Texas sex offender & mandatory polygraph

[Joe McCarthy]

And yes Dan, I did get the reference. I have to admit, the PP stuff is still hard to get over, butI do have to just get over it and time to move in and focus on work over working a war where o one will win. 

I have proven through my actions though, their ideas and beliefs that I am a "falling down" kinda guy, is just silliness.

[Joe McCarthy]

wow I am never posting from my iPad again, autocorrect f'en sucks

[Ex Member]

I had once started perusing the PP archive, but soon felt like a voyeur, so I stopped. But, if you'd rather not open that can, I understand.

[Joe McCarthy]

Yea, reading the stuff on polygraph place was hard for me.  On one hand, I can see why they were angry with me; but on the other, it made me look down on the people involved and even the industry, because it is pretty clear that some people enjoyed poking at me to get an outlandish reaction.  It almost seems like they made it a game.  I am happy to say, that outlook changed a lot last week.

There was a lot of swallowing of pride on both sides of the fence.  I feel Jay Holden was especially magnanimous and deserves special credit and recognition for his willingness to make peace and let it all go.  After talking to him for a small period of time, I realized I robbed myself of getting to know a pretty good guy over the years; but that is on me.

While I am on the subject, let me tell you, the reception on PP did not match the reception I received at APA.  I was welcomed with handshakes and smiles; the exact opposite of what I expected.  It was those handshakes and smiles that made me feel eager to return the goodwill and good faith efforts.

I also hope to point out to TAPE what can be achieved with some simple humanity and some basic respect.  More got solved in one day, in a few minutes, with honest and fair conversation at APA than at TAPE in October of 2014; and it cost no one nothing of tangible value.  All it cost was a wee bit of pride on both ends; but this is simply an investment in the future which will only pay dividends to those involved. 

I have always said that I love being wrong more than I enjoy being right.  I am happy to say that I was wrong about the APA.  I was expecting and preparing for the same reception I got from TAPE in 2008.  Instead, I was welcomed with smiles, handshakes, and amazing hospitality. 

I couldn't begin to say what I expected from the Holden's.  What I got, was the exact opposite, just like with the APA.  I am happy to say my expectations were wrong there as well.  As such, all of this goodwill created a positive environment I haven't experienced since my first NPA meeting. 

Now A lot of promises were made by both sides of the fence last week, and time will tell if those promises will be kept.  I will do everything in my power to keep mine.  I will make some more good faith efforts to keep the momentum moving.  As such, I have deleted texaspolygraph.net as a show of good faith. 

I have done this before, only to be slapped in the face by TAPE and received no reciprocity in the past for acts like this, but this is not about TAPE.  Some of the information on that site directly affected Behavioral Measures and Jay Holden.  It seems wrong and counterproductive to keep that website up while positive steps are being made in the right direction.

Now I know there are some pot stirrers that don't want to see the past in the past.  Some of these people had no dog in the fight from jump street, but decided to insert themselves into a fight in which they had no place.  It also seems these people have stood in the way of past efforts to put this to bed and bury the hatchet.  These people know who they are, and I do know for a fact that they check AP on a regular basis.  My advice to them is simple; don't kick a sleeping dog. 

Efforts are being made to end this.  I am not the only person who feels that this is best for all involved and the industry.  I also feel that the end of this will being some positive changes within, which frankly maybe needed to prevent this kinda clusterfuck from ever happening again. 

My goodwill and good faith should not be seen as, or mistaken as a sign weakness. I am not a doormat and kicking the dog will ruin this for everyone. 

In the end, if you can't be a part of the solution, stand down and don't be a part of the problem. 

Now the hard work begins.  I am ready to do what I need and what I feel is right to make positive future steps for the industry.  I would hope you would do the same.  You know who you are.

[Joe McCarthy]

Oh and Ark, thanks for understanding

[xenonman]

egistered sex offender in Texas.  I am on 10 years of deferred adjudication probation for 2 counts of felony sexual assault of a minor.  My victim was just a month shy of 15, and I was 36.  I am a female. The sexual relationship lasted about 6 weeks, and altho he was a minor, it was consensual.

I am required to take an annual polygraph.

Were you an educator?

["Jim"]

I am a therapist in Arizona and it has become know to the offenders in my groups that the polygraph administrators are practicing in a "double dip" scam.

The test taker is failed on the first appointment and then told to "clear up" the poly with the same test administrator.  Thus, they have to pay twice and magically pass the 2nd test despite being asked the same questions.  AKA the "double dip"...

It seems that if you get different results for the same questions with no new admissions then the polygraph administrator should come under scrutiny.  If I bring that up to my supervisors or the county I would be out of a job.

[Bill_Brown]

Jim

please message me.  you may have to register to use this feature

[Ex Member]

The test taker is failed on the first appointment

Jim, are you saying results are being intentionally falsified? This would be a serious allegation.

[Dan Mangan]

"Jim",

I am a full member in good standing with the American Polygraph Association (APA) and an APA-certified PCSOT polygraph examiner.

From what I've observed -- and this is only my personal opinion after TEN (10) YEARS in polygraph (over five years of which were spent polygraphing sex offenders in a state prison) -- PCSOT "testing" is, on some levels, a racket that has been cleverly cloaked in the robe of righteousness.

Your clients might be on to something.

If you are serious about learning more, call me at 603-801-5179.

Generally speaking, I am available from 9:00AM to 9:00PM Eastern Time.

I look forward to hearing from you -- or from anyone else with an interest in the polygraph "test".

Daniel Mangan, M.A.
www.polygraphman.com

[Raymond Nelson]

Jim,

I would caution against Dan's aggressive cynicism for the mere sake of aggressive cynicism (but I do understand Dan's marketing angle on this). Also, the APA does not actually "certify" PCSOT examiners, but approves trainers to provide a certificate of training to people who complete a 40 hour course.

There are some interesting things to discuss here.

Firstly, all credibility assessment and lie detection test, including the polygraph test (and despite Dan Mangan's published claims of ~100% accuracy and immunity countermeasures) will always remain fundamentally probabilistic. This is because lies and deception are not a physical substance that can be subjected to physical measurement. Also, if there were some simple deterministic observation (theoretically perfect and immune to both human behavior and random chance) that could answer a question about truth and deception, then we would not need a test.

So the question is actually about the level of precision that can reasonably be expected of the polygraph - which can also be discussed in terms of the margin of uncertainty (and the rate of error) - and what this tells us about the potential that two different probability events can be expected to produce the same or different results.

So the real issue is this: how often is it occurring that someone fails and then passes? The laws of probability tell us that this can be expected on some occasions. Also, it is not clear in your post whether the test results are statistically significant or are inconclusive (not statistically significant) - for which some concrete thinkers will force into an artificial binary pass/fail interpretation.

Additionally, what are the probability cutscores at which deceptive and truthful classifications are made? These can affect how often it can occur that different results do not concur.

Next, there is perhaps some important discussion about quality control.

Even more importantly, there is some discussion needed about the degree to which the analysis and results that you are getting are made subjectively (i.e., merely looking at the data visually to reach a form of expert clinical conclusion ) vs. actual probabilistic computations based on structured algorithmic procedures for which the results are more likely to be replicable.

.02

rn

[Dan Mangan]

Ray, are you saying that you don't know for certain how accurate polygraph "testing" is?

[Raymond Nelson]

Dan,

Your questions about "certain" serve only to encourage misunderstanding and mythological expectations that cannot possibly connect to reality. All tests and all test results are probabilistic estimates.

If certainty were possible we would not need a test. Same with actual measurement. If measurement were possible we would use a measurement not a test.

Simply pretending ~100% accuracy, as you have done in your "scientific study," is not the correct solution. Neither is pretending we know nothing, simply because we are not 100% certain, a correct solution.

.02

rn

[Dan Mangan]

Ray, did the APA "pretend" when they claimed 98.6% accuracy for fifteen (15) years?

[Ex Member]

looking at the data visually to reach a form of expert clinical conclusion ) vs. actual probabilistic computations based on structured algorithmic procedures for which the results are more likely to be replicable.

Thought provoking idea Raymond. I know that probability is used also in attempting to determine the quality of digital communication systems, not to mention in quantum mechanics--the shape of the orbitals indicate the probability of the electron being in that area of the orbit at anytime. However, the average polygraph examiner may not have the aptitude or background to grasp discriminant analysis, Bayes Theorem or probability density functions. Future training may require additional prowess.