| AntiPolygraph.org Message Board | |
|
Polygraph and CVSA Forums >> Polygraph Policy >> Tried Countermeasurs and Screwed Yourself? Sue Maschke and Scalabrini
https://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?num=1242054427 Message started by LieBabyCryBaby on May 11th, 2009 at 3:07pm |
|
|
Title: Tried Countermeasurs and Screwed Yourself? Sue Maschke and Scalabrini Post by LieBabyCryBaby on May 11th, 2009 at 3:07pm
As an experienced polygraph examiner, I've seen firsthand what often happens when an examinee takes the poor advice in George Maschke's and Gino Scalabrini's little book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector. If your career dreams have been ruined because you took George's and Gino's faulty advice, perhaps you should consider suing the authors. Maschke and Scalabrini have no actual experience, training or qualifications to offer advice on how to pass a polygraph exam, and their little book contains no warning or indemnity statement for unsuspecting readers. Here's what the National Academy of Science said regarding The Lie Behind the Lie Detector 's advice regarding countermeasures:
Authors such as Maschke and Williams suggest that effective countermeasure strategies can be easily learned and that a small amount of practice is enough to give examinees an excellent chance of “beating” the polygraph. Because the effective application of mental or physical countermeasures on the part of examinees would require skill in distinguishing between relevant and comparison questions, skill in regulating physiological response, and skill in concealing countermeasures from trained examiners, claims that it is easy to train examinees to “beat” both the polygraph and trained examiners require scientific supporting evidence to be credible. However, we are not aware of any such research. There is also evidence that innocent examinees using some countermeasures in an effort to increase the probability that they will “pass” the exam produce physiological reactions that have the opposite effect, either because their countermeasures are detected or because their responses appear more rather than less deceptive. The available evidence does not allow us to determine whether innocent examinees can increase their chances of achieving nondeceptive outcomes by using countermeasures. The only experience Maschke has with the polygraph is that he failed EVERY relevant question on an FBI screening exam, which is, in my experience, unheard of. Would any right-minded person put their trust in someone with no polygraph experience or training other than having failed the polygraph? If you think so, you're a fool. If you've failed a polygraph due to your attempts to implement the faulty advice found in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and on this website, you have legal recourse. Take it. |
|
AntiPolygraph.org Message Board » Powered by YaBB 2.6.12! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |