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.
JPW,
The information and arguments set forth in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector (https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf) are not based on any claimed authority by myself or Gino Scalabrini. Rather, they are based on our research of polygraphy. We encourage readers to think critically and have annotated the text with ample citations to primary sources that readers may check for themselves. While neither Gino Scalabrini nor myself hold degrees in polygraph-related fields, a number of individuals who do, including the late David Lykken, Bill Iacono, John Furedy, and Drew Richardson were kind enough to review the manuscript of our first edition and provided critical commentary that we incorporated.
We make no claims of infallibility. If there is anything in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector that you believe to be false or misleading, you are welcome to post your criticisms to this message board. In fact, we have a specific forum dedicated to this purpose here:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=8.0
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...
Gee, maybe JPW would be interested in taking the polygraph countermeasure challenge and PROVE he can detect CMs.
There is ample evidence that CMs work with 95-98% accuracy. I would cite the evidence, but I am not about to do research for you. At least not for free.
Incidently, can you PROVE that CMs DON'T WORK? Polygraph operators have posted here before suggesting the onus is on us to prove the polygraph DOESN'T WORK. Of course this turns the scientific method upside-down. But turnaround is fair play! So, prove us wrong. You can start by proving you can even DETECT countermeasures. I find it hard to believe you can detect a person performing difficult math problems in his/her head, or biting the side of their tongue.
So, the gauntlet has been thrown, will you pick it up?
TC
P.S. There is a little thing in this country we call "free speech".
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."
Excellent challenge, JPW. However, all you will get, essentially, is "We failed a polygraph exam. We then read a lot of stuff, we picked what we liked, and we have some like-minded friends who agree with us."
Citing Dr. Drew Richardson as any kind of "expert" on the polygraph process is ridiculous. Read Dr. Richardson's silly "Countermeasures Challenge" thread if you wish to know more.
To readers, I would like to quote what George Maschke, author of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, just said: "We make no claims of infallibility." This statement should immediately be placed in the little book, along with a statement of indemnity such as, " WARNING: We have no actual training or experience with the polygraph. Use this information at your own risk. The authors are not responsible for any adverse consequences caused by following our advice because we have had no training or experience with the polygraph process other than having failed it."
I have personally witnessed the adverse consequences when naive, frightened, gullible readers of this website attempt to put the advice in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to use. Therefore, despite the fact that you will never get such a warning from the authors, I must warn you that you follow their advice at your peril.
The fact remains that George Maschke, Gino Scalabrini, and their small cadre of sycophants on this "anti-polygraph" website are completely without any qualifications to make statements regarding the polygraph process.
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 09, 2009, 04:29 PMThe fact remains that George Maschke, Gino Scalabrini, and their small cadre of sycophants on this "anti-polygraph" website are completely without any qualifications to make statements regarding the polygraph process.
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.
Quote from: Sergeant1107 on May 10, 2009, 07:09 AMI 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.
Sarge,
Just to make sure that the readers of this forum understand your situation:
1. Are you saying that in all four of the polygraph tests you were administered, all of the relevant, comparison, irrelevant, and sacrifice relevant questions were the same?
2. Were just all of the relevant questions identical?
3. What test formats were used in each? Were all four the same, or were different formats used?
4. Did each test use the same "scoring" technique (3 position, 7 position, global?)
5. Did all four agencies have the exact same disqualifying criteria?
6. Did you receive correspondence from the three agencies that "failed" you stating that the sole reason you were disqualified was due to the polygraph process? If so, could you provide a redacted copy of that correspondence on this forum? (We don't need the name of the particular agency)
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.
So, what you are saying is that, like Cullen, you failed several polygraph exams, and yet you expect readers, or worse, experts like myself, to believe that it is the polygraph process, not you, who is at fault? Incredible.
QuoteSo, what you are saying is that, like Cullen, you failed several polygraph exams, and yet you expect readers, or worse, experts like myself, to believe that it is the polygraph process, not you, who is at fault? Incredible.
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
QuoteI have personally witnessed the adverse consequences when naive, frightened, gullible readers of this website attempt to put the advice in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to use. Therefore, despite the fact that you will never get such a warning from the authors, I must warn you that you follow their advice at your peril.
