posted 09-13-2007 10:12 PM            

[img]http://www.georgemaschke.net/george.jpg[/img]
With UCLA’s Bruin Statue on New Year’s Day, 2007

I was born an raised on Long Island, New York and graduated from Westhampton Beach High School. After a four year stint in the U.S. Army, I moved to Los Angeles, California. I studied at UCLA where I received a bachelor’s degree in Near Eastern Studies followed by master’s and doctoral degrees in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. My dissertation was a study of proverbial and idiomatic language in the context of a modern Persian novel.

posted 09-14-2007 06:57 AM         

The only weights he lifts are beer steins and strap-ons.

When Ray gets back from hiking the Grand Canyon, we shall commission him to photoshop George in a leatherboy outfit leaning up against the oscar mayer weanie mobile.

posted 09-14-2007 08:38 AM            

I think it says a lot about him. He is his own god, so to speak, and therefore, everything is relative - relative to what he thinks. That is why you'll never convince him of anything. He doesn't want to be persuaded as it would upset his entire worldview.

Look at what he's been saying for years: There are no peer-reviewed studies that show CMs don't work (as if a non-peer reviewed study is worthless). Then, Charles Honts comes along and fixes that "problem." What does George do (probably before reading it)? He says there are serious methodological problems with the study, which he'll address in the future, of course.

posted 09-14-2007 09:09 AM            

Purpose. Detailed information about the comparison question test (CQT) and
possible countermeasures are now available on the Internet. This study examined
whether the provision of such information would affect the validity of the Test for
Espionage and Sabotage, a directed lie variant of the CQT.
Method. Forty participants were divided into four equal groups: guilty, guilty
informed, innocent, and innocent informed. During a first appointment, participants
either did or did not commit a mock crime: then some were provided with a book
containing detailed information on the CQT, including possible countermeasures. After
1 week with the book, all participants were administered a CQT during their second
appointment. Following the polygraph, participants responded to a questionnaire that
asked them about their behaviour and perceptions during their examination.
Results. There were no significant effects of providing information on the validity of
the CQT. However, the reported use of countermeasures was associated with a lower
probability of truthfulness. Results of the debriefing questionnaire were found to
support predictions made by the theory of the CQT.
Conclusions. Concerns that readily available information will enable guilty
individuals to produce false-negative errors seem unfounded. Moreover, the results
actually indicate that the use of countermeasures was associated with a lower
probability of truthfulness, which was exactly the opposite outcome predicted by the
CQT critics.

Here's the cite:

Legal and Criminological Psychology (2007), 12, 311–320

Enjoy. Email me if you want the whole thing.

posted 09-14-2007 02:01 PM            

If over 90% of Americans believe in God, and a good portion of the remainder are agnostics, then how many atheists do you know? Of those, there are "plenty" who are right wingers? I find that hard to believe just by the math alone. Who knows, maybe you know them all.

For the record, one can be on the religious left or the right just as one can be on the political left or right, and as you pointed out, one need not be "right / right" and "left / left." They could "cross-over" so to speak. Not every atheist is a political leftist either. Sure, there are some with whom I would agree on much. George doesn't fit that category.

When you describe him as narcissistic, you make my point that he answers only to himself, which I thought was my point. Look at what he says: The federal government is wrong; Polygraph examiners and researchers are wrong; Christians and anybody else who believes in God are wrong; BUT, he is right about everything.

posted 09-14-2007 02:17 PM            

Does anybody know if he ever got that doctorate? I can't imagine he'd make that up after having a field day with examiners. I suppose I could search for his dissertation, but I have a hard enough time just reading his web pages.

posted 09-14-2007 06:30 PM            

I tend to agree with Ted - Maschke is a looney toon. In fact, I referred to him as Huckleberry Hound in a recent article in the APA Magazine. He truly is a cartoon character, as well as a coward.

I assume you were talking about me in your posting. When I recently testified as an expert in a criminal case in Ohio, I was describing Charles Honts' latest research, where he downloaded "The Lie Behind The Lie Detector" (TLBTLD) from George's site, and gave it to 1/2 of the people in his experiment.

Long story short, people who read and studied TLBTLD (they had two weeks to study it) were not able to "beat" the examiner any more than people who had never read it. In short, the information was useless. George (the coward) conveniently forgot to mention that along with the quote that he took out of context.

