The American Polygraph Association will hold its annual electronic election for Board offices from June 18-24, 2017.
This year, there are three candidates for the office of president-elect:
--> Steve Duncan
--> Dan Mangan
--> John Palmatier
Election results will be posted June 26 on the APA's web site, www.polygraph.org.
Developing...
what happened to, "I retired?"
Just being fair here, because you know other people are asking. I'm just brave or stupid enough to ask what everyone else is thinking.
My "retirement" was a ruse to set the stage for a three-way race for APA president-elect.
BTW, I didn't declare my candidacy until the last day of eligibility.
Looks like it worked.
Quote from: danmangan on May 26, 2017, 09:59 PMMy "retirement" was a ruse to set the stage for a three-way race for APA president-elect.
You rascal!
Ark, desperate times call for desperate measures.
Of the roughly 3,000 APA members, only about 500 dedicated-to-truth forensic psycho-physiologists actually bother to vote.
In a three-way race. all it takes to win is... Well, you get the idea.
Critical-thinking APA members, please: VOTE DAN MANGAN FOR APA PRESIDENT-ELECT
Hey Joe McCarthy,
Does your internet radio/podcast offer still hold?
I'd love to debate my APA president-elect opponents Steve Duncan and Dr. John Palmatier, but I doubt they have the balls to participate.
If you can set it up, I'm all in.
But it's a package deal.
[cue crickets]
Quote from: danmangan on May 26, 2017, 09:59 PMMy "retirement" was a ruse to set the stage for a three-way race for APA president-elect.
BTW, I didn't declare my candidacy until the last day of eligibility.
Looks like it worked.
Independent and unbiased, as usual, and just an opinion
It might backfire on you. Then again, I've seen examiners with, alleged more integrity, but less integrity, do much worse.
No doubt, Joe, the APA race for president-elect will be interesting.
Steve Duncan is a long time APA politico, so he's the odds-on favorite.
That said, more and more APA members want change.
John Palmatier, PhD, appears much more qualified than Duncan, but, IMHO, the good doctor comes off as glib, unctuous and pedantic -- a big turnoff.
Then there's that pesky realist, Mangan...
The election will be a crapshoot.
Just like the "test".
Quote from: danmangan on May 27, 2017, 10:55 PMHey Joe McCarthy,
Does your internet radio/podcast offer still hold?
I'd love to debate my APA president-elect opponents Steve Duncan and Dr. John Palmatier, but I doubt they have the balls to participate.
If you can set it up, I'm all in.
But it's a package deal.
[cue crickets]
Dan,
While I think this is a good idea, under my original proposal, I am wondering if you understand I am uncompromising as to the condition that will be, as usual, fair, independent, and unbiased to ALL PARTIES, LEGITIMATELY involved.
Some things you had problems with last year. Are you willing to accept stipulations set out last year and others; in the interests of assuring things stay, fair, independent, and unbiased?
Dan
I don't give a rats ass who wins.
I don't benefit from any of you being president. I have no skin in the contest; and in the end, I firmly believe that either the status quo will be followed, or polygraph will be totally destroyed.
So me and the small examiners are screwed in the long or short run either way.
The polygraph industry, like humanity, in my opinion, is destined to destroy ourselves, from within, in favor of egos, or the status quo.
It's a matter of how fast to we want the end to come. Because I have little faith that you or the establishment want to fix anything for the better good.
My only goal in this is keeping things fair
As they consider their vote, American Polygraph Association members should be aware of Steve Duncan's history of providing false testimony in court:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=3568.msg24712#msg24712
The American Polygraph Association has about 2,700 members. Of those, 1,652 are LE/GOVT examiners and 1,065 are private examiners.
Clearly, the LE/GOVT members are the majority.
That said, let's look at the results of the last two races for APA president-elect...
2016
Jamie McCloughan --------339
Dan Mangan --------------116
2015
Pat O'Burke --------------394
Dan Mangan -------------154
While the APA has about 2,700 members, participation in the election process is dismal.
In 2015, 548 members cast ballots for president-elect. Turnout was down last year, with only 455 votes being cast for president-elect.
