posted 04-07-2003 09:47 PM            

He is not an expert in psychology or psychophysiology. He seems just to be a guy with a chip on his shoulder and a big mouth.

Let's stop talking about playing his silly game.

------------------
Louis Rovner, Ph.D.
Rovner & Associates
LouRovner@aol.com

posted 04-07-2003 09:50 PM            

------------------
Louis Rovner, Ph.D.
Rovner & Associates
LouRovner@aol.com

posted 04-08-2003 06:34 AM         

I agree with you about Maschke, but the "countermeasure challenge" is actually from Drew Richardson, who I think has the proper credentials, however misguided he may be.

Personally, I think if the APA or other organized body could meet the challenge with a neutral third party overseeing it, then we could silence the antis.

But others have noted that accepting the challenge would only make the antis appear more important than they really are, and for this reason, I agree that maybe accepting the challenge is just not worth the trouble.

Paul Menges suggested three approaches to dealing with the antis in a recent article in Polygraph. Specifically, he was writing about the ethics of making countermeasures public, and how we, as professionals, should meet the challenge. We can:

1) do nothing (ignore them)

2) try to engage them in debate and convince them to withdraw their countermeasure information

3) to actively seek new legislation to restrict them from deliberately helping criminals

I take it you prefer option #1? As a government employee, this is the option has been chosen for many of us who are silently fighting the good fight.

------------------
It's a thankless job, but somebody's gotta do it.

posted 04-08-2003 07:49 AM            

I am not trying to rain on your parade or dampen your enthusiasm. I think everyone here is frustrated with the anti's and their support of counter measures.

I am not sure where you work but how would you feel if you accepted this challenge and failed? It could ruin us or at least set us back years. Lets say you win the challenge and I don't know if we could as the odds are against us. Would that stop the anti's from doing exactly what they do now?

I think in that case they would say something like, " That was just one expert who happened to pass our challenge, they couldn't do it twice". "Certainly the average examiner would never be able to pass our challenge".

What would we have gained? I like suggestion #1 and #3

Jack

posted 04-08-2003 08:05 AM         

No, your not raining on my parade! I am much less enthusiastic about having the APA accept the challenge than I used to be -- not so much out of fear of failure but out of giving the antis free publicity and an air of legitimacy that they just don't deserve.

But still, you can see that they are poisoning a lot of peoples minds, so I'm not convinced that ignoring them is the best option. Ironically, many of us who are defending the "rights" of the Maschkes of this world to spout off whatever nonsense they like have voluntarily given up some of our own right to free speech.

posted 04-08-2003 08:48 AM            

Focusing on positive PR is the most productive thing we can do. Nobody who matters is listening to Maschke et al.

It's better to be proactive than reactive.

------------------
Louis Rovner, Ph.D.
Rovner & Associates
LouRovner@aol.com