AntiPolygraph.org Message Board

On its own web site, the APA makes this most suspect claim:

"APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent."

People, I've been studying, analyzing and conducting polygraph "testing" for nearly twelve years.

In my professional opinion, the APA's 90+%-accuracy claim is a grotesque -- and commercially motivated -- assertion that lacks tangible proof.

Attention, Ray Nelson: Speaking in "Wizard of Oz" terms, you are the little man behind the big curtain that showcases the APA's exuberant claim.

So...show us APA members -- and others -- proof of your findings.

A few questions about your "meta-analysis"...

>Who conducted the "tests"?
>Were the "tests" QA reviewed? If so, by whom? Like-minded polygraph operators employed by the same entity?
>How many different polygraph-school graduates were represented?
>What was used to measure ground truth? Confession?
> What percentage of private examiners are in the APA's "meta-analysis" accuracy formula?
>How many unique government examiners were "used" in your meta-analysis?

We look forward to your explanation.

[cue crickets]

Quote from: danmangan on Sep 08, 2016, 08:07 PM[the APA site claims] APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent.

Well, if a polygrapher were presented only with subjects who were guilty, and if he pursued a policy of failing everyone, he would perforce attain an accuracy of 100%. If this describes more than one APA member then the APA claim is true.

There are a lot of examiners out there. *Some* of them *somewhere* may be hitting any accuracy rate you care to name.

Aunty remains unimpressed by liars pretending to expose liars.

I call BS on Dan Mangan's published claims of ~100% accuracy,

http://www.mattepolygraph.com/2008_fieldstudy_quadritrack.html

and published claims that he is impervious to countermeasures

http://www.mattepolygraph.com/2008_rebuttal_quadritrack.html

Seems ironic that the man (Dan Mangan) who published claims of ~100% accuracy is critical of others.

But then again maybe not so ironic after all...

Dan Mangan's rhetoric and publications, together with his  money-back guarantee, seems to be nothing more than scraping the market for desperate customers.

If one were to actually read the publications there are some important details to notice. For example: we've encouraged people to try to learn think about test accuracy (polygraph or any test) as an issue of confidence intervals and not point estimates. There are a lot of other interesting and important examples and details and it would be nice to someday engage an intelligent conversation...

In the meantime, please tell us more about your money-back guaranteed polygraph results Dan.

/rn

I think Dan's request for proof is reasonable. If the American Polygraph Association cannot prove its claim that "APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent" it should withdraw it.

Ray, my money-back guarantee works like this:

If, subsequent to my "test" and opinion, countervailing ground truth is discovered in the form of evidence that is beyond reproach, the fee is fully refunded.

Now, Ray...please tell us about your "research."

>Was a countermeasure component involved? If not, why not?

>What's the split of govt/LE/private examiners in your research?

>How many unique examiners are in your research caldron? [Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble...]

George,

If you can give me a link with the 90% point estimate I am willing to look into it. I do not have direct control over these things, but I do, as do others, have a voice.

If there is such a point estimate at the APA website I will have to assume it was a rounding of point estimates from the 2003 and 2011 report coupled with some copywriting by someone who did not analyze the data.

Unfortunately, people like rounded numbers and tend to prefer a single point estimate instead of learning to understand the meaning of scientific test data. This is similar to the problems where people prefer to buy a sense of confidence (over-confidence) even where it is not substantiated - they love to be told what they already think. and they love to be told they are right. Let's face it, being open-minded is a very difficult thing for a large number of people. All of this leads to a situation where a fella with questionable scruples could make a bit of money off of some other desperate and confused folks by offering to sell them something they really really want (for example: a sense of certainty, or a sense of security to fill a void of uncertainty or existential dread).

Here is a link to some summary information that includes confidence intervals.

http://www.polygraph.org/polygraph-validity-research

As is often the case when using tests to measure amorphous phenomena,  for which there is neither physical substance nor physical/linear unit of measurement (which is the reason we use a test instead of a measurement or deterministic observation), we are sometimes interested in the worst case scenario. We have to be careful about the impulse to focus on the happy numbers simply because we like them better, and we need to be especially careful to remember that all test results are probability statements and by definition imperfect.

Using point estimates is simplistic and not a smart way to describe a test result. Test results are statistical classifiers that attempt to make predictions about something that cannot be subject to deterministic inspection or physical measurement - as is often the case when attempting to discuss future events such as the proportions of voter and outcomes in an upcoming election or the proportion of future polygraph test results that can be reasonably expected to be correct or incorrect.

As you know, the way science works is that we can have evidence to support a conclusion, and often the evidence is noisy and somewhat confusing. So we like lots of evidence and replication. And we like to see the evidence and understand how it was analyzed. Sometimes we are satisfied by the evidence. Sometimes we are not.

And there is always more to learn because it is probably not humanly possible to know everything (which is why claims of ~100% are immediately suspicious for scientific fraud because they would seem to suggest we have somehow learned everything.)

as always,

.02

/rn

Ray, the APA's 90+% accuracy propaganda statement can be found on the APA web site under "About Us."

Looky here... http://www.polygraph.org/about-the-apa

The APA's capriciously exuberant accuracy claim -- APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent [ROTFLMAO] is roughly midway through the page.

Indeed, the APA has a sordid history of exaggerated polygraph accuracy.

So why do they keep on doing it?

Here's my theory: Polygraph "testing" is mainly about money.

Do you disagree, Ray?

Quote from: George_Maschke on Sep 09, 2016, 09:41 AMIf the American Polygraph Association cannot prove its claim that "APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent" it should withdraw it.

I do not understand how they can claim accuracy percentage of any kind.  To prove accuracy, wouldn't they need to conduct and independent investigation of polygraph test results and prove through separate physical evidence that the results of the polygraph match the results of scientific investigation ?  In other words, 90 % of polygraph interviews would have to result in confessions of guilt that can be verified through parallel investigation.  That doesn't happen. 

QuoteUsing point estimates is simplistic and not a smart way to describe a test result. Test results are statistical classifiers that attempt to make predictions about something that cannot be subject to deterministic inspection or physical measurement - as is often the case when attempting to discuss future events such as the proportions of voter and outcomes in an upcoming election or the proportion of future polygraph test results that can be reasonably expected to be correct or incorrect.

If that's the way you really feel, Ray, then it appears that NAS was far more realistic than the APA when they said:

...we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.

Why then, does the APA insist on using point estimates at the upper end of the "happy numbers" to characterize polygraph accuracy?

Here is a link to the Mangan publication that claims ~100% accuracy - and also claims to "nullify the effects of countermeasures" (last sentence of the report, on page 7).

http://www.mattepolygraph.com/2008_fieldstudy_quadritrack.html

And here is a link to the APA 2011 report that seems to be peppered with confidence intervals and a lot of information about the difficulty/impossibility in attempting to describe the complexities of test accuracy with a single number.

https://apoa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/polygraph_404.pdf

And a more recent APA publication on confidence intervals - including an advisement (page 76)  to consider the worst case scenario, meaning the lower limit for accuracy estimations and the upper limit for test error estimation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306292708_Five_minute_science_lesson_Statistical_confidence_intervals_and_point_estimates

So, I suggest we let readers decide for themselves about who here is selling happy numbers ...

, as always

.02

/rn

Ray, my study -- actually, it was more of a "micro-survey" in that it reflected the experience of just one (1) highly seasoned examiner using the MQTZCT -- is clearly an outlier. The study's conclusion should not be seen as being applicable to the polygraph operator population at large, certainly not anyone who wasn't trained by Backster and Matte.

Unlike your dumbed-down, simplified, paint-by-numbers approach to (allegedly) scientifically robust polygraph "testing" -- designed for the high-school graduates that make up the vast majority of APA's membership -- the Quadri-Track technique is purely expertise driven.

On its own web site -- www.polygraph.org --the American Polygraph Association brazenly claims the following: APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent.

Is that bold assertion by the APA true, Ray? Do you stand by that statement? Should polygraph consumers believe it?

As for the happy numbers, I'm not selling anything other than reality about polygraph "testing."

As the FAQ page on my web site clearly states, incident-specific polygraph "testing" is only about 65% accurate, generally speaking, even under the most favorable of conditions.

