SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 8^th, 2007 at 3:31am:


1) A study commissioned by an antipolygraph advocacy network would be of questionable independence, just as are studies commissioned by those with a vested interest in polygraphy (such as DoDPI/DACA);

2) No new studies are needed. The scientific underpinnings of polygraphic lie detection are weak, and the National Academy of Sciences reports that the "inherent ambiguity of the physiological measures used in the polygraph suggest that further investments in improving polygraph technique and interpretation will bring only modest improvements in accuracy." In plain English: you can't polish a turd;

3) No money.

Regarding your contention that I've written a book that repeatedly tells the reader that it's okay to lie, could you please cite a sample passage?

Quote:


George, you've got to be kidding.

Wow Sancho, that was beautiful!

p.s. George, we all slip up once in a while

SanchoPanza,

Thank you for your criticism. Our suggestions regarding countermeasures begin with the assumption that the examinee has answered the relevant questions truthfully. At p. 126 of the 4th edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, we preface our discussion of polygraph countermeasures thus:

Quote:


The relevant questions being asked on the polygraph examination should have already been truthfully answered before the examinee sets foot in the polygraph suite. As I have often stated on these forums, I believe that applicants for positions of public trust have an ethical duty to answer relevant questions truthfully. This should be done up front, and this is a point that I think we'll be making more clearly in the next edition of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.

But once the relevant questions have been answered truthfully, I see no ethical duty on the part of examinees to allow the polygrapher to turn the polygraph suite into a confessional booth.

Nor do I see an ethical problem with persons who have truthfully answered the relevant questions concealing their knowledge of polygraphy and possible use of countermeasures from the polygrapher, because the polygraph procedure is itself a fraud, and the examinee who admits to knowing the truth about polygraphy faces likely retaliation. Drew Richardson aptly summarized some of the key deceptions perpetrated by polygraphers in an earlier post:

Quote:

Sergeant  you wrote "What you are left with is the small percentage of cases where the results of the polygraph test were supported by a credible confession or incontrovertible physical evidence.  That small percentage of cases can in no way be said to “bury” the number of cases where the results of a polygraph test were later proven to be incorrect by the same methods."

What in the world leads you to believe that the percentage of cases where the results of the polygraph test were supported by a credible confession or incontrovertable physical evidence is small? Good Grief most examiners probably have file cabinets full of them. 

How many of the childish "I failed my polygraph and I told the truth" rants on this website are supported by the credible confession of another party or incontroverable evidence of their innocence" This sites founder and co-author of TLBTLD does not even enjoy that distinction

Wait before you answer. For the sake of our discussion, I am more than willing to place any case that fullfills that criteria, whether or not they support polygraph, as data rather than anecdote if you are. 

George W. Maschke wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 5:17am:


Sir, with all due respect, I have already responded to the first part of your comment in a previous post. and I would prefer not to banter the same thing back and forth absent a new point of view, but since this is YOUR forum I wil respond: In your book the following text appears at or near the locations noted. 
But don’t tell your polygrapher that you’ve read this book or that you’ve done research on the Internet and visited such websites as
AntiPolygraph.org! Page 140 CONCEALING INFORMATION

Instead, provide a general answer to his question about what you know about polygraphy, such as: Page 140 SUGGESTING LIES TO TELL THE EXAMINER
I heard on T.V. that they’re almost always accurate when
used by a skilled examiner. Is that right?
• A friend of mine in law enforcement said not to worry, just
go in and tell the truth, and you’ll have no problem!
• I understand that polygraphs are a lot more accurate than
those voice stress analyzers. (Polygraphers generally hold the competing
voodoo science of Computerized Voice Stress Analysis
[CVSA] in utter contempt.)
• I read in the paper that the polygraph has been constantly
improving with time and that the latest computerized polygraphs
are very reliable.
• When I was in grade school, a polygraph examiner came
and gave a demonstration to my class and showed us how the test
is done using my teacher as a volunteer. She lied about a card she
had picked from a deck, and the polygraph examiner caught her
lie and was even able to figure out exactly which card she had
picked!
• I heard it caught O.J. in a lie! (Virtually no one in the polygraph
community believes O.J. Simpson to be innocent of the
murder of his ex-wife, Nicole.)

