to charts to get independently reviewed. Inconclusive is an easy call to make if someone has red hair, if an examiner were so inclined. (not accusing on that one, just pointing out how easy it is to call a test, inconclusive, and get away with it)
Now with your guy, it is kinda hard to prove if there is any inconclusive abuse. But when a clear case of inconclusive abuse happens, and is provable, the question there is, how does that not get looked into to protect the APA integrity and/or to take a corrective action against the examiner or firm so the problem is solved.
Now sometimes a test is just plain inconclusive; believe me, I get it. But come on.
As an industry, shouldn't we want better for the consumer?
BTW, I usually don't charge for inconclusive unless the inconclusive is because of excessive moving, CM's etc. When an INC result is because of the examinee's actions, I charge full price for retest, if I retest at all.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jun 11, 2015, 02:21 AMThere is no transparency; what are his criteria as to what are countermeasures or not? Why not provide the examinee with a printout of those portions of the charts indicating precisely where the suspected countermeasures were deployed?
Ark
I agree there is no transparency. Many small businesses are not transparent. A private, for profit business is as transparent as the law of supply and demand dictates.
The questions you raise are best asked before spending the money.
With all due respect
Come on. If an industry organization and expel or threaten to expel a member for exposing hidden unethical behaviors, then one would think industry organizations have enough teeth to demand that examiners who are holding judgement over the character of others be more transparent. Personally, I would think that a wee more transparency would be a benefit.
If someone has nothing to hide, then they won't mind being more transparent and accountable to industry standards and expectations.
The lack of transparency and policing of real unethical activity in our business will eventually be polygraph's undoing.
And again, this is meant with all due respect
In my opinion, the polygraph industry loathes transparency -- at least in general.
Case in point: In the past few weeks or so that Joe and I have been posting about some very weighty issues, not one polygraph "professional" has come forward under their own name.
That's very queer, as everyone who's anyone in polygraph science -- such as it is -- or polygraph politics, monitors this site with great concern.
Where, oh where, are they? [cue crickets]
I refer to all those polygraph science (fiction) geeks, technocrats and statistical alchemists who are desperately trying to legitimize a fatally flawed pseudoscience.
That goes double for the industry politicos and their sycophants who profit by by exploiting the allure of polygraph's alleged scientific legitimacy.
Are any of you willing to sample your own dog food? (As with a countermeasure challenge, or, God forbid, with incident-specific exams concerning the indu$try's business shenanigans, as Joe has suggested?)
Of course not.
Polygraph is a one-way street.
The industry that claims to be dedicated to truth needs a strong dose of its own medicine.
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
Candidate for APA President-Elect
Quote from: danmangan on Jun 12, 2015, 10:44 PMnot one polygraph "professional" has come forward under their own name.
Perhaps they do not share an interest in self promotion.
Yeah, that must be it. They wouldn't be chicken or anything...
Quote from: danmangan on Jun 14, 2015, 11:01 AMYeah, that must be it. They wouldn't be chicken or anything...
Now you just sound like Doug Williams.
I probably sound like anyone who advocates for transparency in polygraph and wants to reduce polygraph victimization.
It's time to clean house.
The revolving door of good ol' boy polygraph politicos has to go, and the APA needs to rebuilt from the ground up.
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
Candidate for APA President-Elect
Quote from: pailryder on Jun 12, 2015, 07:48 PMA private, for profit business is as transparent as the law of supply and demand dictates.
The questions you raise are best asked before spending the money.
That kind of business model should be in a bucket along with fortune tellers and psychics then. If the examiner cannot provide objective evidence that countermeasures were suspected, then he should not pocket the $400.
Ark
To keep or not to keep is best addressed as a business matter locally. Complain to the business in question, write your local newspaper, contact COC or BBB, file in small claims court or get an attorney and sue to resolve the issue. The APA has no control over and very little or no interest in any private examiner's business affairs.
Ark
For purpose of this discussion, if we exclude screening tests and inclusive results, you would agree that there are four possible outcomes for any polygraph evaluation.
1. True negative subject truthful examiner call truthful
2. True positive subject deceptive examiner call deceptive
3. False negative subject deceptive examiner call truthful
4. False positive subject truthful examiner call deceptive
What is the worst call, from his point of view, that a LEA examiner can make?