I received 25% of the vote in 2016, and 28% of the vote in 2015.
In 2015 I conducted a limited outreach program targeting potential voters. I did no such campaigning in 2016.
I'd love to mount a vigorous campaign, but there's a roadblock: I do not have access to the APA's master member directory. If I did, that would make life much easier.
So, what will turnout be this year? My hunch is that it will be midway between that of 2015 and 2016, say, about 500 voters.
The real horse race is between APA establishment politico Duncan and science guy Palmatier.
We already know I'm capable of getting 154 votes when I reach out to members, even in a limited way as I did in 2015. Looking ahead, If I could grow that number by just 10% that would bring me to 169 votes.
If Duncan and Palmatier were to evenly split the remainder of the hypothetical 500 total votes cast, they'd have only 165 votes each.
Sure, it's conjecture, but once in a while hell does freeze over.
I think it would be foolish to jump to any foregone conclusions just yet...
he asked for it, here is his platform ladies and gents.
an evening with Dan Megan
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/maxprovocateur/2017/06/03/oh-danny-boy-the-pipes-th...
12 midnight tonight
I will not be taking calls for this session, and it will mainly be meant as a blog to prep for a long process of getting Dan and the other APA Candidates to come on and answer some questions about why they feel the APA voters should trust them.
Having said that, in this episode I will mainly be addressing Dan, and his apparent need to control the narrative and be a bully.
I really do hope all members of the polygraph community listen, and get my take on this whole thing, in a deeper and more personal level than the written word. I'll also leave the episode on line so it can be podcast later.
The American Polygraph Association has published and distributed its special election issue of the APA magazine, which contains the election schedule and the candidates' statements.
Already I have received several notes of support, for which I am glad, grateful and encouraged.
The (electronic) elections take place June 18-24.
Since the 1960s, the American Polygraph Association pledged adherence to this most lofty goal...
"Serving the cause of truth with integrity, objectivity and fairness to all persons"
But no more.
A year or two ago, the new, improved(!) APA erased that noble objective from its mission statement.
One can't help but wonder why.
My primary polygraph mentor, Cleve Backster -- a founding father of the American Polygraph Association -- would be appalled.
To my fellow members of the American Polygraph Association...
As you know by now, the core of my candidacy for the office of APA president elect is telling the truth about the "test."
The truth about the "test" includes a bill of rights for polygraph test takers, as well as an ongoing countermeasure challenge series, where, I suspect most of the rank-and-file members of the APA -- otherwise known as certified forensic psycho-physiologists -- would be duped by CM ringers.
You know I'm right.
To that end, I implore each and every on of you to devote a mere 42 minutes of your time to hear the naked facts about the polygraph process.
Please, try to forget forget -- at least for a little while -- the pile of indu$try-provided horseshit about sketchy "evidenced based" polygraph techniques, wet-dream best practices, and cockamamie "model policies", all ginned up by like-minded polygraph advocate$.
Take off the blinders. Open your eyes and your ears. Listen and learn:
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/618/mr-lie-detector
You know it's the truth. Stop pretending.
APA electronic elections are June 18-24.
Be on the right side of history.
Vote for enlightenment.
Mr. Mangan,
What I am about to say is not an indictment on your vision or goals, but merely a realistic viewpoint on why you take the stance that you do.
You are smart enough to understand that polygraph is dying a slow, painful death. So, in order to preserve your industry, so that you may continue to be employed, you choose to acknowledge this publicly in the hopes that others will understand the need to reform your industry in order to stay employed.
It is a sleight-of-hand, in the sense that you push for reform to somehow 'legitimize' polygraph, when that is not possible. It is ridiculous to hold to the unrealistic 98 percent or whatever accuracy rates, and you know this because you know the truth. However, it is simultaneously difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the polygraph as viable while maintaining that it is extremely suspect. Error rates exceeding 40 percent, even under the best of circumstances, renders polygraph wholly unreliable. Nothing can render polygraph results as valid. Even admissions 'in the presence of a polygraph' are suspect, at best. There is nothing scientific that states that polygraph are legitimate... so by exposing it's flaws publicly, you wish to give the industry an out by effectively saying that 'we can legitimize the polygraph in the pubic''s eyes by making it seem that with oversight and new rules, that it CAN be legitimized.