They can go to the "personal statements" section of this website to see the "adverse consequences" that happens to some people when they go into the polygraph test with a cooperative spirit and answer all questions truthfully. Especially at the FBI.
You have absolutely no evidence that you can detect countermeasures. Many polygraphers are clueless about countermeasures. For example, people have reported here that polygraphers have accused them of using countermeasures when they slowed down their breathing in an attempt to "relax". The countermeasure techniques in TLBLD recommend INCREASING reactions.
If the NSA uses the same format they used on me in 2000 (relevant/irrelevant), countermeasures wouldn't even be prescribed by the info in TLBLD. Counter interrogation awareness and a healthy skepticism of the test and examiner (kept to oneself) would be prescribed.
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.
Quote from: T.Cullen on May 10, 2009, 03:02 PMThe 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!
I fail to see the relevance of this ad "hominy" accusation. Read the report yourself if you want to read it word-for-word in its entirety. I quoted what the NAS said, even if I did not take up several pages quoting all of Chapter 5. Quoting particular sections while not quoting every section is wrong when I do it, but not wrong when George et. al do exactly the same thing? There's no argument that the NAS stated that, despite Maschke's and Scalabrini's claims that examinees can easily learn to effectively implement countermeasures to pass a polygraph exam, there is no research to back up this claim AND examinees who use countermeasures are more likely to increase their appearance of being deceptive. Is that too difficult to understand? Sure, they state that Maschke and Scalabrini SUGGEST that countermeasures can be easily learned and effectively implemented, but nowhere do they say that either of these authors of TLBTLD have any training or practical experience, nor have they conducted any studies themselves.
"Anti-" people claim that the polygraph is not accurate because a few people on this forum claim that it isn't. The overwhelming majority of examinees pass the exam. Of those who don't, more than half make admissions that prove they lied. Of those that remain, it's reasonable to expect that many of them, although they admitted nothing, were in fact lying and were detected. This leaves a very small percentage who, like yourself, Cullen, claim to be "false positives." How many of those "false positives" attempted countermeasures and screwed themselves? We'll never know, but it's reasonable to believe that some of them did. I believe that if you and Sergeant1107 were honest, you'd have to admit that you tried to influence at least one, if not several of your failed exams, and it backfired on you. In fact, although I can't prove it because I wasn't there and I didn't see the data, I would be extremely surprised if it weren't so. While I've admitted that a "false positive" is a very slight possibility, it's unbelievable that it would happen three out of four times to both of you without your having a part in it. But of course you won't admit that because you would look even more foolish than you do now.
Here's what I believe caused George Maschke to fail not just one, but EVERY relevant question on his FBI exam: He attempted spontaneous countermeasures and screwed himself. I'm 99.9% sure of it because I've never EVER seen an examinee fail EVERY relevant question on a screening exam.
Now, with regard to countermeasures, I'm not going to help you by discussing the tell-tale patterns and increasingly well-known signs of countermeasures that we in polygraph use to detect them. You will of course say that if I had any such knowledge, why can't I talk about it or prove it? The answer is that I don't need to, nor do I want to in order to satisfy a few skeptical people on an obscure website. I will simply say that countermeasures are not as difficult to detect as you on this website claim, nor are they learned or implemented easily as suggested by Maschke and Scalabrini, who, remember, have had absolutely no training or practical experience with the polygraph.
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?
:)
QuoteThose who are opposed to pre-employment screening are entitled to their opinion. But that does not negate the effectiveness of the process.
The National Academy of Sciences would dispute your above claim that employment polygraph screening is effective.
TC
QuoteSergeant 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?
Smiley
Who would you consider more qualified to make such criticisms, the NAS, or people who make a living from the polygraph?
But based on your absurd logic, the NAS would not be qualified to make such criticisms as they have no experience conducting polygraphs.
TC
Cullen, First off, your response has absolutely nothing to do with my question. You are again simply tryng to change the subject.
Your selective agreement with the NAS report fails to provide any illumination of your own expertise or lack of the same regarding the topic under discussion, which was the scope of my question. You are also attempting to falsley and intentionally attribute opinions to me that I have neither expressd or implied.
