The Polygraph Place

Thanks for stopping by our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register link


  Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
  Professional Issues - Private Forum for Examiners ONLY
  George

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   George
J.B. McCloughan
Administrator
posted 09-13-2007 10:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for J.B. McCloughan   Click Here to Email J.B. McCloughan     Edit/Delete Message
Check out his new site. Apparently he was in the states this year.
http://www.georgemaschke.net/about-myself/

[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.

My interests and activities include languages (I have some proficiency in Persian, Arabic, and French), computers, politics (I might be described as a libertarian with a lowercase “l”), weightlifting, and poetry.

IP: Logged

LouRovner
Administrator
posted 09-14-2007 01:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LouRovner   Click Here to Email LouRovner     Edit/Delete Message
He's just ever so fascinating.

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 09-14-2007 05:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C   Click Here to Email Barry C     Edit/Delete Message
That's the first I heard of him graduating from a doctoral program. I thought he dropped out. When did that happen?

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 09-14-2007 06:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for stat     Edit/Delete Message
Uh, weight lifting? Maybe that is how he sculpted that bowling-pin physique.

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.

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 09-14-2007).]

IP: Logged

polypro
Member
posted 09-14-2007 07:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for polypro     Edit/Delete Message
I knew George was extremely liberal, (he obviously fashions himself as a thorn in the side of traditional Amercian values) but he's further out in left field than I ever imagined. What do you think the religious right would think about Georgie and his website? Let me see: here's a guy who operates a website bent on assisting those interested in defeating an instrument of truth. That confrontation would make for great TV.

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 09-14-2007 08:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C   Click Here to Email Barry C     Edit/Delete Message
You know what I think, and I'm as far to the right as the religious right gets.

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.

He's a bright guy, but he's not that bright. But, because he doesn't play by any rules, you can never win at his game.

IP: Logged

polypro
Member
posted 09-14-2007 08:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for polypro     Edit/Delete Message
Good points. I agree that George is no dummy, but I'm really growing tired of his "greater than thou attitude". I'm not familiar with the referenced Honts study. Where can I get my hands on that one? Would you mind a brief synopsis of what the study found? Thanks

[This message has been edited by polypro (edited 09-14-2007).]

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 09-14-2007 09:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C   Click Here to Email Barry C     Edit/Delete Message
I don't know how pretty it'll be, but I'll paste a copy of the abstract of sorts found at the beginning of the study:

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.

[This message has been edited by Barry C (edited 09-14-2007).]

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 09-14-2007 01:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for stat     Edit/Delete Message
I am an FDR leftist, and I resent posters here taking a man who is clearly a narcissistic activist and associating him with a political stand----besides his obvious disdain for the art of polygraph being falsly labeled as science (in the strictest sense). I don't think George's world view is so easily codified. He hates torture-----me too (this is just good morals people, not "left" or "anti-right" platitudism)He has written that the war in Iraq is folly. Uh, so does nearly every other respected scholar on the middle east. Other than those points, I don't recall much else that he has pulpited about---which would lend itself toward "left" or "right" labels.

p.s. I know plenty of atheist right wingers and ultra religious leftists. Must we be overly simplistic?

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 09-14-2007 02:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C   Click Here to Email Barry C     Edit/Delete Message
Where did I mention his political positions? The comment has to do with his religious worldviews. He's an atheist, and he's gone out of his way to insult those of faith, particularly those of the Christian faith. Read enough of him, and you'll come to the conclusion he's a secular humanist, which will affect his political views, whatever they are. (So, in that sense, I'd consider him an ultra-religious leftist, as secular humanism is a religion (in the opinions of some, anyhow).

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.

Of course we're being overly simplistic. Who wants to write about this stuff all day?

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 09-14-2007 02:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for stat     Edit/Delete Message
ok. What's your phone number so I can call your family and tell them how sound your rationales present. I didn't read what he said about the Christian faith. That was very lame of him-----and I shoulda known you guys weren't on the attack for nothing.

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 09-14-2007 02:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C   Click Here to Email Barry C     Edit/Delete Message
The real irony is that I support his right to say that stuff - no matter how much I disagree. I don't think he feels the same about me, but I could be wrong.

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.

(By the way, I heard the APA ban on phony doctorates targeted eight people. How many has George identified? So far, I don't think he has found anybody who hadn't made that list of eight.)

