Kansas- SO has treatment and required to take a polygraph, I'm concerned

[Joe McCarthy]

My beef is not with the APA, the NPA, the AAPP or any other organization outside TAPE or the State of Texas, and I would like to keep it that way.  Now I would love to know what they think that their own examiners in Texas are too afraid of their own test that they claim is up to 89% (from what I see on the APA website). 

Having said that, I think the APA, NPA, AAPP et al. are sitting this one out because it is not their fight.  If this is the case, I think it's a smart decision on their part.  It's never good to get in the middle of two dogs fighting.

If they want to get involved, it is in my hopes it will be to mediate this to an end.  Having said that, it takes two sides to cooperate with a mediation; TAPE has shown they have no interest in keeping their word or making things right; as a deal was made in the past and then they took that deal and my handshake and slapped me in the face like the bottom feeders they are.

My point is, in the state that utilizes polygraph more than in any other state (in my opinion), polygraph examiners are afraid of the very product they try to convince people to use.  Well, except one examiner; me. 

Why would anyone use a polygraph examiner who is scared of his own machine I wonder?  Would you use Chemo therapy from a doctor that wouldn't use it to save his own life if he had the same cancer?

Another example, if you question the cleanliness of a bar, and that bartender says everything is clean from counter to tap; you take a clean glass (or what you believe to be a clean glass), pour a pint, and give it to the bar owner to drink and he won't drink it; would you stay in that bar?

[Joe McCarthy]

It should be noted, I gave all involved a chance to address this behind closed doors before coming here and, "airing dirty laundry."

The examiners involved and their friends outside the state of Texas have chosen to marginalize those efforts and ignore how this could be a problem with the integrity of the Texas polygraph industry. 

This was their choice, it was their option.  I have acted on the level and on the square.  I have given due notice so they could avoid this on many occasions. 

My hands are clean, and I have honored my obligations.  I have now decided that the people involved are not worthy of brotherly relief in any way shape, fashion, or form. 

I believe in polygraph and believe in what I do for a living.  It's time I stepped up to the plate and cleaned the filth out of the texas polygraph industry.

these people feel the polygraph consumer in Texas should be treated like mushrooms; feed them shit and keep them in the dark.  Those days are done

Everything I state as fact I can prove and am happy to provide any documentation asked for until these people step up and do the right thing.

They know my number and can come to the table to discuss doing whats right anytime they want. Until then the truth is coming out.  ALL OF THE TRUTH

[Ex Member]

his fear of consequences renders this type of lie detection fatally and forever flawed.

Doc,
The opposing side seems to have gone silent in recent weeks. So, in order to add balance to the discussion, allow me to play devil's advocate.

What comes to mind as I read this thread is Matte's "Control Question Verification Test" where he suggests to gauge the efficacy of the Control Questions by utilizing them in a "fictitious" crime scenario.

Could not this method be applied in a similar (yet crafty) way to see if the examinee consistently responds to a series of relevant questions in which only the examiner knows are from a bogus scenario?--possibly suggesting that the person may not be suitable for testing?

[Drew Richardson]

Ark,

A few thoughts about your relevant question validation suggestion... 

Relevant questions are not evaluated in isolation.  It is the relative response of relevant vs. paired controlled question which is evaluated, so in the case of the bank robbery that I mentioned, one would have to devise fictional bank robberies or use other real ones to develop relevant questions to pair with the proposed control questions to be used in the actual exam.

Even if this is done carefully, these artificially derived relevant questions don't really compare to the actual ones.  The actual ones are preceded by a bank robbery known to the examinee (undoubtedly publicized in local media), ones for which he has been thoroughly interrogated by a trained investigator before a polygraph exam has been scheduled, and a matter in which he has had some substantial time to discuss with family members, ponder himself, and thoroughly become familiar with and concerned about the consequences of failing the exam (being deemed to be deceptive to relevant questions). 

Generally (unless innately offensive) the mere mention of a potential relevant question is not that which evokes the response, but the context of that relevant question in terms of consequences well practiced in the mind of the examinee.

But you are right about unsuitability--because of the various problems I have alluded to (I haven't even addressed the bias passed from investigator to examiner, the lack of a theoretical basis for lie detection, etc), this form of "testing" is not suitable for any examinee.