Since you asked, if you will read the front matter of the NAS report you would find biographical sketches for each of the committee members that outline their education, knowledge, experience and expertise in a narrative fashion. While not a formalized Curriculum Vitae, there is sufficient information to allow one to verify the nature and scope of their expertise in their respective disciplines. I do not have any reason to dispute the information contained in these biographical sketches regarding their qualifications. Whether or not these qualifications are collectively appropriate, or sufficient, for the task they assumed is certainly open to debate.
It is unfortunate that these biographical sketches did not include any information that even one single person on their committee was trained in polygraph and polygraph exam administration relation to the detection of deception. One could argue that a fair and balanced review of polygraph or any other topic under similar review would benefit from intimate, inside, knowledge of the process under scrutiny at the committee membership, or at least staff advisory level.
Notably, when the NAS did their review of DNA Analysis entitled The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence 1996, they used several members on THAT committee who had actually conducted forensic DNA analysis/comparisons. In my opinion, their failure to do so regarding polygraph leaves them vulnerable to accusations of engaging in some type of "Star Chamber Proceeding". I am not making any accusations here. I have no material basis for such an accusation myself.
Secondly, do you not see any conflict between your support of your interpretation of their findings with respect to polygraph screening and your disagreement with their findings regarding the problems with George and Gino's claims regarding countermeasures? Perhaps they will allow you to just go in and redact the parts you don't like and then republish it to read the way you think it should.
So, Cullen, at the risk of repeating myself to someone who appears to either not understand or refuses to acknowledge the content of a fairly direct question; do you consider yourself more or less qualified to render criticism, training, or advice regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and Interview/Interrogation procedures than George and Gino?
Quote from: LieBabyCryBaby on May 10, 2009, 12:31 PMSo, what you are saying is that, like Cullen, you failed several polygraph exams, and yet you expect readers, or worse, experts like myself, to believe that it is the polygraph process, not you, who is at fault? Incredible.
So you feel it would make more sense for me to tell the truth in my polygraph exams, fail and be accused of lying, and conclude that I must have done something wrong? That seems completely unreasonable.
Even if you wish to believe it was I who was at fault the polygraph is hardly off the hook. At the time I took the polygraph exams I was under the impression that the polygraph was completely legitimate and that all I had to do was answer the questions truthfully and I would pass. I did not know countermeasures existed and I certainly did not attempt to use any. I don't think it is a strong argument for polygraph supporters if they hold that my actions (believing in the legitimacy of the polygraph, cooperating with all instructions, and answering all questions truthfully) were the cause of my failures to pass the polygraph.
If an honest and ethical person can take three polygraph exams in a row, answer all the questions truthfully and without witholding any information, and can fail all three, I really don't see how any reasonable person could conclude that the polygraph is highly accurate the rest of the time.
An Intoxilyzer is a scientific test. If I witness someone drink a six pack of beer, wait an hour, and then blow zeroes on three separate occasions using three separate Intoxilyzers, I would be forced to conclude that the Intoxilyzer was not an accurate method of detecting a person's blood alcohol content. I don't see how any other conclusion could be reasonably possible. I don't think concluding that the person drinking and blowing zeroes is at fault would be even remotely reasonable or logical.
Stories regarding how accurate the pre-employment polygraph usually have a fatal flaw. People who lied successfully or who successfully used countermeasures to pass their polygraph are extremely unlikely to come forward and admit that to anyone. So, unless data becomes available regarding the percentage of people who passed their pre-employment polygraphs despite lying or using countermeasures, it seems more reasonable to listen to the one person who knows if the polygraph's results were accurate or not.
Sergeant, maybe you need to actually pay attention when someone like JPW explains things to you, because it's obvious that you were either not sufficiently intelligent to understand the term "ad populum," or you habitually pass over any facts that don't fit into your very narrow frame of reference. Here, let me make it simpler:
Just because you and a few people on this site claim to have failed multiple polygraph exams through no fault of your own doesn't mean that you are in a majority. In fact, you are in a tiny minority, yet you expect others to believe that just because you had a particular experience they will too. It doesn't work that way, and in my experience (there's that word again--the thing that you lack) most people pass the polygraph IF they simply follow instructions and don't screw with the exam.
Readers, take the poor advice that some people on this forum give you at your own peril. I don't enjoy failing people in a polygraph exam, and I counsel you here so that maybe you can avoid being one of them like the good but ignorant Sergeant here.