(By the way, the judge allowed polygraph evidence in the trial over the prosecution's objection, and the defendant was acquitted).

Honts's research was essentially a replication of my own countermeasures study, in which I found the same thing. Knowing about test theory and countermeasures simply does not help someone to produce a false negative at will.

George still believes a proven falsehood. Ergo, George is a looney toon.

posted 09-14-2007 06:46 PM            

BTW Lou, another great article in the APA magazine.

posted 09-14-2007 07:12 PM         

Don't think for a moment that I don't see George as a threat. If I were the Commander in Chief, I would have nuked his ass years ago.

I keep his manual on display in my office. You should see the look on the applicants faces when they see it! It's like "Oh God...he read it too!

Enjoy the Merlot and feel free to rant anytime. That is why we have this place!

posted 09-15-2007 11:26 AM         

George says the doctorate was awarded by UCLA last year. He said it was from the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. And - yes - I believe him.

In the sciences, if you've made no progress toward a doctorate for a certain amount of time, say a couple of years, you are out of the program and would have to start over. The reason is that scientific knowledge is advancing rapidly, and you'd be out of touch with the cutting edge. But in the humanities, I'm suspect it's a different story.

Ted, Lou, and others,

Regarding the comments about his sanity, I would have to disagree. I consider him highly intelligent, motivated in part by the life-changing sequellae of a failed polygraph, but also by patriotism because he believes America's reliance on the polygraph as a security device is misplaced. Some of our Cold War adversaries came to believe that, too, based on their success beating it.

George is on a crusade, yes. But that doesn't mean he's out of contact with reality. Reality is actually quite subjective; it's whatever people agree that it is, and different people can and do perceive reality from different perspectives and angles. But this is grist for a totally different topic.

And just because I'm "defending" George, in case anybody thinks I secretly agree with his reality, I don't. The polygraph has uncovered literally hundreds of spies and double agents over the years. One prominent one not mentioned in John Sullivan's book "The Gatekeeper" is Sgt. Jack Dunlop who was working at the National Security Agency but working for the KGB. His failed polygraph initiated an investigation that uncovered his treachery. He committed suicide shortly thereafter.

Incidentally, if you haven't read Sullivan's book, you really ought to. He wrote it in part to counter Maschke's mantra that the polygraph has never caught a spy.

Peace,

Gordon

posted 09-15-2007 07:12 PM         

As always, thanks for your input which helps keep us all on track. Is there anything in your doctor bag that could help Stat?

posted 09-16-2007 11:38 AM            

It seems obvious to me that he's not crazy. Though that's not the same as stating he's a normal well-adjusted member of society.

It's tempting to think of him as an aggressive narcissist, but he's often well mannered. Aggressive narcissists are usually, but not always, overbearing.

He never misses an opportunity to state the facts as he wants them regarding polygraph science, validity, countermeasures, and apparently catching spies.

He's obviously obsessed. It also seems apparent that he's not alone in terms of resources and commitment.

I believe he considers himself an "expert" on polygraph matters, and you will see him offer rather thoughtful critique about things like question construction and target selection. This gives me the impression that he secretly believes the polygraph works. Increasingly, it looks as if his ego and arrogance are wrapped up in his mission. That may prove to be useful to us one day.

George is a man on a mission. He doesn't care whether we have answers or not. He knows we have some, and knows we don't have some. He wants to know everything we have - for his own purpose (which is more likely destructive than productive). He's calculating and cautious, and angry that he doesn't get his way. He's also smart enough to know the value of decorum. He will not be convinced to change his mind. Most importantly, he's capable of twisting and withholding information to suit his purpose. He will not ultimately engage in a "fair" fight or ethical discourse - so don't expect that of him, and don't be surprised if he baits you with reasonableness and then turns to eat your lunch when the opportunity arises.

Sounds a little like an aggressive narcissist - a well mannered narcissist, but still a narcissist. He's quite good at recruiting other less well-mannered folks to do the day to day thuggery and ugly trench-work. If you were to couple that with a pattern of antisocial behavior that persistently violates other's rights and well-being, then its starts to look a bit more psychopathic. Absent of patterns of anti-social behavior, its just narcissism. George's brand of narcissism is aggressively self-serving. It doesn't seem entirely likely to me that his energy is fueled by a personal vendetta or grudge - such things are more easily satisfied. He's on a mission - and he will not ultimately play fair.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)