WHEREAS, Dr, George W. Maschke, PhD and Gino J. Scalabrini have co-written a book entitled “The Lie Behind the Lie Detector”; and

WHEREAS, Dr. George W. Maschke maintains a website named Antipolygraph.org.; and

WHEREAS, both this book and this website purport to offer valid instructional material that would allow a reader to employ particularly described countermeasures; and

WHEREAS, they jointly claim that by using these countermeasures an examinee may effectively and subsequently mask or alter polygraph tracings and thus produce tracings capable of deceiving, knowledgeable, trained, and experienced polygraph examiners in order to appear truthful regardless of the facts at issue; and

WHEREAS, by virtue of their book, website, and individual and cumulative postings by Dr, George W. Maschke, PhD and/or Gino J. Scalabrini, claim or imply they possess knowledge, education, experience or expertise regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and Interview/Interrogation procedures, which qualify them to render criticism, training, or advice more worthy of consideration than the personal opinion of a layperson; and

WHEREAS, a publication entitled “The Polygraph and Lie Detection”, authored by the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, National Research Council, challenges the information contained in “The Lie behind the Lie Detector” and, by inference, identical information available at “AntiPolygraph.org  by stating in part,  “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.” , (Emphasis added) which is contrary to, and places the basis for, their aforementioned claims under suspicion; and

WHEREAS, a review of available copies, including the current edition of “The Lie Behind the Lie Detector” failed to disclose any curriculum vitae establishing by any known standard that either Dr, George W. Maschke, PhD or Gino J. Scalabrini possess knowledge, education, experience or expertise regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and Interview/Interrogation procedures, which qualify them to render criticism, training, or advice more worthy of consideration than the personal opinion of a layperson; and

WHEREAS, an audit of the website “Antipolygraph.org” failed to disclose any curriculum vitae establishing by any known standard that either Dr, George W. Maschke, PhD or Gino J. Scalabrini possess knowledge, education, experience or expertise regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and Interview/Interrogation procedures, which qualify them to render criticism, training, or advice more worthy of consideration than the personal opinion of a layperson; and

WHEREAS, by the nature and scope of their book and website, naïve readers are being intentionally mislead to conclude that Dr, George W. Maschke, PhD and/or Gino J. Scalabrini possess knowledge, education, experience or expertise regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and Interview/Interrogation procedures, which qualify them to render criticism, training, or advice more worthy of consideration than the personal opinion of a layperson; and

WHEREAS, requests for curriculum vitae establishing by any known standard that either Dr, George W. Maschke, PhD or Gino J. Scalabrini possess knowledge, education, experience or expertise regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and Interview/Interrogation procedures, which qualify them to render criticism, training, or advice more worthy of consideration than the personal opinion of a layperson have received inadequate response; 

NOW, THEREFORE, I challenge Dr, George W. Maschke, PhD and/or Gino J. Scalabrini to produce satisfactory substantial evidence that they possess knowledge, education, experience or expertise regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and Interview/Interrogation procedures, which qualify them to render criticism, training, or advice more worthy of consideration than the personal opinion of a layperson.

Satisfactory substantial evidence may include a formal Curriculum Vitae which includes verifiable information that they have acquired formal education, experience or expertise regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and/or Interview/Interrogation procedures; or a certificate from an accredited training program and/or statement upon the appropriate letterhead from the International Organization of Psychophysiology, American Psychological Association, the American Physiological Society, American Polygraph Association, and/or any nationally established Interview/Interrogation program evidencing an acknowledgment that Dr, George W. Maschke, PhD and/or Gino J. Scalabrini possess knowledge, education, experience or expertise regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and Interview/Interrogation procedures, or any of the attendant scientific disciplines governed by the above listed professional associations  which qualify them to render criticism, training, or advice more worthy of consideration than the personal opinion of a layperson.