QuoteYour selective agreement with the NAS report fails to provide any illumination of your own expertise or lack of the same regarding the topic under discussion, which was the scope of my question. You are also attempting to falsley and intentionally attribute opinions to me that I have neither expressd or implied.
I have no credentials in the fields of mediumship, astology or fortune telling either. And YES, you can actually get credentialed in those fields (for whatever that is worth). Does that preclude me from criticising fortune tellers and claiming there is no evidence to support their claim that they can tell the future or see dead people?
QuoteSince you asked, if you will read the front matter of the NAS report you would find biographical sketches for each of the committee members that outline their education, knowledge, experience and expertise in a narrative fashion. While not a formalized Curriculum Vitae, there is sufficient information to allow one to verify the nature and scope of their expertise in their respective disciplines.
NEWS FLASH! I base much of my criticism largely on the conclusions in their report. You see, people criticizing claims made by practitioners in various fields don't necessarily need to be qualified in that field. They can simple read what other highly qualified persons written and use that as the basis for their arguments. That's why they have graduate schools and colleges.
QuoteIt is unfortunate that these biographical sketches did not include any information that even one single person on their committee was trained in polygraph and polygraph exam administration relation to the detection of deception. One could argue that a fair and balanced review of polygraph or any other topic under similar review would benefit from intimate, inside, knowledge of the process under scrutiny at the committee membership, or at least staff advisory level.
Your APA claims:
The American Polygraph Association believes that scientific evidence supports the high validity of polygraph examinations. Thus, such examinations have great probative value and utility for various uses in the criminal justice system. However, a valid examination requires a combination of a properly trained examiner, a polygraph instrument that records as a minimum cardiovascular, respiratory, and electrodermal activity, and the proper administration of an accepted testing procedure and scoring system.An industry can claim anything it wants to. Who is better qualified to determine the veracity of the above claim of "scientific validity" than the National Academy of SCIENCES? You and LBCB are the ones harping on qualifications...etc.
The NAS concluded, among other things that"
"[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."
I personally, would put more creedence in what the NAS has to say in regard to the scientific validy and probative value of the polygraph, than the industry itself. In a similar fashion, I would put more faith in what the AMA has to say about the health hazards of smoking, than I would the tobacco industry!
Quote...most people pass the polygraph IF they simply follow instructions and don't screw with the exam.
Probably true, but so have most spies caught over the past several decades.
BTW, how many spies or major criminals have been caught via the polygraph?
TC
Wow! We finally agree on something, Cullen. Your "Probably true" is an overdue concession. There's hope for you yet.
So how many spies have been caught as a result of the periodic polygraph employee screening? We know there are many spies, criminals that have fallen through the cracks due to reliance on the polygraph. Are there any which the polygraph exposed?
The real value of a mouse trap, is measured in how many mice it catches.
TC
Quote from: 041E194E0 on May 10, 2009, 04:30 PMGeorge, 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.
No, that is an overly broad statement. I'm a formally trained and experienced interrogator.
QuoteIt 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.
I think that objective readers will find the information presented in
The Lie Behind the Lie Detector to be well-researched and well-documented. Again, if there is anything we've written that you believe to be inaccurate, I invite you to post your criticisms to the forum devoted to that purpose:
https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?board=8.0
This challenge from JPW to Dr. Maschke and Mr. Scalabrini is about as silly as it comes, requires great chutzpah, and is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. The vast majority of the world of psychophysiology considers polygraphy little more than a scientifically-baseless trade school program. Polygraphy is little more to this group than the proverbial ugly step child that it would like to keep quietly closeted.
The Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR), although perhaps the most prestigious of relevant psychophysiological professional organizations, is a relatively small group without deep pockets and generally not in a position to openly criticize the small minority of its members that have substantial connection to polygraphy. But even the new doctoral grads and post docs of this group know that they get involved in full-time polygraphy at their own risk. Such a move is viewed as potentially, if not likely, unidirectional, i.e., with dim prospects of returning to a serious tenure track academic position.
It is laughable to think that the NAS would have polygraph operators on its panel to evaluate polygraph practice. It should be pointed out though that the polygraph community did have complete and continual access to this committee and its workings and presumably made known whatever it wanted to this panel and its individual members.
