I would be glad to perform a confidential polygraph examination on Tom Brady -- investigating the topic of the so-called "deflategate" controversy -- at no charge.
Unlike other high-profile tests conducted by some well-known examiners in the past, my polygraph would be open for a complete inspection -- with Mr. Brady's approval, of course.
But let's make it more interesting on the local level...
If a three-quarters majority of the American Polygraph Association Board of Directors -- in a collective quality assurance review of my exam -- did not concur with my opinion, I will resign from the APA.
There is but one condition: Mr. Brady would have to be examined in my Amherst NH office, just like any other client.
That said, the date and time would be of Mr. Brady's choosing.
Amherst NH is a relatively quiet town, about one hour from Boston. It has a lengthy and anonymous commercialized strip along the NH State Route 101A corridor, just a stone's throw from my office.
Given that I have access to my office building 24/7, Mr. Brady could slip in and slip out with the greatest of ease.
Learn more here:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2015/08/tom_brady_unequivocally_denies_wrongdoing_in_new_documents
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 04, 2015, 09:23 PMa three-quarters majority of the American Polygraph Association Board of Directors
You run the risk of being accused of under-inflating the cuff... ;D
Ark, it would indeed be a most interesting exercise of "polygraph science" in action.
Getting agreement on the polygraph charts alone would be a formidable task.
I remember attending a regional APA seminar where Krapohl passed out sets of charts for confirmed cases to be scored by seminar attendees.
The attendees were widely split in their assessments -- and that was AFTER a day-long tutorial by Krapohl on the validated principles of chart scoring!
In the hypothetical case with Brady, there'd be all kinds of doubt and speculation I'm sure. After all, polygraph operators are by nature a cynical bunch.
That's why quality reviews are so often handled on a "buddy system" basis. In other words, a polygraph operator uses a trusted colleague to perform the review.
In my experience, having an adversary perform the QA is unheard of -- although it strikes me as being the most sensible approach from a validity standpoint.
Hey, step off my koolaid, I already sent emails with the offer lol.
Quote from: danmangan on Aug 05, 2015, 09:38 AMIn my experience, having an adversary perform the QA is unheard of
I wonder if there is such a thing as a trustworthy adversary? Polygraph examiners traditionally have kept their charts within protected boundaries; the concept of letting them stand on their own merit, for all to verify, never evolved. I think this has less to do with lack of confidence in the results and more to do with just keeping the "trade secrets" within tight circles.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Aug 05, 2015, 09:37 PMPolygraph examiners traditionally have kept their charts within protected boundaries; the concept of letting them stand on their own merit, for all to verify, never evolved.
That's largely because chart interpretation varies widely, thus affecting the outcome.
Obtaining unanimous agreement in any given polygraph case is often a very tall order. Polygraph operators usually shun wide-scale exposure of their work product, thereby minimizing the risk of any criticism.
Everyone should be mindful that the charts are but one piece of the polygraph "test" puzzle. Add in the question list, manner of delivery for each question, examiner capability (expertise), examinee suitability, pre-test dynamics, environmental factors, etc., and you have a swaying tower of cards that's susceptible to toppling from the slightest breath of valid criticism.
It's no wonder, then, that Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in United States v. Scheffer, stated
"there is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner's conclusion is accurate, because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams."