Challenge to Dr. George W. Maschke, PhD and/or Gino J. Scalabrini

[T.Cullen]

Those 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

[T.Cullen]

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?
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

[JPW]

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?

[Sergeant1107]

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.

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.

[LieBabyCryBaby]

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.

[T.Cullen]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

[T.Cullen]

...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

[LieBabyCryBaby]

Wow!  We finally agree on something, Cullen.  Your "Probably true" is an overdue concession.  There's hope for you yet.

[T.Cullen]

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

[George W. Maschke]

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.

No, that is an overly broad statement. I'm a formally trained and experienced interrogator.

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.

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

[getrealalready]

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.

[JPW]

No, 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.

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.

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.

[George W. Maschke]

No, 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," I received my interrogation training at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center, Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

[JPW]

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.."

[T.M. Cullen]

"With all due respect, sir, you're beginning to bore the hell out of me!"

Gunny Highway