Quote from: George_Maschke on May 11, 2009, 04:04 AMNo, that is an overly broad statement. I'm a formally trained and experienced interrogator.
Really" Reid?, Walters?, Foster? Anything nationally recognized?
Getrealallready if you think it takes Chutzpah to ask a couple of teachers for their qualifications then I guess I'm guilty of Chutzpah. Seems to me that it was about time SOMEBODY asked them.
Especially since George's initial reply to my challenge included statements like "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... neither Gino Scalabrini nor myself hold degrees in polygraph-related fields... We make no claims of infallibility..."
At least he didn't try to sidestep a very simple question like you, Cullen and Sergeant 1107. But let me repeat it for you.
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?
Please note that I did not ask you for your qualifications although you are free to provide them, if you wish. I am simply asking if you consider yourself MORE or LESS qualified than they are regarding this limited body of knowledge and skill sets.
I did not suggest that the NAS should have selected some random polygraph examiner to sit on their committee. Please read it again and if you still don't understand the comment I will endeavor to explain it to you.
QuoteSince you asked, if you will read the front matter of the NAS report you would find biographical sketches for each of the committee members that outline their education, knowledge, experience and expertise in a narrative fashion. While not a formalized Curriculum Vitae, there is sufficient information to allow one to verify the nature and scope of their expertise in their respective disciplines. I do not have any reason to dispute the information contained in these biographical sketches regarding their qualifications. Whether or not these qualifications are collectively appropriate, or sufficient, for the task they assumed is certainly open to debate.
It is unfortunate that these biographical sketches did not include any information that even one single person on their committee was trained in polygraph and polygraph exam administration relation to the detection of deception. One could argue that a fair and balanced review of polygraph or any other topic under similar review would benefit from intimate, inside, knowledge of the process under scrutiny at the committee membership, or at least staff advisory level.
Notably, when the NAS did their review of DNA Analysis entitled The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence 1996, they used several members on THAT committee who had actually conducted forensic DNA analysis/comparisons. In my opinion, their failure to do so regarding polygraph leaves them vulnerable to accusations of engaging in some type of "Star Chamber Proceeding". I am not making any accusations here. I have no material basis for such an accusation myself.
P.S. Do you know whether or not SPR requires any formal education or training in Psychology, Physiology, or Psychophisiology for membership? I think you will find that while a polygraph examiner is technically eligible for full membership in SPR with sponsorship, A psychophisiologist would not meet the requirements for full membership in the American Polygraph Association without having successfully graduated polygraph training.
Quote from: 465C5B0C0 on May 11, 2009, 08:51 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on May 11, 2009, 04:04 AMNo, that is an overly broad statement. I'm a formally trained and experienced interrogator.
Really" Reid?, Walters?, Foster? Anything nationally recognized?
Yes, really. As mentioned in my statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter With the Polygraph," (https://antipolygraph.org/statements/statement-003.shtml) I received my interrogation training at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center, Fort Huachuca, Arizona.
Getrealallready. Last night when I looked at your continued practice of sidestepping questions, Sergeant's continuing quest outside himself for someone to explain why he failed 3 polygraph tests and Cullen's fallacious and less than clever attempts at logic and thinly disguised Ad Hominum argument; I was suddenly reminded of one of Roger Miller's oft-quoted lyrics, "You Can't Roller Skate in a Buffalo Herd" Low and behold I looked down and discovered a substance for which there are many slang terms describing that which is a known residual of the American Bison, spread liberally by some Antipolygraph types that tends to clog my skate wheels every time I come here.
I realize that the question "Do you consider yourself more or less qualified to render criticism, training, or advice regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and Interview/Interrogation procedures than George and Gino?" is both loaded and double-edged interrogatory.
In order to answer "YES" you must claim qualifications greater than those the authors profess. This makes it tough to explain why you would both follow and espouse their teachings from the position of subordinate supporters. In order to answer NO you must admit that your qualifications are less that someone who stated, "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... neither Gino Scalabrini nor myself hold degrees in polygraph-related fields... We make no claims of infallibility..." and this makes it tough for you to explain why anyone should give more than casual consideration to ANYTHING ANY of you say on the subject.