Absent the production of satisfactory substantial evidence as outlined above, I call upon Dr, George W. Maschke, PhD or Gino J. Scalabrini to immediately cease and desist in the publication or distribution of the book entitled “The Lie Behind the Lie Detector” in any form and to post a prominent notice on each and every page of the website, “Antipolygraph.org”, that any commentary, instruction, or advice rendered by Dr, George W. Maschke, PhD or Gino J. Scalabrini regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and/or Interview/Interrogation procedures should not be in any way construed to indicate that Dr, George W. Maschke, PhD or Gino J. Scalabrini possess or claim any knowledge, education, experience or expertise regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and/or Interview/Interrogation procedures, which qualify them to render criticism, training, or advice more worthy of consideration than the personal opinion of a layperson.

Submitted this Ninth day of May 2009. 

Day one of the Challenge to Dr, George W. Maschke, PhD or Gino J. Scalabrini to establish their expertise.

We are waiting…

J.P.W.

It may be slightly premature to post such a "challenge" on one's fourth anonymous post to a message board.

But then, I am not an expert in challenges, anonymous posts, or message boards, so perhaps I am not allowed to post at all...

Most, if not all, of the major spies known to have taken counter-intelligence polygraph examinations while in the midst of engaging in espionage were also found to be non-deceptive during their respective polygraph examinations.   

As one considers the diagnostic validity of such examinations (or the lack thereof) in light of the aforementioned as well as  LBCB's and JWP's calls for relevant professional education, training, and or experience as a prerequisite for evaluating such, I am reminded of one of Bob Dylan's oft quoted lyrics, e.g., "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

LieBabyCryBaby wrote on May 9^th, 2009 at 8:29pm:


This is simply incorrect.  I am eminently and completely qualified to make the following statement:

I had to take four pre-employment polygraphs when I was applying to be a police officer.  I failed the first three despite answering all the questions truthfully.  Each one I failed was for a different reason.  I passed my fourth polygraph while giving all the same answers I had in the first three and subsequently obtained the job in law enforcement at which I am presently employed.  In my experience, the polygraph and the polygraph operator were utterly unable to differentiate truth from deception and appeared, both at the time and in retrospect, to be simply guessing at whether I was lying or not.  Each of the first three polygraph operators solemnly assured me that they, not the polygraph, were the true "lie detectors" and it was easy for them to tell that I was not being truthful.
I don't see how any reasonable person could go through that experience and somehow believe that the polygraph is highly accurate and that truthful people have a very high chance of passing.  In each exam I knew I was being truthful but neither the polygraph operator nor the polygraph seemed to be at all capable of determining that fact.  When a process that purportedly detects deception fails to do so three out of four times any reasonable person will conclude that such a process does not work.

Yankeedog,

Thanks for your concern that everyone on this forum understands my situation.

From what I can recall of the tests, the questions seemed essentially the same, as did the formats.  I doubt the questions were identical word-for-word, but they were pretty close.  Two of my first three tests were conducted by private companies, and one by the Connecticut State Police.  I have no idea what scoring methods were used.  From what I recall, the disqualification criteria shared with the applicants were exactly the same for all of the agencies to which I was applying.

I have no correspondence from my polygraphs.  In each of the the first three instances, I was told after the test by the polygraph operator that I was deceptive in a certain area.  In each instance they conducted what I now understand was a post-test interrogation which, of course, led nowhere because I hadn't actually been deceptive in any of my answers.

When I returned to the department to which I was applying the investigator doing my background check told me I had failed the polygraph because of deception in whatever area the operator had already mentioned.  And in each of the first three cases the investigator doing my background did in fact specify that the sole reason I was being disqualified was my "failure" in the polygraph, and each one actually said it was a shame because the rest of my record was so strong.

Quote:


It's a number of things.

The conclusion of the National Academy of Sciences, and the fact that many, many others (myself included) report similar experiences. Besides, there is no reason to think that fluctuations in BP/Breathing/perpiration indicate deception to begin with. The only reason people do is because of a pop cultural myth, and that they see it on "Cop" shows.

The only thing incredible is that you, proclaiming to be so experienced and sure of his position, would resort to doing hack "cut and paste" jobs from a publication to make a point.  As GM said, that would be grounds for disciplinary action in academia!  Consider that an ad hominy attack.  And well deserved i might ad!

TC

Sarge,

   The questions that I posed simply establish that there is/was a lot of information that you, as an applicant, were not aware.  In all likelihood,  it would not be possible for any applicant to posses that information.  Applicants can only be aware of basic requirements.  You were apparently DQed by three agencies and then hired by a fourth.  And it would appear that you have had a successful and rewarding career.   

Every law enforcement agency will have some basic, similar criteria for employment, but the final decision will be dependent upon current circumstances.  Sometimes, which is usually the case, specific criteria for different agencies will be different.  The hiring authority will sometimes have to make a judgment call.  I have yet to find two agencies with identical criteria in all aspects of the application process.   

If an agency has ten openings and five applicants, the disqualifying criteria will undoubtedly be relaxed.  On the other hand, if there are ten openings and twenty applicants, disqualifying criteria will be more stringent.  It is just a fact.  A person may be very qualified by state imposed standards, but when an agency can be very selective and choose the best qualified rather than those who are only very well qualified, they will undoubtedly use that standard.  That is arguably a flaw in the employment process.  Sometimes, the color of ones skin can be the disqualifying criteria, such has been with the FBI in past years.  That was what happened to me, but that is just the way the situation dictated.  With the current economic situation in the country, more people are applying for law enforcement (that is my experience….you may not see this).  As such, agencies will select only those that stand head and shoulders above all other qualified applicants.   

The “deceptive” polygraph results you report with respect to your situation are unfortunate if they are indeed false positives.  But without some form or written correspondence citing this as the sole reason, there is no way it can be cited with any degree of certainty and is merely an opinion.  It is nothing more that your belief.  You may wish to make this claim, but it is an unsupported claim.   

I have tested hundreds of applicants who had an impressive application, appeared to be well suited for the work and were determined to be “non-deceptive,” but based upon information obtained during the process, they were not hired.   

On a side note, I doubt that the scoring methods used would have altered the end results in your case. 

Those who are opposed to pre-employment screening are entitled to their opinion.  But that does not negate the effectiveness of the process.  The statistical data documented on this very site clearly demonstrates that it works.  Even if every unresolved deceptive test were a false positive, and there is nothing to support such a claim, the vast number of applicants that are verifiably DQed during the polygraph process justifies, in my opinion, the use of the technique.  Indeed, it has been my experience that a vast majority who are deemed “deceptive” are able to explain the reactions.   Such an explanation will result in additional testing or be DQed.  Most, admittedly, are probably DQed once they provide the explanation.  For that small number that are false positives, what would you like me to say……….It isn’t a perfect process……It isn’t 100% each and every time…….Well, how ‘bout I just say this………..The results of a polygraph test should not be the sole factor to deny employment.  I would not support any agency for denying employment simply for that reason.   

Countermeasures are, in my opinion, more amusing that anything else.  I believe an applicant has to be more experienced and knowledgeable than the normal applicant to employ such techniques successfully.  The applicant has to know too much to successfully employ countermeasures.  They must be able to correctly identify the testing technique used, distinguish relevant questions from comparison questions, employ the countermeasure at the right time and ensure that they do not overdo or under employ the chosen countermeasure technique.  Those who employ them do so at their own risk.  There are a number of methods that can be employed to verify the countermeasure, and if they are verified, the applicant is awarded a DQ letter, regardless of how strong their application may appear.

George, Thank you for your candid response.  I found it informative and revealing.  

Based on this response it is clear that neither you nor Gino J. Scalabrini are capable of providing any substantial proof that either of you have ever have acquired any formal education, experience or expertise regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and/or Interview/Interrogation procedures; and will be unable to produce any certificates from an accredited training program and/or statements upon the appropriate letterhead from the International Organization of Psychophysiology, American Psychological Association, the American Physiological Society, American Polygraph Association, and/or any nationally established Interview/Interrogation program.

It is also clear that based on your statement in part “The information and arguments set forth in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector are not based on any claimed authority by myself or Gino Scalabrini” you do not dispute that one may justifiably  infer that you lack knowledge, education, experience or expertise regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and Interview/Interrogation procedures, which might qualify you to render criticism, training, or advice more worthy of consideration than the personal opinion of a layperson, albeit interested laypersons.

Sergeant 1107, T. Cullen, T.M. Cullen, Getrealalready:  Do you consider yourselves more qualified or less qualified than George or Gino to to render criticism, training, or advice regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and Interview/Interrogation procedures?