What is the worst call, from his point of view, that a private PCSOT examiner can make?
Quote from: pailryder on Jun 14, 2015, 04:58 PMThe APA has no control over and very little or no interest in any private examiner's business affairs.
Then what the hell good are they?
Quote from: pailryder on Jun 14, 2015, 05:13 PMWhat is the worst call, from his point of view, that a LEA examiner can make?
What is the worst call, from his point of view, that a private PCSOT examiner can make?
False positives in my opinion are the worst calls. They falsely and unjustly brand a truthful person as being a liar and they may have a very long road to exonerate themselves. False negatives are more reason to not use polygraphy to mitigate risks.
The polygraph industry in general has an abject fear of the Countermeasure Bogeyman.
Why? Countermeasures work. (That explains why the polygraph industry shuns any sort of CM challenge.)
Clearly, there's a culture of fear and distrust in the polygraph industry -- especially in govt/LE/PCSOT circles.
Thus -- at least in my opinion -- the industry at large feels that a false negative is the worst possible call.
What of the victims of false-positive results? (Which can happen for a myriad of reasons.)
Well, they're merely regarded as collateral damage.
"Too bad, so sad," says the polygraph industry -- at least in a manner of speaking.
That bullshit has to change.
It's time for total transparency in polygraph, starting with a bill of rights for polygraph test subjects.
Potential polygraph subjects should be well advised of the risks, realities and limitations of the "test," as is the norm in the medical profession.
It's time for the APA to face reality, and do the right thing.
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
Candidate for APA President-Elect
www.polygraphman.com
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jun 14, 2015, 06:52 PMthey may have a very long road to exonerate themselves. False negatives are more reason to not use polygraphy to mitigate risks.
I love your post pailryder. One minor point of disagreement; there is no long road to exonorate a victim after a false negative,
there is no road. My first negative experience with the polygraph was thirty years ago and I am still in disbelief that these clowns can erase a lifetime of integrity and sacrifice with a bad day on the polygraph. I have known and know of several wounded and decorated veterans who offered and almost lost their lives for their country who have subsequently lost their jobs or clearance after being determined "unreliable" solely due to the polygraph.
The current use of the polygraph by DOD and Executive Branch agencies is a crime. People at the top like our DNI and other Executive Branch Intelligence and Security leaders should be held accountable for allowing this disgrace to continue. God bless former CIA Director Deutch who had the moral courage to speak out against this witchcraft. Maybe that is why he was "done in".
I will say that I am impressed by some of the polygraph examiners who have appeared on this forum. There does seem to be a change of direction by some responsible and ethical polygraph examiners who desire to return the polygraph to its use as a "tool" and not final judge, jury, and executioner regarding a person's reputation and integrity.
In our glorious past, impugning a man's character and reputation with no proof or solid evidence gave legal grounds to a challenge under the code duello. Today's polygraph examiners are lucky to be living in current times. If they attempted to push this witchcraft 150 years ago, lots of them would be traveling to the Old Dueling Grounds in Bladensberg on a daily basis.
Wandersmann, have you ever attended a presentation at which a polygraph "scientist" explains the theory (along with some research findings) about the "test"?
Sometimes, with certain speakers, such storytelling reminds me of the comedic bits performed by Professor Irwin Corey when he appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. (Yes, I'm dating myself, but that's how they come across.)
It's time for the polygraph industry to shirk such convoluted and dubious academic fare, and face reality head on.
But first, we need to clean house at the APA, which sets the standards and writes the policies.
To put it bluntly, we need a revolution of sorts.
The good ol' boys have to go.
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association. Certified PCSOT Examiner
Candidate for APA President-Elect
www.polygraphman.com
Quote from: danmangan on Jun 14, 2015, 11:14 PMWandersmann, have you ever attended a presentation at which a polygraph "scientist" explains the theory (along with some research findings) about the "test"?
Dan - Not really. I have been polygraphed eight times in the last 30 years. I've passed some, been accused of countermeasures, been inconclusive and once found DI. I know the horrible feeling of telling the 100% truth and being called a liar. I know for a fact that it doesn't always work. During this time I have been given many "scientific explanations" by polygraph examiners who I later learned were lying to me.