QuoteAnd here is a link to the APA 2011 report that seems to be peppered with confidence intervals and a lot of information about the difficulty/impossibility in attempting to describe the complexities of test accuracy with a single number.

https://apoa.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/polygraph_404.pdf

And a more recent APA publication on confidence intervals - including an advisement (page 76)  to consider the worst case scenario, meaning the lower limit for accuracy estimations and the upper limit for test error estimation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306292708_Five_minute_science_lesson_St...

Ray, as past president (and a years-long political operative) of the American polygraph association, please explain why the APA chooses to bury the critical information that you cite in obscure publications that no polygraph consumer is likely to ever read, and features this brazen claim -- APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent -- on its web site under "About the APA."

Is that choice of positioning a classic "bait-and-switch" tactic, perhaps driven by marketing considerations, on the part of the APA?


Please explain.

Dan,

I do not write or manage the content for the AP website.

What I do is try to learn more and provide information and knowledge to the polygraph profession and to the public. I wish more people would read. And I wish more people would read intelligently. Toward that objective, part of what I have done is to try to make instructional materials available to help people better understand the direct application of science and testing principles to the context of  polygraph, lie detection and credibility assessment.

Your strategy would seem to be the one about "tell a lie long enough and people will believe it, and the bigger the lie they more they believe it."

The first lie was a published claim of ~100% accuracy. Followed by the supporting lie that your favorite technique can "nullify the effects of countermeasures." (Dan Mangan's written and published words). 

The next lie was in re-inventing yourself as the anti-polygraph polygraph examiner  accusing everyone else of exaggerated claims (hoping they will either not notice or forget your first lie about ~100% accuracy).

Follow that with the lie of professing to be the champion of reason while publishing conclusions that are un-replicatable (~100% accuracy, "nulify countermeasures," etc.) and unaccountable (only those who are similarly anointed by the guru could possibly understand you), and therefore inconsistent with and disconnected from reason (having more to do with mystified experteeism.)

Probably there are some people who are desperate enough to want your services and pay your fees on the off chance that you can magically pull a rabbit out of the hat for them. 

I don't know whether you actually believe your published claims of ~100% accuracy, or whether that is just convenient marketing hype. I do know that Matte's published hypothesis are not consistent with the evidence - polygraph machines cannot discriminate between fear and hope, nor can they determine the reasons for these emotions. And so your reliance on an unscientific claim would seem you put you solidly in the realm of pseudoscience. 

In the end what you offer is this: "trust me because I am an expert, having been anointed by the hand of the guru.."  The corollary to this is the message "don't trust anyone else without your approval." 

The problem with unscientific expertise as the basis for your test results and conclusions is that you are basically free to give subjective results - perhaps even any result you want to give or any result someone wants to purchase.

I do understand the financial and business and professional economic motivation that would make a person want to perpetuate the business model of "trust me I'm an expert" - when subjective, unscientific, unquantifiable, un-replicatable, "expertise" is all you have to sell.

And of course - when selling subjective expertise and unrealistic solutions - the more you sell it and the more you boastful and outrageous your claims the more likely you are to succeed. Think about it, when selling nonsense, it would sell nothing if one were to advise people that it is nonsense. 

Development of a scientific test requires that we first understand that a test and a test result is always going to be an imperfect and probabilistic assessment of some interesting and important thing for which we cannot evaluate with simple and perfect deterministic observation nor with a direct physical/linear measurement.  So if the test result is greater than chance and less than perfection, then the goal of studying the test is to obtain and study data to improve our knowledge about the confidence intervals that describe the things we might say about the test result.

The difference between old-school-experteeism and a scientific test is that a test result is something that can be reproduced with some expected frequency. The old-school mystified expert approach tends to be so esoteric that reproduction of analytic conclusions is not a realistic thing (think back to the decades before numerical and statistical analysis when polygraph examiners might have been reluctant to allow other examiners to look at there data).  Even today we sometimes professionals play this game we will see a lot of subjective experteeism when different experts disagree while using subjective, inscruitable, and under-quantified (or unquantified) analytic methods.

In the worst cases esoteric process give way to wholesale mysticism in which people tend to make all kinds of outrageous and laughable claims (for example: ~100% accuracy, or the ability to "nullify the effects of countermeasures.") for the convenience of self-promotion or for the convenience of a single case outcome.

Of course if a test result is based on a structured process then it is reproducible (and non-mystical) – and we can begin to study and know the range of probabilities for which we can expect the test to lead us to correct conclusions and effective decisions.

In the words of W. Edward Demming "If you can't describe what you do as a process, you don't know what you are doing." And, of course, if we can describe what we do as a process then we could teach most intelligent persons to do it successfully using the structured process (no mysticism needed). And ultimately we begin to automate any well structured process.

About a half a century or more ago there was discussion was about the need for standardization of processes. This was in a day when people could not imagine the potential for computerized automation. Today we can much more easily imagine what computers, machines, robots and algorithms can do. Automation is today what standardization was 50 years ago. Of course there are some ethical and scientific discussions to be had around how exactly we use computers in human decision making – but ignoring this is not a wise solution.

Automation of a test, either completely or wherever possible would reduce the impact of both competency and random human variation. But automation will only succeed if a test actually works at rates significantly greater than chance. Automating the process and result of a pseudoscientific test would not be fun, because then the "expert" would no longer be free to subjectively adapt the test results to the solution that is most socially and professionally convenient to the expert.

Standardization of processes and process automation will only succeed if results can be reasonably expected to occur most often in a usable range (can you say "confidence interval"). If not, if results are mere random chaos or random guessing, then neither process standardization nor process automation will improve the consistency of outcomes. If test data and test results are mere random chaos then professional and economic survival will depend wholly on salesmanship (the ability to sell confidence in nothing more than one's expertise). 

Which begins to beg the question, why, if even the NAS agrees that polygraph results are significantly greater than chance and still less than perfect (which could be said about any and all tests), why does someone cling to an impression that the test and test result is mere subjective chaos for which he can inject his esoterica and mystified "expert" opinion in ways that are beyond the scrutiny of others who have not been anointed by the guru??? 

One possible answer has to do with a lack of competence. I'll explain. A standardized (non-automated) test process still requires a level of competency for test results to occur within some expected confidence interval (e.g., greater than chance, less than perfect). Without some competency in test administration the results might be mere chaos, in which case professional economic survival will depend on some fast talking and slick marketing - and a customer base that prefers to purchase "expertise" as if it is disconnected from science.


,hoping for the future,



/rn

Ray, did the American Polygraph Association lie when they claimed 98% accuracy for fifteen years?

The American Polygraph Association now makes this claim: APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent.

Is the APA's current claim of 90% accuracy a lie?


Also, Ray...   

If two different -- but equally qualified (in their own right) -- polygraph examiners tested the same subject on the same specific incident using the same RQs, whereby one examiner ran a Utah technique and the other conducted a MQTZCT, what is the likelihood the test results would be in agreement?

If the likelihood of agreement is high, does that make the Utah test pseudoscience, or does it make the MQTZCT a scientifically robust "process"?

Years ago, Krapohl told me in an email that the MQTZCT was as good as the Utah test. Was he wrong?

The question on the floor is:

Quote from: danmangan on Sep 08, 2016, 08:07 PMOn its own web site, the APA makes this most suspect claim:

"APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent."

In my professional opinion, the APA's 90+%-accuracy claim is a grotesque -- and commercially motivated -- assertion that lacks tangible proof.

So...show us APA members -- and others -- proof of your findings.

Answers submitted so far include:

(1) The person posing the question has himself claimed 100% accuracy in a similar context. 475 words.

(2) The person posing the question has claimed himself immune to countermeasures. 591 words.

(3) Any accuracy claim in the form published by the APA should be ignored because it reduces accuracy to a single number. 1364 words.

(4) The person who provided (1) thru (3) is not in a position to speak knowledgeably on the question. 110 words.

Aunty submits a thesis for our readers consideration: if a respondent is not willing nor able to provide the answer to a question then he should not filibuster the discussion with over 2500 words about something else.