I feel that my statements are correct because you simultaneously denounce the polygraph and still conduct polygraphs.
Anybody else see what I am seeing here?
QuoteI feel that my statements are correct because you simultaneously denounce the polygraph and still conduct polygraphs.
Actually, TheRealist19, I do very little polygraph "testing" these days. The vast majority of my polygraph work is case reviews, primarily for alleged victims of false-positive results.
Generally speaking, I discourage polygraphs and run exams only on a very select basis.
You see, TheRealist19, some individuals are forced -- one way or another -- into taking the "test." Thus, it is for those unfortunate and at-risk individuals that I seek to provide some form of practical relief.
Let me be clear: In my professional opinion, attempting to scientifically legitimize polygraph is a fool's errand.
My approach, then, is to legitimize the polygraph
process -- in a manner of speaking -- by fully educating my clients about the risks, realities and limitations of the "test."
It appears paradoxical, I know. I do not expect you to understand.
I totally get it. You have skin in the game because you need to find a way to justify your life's work and salvage a career that is going down the tubes because the public is becoming wise to the fact that polygraph is fraudulent.
The process is fraudulent. You cannot legitimize a process that ends with a procedure or examination that is based on lies. The result is the same regardless of how you get there, Dan... and the result is simply not accurate at all, and harmful.
It's like Hitler trying to legitimize his procedures for gassing jews. I guess as long as he told them up front that they were simply going to die instead of lying to them and saying they were 'taking showers', then the end result was ok. You have similar reasoning. It's OK to be subjected to fraudulence that can ruin your life, as long as I tell you about it ahead of time. That still doesn't account for those who are forced to take polygraph more or less against their true wishes (PCSOT comes to mind). Your bill of rights would seemingly give people a choice, when some don't have it. 'Oh, sex offenders need to be held accountable'... for what? 95 percent or more of new offenses are committed by first-time offenders, you know that. False positives, which occur at alarming rates, prevent honest men and women from progressing through their treatment, seeing their kids, furthering careers, so forth and so on. Your 'fix' is just as bad as the disease. If you truly loathed the polygraph, you'd denounce it, quit doing them, quit reviewing the 'alleged' (your word, not mine) false positive results, resign from the APA entirely, and join Douglas Williams on his crusade.
You are not the answer. You are a symptom of the disease.
QuoteYour 'fix' is just as bad as the disease. If you truly loathed the polygraph, you'd denounce it, quit doing them, quit reviewing the 'alleged' (your word, not mine) false positive results, resign from the APA entirely, and join Douglas Williams on his crusade.
TheRealist19 -- or should I say Honest Joe McCarthy (aka "Amy Baker"),
I disagree with your all-or-nothing approach. As a change-agent, I am much more effective working from within the APA and the polygraph indu$try.
Your gas chamber analogy is laughable. I'm actually neutralizing the poison gas.
My multi-faceted role as polygraph consultant, educator and examiner allows me to convincingly make the argument that polygraph is not science, but pseudoscience.
In other words, I'm venting your symbolic gas chamber and pumping in life-giving oxygen.
My system works. At the end of my comprehensive multi-media consultations, polygraph consumers (both primary and secondary) fully understand why "test" outcomes are much like coin flips.
In the words of SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas,
"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."But, for me personally, here's the best part: Being a polygraph consultant and educator, along with doing QA "test" reviews, is far less tedious than running exams and infinitely more satisfying -- plus, the money is better -- a lot better.
With hundreds of thousands of polygraph "tests" being run in the US annually, there are hundreds of thousands of victims. Clearly, the demand for independent polygraph consultants is there.
As president-elect of the APA, I will more effectively blaze a trail of enlightenment -- and career opportunity -- for those critical-thinking examiners who are not afraid of breaking away from the bondage of the APA's cult-like traditions.