I guess I really just asked so we could watch you all wiggle and squirm a bit while trying to avoid a direct answer. Lucky (for you) I am beginning to get bored with you. To once again quote Roger Miller, "But you can be happy if you've a mind to.." ;)
(http://www.geocities.com/mattreigns/General/gunnyhigh.jpg)
"With all due respect, sir, you're beginning to bore the hell out of me!"
Gunny Highway
Quote from: PhilGainey on May 12, 2009, 06:27 PM(http://www.geocities.com/mattreigns/General/gunnyhigh.jpg)
"With all due respect, sir, you're beginning to bore the hell out of me!"
Gunny Highway
That's the best he can come up with, JPW. And you're right about something: If George and Gino aren't credible because they lack any experience, training or credentials to render opinions regarding the polygraph process, why do we waste our time on Cullen and Sergeant? Why do we enjoy shooting fish in a barrel?
QuoteTo the unsuspecting reader of this forum, just passing by because you're worried about taking a polygraph in the near future, I once again counsel you to avoid the "snake oil" George is selling when he tells you that you must mess around with the polygraph process in order to pass the exam.
Thanks for the advice Mr.Cry baby, but you'd be more credible if you'd simply point out what specifically in TLBTLD you disagree with, rather than rant like you have. Certainly a man of your vast experience and astute intellect would have no problemo doing this.
Maybe you and JPW should get together with Sancho in Ponca City and chill. I heard the fishing is great there. I've always found a relaxing weekend fishing has help me to collect my thoughts and reground myself. Maybe you should try it. When you get back Monday, you can think with a fresh mind and take a look at GM's book and let us know what you find so inaccurate. We can all start fresh and maybe clear things up for you.
Cullen, you sure come across as a dimwit sometimes. As I said earlier, TLBTLD is a good little information booklet with some information taken directly from polygraph manuals, with a few lab studies selected according to George's bias. Where it really goes off track is when it states as though it were a proven fact that countermeasures work, and suggests that countermeasures should be used to ensure that one passes the test. Nothing could be further from the truth, and there is no research to back up this claim. Furthermore, neither of the authors has experienced passing a polygraph by using the countermeasures they advocate. Rather, they give very dubious advice to people who would do much better to ignore advice from those with no experience or qualifications to give it. As I stated in another post, you are like shooting fish in a barrel, Cullen, and hardly worth my or JPW's time and effort. George has no credibility, and you have less than zero. Since you can't come up with anything of value in these discussions, I will choose to ignore your "rants."
Quote from: 647E792E0 on May 12, 2009, 03:44 PMI realize that the question "Do you consider yourself more or less qualified to render criticism, training, or advice regarding Polygraph, Polygraph Countermeasures, Polygraph Research, and Interview/Interrogation procedures than George and Gino?" is both loaded and double-edged interrogatory.
The possibility you seem to have ignored is that I don't care about who is more or less qualified than this guy or that guy. It's irrelevant and I have never stopped to think about it. If someone authors a logical, well reasoned post what does it matter how many degrees they have or how many years they have spent as a polygraph examiner?
If you disagree with a post you are able to post a dissenting opinion. There is no certification or professional standing required to post on the Internet.
If you wish to only engage in discussions with polygraph examiners you can go to PolygraphPlace.com and do that. I don't see why anyone would come to a board on the AntiPolygraph.org web stie and preface a good portion of their posts by denigrating the lack of experience the original poster has as a polygraph examiner.
Anyone who comes to this site is sure to know that this site is an anti-polygraph web site. By coming to this site they are obviously looking for something other than the official company line on the accuracy of the polygraph. If any such person wanted to hear from polygraph examiners about whether or not the polygraph was an accurate method of detecting deception they would certainly not go to a site named "AntiPolygraph.org" in order to do so.
By constantly pointing out that various posters are not polygraph examiners, or that they lack experience in the field of polygraphing, or that they have not conducted a sufficient number of polygraph exams to be called an expert, you are not telling anyone anything they don't already know. All you are doing is engaging in pointless ad hom attacks that simply make your own posts less credible.
If George starts posting on PolygraphPlace.com and starts giving advice on the polygraph it would probably be appropriate to inquire about his credentials, since people going to that message board tend to assume their questions are being answered by a polygraph examiner. There is no such assumption on this message board.