IP: Logged

Ted Todd
Member
posted 09-14-2007 02:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ted Todd     Edit/Delete Message
Why are we wasting our time discussing the depth of George's mental illness. He is a Sick F***. Can't we just leave it at that?

Ted

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 09-14-2007 02:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C   Click Here to Email Barry C     Edit/Delete Message
How's that for overly simplistic?

Thanks for the laugh Ted.

IP: Logged

polypro
Member
posted 09-14-2007 05:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for polypro     Edit/Delete Message
Hey Ted, before you start dismissing him as a loony tune, take into consideration that he's been regarded by a very respected researcher in our field as having produced a well researched and well written book on countermeasures (if you were there you'd know who and what I'm referring to). If we fail to take the boy seriously today, we'll be dealing with him tomorrow. In my opinion, he and those like him are the real threat to our profession. He's an obsessed man on a mission. There's nothing more dangerous than a fanatic - if you don't believe that just look at the Middle East. We need to work to change what we've been doing since time and memorial. That means new formats, new scoring methods, better research, etc.......... We have alot of very intelligent people in this profession. Just look at the post on this board, and you'll no doubt reach the same conclusion. Now it's just a matter of channeling those resouces. Sorry for rant. It's been a long three weeks, and I needed to vent. Thanks

Okay I feel better. Maybe another glass of Merlot.

IP: Logged

LouRovner
Administrator
posted 09-14-2007 06:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LouRovner   Click Here to Email LouRovner     Edit/Delete Message
PolyPro,

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.

Lou

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 09-14-2007 06:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C   Click Here to Email Barry C     Edit/Delete Message
I question whether he really believes it. I think he just likes to think he's tormenting us - and the attention it gets him. As an egomaniac (and loony tune works for me), I think he likes his cult following more than he cares a lick about truth.

BTW Lou, another great article in the APA magazine.

If you guys aren't reading those articles, you should be. You don't have to be a research geek to understand them and communicate straight scoop to others when the need arises.

IP: Logged

Ted Todd
Member
posted 09-14-2007 07:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ted Todd     Edit/Delete Message
Polypro,

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!

Ted

IP: Logged

Gordon H. Barland
Member
posted 09-15-2007 11:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Gordon H. Barland     Edit/Delete Message
Barry,

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

------------------

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 09-15-2007 11:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for stat     Edit/Delete Message
I completely agree with Dr. B's assertion regarding George's inteligence and self- perceived motivation. In my private message discussions with George, he has always been stone-cold sane, and although his method of debate is to beg the point with circular logic,he is wickedly adept at it. I am quite cautious when I correspond with him, as he is a most analytical creature. I am a believer that one must keep enemies close. I'd rather be shot in the face with a blindfold and a cigarette than be shot in the back of the head.

[This message has been edited by stat (edited 09-15-2007).]

IP: Logged

Ted Todd
Member
posted 09-15-2007 07:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ted Todd     Edit/Delete Message
Dr. B,
You are right, the man is very intellegent but he is using his brain for the wrong reason. I never thought he was insane but you do have to admit that the boy does have "issues".

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

Ted

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 09-15-2007 07:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for stat     Edit/Delete Message
The best thing for me from anyone's little "bag" would be 2 tickets to a remote resort, and trustworthy childcare while we are away. I need a vacation in the worst way.

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 09-15-2007 07:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for stat     Edit/Delete Message
The only level on which I can truly relate to George is for this reason; everyone knows that revenge is a fool's venture. But if I had no wife, no kids,and I was screwed over (presumably) by some official protocol---look out. I would not rest until the perpetrators and their medium were lampooned from here to the ends of the globe. I respect that tenacity in a devious sort of way----hell I am even inspired----in that one man can ---thanks to the web----exult so much power and influence over an industry, it spends remarkable time talking about him, warning about him, cursing him, lampooning him---whatever. It boggles the mind. Too bad his cause isn't something more universally needed.

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 09-16-2007 11:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson   Click Here to Email rnelson     Edit/Delete Message
I've not known quite what to think about George for some time.

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)


IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 09-17-2007 09:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for stat     Edit/Delete Message
George has apperently started a war with palerider. He deletes his posts, he discards his posts, and he is claiming that a threader named pailryder pre-dates palerider. Pailryder is an ass-kissing examiner who recently congratulated George on his efforts to "clean up our field." What a deuche. Something is amiss.

IP: Logged

All times are PT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Polygraph Place

copyright 1999-2003. WordNet Solutions. All Rights Reserved

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.39c
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.