Quote from: AuntyAgony on Sep 15, 2016, 10:53 AMAunty submits a thesis for our readers consideration: if a respondent is not willing nor able to provide the answer to a question then he should not filibuster the discussion with over 2500 words about something else.

Well said!

Dan,

I cannot read minds any better than you or anyone else. For this reason I cannot say what people knew or believed when they published the 98% accuracy rate so many years ago.

What we do know is that attempting to construct field studies from confession confirmations can tend to inflate our observed sampling accuracy because we are not likely to obtain confessions from false-negative errors (unless an examinee is unusually conscientious about informing us of the FN error) and not likely to obtain confessions from false-positive errors (unless we engage in activities that lead to false confessions).

So I can only assume that people were perhaps optimistic when they observed sampling results that seemed to concur with a desired narrative about test accuracy.

The same thing seems to have occurred with your publication - which was called a "...field study on the validity..." (with no mention about a survey - though the design was clearly non-experimental) - when you rushed to publish ~100% accuracy and followed up with a rebuttal that re-argued your published conclusions in response to published objections from the scientific community.

As to the expected concordance between MQTZCT and other techniques such as those developed at the University of Utah - I don't think we know. The reason we do not know is because we actually have no realistic published estimate of the test sensitivity, specificity, error rate and precision of the MQTZCT. Any statement would be mere speculation - which would be an inherently inadequate assertion. Or we have to endorse the unrealistic and obviously flawed published survey information on the MQTZCT.

Strictly speaking, point estimates from sample data are always wrong. This is because the probability is asymptotically zero that a sampling point estimate is an exact representation of the population. So instead we are supposed to use confidence intervals that describe the upper and lower limit of the range of expected accuracy. Which is where we get the concepts behind such phrases as "significantly greater than chance and less than perfect." It is better to actually describe the numbers in these situations, along with how the numbers are derived and calculated.

It is my opinion that Don  may have been trying to be nice when he offered that a kind of over-simplified diplomatic olive-branch about different tests being somewhat similar in aspects that actually make a difference - perhaps in attempt to reduce social/professional friction by re-orienting the discussion around the more open-minded and realistic perspective that proprietors with interests in named polygraph techniques have tended to overlook the fact that they may be more similar than different in terms of the basic procedures and components that have their basis in science and evidence.

Make no mistake about this: the MQTZCT cannot be realistically expected to produce ~100% accuracy rates and the publications (your's included) appear to offer us absolutely nothing towards the objective of realistically understanding what to expect from the test accuracy.

Furthermore: the claimed/published foundations of the MQTZCT - the things that authors like yourself and Matte have claimed to make it special and different and better - are inconsistent with the scientific evidence and incompatible with reality. The premises of the MQTZCT is are known to be false hypothesis - that the polygraph machine can discriminate fear and hope - that questions about fear and hope can discriminate the reasons for fear and hope.

Even more: the analytic model for the MQTZCT is a manual scoring protocol based on visual (i.e.,  subjective) feature extraction with on 23 scoring features. Most people can think in 1 linear dimmension, and many people can think in 2 dimensions ( up/down and right/left). It takes a bit more intelligence and abstracting thinking capacity to work cognitively in 3 dimensions (up/down, right/left, front/back), and smart people can usually handle 4 dimensions when we add a time variable. But what we have with 23 scoring features is a rather high-dimensional feature space that goes well beyond the cognitive capacity of almost everyone. Humans – even smart humans – don't work well in high-dimensional spaces unless we actually do the math. And the math can get a bit complex – so we very often use computers and algorithms to work with high dimensional data. We do not often try to analyze high dimensional data visually, though we may use visualizations or graphics to illustrate.

Then couple the high-dimensional (23) MQTZCT feature space with 23 (or is it 25) scoring rules – executed manually of course (by an expert). Many people could have some difficulty remembering all 23 MQTZCT scoring features and 23 MQTZCT scoring rules (which is why we like computers for complex analytic tasks). But here we have the added problem in that the 23 (or is it 25) MQTZCT scoring rules are not well structured to the point where we could construct a logical diagram for flow-control and execution of all those rules. What this means is that it will be impossible to ever use computers to improve the reliability of how those 23 MQTZCT scoring features and 23 (or is it 25) MQTZCT scoring rules get applied.

In practice this means that these 23 MQTZCT scoring features and 23 (or is it 25) MQTZCT scoring rules will be applied more or less according the subjective whim of the expert. Now this could be fun if we are only in the business of selling expertise and confidence – especially if people are willing to believe claims of ~100% accuracy. But in science we can see problems with inter-scorer reliability. Now we know that Matte reported his conclusions about inter-scorer reliability – with a correlation coefficient about r = .99 (I think he may have wrote that it exceeded). So given the sampling size that Matte reported, and the array of sensors and scores he had something like 2700 numerical scores for which himself and his other expert almost never ever disagreed – while using these 23 visual/subjective scoring features and 23 (or is it 25) scoring rules. This is the kind of delightful result that is simply unheard of in science. It almost seems too good to be true.

Regardless of whether realistic or not, there may be some experts who enjoy market themselves and their conclusions using techniques such as the MQTZCT for the very reason that the method seems to empower subjective experteeism and the opportunity to pretend ~100% certainty.

The choice to continue to rely on known false hypotheses - coupled with unreal and claims of ~100% decision accuracy -  coupled with an unscientific analytic model - makes the  the MQTZCT vulnerable to accusations that it is pseudo-scientific charlantry  (intended to sell confidence that is disconnected from science while claiming to be scientific).

The missing piece in most of this is a realistic understanding of what tests are supposed to do (quantify interesting amorphous phenomena that cannot be more easily subject to direct physical measurement or simple/perfect deterministic observation), and a realistic attempt to apply probabilistic thinking and probability models to the polygraph.

And just in case there is any remaining confusion, Matte's self-publication of a probability model claiming ~100% accuracy is not a realistic application of a probability model and probabilistic thinking. As you have so often emphasized, the meta-message is one of expertise (trust me I'm an expert). It is not that of a scientist. It is the message of a confidence-man not  whose conclusions are inscrutable because they are based on esoterica that is disconnected from science and reality.

Perhaps readers can decide for themselves if they believe the MQTZCT (with claims of ~100% accuracy based on some unscientific black-magic that polygraph questions can discriminate both fear and hope and the reasons for these emotions) is or is not as good - as a scientific test of credibility - compared to a probabilistic test of credibility developed at the University of Utah (which attempts to apply a simple probability model without making unrealistic claims about accuracy nor unrealistic claims about the capabilities of the recording instrumentation as somehow capable of discriminating between the proximate causes of different emotions).

The Utah manual scoring protocol is much simpler with simple robust features and simple rules that can be more easily learned by most reasonably intelligent people. The Utah scoring features can also be analyzed using an automated algorithmic probability model. The simple Utah probability model is a linear discriminate analysis that most statisticians and scientists will easily recognize. In fact I was able to replicate it from the published information and achieve results with my sampling data that were similar to that reported by the Utah scientists. In the interest of full disclosure: my work on the OSS-3 and ESS probability models is a derivative of the work at Utah, though I have no proprietary or financial interest in these  models.

Perhaps well informed readers can decide for themselves if they are willing to believe the MQTZCT to be as good as the methods developed at the University of Utah.


.02

/rn (l500 words)

Ray, your continued obsession with the MQTZCT is astounding.

In spite of the APA's bullshit claims, fueled by the seemingly secret research over which you presided, the value of any polygraph "test" exists only in the mind of the beholder.

The same value-proposition applies to consumers of astrology charts, tarot-card reading, iridology-based medical diagnoses, etc.

It's all in what one believes.

The legal, medical and scientific communities have all condemned polygraph "testing" since the 1920s, and for good reason: it's a grotesquely unreliable pseudoscientific hodgepodge of mind reading, black magic and wishful thinking -- attractively packaged as "approved by" government and law enforcement agencies alike.

Without the government's schizophrenic imprimatur of polygraph, the "test" would be relegated to carnival side shows and sleazy beach boardwalk venues.

But let that go.

In my practice, I let the consumer choose the test method. Some folks do a little research and ask for the Utah "test." Some want "what the cops use".  Others defer to my recommendation(s).