Ark
Many LEA examiners consider the worst possible outcome to be the false negative. Why? They reason, I am not defending this reasoning, just explaining, a false positive can still be cleared by another means, alibi, witness, or forensic evidence. But a false negative opens the door for a guilty criminal to walk and that is the result LEA's most want to avoid. If you are called inconclusive and NOT interrogated, well, that is as good as it gets with some agencies.
The private examiner may have different considerations. Word of mouth about a false positive call will and should cost him business. But word of mouth reports of a false negative may bring paying customers to his door.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jun 14, 2015, 06:45 PMQuote from: pailryder on Jun 14, 2015, 04:58 PMThe APA has no control over and very little or no interest in any private examiner's business affairs.
Then what the hell good are they?
Ark
Lets be clear. Except for EPPA, which is a labor law regulating private employers, polygraph regulation is left to the states. APA membership is voluntary. The only real sanction they have is to refuse to accept your check for next years dues.
They are a paper tiger, but the only one in town.
Quote from: Wandersmann on Jun 14, 2015, 10:37 PMthere is no long road to exonorate a victim after a false negative, there is no road
I think you have confused a false negative and a false positive. The test is positive for deception, negative for truth.
The APA drives the "polygraph science" narrative, which has a profound effect throughout the indu$try -- for members and nonmembers alike, not to mention a generally clueless public.
They've defined themselves as the torch bearers for the ethical pursuit of truth, something the APA should take more seriously, in my opinion.
A logical starting point would be a pro active role in consumer protection, as with a bill of rights for potential test takers designed to guard against victimization.
Unfortunately, polygraph and transparency don't mix very well...
Quote from: pailryder on Jun 14, 2015, 09:35 AMPerhaps they do not share an interest in self promotion.
For me it has nothing to do with self promotion. Though I have to admit that me being the only examiner who actually believes has been good for marketing purposes.
I would rather the industry in Texas do the right thing in regard to my legitimate grievances so I can blend back into the background of all this like between 2009 and 2014. Also I have an issue with the fact that our industry refuses to use the test we sell to settle internal issues that are testable issues.
I am not the only examiners who thinks this. Hell I have even been in touch with lieguytoo who thinks that I bring up some valid points. I find it strange how me and lieguytoo and act like gentlemen to one another but the rest of the examiners just can't seem to learn that I am easier to get along with than that want to portray.
As far as Dan being a self promoter, he is no more a self promoter than Holden. Only everyone, publicly anyway, seems to fall on every word Holden says as if it were Canon.
I don't agree with everything Dan says, but he does raise some valid points.
Anyway, I think I have proven that Holden and his cohorts are scared of their own tests. It does make one wonder, is it because they know everything I am saying is true, and they are afraid of having their lies confirmed? Or, is it because I am an idiot for believing in polygraph and they feel that the test is not worth them risking their lives on?
I would rather be having this discussion and debate privately; but the simple fact is, this is truly my last option to be heard fairly.
Quote from: pailryder on Jun 15, 2015, 08:18 AMThe private examiner may have different considerations. Word of mouth about a false positive call will and should cost him business.
Wow, so not true; at least in Texas
Quote from: pailryder on Jun 15, 2015, 08:30 AMArk
Lets be clear. Except for EPPA, which is a labor law regulating private employers, polygraph regulation is left to the states. APA membership is voluntary. The only real sanction they have is to refuse to accept your check for next years dues.
They are a paper tiger, but the only one in town.
Maybe now is a good time for APA to fix this
A good time for the APA to fix things?
C'mon, Joe, you know perfectly well of the organization's don't-rock-the-boat mentality.
That's precisely why that boat has to be blown out of the water.
I think you have confused a false negative and a false positive. The test is positive for deception, negative for truth.
Thank you pailryder, I stand corrected.
Wandersmann
Eight polys in thirty years, some NDI, some INC, accused of CM and one DI. If screening exams are around eighty percent that ratio seems about right. You have personally experienced and survived true negative, false positive, and inconclusive results. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and opinion.
Am I right in assuming that all of your tests were compelled by your employer? Are you aware that persons employed by private businesses have had protection from forced testing since 1988?
pailryder, where is the research that shows polygraph screening exams to be around 80% accurate?
Quote from: pailryder on Jun 15, 2015, 09:54 PMAm I right in assuming that all of your tests were compelled by your employer? Are you aware that persons employed by private businesses have had protection from forced testing since 1988?
Correct Pailryder. All compelled by the US Government or local government, all compelled by seeking a career in law enforcment/intelligence. The U.S. Government, like the old Soviet Government, claims that I took these tests voluntarily. The true nature of my voluntary act, however, involved taking the test or being fired for not taking the test.
Quote from: danmangan on Jun 15, 2015, 07:27 PMA good time for the APA to fix things?
C'mon, Joe, you know perfectly well of the organization's don't-rock-the-boat mentality.
That's precisely why that boat has to be blown out of the water.
I have to believe that the APA will, in the end, do the right thing I least I hope that people within the APA, important people will stand up and separate themselves from the behavior in TAPE by condemning the behavior.
I have privately taken a lot of crap of my accusations of Rios and the TAPE leadership condoning racism. I'm thinking it is time to provide that evidence as TAPE has still failed to condemn the actions that was taken on their behalf by one of their Board Members and the covering up of that behavior by the Ethics Committee consisting of Andy Sheapard, Bridget Woodall, and Gary Hale Del ASantos; as well as the entires current Executive Committee, from the Secretary to President.
Thinking it is time to prove that up. This is already information the APA has as well as other big polygraph associations.
I believe that the APA and other associations want to do the right thing, but it's hard to do the right thing when some of the people doing the wrong things are important within the industry; like Holden.
BTW, sorry it's been a few days, I've been busy putting other ducks in a row
Joe, I agree that catering to certain well-known personalities within the polygraph indu$try seems to be an organizational problem.
That bullshit has to change.
It's time to bring the revolving door of good ol' boy politicos to a screeching halt, replace them with unbeholden (no pun intended) individuals of character, and make the APA live up to its mission statement.
Dan there are some things we disagree on, but it is amazing to me how much we DO agree about.
Ya know only in the polygraph industry (speaking of the industry in Texas) are lies and deceptions fertilized and nurtured and the truth is seen as a noxious weed to be poisoned and exterminated.
TAPE's take on public integrity and transparency is to treat the public like mushrooms; feed them shit and keep them in the dark.
Quote from: Wandersmann on Jun 14, 2015, 10:37 PMThere does seem to be a change of direction by some responsible and ethical polygraph examiners who desire to return the polygraph to its use as a "tool" and not final judge, jury, and executioner regarding a person's reputation and integrity.
Wandermann
You offer great insight and are entirely correct.
Government polygraph policy is set by those who run the agencies, typically not examiners. The federal and LEA examiners are mostly seasoned investigators, like you, who are good at obtaining confessions. In more than thirty years in this profession I have never met a single examiner who wanted to be anything more than a "tool".
Before anyone hits that softball, yes, I intended the double meaning.
pailryder, the polygraph is indeed an effective investigative tool. It functions superbly as a "psychological billy club," to quote Doug Williams.
But the industry, led by the APA, has been trying to affix an imprimatur of scientific legitimacy to the fatally flawed process of polygraph for decades.
In 1997, the APA promoted a report claiming polygraph was 98% accurate. They highlighted that claim on their official web site for about fifteen (15) years, including a full decade after the highly damning NAS report came out in 2002.
The polygraph industry took that 98% accuracy claim and ran with it. In fact, that very claim is still in wide use today, years after the APA's allegedly more rational meta-analysis claiming 89% average accuracy for incident-specific exams was published.
In both cases, the APA said, in effect, "Trust us, the data is cool."
It wasn't then (in 1997) and it isn't now, in my opinion.
Yet the polygraph-as-sound-science drumbeat goes on, with many examiners clinging to that belief with religious fervor.
Predictably, the polygraph industry geeks, technocrats and statistical alchemists who concocted the home-brew of spun-up synthetic test-tube tripe that's currently in vogue run like hell from any form of countermeasure challenge, not to mention a bill of rights for polygraph test subjects.
Such avoidance makes one wonder what the hell kind of scientists they are.
It's kind of funny...in 2004 I attended a presentation by Krapohl at which he described polygraph as being BS (belief system) driven.
That still applies today, even in light of the industry's allegedly scientific advances.
So, while some well-grounded polygraph utilitarians may continue to keep the limitations of their tool in perspective, more and more practitioners who buy into the polygraph science myth are creating problems of a different order.
Those problems need to be addressed.
Of course, all of this is merely the opinion of one lowly polygraph operator.