I am not Joe McCarthy. Or Amy baker. Or whomever. I am a former victim of polygraph who figured out the truth and is much, much better for it.
The problem is, by advocating for change, you are still, in effect, advocating the polygraph's use. That is the problem here.The change that needs to happen is simple: abandon all polygraph usage completely, because it does nothing but put our nation at risk and ruins lives.If you aren't advocating for halting polygraphs, and aren't setting an example by having nothing to do with polygraphs, resigning your membership, so forth and so on, then you are still one of THEM, and are the enemy of truth. Any amount of oversight doesn't change the fact that the polygraph is flawed from beginning to end. Drinking snake pee doesn't cure cancer, so changing procedures and providing oversight for a 'snake pee drinking cancer cure program' doesn't make drinking snake pee to cure cancer any more legit or valid, and has just as much scientific data backing it up as the polygraph does (none).
Changing things from the inside seems delusional. Join Douglas Williams in the real fight, don't half-ass it. You are either committed to ending the abuse or not. Oversight does nothing. It doesn't prevent the abuse, because any polygraph given to anyone for any reason is abusive.
To those of us that want polygraphs to be abandoned entirely, you are the lesser of three evils... which still makes you evil, when it comes down to it. Do the right thing, not the 'most profitable for dan' thing. Polygraphs just need to stop, no ifs, ands or buts.
If you're not Honest Joe, you're an APA apologist who wants me out of the organization.
Polygraph is here to stay. The key to reduced victmization is education.
I call BS on your claim. Detail to us how you were victimized.
By the way, how can exposing the fraud of "polygraph science" be evil?
Explain it to me.
[cue crickets]
I was victimized by the polygraph like many others - forced to take them post-conviction, and had them create instability and loss in my life and the lives of loved ones due to false positives. When I learned the truth, I was set free, so to speak.
Over the years, I have watched this community battle back and forth with itself, and haven't spoken up too much. I have posted occasionally under a few names, but not in some time.
Showing someone that something is fraudulent, while openly and actively engaging in said fraudulent activity, is the definition of hypocrisy.
Your 'polygraph is here to stay' declaration is wishful thinking, and indicative of your wishes and true motives - to find a way to keep polygraph alive so you can pay your bills.
The objective is not 'reduced victimization'. If it was, then you are literally saying that some victimization is ok. It isnt, dan. The goal is NO victimization. That doesn't happen until polygraphs are simply no more. Anyone subjected to fraud, whether they know about the fraud (YOUR plan) or not, is still being defrauded. It is literally as black and white as that. Knowing about the fraud doesn't take away it's effects. Even if it were to reduce the effects, the fact is, the fraud still exists, and so do negative effects of that fraud. You cannot argue your way out of that.
The goal is no polygraphs. Nothing short of that is even reasonable.
QuoteI was victimized by the polygraph like many others - forced to take them post-conviction...
Post conviction for what?
Are you a skinner?
If not, what?
[cue violins]
Not relevant what I did or didn't do, to who or whom or what, when (if ever), in what jurisdiction(s), etc...
Your inquiry, with no response to my truthful statements, sums up the accuracy of my statements. And nothing reduces the victimization factor of polygraphs, whether I was an 18 year old that had sex with a 17 year old classmate, a zoo keeper convicted of embezzling funds, a notorious drug lord, a drunk driver, or an 80 year old penetrating multiple infants for years.
Polygraphs are all the same for everyone - fraudulent, regardless of why they are taken, by whom, and under any circumstance.
QuoteNot relevant what I did or didn't do, to who or whom or what, when (if ever), in what jurisdiction(s), etc...
It most certainly is.
Plea deal or trial?
Explain your fall.
You are obviously ignoring the real discussion... the fraudulent polygraphs you so admire.
You perpetrate fraud for a living.
This is a site about that fraud.
Your attempts to bait me into discussions about anything other than the subject at hand are telling.
I repeat once more: the polygraph is fraudulent. The whole process is a fraud. It needs to be stopped.
QuoteYou perpetrate fraud for a living.
How is telling the truth about the "test" perpetrating fraud?
How is advocating for a polygraph test-taker bill of rights perpetrating fraud?
How is helping to remedy polygraph injustices one case at a time through QA reviews perpetrating fraud?
From your posts, it sounds like you are a convicted sexual offender who feels he was victimized by the polygraph component of the treatment/parole part of your sentence.
It is quite possible that you suffered some level of abuse via the polygraph "test" process, so your frustration is understandable. But polygraph is not going away anytime soon -- certainly not until a replacement is ready to take its place.
No one is going to suddenly "pull the plug" on polygraph. It took the liebox decades to get where it is today -- that is, woven into the fabric of the GOVT/LE/SOTx/CJ -- tapestries. Similarly, it will take many years for polygraph to fully fade away.
Meanwhile, I am trying to bring about meaningful change from within the polygraph indu$try itself, chiefly through the APA. I am also working with alleged polygraph victims to help remedy their injustices one case at a time.
While that not be good enough for you, it's good enough for me -- and it's a Godsend to the people I help.
As I tell my fellow polygraph operators who revile me for the seemingly anti-polygraph stance I have taken,
You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine.
Hey Dan, why so silent? You did fairly well in the election.
Ark, frankly speaking, I'm mystified by the purported 40% decline in voter turnout for 2017 as compared to each of the previous three years.
That's lame. Perhaps voting should be a requirement, at least for full members.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Jul 03, 2017, 10:46 AMHey Dan, why so silent? You did fairly well in the election.
Yea, he got 13% of the vote, for him that's fairly well! Now he knows what REAL examiners think of him and his idiotic ideas.
Quote from: quickfix on Jul 03, 2017, 03:21 PMYea, he got 13% of the vote, for him that's fairly well! Now he knows what REAL examiners think of him and his idiotic ideas.
The "real" examiners quickfix speaks of clearly fear a bill of rights for polygraph test takers, as well as an ongoing countermeasure challenge series. Indeed, their rejection of those "idiotic" ideas is most telling.
Admittedly, getting 13% of the vote was disappointing. In 2014, I received 15% of the vote for president elect. That number jumped to 28% in 2015, and fell by a few points to 25% last year.
I can't help but wonder how this year's outcome would have differed if the 40% of the usually active electorate who did not vote had participated in the process. (Of the 2,700 APA members, less than 300 voted in this year's elections. Typically, about 500 members usually cast ballots.)
Still, the 13% of the electorate that do support me reinforce the schism that exists within the APA. There is a progressive wing within the organization, and that's encouraging.
I remain hopeful that the fight for ethics, honesty and accountability will gain favor among the APA electorate, and participation in the election process will trend upwards in significant numbers.
Meanwhile, I am content to educate polygraph consumers -- both primary and secondary (e.g., SOTx providers, police chiefs, etc.) -- about the risks, realities and limitations of such pseudo-science, and provide a remedial path for victims of polygraph "testing."
Dan, if I may suggest so, the tone that you established in that last post may give you more traction for the next election.
"Ark, frankly speaking, I'm mystified by the purported 40% decline in voter turnout for 2017 as compared to each of the previous three years."
INTERESTING OBSERVATION DAN, AS A MEMBER OF APA MYSELF, I NEVER RECEIVED A BALLOT FOR THE ELECTION BUT DID RECEIVE SUBSEQUENT RUNOFF BALLOTS AND YOUR SOLICITATION DAVE.
J.J., thank you for your post.
You are not the first APA member to tell me they did not receive a ballot this year.
With a 40% drop in reported voter participation, something indeed seems amiss with this year's APA election.
When I ran for president-elect in 2015, I sent out about 350 emails to fellow APA members asking for their support. I received 154 votes.
This year -- campaigning with the same platform as in 2015 -- I sent out roughly 1,000 such emails, but purportedly received only 43 votes.
Since the APA does not release master-list email contact info of APA members to fellow APA members(!), there is no way to verify if ballots were actually received by all those APA members who registered their email addresses with the APA national office.
Further, without any independent third-party oversight, there is no way of knowing if all votes cast in this year's APA elections were in fact received and duly tabulated.
Quote from: danmangan on Jun 15, 2017, 09:26 AMTheRealist19 -- or should I say Honest Joe McCarthy (aka "Amy Baker"),
sorry dan, not me... Fact is, I haven't been here since our blow out.
if it was me, I'd say it....
Moreover, I wouldn't have said most of the stuff he said; not even on fake SN.
Lastly, If I was going to pick a fight with you, or anyone for that matter, I would simply log in and start poking.
But thanks for thinking it was me, that guy has way better Grammar.
I'll say it again, and I will not back off this position.
The problem is not the test, it is the corruption within the industry and the people who are unwilling to stand up and demand better.
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Sep 18, 2017, 04:12 PMI'll say it again, and I will not back off this position.
The problem is not the test...
Joe, expressed as a percentage, what is the specificity of a 4-RQ PCSOT maintenance polygraph "test"?
Dan, Jesus Christ could look into your eye and tell you are not 100% right, and you would deny him. So what is the point of arguing with you?
I am done with your one way question and answer sessions.
You fight your fight to destroy the polygraph industry.
I will fight mine to fix the corruption and problems.
You continue to fight behind a keyboard.
I will continue to fight mine by actually wanting to look my detractors in the eye. I'll keep fighting for the opportunity to be heard and ask questions that the examiners in Texas are afraid to answer, even in a room full of TAPE's own members; confronted with undeniable evidence of their lies, corruption, and unethical acts.
I'll continue to go to any polygraph meeting I can, and answer any question asked of me. Unlike you, I back up everything I say, in person, with documentation, and good intentions.
If only you can say the same.
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Sep 19, 2017, 01:43 AMI am done with your one way question and answer sessions.
In other words, Joe, you are afraid to respond to my question truthfully.
Your dodge is a typical (necessary?) tactic of the pro-polygraph lobby.
Ironically, the self-proclaimed dedicated-to-truth polygraph crowd is loathe to admit the truth about the "test".
In what might be seen as a desperate attempt to add an air of legitimacy to the "test," the polygraph apologists have resorted to trotting out the tortured machinations of Bayes' Theorem to help them hedge their hopelessly optimistic accuracy claims.
But despite the polygraph indu$try leaders' newest efforts to polish the polygraph turd, the "test" remains a SWAG -- a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess.
Dan, you make the implication that I am pro establishment it seems, if this is the case, even the people here will tell you, you're barking up the wrong tree. In fact, it seems that is all you can do; run to the end of your chain and bark. This is one of my suspicions why the APA, or anyone in the establishment, has no fear of anything you have to say.
Seriously Dan, no one has any fear of you. You are having zero impact, you aren't even warm.
Anyway, you have to know, some questions for me, are complicated. I say this, because lets face it, unlike you, anything I have to say, is not only watched, but taken very seriously, and open to internal disciplinary action. Which as you know, are often nightmare scenarios of long processes where I am left to fight the fight alone. Funny how people say they have my back, but when I need them, actually at my back, they are no where to be found.
Actually, I take that back. There has been one or two instances, behind closed doors where people have taken up for me. Having said that, I'd say, 90% of the time, I am on my own, and no matter how right I am, it doesn't matter because the card are stacked against me.
Now, having said that, examiners and associations outside the state of Texas, have told me, that while they may agree that I am being treated unfairly, they want nothing to do with what is going on in Texas. So as long as I keep this a Texas issue, I can do what I was so long as I don't cross the line into slander, libel, or badmouthing outside the Texas issue.
I have my opinions on accuracy and reliability, and while I may not share your opinions as a whole, there are a few that have merit. I have never said anything different.
To nutshell it.
I think some of your arguments are subjects of credible reflection and review. Its the messenger who lacks credibility, because you lack the balls to do that is necessary to go as far as is needed to even ask to be taken seriously, much less be taken seriously at all.
You can make the argument that I am wrong all you want. You can make the argument that one day you'll be APA president and you will rule from a, "bully pulpit." Dan, I got a newsflash for ya, it's simply not going to happen. You will never be elected into any office in the APA, because of your message. I keep telling you that, and you keep not listening.
You're the George McGovern of the APA, you keep running hopeless campaigns that you know you will never win. Having said that, at least McGovern went out there and put his neck out and got involved. He took credible stands, at times, at great risk to his career. He went out there and met people, pressed the flesh, looked people in the eye. He took his stands, and wasn't afraid to look into peoples eyes and justify them. He didn't lack the courage of his convictions.
This is one of the reasons why you're not taken seriously, you lack the courage of your convictions. You avoid putting your neck out at all costs. You stay here, in your comfort zone, where you think you sit on high and can't be touched, because you're allowed to ignore any question put to you and no one calls you to the plate.
Hmmmmmmmm sound like what the polygraph establishment in Texas does, huh?
Why should I answer one of your questions, when you avoid giving any real, coherent, and honest, answers yourself?
You give only Hillary Clinton, double talk answers, and then fire out questions demanding detailed answers, and engaging in name calling and schoolyard bullying to deflect your vague answer. All this while shifting the burden onto other people to your demands. You rely on this to, "win the day."
Here is your playbook.
They are not presented in any particular order.
1. SHOW UP WITH YOUR TALKING POINTS. Make sure you have something that you feel will show your opponents in a negative light, and make that the subject of the discussion.
2. DEMONIZE YOUR OPPONENT. Attempt to cover them with shame, the same way you would a 4 year old that touches his pee-pee.
3. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DOING #2 ABOVE, SUPPORT HIM IMMEDIATELY.
4. CLAIM THAT IT IS "OLD NEWS" AND NOT WORTHY OF DISCUSSION.
5. QUOTE SELECTIVLY. Always quote the selectively, or describe things in a general manner.
6. IF ASKED FOR MORE DETAILS, IGNORE THE QUESTION.
7. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF A MENTAL DEFECT OR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE. Personal attacks of this sort are especially useful as the target will almost always try to defend himself, thus changing the subject.
8. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS. Try to do this before he has an opportunity to. Try to infer that it you have given him multiple opportunities to do so. Do it even if the question has been answered. If he misses the question and asks you to repeat it DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR HIS BENEFIT).
9. RESORT TO INSULTS. Accuse your opponent of being a pig fornicator, then make him deny it.
10. ACCUSE YOUR OPPONENT OF BEING UNINFORMED. This works especially well when you are asked to provide your sources. It is especially effective if you work in a reference to someone you have already demonized.
11. SPEAK CRYPTICALLY. Try to make it difficult for people to divine your meaning
12. CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Try to get it back to your original talking points (see #1 above)
13. BAIT YOUR OPPONENT. Needle him, tease him, call him names until he makes an inappropriate post.
14. DENY THE EVIDENCE EXISTS. Ask for evidence of wrongdoing by those you support. When that evidence is presented, continue denying that it exists.
Now, to be fair, we all engage in some of these tactics, mostly unintentionally, but you have a pattern of doing this. I honestly believe, you do these things intentionally, and systematically. You do it knowing that people will just get sick of a pointless debate, walk away, and you can claim your tainted victory.
Sorry man, I want debates to actually go there, and I want to actually solve problems. I don't even think you really know what you want.
Interesting observation.....
You seem to be quite talented at walking the line and avoiding choosing clear sides on the issue. On one hand, you say it is pseudo science, while at the same time PRACTICING THE PSEUDO SCIENCE.
If this isn't hypocrisy in action, I don't know what is.
You say you hate the APA, or at east men it clear by your words, yet you give it money every year and try to run for office you know you will never win. Or is it that you are in denial?
WTF is that all about?
You are a walking contradiction.
On that note, I am done with you.
i know your playbook and I'm as done with playing by your one sided BS playbook as I am done with TAPE's playbook and the other flying monkeys.
So you go and fight your cause, whatever that might be.
I will continue to bring the fight to the Texas examiners, until I am heard fairly and given the chance to compete in an open market place, where everyone benefits, and at least some of the corruption is phased out
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Sep 19, 2017, 05:15 PMOn one hand, you say it is pseudo science, while at the same time PRACTICING THE PSEUDO SCIENCE.