Polygraph "testing" is a supply-and-demand business, plain and simple, just like countless others.

Indeed, let the consumer decide.

Meanwhile, Ray, would you characterize the APA's claim  -- APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent -- as being misleading to consumers?

Dan,

Misleading others is when one says or publishes something with the knowledge or believe to be inconsistent with reality, in attempt to encourage others to accept the information as consistent with reality.

For example: if one were to publish claims that a scientific test can provide ~100% accuracy with the knowledge or belief that this level of accuracy is not reproducible by others then it would be misleading.

On the other hand, if one publishes claims of ~100% accuracy because one has enthusiastically accepted an observed sampling result because of of a lack of competency and knowledge about science and testing, then the incorrect information would seem to be about naiveté (perhaps coupled with either impulsiveness or arrogance).

In the case of the APA statistic, and without information about exactly who wrote it, it would appear that the information is presented by a person who may not adequately understand how to think about scientific test results.

This is an area of statistics called inference, in which we use our available data to try to understand what we may expect to observe in our future data that is yet unavailable to us.

Statistical inference is not an attempt to predict the future in a deterministic way, but is similar to attempts to infer the outcome of say a political election where we expect some noisy data/information/vote to go one way and some to go another way. Attempts to predict the exact proportion tend not to work. Instead, we are more successful with attempts to predict the range of proportions (confidence intervals) in which we may expect to observe the eventual data. We can also do this with data-based simulations in which we describe the proportion of simulation outcomes that occurred in a certain range. Anyone who saw the recent move "Sully" may have notices a dramatization of some discussion of repeated simulation outcomes.

In the case of polygraph accuracy estimates the challenge is complex because test accuracy cannot be not adequately characterized by a single numerical index.

Notwithstanding the complication of attempting a single numerical index to characterize test accuracy, the statement on the APA website appears to be intended to convey information about point estimates of accuracy under certain circumstances, and is somewhat consistent with some published information on point estimates.

The real issue in all this is that point estimates are not an adequate way to think about scientific test results. It would be better to use confidence intervals, for which readers can then more easily understand worst-case and best-case outcomes.

Whereas understanding confidence intervals will require that readers have more basic knowledge about these things, a single proportional index will be simpler for some people to understand but will not adequately convey some important information that can be useful to better informed readers.

.02

/rn

QuoteIn the case of the APA statistic, and without information about exactly who wrote it, it would appear that the information is presented by a person who may not adequately understand how to think about scientific test results.

In other words, the blind leading the blind.

The publishing of such claims willy-nilly is totally irresponsible, especially for an association that claims to be a "professional" organization.

In your opinion, Ray, should the APA's bogus 90+% accuracy claim be scrubbed from its web site as well as its other literature?

Dan,

In my opinion your "validation study" should be retracted from publication as ~100% accuracy level you reported cannot be realistically accepted as an estimate of what to expect (as has already been described, confession confirmation can systematically exclude error cases for which no confession is likely to be obtained and can lead to the kind of unrealistic accuracy that you have reported) and you have already explained that the study was merely a survey of confession confirmed cases.

/rn

Ray, if anything should be retracted it's the APA's"meta-analytical survey", the data for which was either supplied by polygraph advocates, or spun up in your magic Monte Carlo centrifuge.

Even more damning, your data was devoid of a vigorous countermeasure component, making the survey's results meaningless in today's world.

Marston, Larson and Keeler created polygraph test-takers, but Williams, Dixon and Maschke made them equal.

Ray,

Given that you are a past president and former chairman of the quasi-professional 2,800-member American Polygraph Association -- where two out of three members reportedly have only a high school diploma -- please tell us...

How did the data feed that served as the basis of your "meta-analytic survey" go down?

I have a hunch, but it's just a hunch.

A gummint operative, who just happens to be a polygraph advocate, supplied you with a pile of stuff, and said something like, "Trust me, the data is cool. There's no need to investigate any further."

Tell us, Ray... Was there any fact checking? Any oversight? Any third-party QA review?

I think not.

In other words, I suspect you took the pile of "stuff" purely as a matter of faith.

But as Krapohl said at an APA seminar I attended in 2004, polygraph is BS (Belief System) driven.

If my suspicion is incorrect, please set the record straight.

[cue crickets]

[knock knock]

Ray, is there not anyone home at the APA's magic Monte Carlo centrifuge facility?

I guess it's possible: Maybe they're all jockeying for position on the EyeDetect bandwagon. 

But let that go...

Ray, please explain to us lay people -- that is to say, the great unwashed -- exactly how your "data" that somehow ended up proving polygraph is 89% accurate in specific-issue applications was derived.

By any chance, was the "data" upon which you based the APA's optimistic "meta-analytic survey" claims supplied by like-minded polygraph advocate$?

If that were to be the case -- and I hope it isn't -- is it possible that such bia$ could undermine the integrity of the APA's alleged re$earch?

Please say it ain't so, Ray!

SIGN ME: Dedicated to truth -- the truth about the "test."

[cue crickets]

My questions is.

If polygraph enjoys a 90% accuracy rate, why was my idea to let polygraph settle an issue, ongoing in the industry, ridiculed by other examiners, including the high ranking examiners in the industry and within the APA? 

I still have yet to get a straight answer every time I ask this question. 

If 90% is the real number, why did APA members in Texas run from my offer to settle the issue in Texas with polygraph? 

How does one reconcile this?

It seems the only person in Texas that believes in the accuracy in reliability of the product we sell, is me. 

One would think that would be embarrassing for the APA.  That it's members in texas either done believe in the 90% accuracy rate, or the APA has a lot of liars on it's member roles in Texas and in the Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners.

There is a big difference between making claims that the 90% accuracy rates is questionable, as compared to the actions, or lack thereof, of actual examiners who advertises that accuracy rate, but then runs when challenged. 

All Dan can do is make claims.  I can actually point to acts, by examiners, in Texas, who are APA members, have held offices, and sat on committees, who either don't believe those accuracy rates, or are scared of being exposed as liars.

Proof is in action or lack thereof.

I was willing to step forward when I was accused of lying; and people claim I am a discredit to the industry?  I am the only examiner that trusts our test enough to have put my future on the table, based on a test result. 

And dan, come on, if you are going to demand straight answers from Ray, I think it is only fair that Ray get straight answers from you. 

Just being fair

Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Sep 29, 2016, 05:16 PMIf 90% is the real number, why did APA members in Texas run from my offer...

Probably because the APA's claim of 90+% accuracy is not the "real number."

As the NAS report implies, the so-called real number is only about 65%, roughly speaking -- and that's with CM-ignorant subjects.

In my opinion, the APA's claim of 90+% accuracy is marketing hyperbole.

Sorry for the delay all

Dan, going after numbers is doing you no good.  People who say that numbers never lie, has never taken a statistics class.  Numbers may not lie, but they sure can be manipulated. 

The best argument as to accuracy and reliability rests in the industry's behavior. 

When I first offered to use polygraph, as an answer, in the Texas dispute, the Texas Examiners, most of them, very prominent in the industry, ran for cover. All their friends and supporters scoffed at the idea.  The proof is in PP posts, and posts of examiners here on AP, and things that I have been told myself by examiners who have told me, "we don't do that", "thats not how it's done", and that is a crazy idea."  All while continuing to sell an "accurate and relabel" test to customers, but failing to use the test we seek people as, "accurate and reliable"while telling me that the test would never be applied in our own industry.

In texas, rather than take me out in two hours, they spend several years of lying, slandering, circling the wagons and fighting to keep me out of the industry and decisions that affect the Texas polygraph industry.  If they are telling the truth and I am lying, than that whole mess would have been over in 2008, and I would not even have a license anymore because of the deal that I would have given it up voluntarily if I failed. The same goes for 2009, 1010, 2014, and 2015.  AT any of these times, I have offered out a simple solution, that the polygraph examiners in Texas run and hide from, and examiners elsewhere, doesn't want to address or call texas on.

The proof is in past posts, every time I ask 

Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Sep 29, 2016, 05:16 PMMy questions is.

If polygraph enjoys a 90% accuracy rate, why was my idea to let polygraph settle an issue, ongoing in the industry, ridiculed by other examiners, including the high ranking examiners in the industry and within the APA?

If 90% is the real number, why did APA members in Texas run from my offer to settle the issue in Texas with polygraph?

How does one reconcile this?

Proof is in action or lack thereof.

I was willing to step forward when I was accused of lying; and people claim I am a discredit to the industry?  I am the only examiner that trusts our test enough to have put my future on the table, based on a test result.

Everyone either scatters, or gives vague answers that are either non responsive or total avoidance of the subject.  What they will not do, is call the Texas examiners to the plate; but they are happy to either criticize my challenge or scream chafes that I am "detrimental" to the industry.

This is actually laughable to me, as I am the poster child for someone who has consumed gallons of the polygraph koolaide, in regard to accurate and reliability. 

To this day, I am still, THE ONLY, polygraph examiner, who publicly come out, and believe in the test we sell so much, that I offered to sit for my own test, have the results public, and, if I failed, never practice polygraph ever again.  If you look at that, I don't know why I am not held out as an example of someone who is leading by example, in contrast to my detractors and competition. 

What is sad is, people still use Maria Hubbard, who either don't believe in the accuracy and reliability she holds out in her own web page, or she nows she would get caught in her lies, and it would be public according to the terms laid of the polygraph results being public.  Same goes for Andy Sheppard, Richard Wood, Stuart Ervin, Jack St John, Clayton Wood et al.  They all ran and hid from their own tests,  and encouraged others to scoff at the idea. 

Why use statistics, when you can use, documented past behavior, to back up your argument?

Now, Having said all that. 

By doing this, do you wish to be the teapot or the kettle?  because Ray has called you to the carpet with questions on more than a few occasions, in which you avoid answering too. 

You can't have your cake and eat it too. 

Also, you say you want to change the polygraph industry, but yet you only seem to want to improve it, to destroy it from within.  You are not going to change anything like that.  The industry does need change, and Texas needs a total hard reboot. 

The industry needs to reconcile with the fact that some of it's most prominent members from Texas, sent a truly bad message to the American public, by putting doubt in the confidence of some of polygraphs "best examiners" truly believe in the product they sell; or puts into doubt the content of their character as verifiers of the truth. 

If you look at who has the most confidence in polygraph, and its accuracy and reliability, in contrast with the leaders and prominent members of the Texas polygraph industry, I come out on top; every time.  Maria, right now seems to be the most afraid of this fact, if you look at her recent behavior, in front of children, when my name is even mentioned. 

Whats funny is, whenever I am contacted by maria's customers, I am always calm, independent, and unbiased; and I have even defended some of her work where I saw no fault. 

I would say I was the bigger man, but.... naaaa that would be too easy.   

You want to trash accuracy and reliability, stop using silly numbers, and outdated studies.  Use the current behavior of prominent and influential examiners, who actually hold high positions in the industry. 

They can't deny or argue the behavior of examiners, when those examiner proudly display the accuracy and reliability on their websites, but yet run when their integrity is called to the plate, or a passed or failed polygraph can benefit them. 

Just like you can't have your cake and eat it too, neither can Maria and her sycophants.   

Oh and lets point out that TAPE has not addressed or taken action on Ms. Hubbard for her clear, recent violations of TAPE bylaws; the very same bylaws they tried to hang me on.  I guess the rules only apply to the truthful, and don't apply to the dishonest and corrupt.

Oh, and another good argument. If counter measures were that damn good, you would think the Texas examiners would have had no problem in performing them, and thus got rid of me.  If they are so non detectable, you would think that an examiner can do it better then anyone, and not get caught. 

Personally, if I had been them, I would have jumped all over it; and enjoyed being rid of a nemesis, along with having the ability to humiliate said nemesis publicly once and for all.

Yet they avoided the test, probability to engage in countermeasures and all.



hmmmmm, if countermeasures really were that good and undetectable, why wouldn't the use them? 

it is a valid question

Hey Texas examiners.... Maria, Clayton, Stuart, Andy, chime in here any time with the answers. 

really dan, no input or insight into at least that past post?  I expect the polygraph establishment to put up the draw bridge; they have to, because to question these people would be to admit that Texas has been willing to run around like feral children with matches around houses built of Lincoln logs.

I never understood that, why it is that some in the establishment don't want to put Texas in its place?  You would think, that with the facts laid out, people would lead by example and fix something in industry that is proven to be broken and corrupted.  I am not saying polygraph is corrupt; I am saying that by allowing TAPE, Maria, et al to continue with their behaviors and not fix it with corrective action, of some sort, or at least publicly acknowledge that they were wrong for some of what they did, the people who turn a blind eye, allow who and what we should be to be corrupted by indifference.

The polygraph world does not revolve around Texas, though it seems people in the industry will never tell Texas that publicly.  Never understood that.  The Texas polygraph industry is hostage to a small circle of leadership, who have done little to nothing of value for the industry, and have done and only have interest to do for themselves at the expense of others. 

ugh

Anyway, I wasn't thinking you would join the indifference. 

I though for sure you would chime in with some opinion, in regard to the last post

OK, Joe, you want input on behavior?

By all means, let's talk about the behavior of "certified forensic psycho-physiologists."

In the past 24 hours alone, I've been contacted by two self-proclaimed victims of polygraph fidelity "testing."

In both cases, as a result of a polygraph "test, their marital homes -- which include young confused heartbroken children -- are now shattered, perhaps irrevocably.

In both cases, the "certified forensic psycho-physiologist" refuses to release the raw data (including video) for review by an independent consultant. This is in spite of the vehement protestations of the accused spouses, who adamantly maintain they are innocent.

The only thing the aggrieved spouses seek is an independent review; a second opinion.

Is that too much to ask?

Evidently it is.

BTW, Joe, one of the aforementioned "certified forensic psycho-physiologists" practices in the great state of Texas. You probably know him.

But there's more...

I spoke with one of these polygraph operators last night. When I informed the "certified forensic psycho-physiologist" that his subject demanded he release the PF file (including video) for my review, the "certified forensic psycho-physiologist" hung up on me.

Yes, Joe, behavior speaks volumes.

In any event, these two "certified forensic psycho-physiologists," by virtue of their unsupported opinions, busted up two families with absolutely no research on their fidelity-specific "testing" to back up their findings.

Incredibly, both of these "certified forensic psycho-physiologists" flatly refuse to release their files.

As we say in the army, that's FUBAR.

So, Joe...in your opinion, is polygraph "testing" a pseudo-scientific fraud?

If not, please explain the actions of the "certified forensic psycho-physiologists" to which I refer.

Quote from: danmangan on Oct 04, 2016, 09:31 PMOK, Joe, you want input on behavior?

By all means, let's talk about the behavior of "certified forensic psycho-physiologists."

In the past 24 hours alone, I've been contacted by two self-proclaimed victims of polygraph fidelity "testing."

In both cases, their marital homes -- which include young children -- are now broken, perhaps irreccovably.

In both cases, the "certified forensic psycho-physiologist" refuses to release the raw data (including video) for review by an independent consultant. This is in spite of the vehement protestations of the accused spouses, who adamantly maintain they are innocent.

The only thing the aggrieved spouses seek is an independent review; a second opinion.

Is that too much to ask?

Evidently it is.

BTW, Joe, one of the aforementioned "certified forensic psycho-physiologists" practices in the great state of Texas. You probably know him.

But there's more...

I spoke with one of these polygraph operators last night. When I informed the "certified forensic psycho-physiologist" that his subject demanded he release the PF file (including video) for my review, the "certified forensic psycho-physiologist" hung upon me.

Yes, Joe, behavior speaks volumes.

In any event, these two "certified forensic psycho-physiologists," by virtue of their unsupported opinions, busted up two families with absolutely no research on their fidelity-specific "testing" to back up their findings.

Incredibly, both of these "certified forensic psycho-physiologists" flatly refuse to release their files.

As we say in the army, that's FUBAR.

So, Joe...in your opinion, is polygraph "testing" a pseudo-scientific fraud?

If not, please explain the actions of the "certified forensic psycho-physiologists" to which I refer.

Actually, I was asking for input in regard to the following post.

"Oh, and another good argument. If counter measures were that damn good, you would think the Texas examiners would have had no problem in performing them, and thus got rid of me.  If they are so non detectable, you would think that an examiner can do it better then anyone, and not get caught. 

Personally, if I had been them, I would have jumped all over it; and enjoyed being rid of a nemesis, along with having the ability to humiliate said nemesis publicly once and for all.

Yet they avoided the test, probability to engage in countermeasures and all.



hmmmmm, if countermeasures really were that good and undetectable, why wouldn't the use them? 

it is a valid question"

Yes, some of that addresses the issue of behavior.

If we go by behavior,

Some of the "most respected polygraph examiners" in Texas, and in some cases, the country, either

Don't believe in the accuracy and reliability of the polygraph test

or

They do believe in the accuracy and reliability of the test, and they don't want to be exposed for what and who they truly are publicly

Either option poses a problem to the industry.  Problematic in regard to what their behavior says about the test they sell, based on the documented accuracy and reliability rates they quote on their web sites and tell customers. 

Now let's contrast.

The one examiner, that they say is a "discredit" to the industry, is the ONLY examiner, EVER, who has publicly proclaimed his belief in the polygraph product; and offered to leave the profession forever, if the result was deceptive.  Does that sound like the actions of a man who feels polygraph is a fraud?

I believe in polygraph and it's accuracy, along with what we say we stand for, so much, That I put my whole future and livelihood on the table, all in, based on the results of a test I sell and ask people to put their trust.  That is not the act of a man that believes that the product I sell to be a fraud.  It is also not the act of one who is a discredit to the industry. 

On the contrary. 

Publicly making myself accountable to the very test we sell, with my future hanging in the balance of the results of that test, makes me more of a credit and advocate to this industry, than that of any examiner who has held office in TAPE from 2008 to today, with the exception of one person.
 
I firmly Believe, the problem is not in the test. We can argue that point back and forth, but we'd be spinning our wheels.

I also believe the problem is not in the principals which are laid out in many constitution preambles and mission statements, in many associations in this industry.   

The problem in the Texas polygraph industry, is TAPE and the people who justify their behavior, lack of transparency, and the absence of ethical values of certain people, including, but not limited to, the current sitting officers of TAPE.

I also feel the problem in the industry, rests on the shoulders of those who make excuses for the examiners who have run from the test they sell; instead of condemning them for hiding from their responsibilities and obligations, as leaders within the industry to lead by example.

The problem in this industry rests on the shoulders of those with influence. People who won't, or are too afraid to demand that TAPE follow its own bylaws; and insist that no one is above those bylaws due to  their position.  People like maria, who violated Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners bylaws. 

I love this industry, and what we say we stand for.  I will never say that polygraph is a fraud. 

Polygraph is not a fraud.  It's certain examiners, within the Texas Polygraph Industry, that I know to be frauds. I base my opinion off past behaviors of those examiners; behaviors that are well documented. 

Maybe the question you should be asking, is why prominent members in the industry either do not believe in the accuracy of polygraph to put their faith in a test that is supposed to be 93% accurate? 

or

If they do believe in the 93% accuracy, what are they trying to hide by refusing the test when the offer was on the table and could have put the entire manner to rest, once and for all?

or

Why the industry would continue to embrace these people who either don't believe in the accuracy of the tests they sell, and what kind of a message that sends to the public?

In the alternative, why would the industry continue to embrace examiners who would refuse the test out of fear of being exposed as unethical examiners and leaders within the industry, given the message that sends to the public?

Lastly, why does the industry not support someone who clearly desires to fix the problems; and has promoted the accuracy and reliability of polygraph, in a way no other examiners has ever done before, by offering to sit in the fair myself, while these prominent examiners in Texas did everything they could to avoid the test, for one reason or another? 

I guess the thing that shocks me the most, is why CSCD's and therapists would continue to use examiners who don't believe in the test they sell, or is avoiding the test because those examiners are scared of having their unethical behavior exposed? 

But then again, Texas is a place that rewards a firm with a 45% inconclusive rate behind them, in contrast with an examiner who has consistently enjoyed a 3 to 10% inconclusive rate since the day Fenian polygraph Services opened its doors; and on one occasion, caught countermeasures that none of their "more experiences examiners" could catch, in multiple tests, that the examinee said he successfully beat.

LOL, I still think that is kinda funny, the great examiners at Richard Wood and Associates; 45% of the time they couldn't tell if someone was telling the truth or a lie (according to the discovery obtained during the 2008 lawsuit, from their own lawyers) and on other occasions, got duped by a trade school dropout.  I have pointed this out in the past in 2008 or 09 on a different string. 

Of course Richard and Clayton will call me a liar, at which point I encourage them to call Noah Webster and file a libel lawsuit.  But before they do, I think they should know that I kept everything from that lawsuit.  Every email, sheet of discovery, polygraph reports, charts, fax.... I kept everything. 

As for the other examiner you speak of, I don't know who it is, I haven't seen any charts, so I can offer no opinion in regard to that examiners character or testing ability.

I'll say this much, I am glad someone is handling infidelity issues, because I won't touch infidelity cases, unless there is a shrink involved. 

Once someone gets to a point in a relationship where you have to get polygraph involved, it's done, and there is little to no chance of saving it.  Whenever I get calls about infidelity testing, I always tell them their money is better spent on a therapist or lawyers.  In my personal opinion, no one comes out of those tests a winner, regardless of the outcome.  So, I'm glad someone is taking them, because id rather stick an ice pick in my eye, before I do one of those tests again.  Too much emotion and drama, and dealing with the crap I have to deal with down here, i'm all filled up.

Fact is, those relationships were done before they even walked into that polygraph room. 

In regard to getting charts... and i say this with all due respect, you give off the impression here like you have a dog in the race to find anything that can be tossed in the examiners face.  Things is, if you look at anything hard enough, anyone can find anything. 

You give off the impression that you lack objectivity.  And I get it, you are on a mission and part of that mission is to discredit as much as you can or at least that is the impression you sometimes set. 

I am very careful not to do that.  I have had to swallow my pride a couple times and tell people, that examiners I hate did nothing wrong, and my results confirm their findings.  Ugh, the bitter taste of pride when I have to do that. 

While I have the ability, and believe it or not, self control to remain independent and unbid, others in Texas do NOT.

Example, I have stood up for maria, and her procedure on at least two occasions.  My love for what i do for a living is greater than the deep disdain I have for H&R Puff and Stuff.  Honestly, if she called m, asking for my charts, the only sound she would hear is, GFY and then a dial tone. 

Now if someone wants to grow some balls and come to my office to view charts, different ball game.  Come on in, look at the charts, I'll even buy lunch, truce will be called, but nothing is leaving this office, no copies made, and no pictures. 

With the files full of charts I have that the other examiner I have run, they stay in those files, under lock and key.  I will never put my agenda ahead of that of a persons charts; no matter how bad they are.  Trust me, some are total crap; and while it would give be great pleasure to expose their crap work, there is a line I would never cross and that is one of them. 

Sometimes dan, the impression you give, is that is a line you would cross.  I am not saying you are that guy, it's just the impression you give people.

On the other hand, to be fair, I don't know about the conversation, mane the guy was being a wold class douche. 

I guess what I am saying, I lack the data to give you an opinion on the said Forensic Psycho Physiologists in question. Not sure I want to know. Because CEU time is coming up and fighting with these people to get the hours to renew my license makes me want to vomit in my mouth.  While I have done my best in 2014 to make peace with them and to act in good faith, the new power dynamic in TAPE does not ale me hopeful about an in and out, don't fuck with me, I won't fuck with you, truce that occurred last time with Jon Rios; even if he did go back in his word. 

The situation that these examines had was FUBAR, long before they made the call to make the appointment for the test.  Trust me, whomever these examiners are, those marriages were done.  They probably didn't help, but I doubt they did anymore damage than that of what was already done. 



 

Joe,

If a customer asked you for the PF (or similar) file of their polygraph examination, including the video recording, would you provide that data to the customer? If not, why not?

George

PS: I'd also be interested in the answers of any other polygraph examiners reading this to the above questions.

George, I predict Joe would never surrender  -- that's how polygraph apologists look at it -- the raw data including video -- directly to the customer.

Polygraph operators are loathe to subject their work product to a second opinion. They only do so within the polygraph-operator "buddy system," i.e., other like-minded polygraph advocates.

Medical patients have a right to their records, including test results. Polygraph should be no different.

If the customer themselves asked, I would go to my legal council to protect the material from unauthorized dissemination, especially with video, though copyright laws; ;but after doing everything I can to make sure stuff doesn't turn up on the internet unauthorized, I am obligated to give that information, if they paid for the test. 

What I could not do, is hand charts and data over to certain polygraph examiners in the state of Texas.  If they ant to see my client's data, they can take their crusty asses to my office, and review the data in my presence, so long as the sharing of that information is authorized.  Because I deal with some attorney tests, I do have to be concerned with privilege

The buddy system...............  LMAO

Dan, name one person.... ONE PERSON, who is my "buddy" that would protect me, or I him.  I am the most despised person in the industry.  Whats funny is, I am the most despised because of the truth and documented facts, I continue to call the polygraph establishment on.  This is why I am actually a bigger threat to these people than you are, because I have document ion backing me up; in most cases, their own documentation. 

Yes, sometimes you make some good points with the information you have, some times.  What I have, that frankly you lack, is documentation of establishment examiner's acts and behavior.

I have proof, though years of documented behavior, that the establishment polygraph examiners, in the state of Texas, either doesn't believe the 93% accuracy rate, and in fact will avoid being subject to their own, "accurate and reliable" tests; or, they know polygraph works, and they are avoiding being subject to their own test, knowing their lies and unethical behaviors will be exposed.

I can prove there is corruption in the industry, this is why they try so hard to silence and ostracize me. 

The one thing that is consistent is, the examiners say that countermeasures are detectable.  If they weren't, why would they have not taken the test and employed the undetectable countermeasures?  Toy still haven't answered hat question.

You want to have a discussion about polygraph accuracy, I think the questions I put out there, surrounding the behaviors of those within and part of the polygraph establishment, having an aversion to being subject to their own test, is not only legitimate, but the sudden silence is both telling and concerning

You are right about one thing, I will not surrender until the issues are addressed and put to rest.  Every time I am quiet, and try to move on, someone inside of TAPE reminds me, that they won't let go.

They will say of course that I am not capable, but they know that is not true.  A peace an agreements were made between myself and another vary, and I have 110% backed off that party and kept my word.  To that Party's credit, so have they.

Bottom line, you don't like it when I make it a point to be fair and unbiased to a system for which you seem to have a lot of bias.  On the other hand, the industry and the party still involved hate it when I use their own behavior and documentation to expose what is wrong in the industry within the state of Texas.

You want to to give opinion over a case in which I don't have some basic information and data. 

In any case, I assure you, I have no, buddies; and no one is my buddies, for me to even start playing the buddy system. 

Buddy system..... LMAO..... Dan, you're so cute

If I knew which examiners you were talking about dan, I could offer you way better insight and opinion. 

Joe, don't take me quite so literally.

Set aside, for a moment, your self-inflicted OCD bondage with TAPE and look at things in a more general sense.

By "buddy system," I simply mean like-minded polygraph advocates who are seen as qualified examiners within the industry-- not politically reliable cronies. In other words, polygraph operators with whom you are on the same page, philosophically speaking. True believers in the "test."

Certainly, you'd allow your raw data to be reviewed by the likes of, say, Gary Davis, Ray Nelson, and your polygraph mentor of whom you speak so glowingly. I'm sure there are others.

By contrast, you would never allow your complete polygraph file to be reviewed by an adversarial polygraph realist such as myself.

The reason: Fear of having your work product shown to be so deficient that it warrants nullification of your "test."

Virtually any polygraph "test" can be nullified. In my consulting practice, I've assisted many a victim of a proclaimed false result by reviewing their polygraph "test" and documenting a lengthy list of fatal flaws.

My polygraph nullification service is both affordable and effective. It provides victims with much-needed relief, and helps remedy the damage done by the often pernicious false result of a polygraph "test."

Anyone who wishes to learn more about my polygraph nullification services is welcome to contact me via www.polygraphman.com.

busting your balls dan

Quote from: danmangan on Oct 05, 2016, 04:24 PMBy "buddy system," I simply mean like-minded polygraph advocates who are seen as qualified examiners within the industry-- not politically reliable cronies. In other words, polygraph operators with whom you are on the same page, philosophically speaking. True believers in the "test."

Certainly, you'd allow your raw data to be reviewed by the likes of, say, Gary Davis, Ray Nelson, and your polygraph mentor of whom you speak so glowingly. I'm sure there are others.

Not true and I'll give you an example.  Pleae understand, details are intentionally vague to comply with the law and protect privilege.

Recently I perfumed a polygraph where the request was made for the county to have their "expert" to review my charts.  I have no issue with their "expert" reviewing my charts, knowing that 9 times out of ten, that "expert" will be an examiner from a company with a spotty history; you do the math.  The one thing I won't do is surrender my charts, so they can sit in their file cabinet, do with as this unethical examiner pleases.  If they want to review my work, they will do so in my presence and they will not be allowed to take care, control or management of any data.

If someone wants to look at my data, and they are authorized by the examine or lawyer of the examinee, I will allow them to look at the data.  I do nothing wrong, I run good charts, a fair test, I have nothing to hide. 

On another occasion, during the lawsuit, I was asked to let a county DA's office "expert" to review my charts.  I was told it was going to happen at the courthouse and that I would be there for the review.  When I got there, the charts were snatched from my hands by the DA's investigator, they walked away, and I never saw them again.  I know those chard were being sent to Holden's office, as they were that county's golden boys at the time.  I didn't fuss about it because I knew those charts, and the rest of the data were spotless.  It's important to note, that my charts were still included in the Grand Jury packet, and my examine was acquitted , partly due to his passed test.  If anything was wrong with those charts or the data, and I am sure, given the hostility at the time, they looked hard, my test would have been tossed and the GJ would not have seen the test. 

SO yea, the idea of me not wanting to have anyone other than the above listed names looking at my charts, my history, says your assertion is bullshit.

Also, if Garry, Ray, or Don Ramsey saw my charts and something was wrong, I am 110% confident that they would toss me under the bus, after a long and unpleasant ass chewing. 

Lastly, I have no cronies or minions.  I know that I have no "friends" in this industry, in the same regard as they may have "friends."  Whenever I would away from any examiner, I always check for a knife in my back after that meeting or discussion; and I am always suspect of everyone and their true intentions.  The situation of Maria betraying me like a rat, made me realize that I should trust no one; EVER.  In my eyes, everyone is a potential rat. 

Thats a shame, because there are people in the NPA and APA, that I have great respect for.  There are some, that if they called me at three in the morning, I would get out of bed and come running to help them in a heartbeat; but trust died inside of me in 2009.  The rat did her job well. 

SO yea, making me sound as if I am a part of any, inside good ole boys club, you are climbing up the wrong tree there; you will find no fruit. 

Quote from: danmangan on Oct 05, 2016, 04:24 PMBy contrast, you would never allow your complete polygraph file to be reviewed by an adversarial polygraph realist such as myself.

The reason: Fear of having your work product shown to be so deficient that it warrants nullification of your "test."

You assume too much.  I will say this, before I handed you charts, I would make damn sure everything was copyright protected to assure no unauthorized publication of my work.  But as long as that protection were there, yea, I would let you look at charts and data.  Good luck finding anything, because other than me talking like a sailor in pre and post test (F bombs, I am from Boston and all), you will find nothing that will nullify the test.  Best of luck. 

I do everything on the up and up, and I have no shame in regard to my work product. 

My only concern would be your ability to be unbiased in your review.  Sometimes Dan, I honestly believe that you lack objectivity and it is possible, you would let your agenda cloud objectivity.  I don't think you do this for nefarious reasons, I believe that your intentions are well meant, just not totally objective; but we've had friendly debates about that before.

I think you need to put away your OCD in attacking reliability with your interpretations of studies and numbers that can be easily argued and dismissed, and focus on behavior, which is far more telling in regard to the real problem in this industry. 

Because that is the true test of a product.  If the product is that good, and that reliable, why is it that the people selling that product, or providing that service, avoiding using that product?  Now there is an interesting question. 

If I owned a restaurant, and I refused to eat the food doing out of my own kitchen, what does that say about my confidence in the product, and service I sell?  Maybe my customers should call the health department, don't you think?  I'll say this, I wouldn't be in business long.

It is easy to argue statistics and subjective interoperation of study data.  It's behavior that tells the real story over the product sold or consumed. 

have you noticed that Ray was engaging you, and waxing poetic on the subject when the argument consisted of interpretation of studies and rhetoric; but when I call to the plate actual behaviors of examiners, how those examiners fear their own test, and other examiners being critical of me for expecting us to use the product we sell to verify or refute the credibility of accusations made which are completely testable?

He can't defend their behavior and lack of willingness to submit to the very product we say is accurate and reliable. So the conversation ends, rather than him admitting, that their at ions might send a poor message to the public, that examiners feel that the test is good for everyone else, but not good enough for us.

The message I sent was, I believe so strongly in the product I sell, that I don't expect anyone to sit in a chair, i wouldn't sit in myself.  Now that generates consumer confidence.  That promotes polygraph, and promote ethical integrity within the industry.

The only message that the examiners involved in my situation send, confirm much of what you say. 

Now I am gong to re ask this question.

If countermeasures are so good, and so undetectable, why didn't Maria et al just jump all over my offer, cheat the test, and get rid of me?  If countermeasures work that well and are tat undetectable, you would think an examiner would know how to perform better than anyone. 

Hmmmmmm I guess they don't really believe countermeasures are as effective as some believes.  So I guess everyone is wrong.  I guess that makes us all content. 

You and I agree on so much, but have different end goals.  I want to make polygraph better by cleaning up what is dirty, so what is left with is the real mission of who we should be. 

Change, real and sustainable change, only occurs when the real problems and actions are confronted, exposed, leveled and then redesigned and built into a stronger structure.

That is my ultimate end goal.  To make us what we say we are as an industry.  To do that, I have to expose the termites that are infesting and weakening the integrity of the structure from within.    Many times, you don't even know they are there, until it's too late; and when it's too late, the structure has to be condemned. 

I don't want that.  Want to rip out the infested areas, address the infestation, so the structure can be then fixed and rebuilt stronger.

There can be no change, without confrontation.  A wise man, said that to me a little over ten years

Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Oct 05, 2016, 07:00 PMThat is my ultimate end goal.  To make us what we say we are as an industry.  To do that, I have to expose the termites that are infesting and weakening the integrity of the structure from within. 

Joe, the polygraph-indu$try termites are laughing all the way to the bank.

The "test" is all a big con.

There is overwhelming evidence that shows polygraph is a pseudo-scientific fraud.

The legal, medical and scientific communities have condemned polygraph "testing" since the 1920s -- nearly 100 years!

George Maschke is right, Doug Williams is right, and the late great Drew Richardson was right.

"Polygraph science" is a sick joke.

I suggest you cut back on the APA/NPA Kool-Aid.

It ain't healthy.

You know I respect your opinion.  I just don't share that pessimistic view of this profession.  I do share your pessimistic view of some of the people in this industry, and the pessimistic view of how issues in the industry are addressed. 

The problem is not the test, the problem is the people, and the culture that has been allowed to breed and rot the structure. 

Attacking the test is mental and verbal masturbation.  I have come to the firm resolution that it's the behaviors of some of the people within the industry more appropriate and valid targets to make your point. 

Again, it is easy for people like Ray to counter attack rhetoric and statistical arguments.  It is impossible to to counterattack behaviors that actually are examples of your argument, until the actions and behaviors are confronted and addressed. 

Bottom line, there are examiners, prominent examiners, whose actions send a message that prominent people within the industry might even have doubts in regard to accuracy.  Actions speak louder than words, and lack of action in addressing this problem is further problematic.

If they do believe in the accuracy of polygraph, they can come here, or call me and tell me I am wrong. Problem is, by telling me I am wrong about this creates a internal problem that they are in denial about, or are afraid to address; that these examiners are the liars, unethical and awful people who take joy in destroying the truth, and the life of someone who told the truth. 

No one wants to admit that they enable awful people, with awful motives and intentions.  Worse yet, people have a hard time confronting that they have been enablers of that kind of behavior.  Then comes the hard work of addressing and fixing the problem.  That would require confronting the awful people and themselves for allowing the awful actions of people and the pain they cause to gleefully.

I would say this to their faces, but none of the people engaging in the awful actions have the courage to face me, talk to me on the level, and look in the mirror. 

Problem is, and I will say it again, there can be no change without confrontation; and if I am wrong, they lack the courage to tell me eye to eye, and then defend their positions in a way that effects productive debate.

Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Oct 05, 2016, 08:12 PMThe problem is not the test.

That's where we differ, Joe.

Polygraph is junk science.

It's all about money.

Quote from: danmangan on Oct 05, 2016, 10:18 PMIt's all about money.

But this is where we 110% agree, with one caveat (do to speak)

Not all of us are like that.  Some of us just want to offer a fair product, at a fair, but yet competitive price.  Having said that, if you look at the pricing, especially here in Texas, you can see that everyone is "on the same page."  Competitive pricing does not exist in Texas, because it is strongly discouraged, or at least I have seen it be strongly discouraged, in the past.  Also, I have taken a lot of crap and criticism for my competitive fee structure. 

You can go ahead and wax poetic about statistics, and theory all you want.  I will stick with facts and the past and current behaviors of people in this industry.  Because that is what really makes the point.  If polygraph is 90 to 93% accurate, why is it that none some of the most prominent examiners refused to use it to settle a long fought issue, and take me out of business like they said they wanted to do? 

Hey maria, that is a good question to you directly.  You want to flap your big mouth about how you want to take me out of business.  If you were telling the truth and I was lying, you could have been the hero and done it in two hours; why didn't you?


Polygraph Examinations or "Lie Detector Tests" can be used in a variety of ways to resolve important issues for our clients.  A polygraph examination can  verify the truthfulness of a statement, or the veracity of a witness and is used by individuals, business owners/employers, attorneys, and professional counselors/clinicians along with supervision officers  for the treatment and monitoring of individuals on active probation or parole.
Correctly administered, a lie detector test utilizing the polygraph examination, can be 87% to 94% accurate when a trained polygraph examiner uses a reliable and validated testing format.  Texas Polygraph Services exclusively utilizes testing formats that have been validated by research and that are used extensively by the United States Government.

Is that not direct quotes from your website?

Lets ask maria.

If polygraph is 93% accurate, why did you run from it to take me out of business if you are telling the truth and I am lying?

Is it because you are afraid the accuracy rates are incorrect; or is it that you feel the accuracy rates are correct, and you didn't want to be exposed for the liar you are?

I think it's a fair question.  Albeit, its the "either or" or the "alternative" question, but these frankly are the only two possible options. 

You do remember what John Rios said was the reason someone would refuse to take a polygraph, don't you maria.  I wonder if he thinks your refusal is because you're lying?  It must be, because that is what he said about people who won't take the test. 

Curious, how does it feel to have your own, former President, and current Chairman of the Board of Directors, thinking you're a liar? 

Hey, he is the one who said it.  Someone who is afraid of taking the test, is someone who is lying.  His words.... Happy to link the video.

I will eagerly await your response.

I do wonder how your customers can believe anything you say if the answer is that you're lying.  In the alternative, I wonder how any of your customers can believe your sincerity, or confidence in your test, if you simply don't believe the accuracy rates; but that would make you a liar and a charlatan.  Because if you don't believe in the accuracy, and that is your reason for not taking the test, does that not mean you're posting the accuracy rates, so you can dupe people into using you?

Very interesting behavior for someone who sells a "lie detector test," no?  Glad she is not a doctor. 

Point in fact.

If the Texas examiners like Maria and TAPE would just leave me alone and stop spreading lies, I wouldn't have to come here is state the truth. 

What shocks me, is people are so eager to listen to unprovable lies, over the documented truth.