David Goldberg has posted a follow-up video to our interview, recorded shortly after it, titled "Truth vs. Skepticism: My Reaction to George Maschke's Claims | @gwmaschke."
I infer from the title that he supposes that he is on the side of truth and that my skepticism somehow is against the truth. The video may be viewed here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJl_xp4lak0 Among other things, David states:
Quote:What he [George Maschke] also got right was, he said, "countermeasures."
Ladies and gentlemen, I have said this before and I'll say it again, that there is countermeasures out there, and people do tend to utilize in order to manipulate and try to beat their polygraph examinations that they go and take. And what I told him, and I agreed with him, that there are manuals, education material out there, on countermeasures, how to do it, how to learn how to do it, however what I said was, experienced examiners are going to catch that examinee trying to do countermeasures, and that's what I agreed with George Maschke.
This is misleading. David and I do not agree that experienced polygraph examiners are going to catch examinees who use countermeasures. As I mentioned to him during our interview, the federal polygraph school did a study on countermeasures ca. 1995 under the auspices of Dr. Gordon Barland, and what it showed was that with no more than an hour of training, 80% of test subjects were able to beat the polygraph:
https://antipolygraph.org/s/cc I also mentioned that there is nothing in the polygraph literature about how to reliably detect countermeasures. David's claim that "experienced examiners are going to catch that examinee trying to do countermeasures" is without evidence.
David goes on to say:
Quote:What I also agreed with him, and this is huge, ladies and gentlemen, is, he said that polygraph examinations do in fact help people. I cannot emphasize that enough! Polygraph examinations of all matters, whether it's criminal, whether it's infidelity, whether it's pre-employment, whether it's false allegations, whatever, they in fact help people overcome whatever their issue is, when, and this is what I said, when you seek an experienced, certified examiner, just like myself. And there are not a lot of them out there, so you have to do your due diligence to find one. There are some crappy ones out there that ruin people's lives, and that's where me and George agreed, that people have failed exams that were telling the truth, and people have passed exams that shouldn't have, and I am a perfect witness for that, because people have come in my office who have either failed my exams, and when I've told them they have failed, I ask them "how did you beat that last examiner that you went to?" or vice-versa when they passed mine, I asked "How did you fail that last exam and examiner?" they would tell me, either they did something to try to manipulate that exam or whatever, but they admitted to me what they did, and so I know that you can beat an inexperienced polygraph examiner, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is what me and George Maschke discussed about beating the polygraph—not the polygraph instrument, you can beat inexperienced polygraph examiners.
Here, too, David mischaracterizes my remarks. I did not state that "polygraph examinations do in fact help people" in any general sense. Rather, I conceded that some people who pay for polygraph services are satisfied with the results. I believe that overall, polygraphy does much more harm than good.
Moreover, I don't believe that experienced polygraph operators provide more accurate chart readings than beginners do. There is no peer-reviewed research to support this notion.
David goes on to argue that I was wrong in claiming that federal agencies share polygraph results with each other, arguing that it would be logistically impossible. He seems to be unfamiliar with databases such as Scattered Castles.
He repeats his claim that computerized polygraphs provide "way more" accurate results than analog ones. However, there is no peer-reviewed research that would support this notion.
Pages: 1
A Public Challenge to "Expert Polygraph Examiner" David Goldberg (Read 1062 times)