Whatever answer you give, don’t memorize and repeat the above
examples word-for-word. Page 140 SUGGESTING WHICH LIES TO USE AND OFFERING ADVICE ON HOW TO DELIVER THEM. 

If you do choose to submit to a polygraph for some other
reason (most likely as a pre-requisite for an employment process),
the most important step you can take to minimize the potential
for a negative outcome is to make no admissions. Page 197 CONCEALING INFORMATION Note  this statement does not differentiate between what it is or isn't permissable to lie about

Make no admissions is also the rule if and when a polygrapher accuses you of using countermeasures.  Page 197 IN OTHER WORDS IF THE EXAMINER ACCUSES YOU OF USEING THE TECHNIQUES TAUGHT ON ANTIPOLYGRAPH.ORG TO MANUFACTURE FALSE REACTIONS, LIE  

You might argue that these questions may have nothing to do with what you consider the "relevant" issues on a test, but I assure you every person or entity who ever administered to you  any kind of test from kindergarten all the way to your Doctorate considers cheating on a test a relevant issue and if you had done so and were caught you would have failed most school have Honor Codes that provide for expulsion for such behavior. The text FROM YOUR BOOK encourages people to LIE about cheating on the exam and even provides sample lies for an examinee to use to avoid suspicion of cheating on an exam. There is no need to argue that you think that this type of lieing is justified. I fully understand that you have justified this type of lying or you would not have included it in your book. I just happen to disagree that this is acceptable behavior. Even if you think you are being lied to, what code of ethical behavior allows you to respond with lies or unethical behavior?

As to your second comment, I think the ruling in Croddy V FBI still stands and nothing in that ruling would appear to indicate that the process is” patently unfair"  With six plaintiffs, they failed to put together sufficient evidence to even get into court.  By the way thank you for providing the following link so visitors to your site can read the ruling for themselves. http://antipolygraph.org/litigation/zaid/opinion-29-09-2006.pdf

If you thought that you could prove your second statement, why didn't you file a lawsuit following your polygraph? Your claims of lying and unfair treatment would certainly appear tortuous if proven.

Your statement that polygraph is “scientifically ungrounded procedure that is fundamentally dependent on the person being "tested" being lied to and otherwise deceived” is a matter of opinion. This statement certainly doesn’t appear anywhere in the findings of the NAS study. 

On a side note:  If you would prefer to be addressed as Dr. Mashke rather than Mr. Mashke, please let me know. I have no reason to believe that your doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures is anything, but legitimate and correctly bestowed. If I have offended you by failing to refer to you with your proper title I apologize.

On another side note: I notice that in your personal statement about polygraph you are very careful not to talk about certain issues surrounding the nature of your employment with the government. How can  they control what you talk about after you no longer work for them?

Sancho Panza

Sancho, you remind me of the old joke about the fellow who went to a clairvoyant/fortune teller.  The first thing the clairvoyant asked is "So what can I do for you?"  He replied, "you are the clairvoyant, you tell me."

nopolycop wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 1:24pm:

If you haven't maybe you should read the entire Croddy ruling. I offer as a matter of established law, that summary judgment may ONLY be granted if the judge finds  the moving party has shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


If you wish to discuss HONTS qualifications and abilities as a scientific researcher, maybe you should discuss them with the Co-authors of The Lie Behind The Lie Detector. They cite Honts research numerous times is support of their contention regarding the effectiveness of countermeasures, Surely you wouldn't argue that research is only valid if it supports your position? Or maybe you think that the authors should not have cited his work because it is faulty, or perhaps you would like to point out the differences in methodology that support the validity of the studies that were cited versus the study, which is certainly "subsequent research" you chose to label as invalid.  Thank you for telling us you have a psychology degree I'm sure many of us would have never guessed. Your education should more than qualify you to answer these questions. 

Sancho Panza

For everyone's information  Mr. Maschke has notified me by personal message that " I wish I had time to provide lengthier replies to you, but at the moment, I hard pressed for time." 

I think that everyone should be made aware that he is currently very busy and may be unable to provide complete replies to our posts currently and in the near future. I think we will all look forward to his responses when he has the time to make them. 

Sancho Panza