Polygraph administrator had me lie.

[Ex Member]

Aren't the analog polygraph less accurate than the computer ones.

No. Computerization has allowed an enhanced level of convenience but it has not affected the accuracy, nor alleviated the controversy surrounding the CQT.

By the way, you may want to consider the long term effects of legal action. If this is the first time, you may just be the one to set the precedent of disallowing polygraphs in fishing tournaments. Your last name may go down as the name referring to the court decision, forever engraved in the world of fishing.

[Fisherman67]

If my name goes down on something, I would hope that it would reference timing and the ability to protest the original test (I've found out other tournaments have this)

This fishing tournament ended on Sunday morning, and the results were final. The tournament director waited a week, then called me the following Sunday to give me the name of the person to set up the test with. I called that nigth, and we set up the test for Tuesday afternoon.  We then waited until THursday morning to tell me that i failed, and he had to start the engraving of the plaques. I think that is why he didn't allow the second test, because then the plaques wouldn't be done in time.

[Fisherman67]

I was able to determine that the question I had an issue with, was "locked" by the tournament director, which is why he the examiner didn't change it.

[Ex Member]

I was able to determine that the question I had an issue with, was "locked" by the tournament director

Fisherman, polygraph examiners are not supposed to allow anyone to hijack the polygraph exam. The questions should only be formulated by the examiner during the pre-test interview. This is your legitimate beef; forget the analog vs digital polygraph instrument concern, that's irrelevant.

[Fisherman67]

Thanks.  It looks like this will go to small claims court, as not many lawyers what to take a case with so little money involved. 

My focus will be on the question asked during the polygraph. and how I was able to truthly answer when the quesion was rephrased the second time.

[Fisherman67]

It's my understanding that the rule question was "locked".  Should the polygraph examiner tell me that?

Also, when the polygraph administrators are instructed how to issue questions, is there any information given to them about the impact of having the person taking the test, change their answer?
For example, is there an instruction manual discussing how to format questions?

I have filed this in court, and am trying to get all the information I can, showing that this question should have been re-phrased, so I was in total agreement with it.

[Ex Member]

Fisherman,
The polygraph examiner does not really have to tell you anything. The agency or person paying for the exam, will tell the examiner what they want to know. For example: "Did this person follow the rules or not?" It is then up to the examiner to formulate questions to determine such. These questions should be "tailored" to the individual during the pre-test interview, including rephrasing the questions to accommodate any admissions given. The examiner should then render an opinion on whether or not the examinee followed the rules. There are no "cookie cutter" solutions to polygraph question formulation.

*Dan, sounds like a job for a polygraph consultant?

[Fisherman67]

Thanks for all the help.  I have one last question (hopefully).

There was four relevant questions about the fishing tournament - should the examiner be able to tell which one I failed?  I was able to obtain a copy of the report, and it doesn't state which question I failed.

[Ex Member]

Some examiners take it upon themselves to call individual questions as being truthful or deceptive. The polygraph technique does not allow for this and those examiners who engage in this practice are taking a huge risk. The call of deception or truthfulness is to be for the exam in its entirety.

[Fisherman67]

Thanks Ark... thanks makes more sense.

At first the examiner said I showed a reaction to the rules question, then later said it's graded on the whole test.

I guess now I see more of why polygraphs are not reliable.  As someone with no experience in polygraphs, I always assumed it was like the movies, the needle spiked up when the person lied. 

[Ex Member]

I guess now I see more of why polygraphs are not reliable.  As someone with no experience in polygraphs, I always assumed it was like the movies, the needle spiked up when the person lied.

To be clear, I'm not entrenched on either side. I enjoy the conversation which interweaves science and ethics. One can take the stand that the polygraph is extremely unreliable, however, my opinion is that the true reliability (and validity) of the CQT is unknown. It lacks a psychological theory (construct validity), yet practitioners point to their own cases to prove their point. Laboratory experiments have ground truth, but lack ecological validity; it's just the opposite for field studies. Does the CQT have validity? I do not know dear Fisherman.

Please keep me advised on your interesting case.

[Dan Mangan]

Fisherman, I will be happy to conduct a thorough quality assurance review of your polygraph "test" at absolutely no charge.

In order to do that, I will need the complete polygraph "test" file, which I suspect will be unavailable for one reason or another.

Why?

Well, Fisherman, in some cases -- maybe yours -- polygraph "testing" is simply a racket.

Your situation may prove otherwise. Let's hope so.

That said, polygraph "testing" for fishing tournaments is a farce, in my opinion.

Still, your case could be the exception to the rule.

As for the validity of the CQT, the apologists at the American Polygraph Association are your "go to" guys for evidence. I suggest you visit www.polygraph.org, drill down to the board of directors, then reach out to past president Barry Cushman, current chairman Raymond Nelson, and current president Walt Goodson for guidance.

All three of those individuals are considered to be heavyweights within the polygraph industry.

Please tell them I sent you.

Again, I'll be happy to review your "test" at no charge.

Feel free to email me at polygraphexam@gmail.com or call me 9:00AM to 9:00PM EST at 603-801-5179.

Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Certifed Polygraph Examiner
Full Member, American Polygraph Association

[Fisherman67]

Dan,
thanks for the help and contacts. I'm going to send you a email.

I reviewed the results again. Of interest, is that he said he formulated the questions, based on our interview, but he told a person I talked with from the Ohio Polygraph Association that the questions was locked.  He mentioned that I had an issue with the "rule' question, but later in the report and not with the rest of the interview questions.  Of bad news for me, I signed a wavier, that pretty much states that can't be help liable for anything as a result of the lie detector.

I've asked for the raw results, but haven't gotten an answer yet.  I may have to subpoena them.  Of course, I need to figure out how to do that.

[Dan Mangan]

Fisherman, you said:

"Of bad news for me, I signed a wavier, that pretty much states that can't be held liable for anything as a result of the lie detector."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you meant to say that the waiver you signed states that you cannot find the contest promoters, or the polygraph examiner, liable for anything.

If that's the case, then it's "game over."

Most every examiner has a so-called consent-and-release form, which serves as a convenient loophole.

In large part, that's how the polygraph racket survives.

[Fisherman67]

Yes.  I guess it's a great catch 22 - I am forced to sign the release or I can't take the polygraph and then am disqualified from the tournament (which makes sense why the polygraph was delayed to not allow time for rebute).  Or I take the polygraph and am disqualified.  Either way I lose.

It's a shame that there are all these releases and legal statements to protect that people that are at fault. 

I'm not sure if the small claims court will hear the facts, or focus only on the release.