If this isn't hypocrisy in action, I don't know what is.
Joe, I am able to say that after much perseverance, my polygraph business model has evolved to the point where most of my time is spent in polygraph
consulting, not in polygraph "testing."
In those cases where a "test" is administered, I always make it clear to consumers well in advance that polygraph is pseudoscience that has been roundly condemned by the legal, medical and scientific communities since the 1920s. Yes Joe, my potential consumers are duly informed that the polygraph "test" is essentially without scientific merit. Still, some insist on moving forward.
Please explain how my providing a requested service to an informed and consenting customer is hypocritical.
Meanwhile, I am content to be the Harold Stassen of APA politics. (George McGovern came and went. Stassen was a perennial candidate.) I'm just a lowly polygraph operator speaking truth to power -- and the APA membership. My campaigns for APA president-elect put me on record as being the only vocal realist in an organization that claims to be dedicated to truth.
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Sep 19, 2017, 05:59 PMOn that note, I am done with you.
i know your playbook and I'm as done with playing by your one sided BS playbook...
Readers, see Joe run.
Run, Joe, run!
LMAO
RUN?
Ok Dan, you lost ALL credibility there.
They been trying to make me leave Texas for years and have thrown everything they could at me. I'M STILL HERE.
Don't mistake dismissal for fear.
Joe, you run from facts, logic, reason, and rational arguments.
Polygraph "testing" is a farce. Have you not read the NAS report?
But I get it: You're part of the PCSOT indu$trial complex. CHA-CHING!
YOU ARE FUCKING KIDDING RIGHT?
CHA HING?
Can you tell me where that bank account is? I would love to know.
Dan, you talk a good game, but that is all you have, talk.
Only person with a history of running from questions, a documented history, is you. That is the truth. You have run from Pat, you have run from Raymond, you have run from every examiner who has ever confronted you, and you have run from me.
Sorry Dan, but there are two types of people, talkers and doers, people like you, are just talkers. All you got is talk.
You say I'm part of the "PCSOT indu$trial complex", when fact is, and you know this, I have done more in one year to fight the corruption in this "complex" in one year, that you ever have, and ever will.
I have paid the bill, excessively disproportionate to my perceived crimes against the polygraph establishment for telling the truth and exposing the corruption in Texas alone.
You have done nothing, taken no action, other than hide behind a keyboard, talk and run failed campaigns, where you didn't even do the hard work necessary to win.
Sorry Dan, but to win, you must first, pay the bill.
And you are overdue
Joe, I know you hate it when I confuse you with the facts, but please pay attention.
*Polygraph "testing" is scientifically illegitimate (save, perhaps, for the rare CIT); there is no universal "lie response"
*The finite accuracy of polygraph "testing" is unknown and in fact unknowable
*A polygraph "test" can be beaten (or fatally confounded) by following simple instructions freely available on the internet
Yet, on its web site, the APA boasts the following claim: ...APA examiners are able to attain accuracy rates exceeding 90 percent.
People need to be protected from such wildly optimistic claims. That's why I have for years been advocating for both a bill of rights for polygraph test-takers, and a countermeasure challenge series to reveal the risks, realities and limitations of polygraph "testing."
Joe, I ask you again: What is the specificity of a 4-RQ PCSOT maintenance polygraph "test"? Please cite the research that supports your claim.
Quote from: danmangan on Sep 20, 2017, 08:52 AMJoe, I ask you again: What is the specificity of a 4-RQ PCSOT maintenance polygraph "test"? Please cite the research that supports your claim.
C'mon, Joe, the world is waiting for your reply.
Is your answer, as the APA obliquely suggests, over 90 percent?
Is it over 80 percent?
Is it over 70 percent?
Is it over 60 percent?
Is it over 50 percent?
Tell, us Joe...just how accurate is a 4-RQ PCSOT maintenance "test"? And, as a subset of your overall accuracy, what is the
specificity of the aforementioned polygraph "test"?
[cue crickets]
Meanwhile, the PCSOT gravy train rolls on...accuracy be damned.