Drew,
Thanks for humoring me by responding to my hypothetical question. As I understand it, the bottom line is that you believe the bureaucracy has blocked progress and you are not sure that you could have overcome that for any meaningful change. I'm at least glad to see that you would not have immediately initiated sweeping elimnations of whole programs upon which national security programs have relied. Perhaps you would have advocated close research to find the most effective formats for screening (and specific issue for that matter), develop new methodologies, and maybe adjust the application and role upon exams in the screening arena. Contrary to what is often stated on this site and message board, those processes have occurred and are ongoing at DoDPI. And, of course, you and the purveyors of this site have provided a mission for DoDPI researchers detracting from the aforementioned -- determining the effectiveness of counter-measures, how to identify them, and developing counter-countermeasures. (With all that on their plate who has time to answer silly challenges from this web site.
![Smiley Smiley](https://antipolygraph.org/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/smiley.gif)
)
I've read the thread placed (inappropriately I would say) under non-poly forums - military. First of all the term forensic psychophysiologist was kicked around a few years ago, but was shot down because, for the most part, polygraphers do not hold doctorates (as anything -ologist implies). However, Forensic Psychophysiological Detection of Deception, though absurdly cumbersome, is accurate. It is obviously forensic (since it is for the purpose of resolving an investigation), and the instrument monitors physiology to diagnose psychological set as it pertains to whether a person is truthful to a relevant issue. Of course, I'll stick with polygraph examiner/examination.
If you re-examined the DoDPI curriculum, I believe you would see the psychology and physiology (and basic scientific research) are quite demanding and taught at the 500 level. The washout rate during this period is quite high (considering the money spent by agencies to send people here). The "art" portions (please excuse my use of this term again) are also quite demanding and many who excelled in the science portions wash out here, because they lack the interpersonal skills to perform effective pre- and post-exam tasks.
I think your scientific background lends some bias to your opinions regarding what academic background an examiner in the field needs. He is a technician (is that better than artist?). He needs a sound understanding of the scientific basis of the exam and an expertise at the art (there I go again) that makes it effective. But,why must he need to know how to set up good research and statistically analyze it if he is not doing research. The PhD's provide that service and give the guidelines for the technician to follow in order to apply the most effective exams in the most effective way. Like the radiology tech who does just fine (often with a two year degree), taking X-rays without the radiologist (MD) being present. I would agree however, that researchers, DoDPI instructors, and perhaps agency supervisors, need advanced education in this field (and today most do).
And why should it be required that an applicant to DoDPI has an extensive scientific background. The BS/BA is required. The standards are set and if a student can not maintain those standards they are dropped from the course. You could raise the standards and raise the bar on the amount of material to learn while in the course. But like many reputable graduate programs, prior specialization in the field as an undergraduate is not required. The person without the relevant undergraduate training will just have to work harder to attain the required level of knowledge in the field.
And lastly, I would argue that it would be more dangerous to have a scientist with no experience in investigations, run exams. While he might better understand what processes are at work internally, he may not have the interpersonal skills necessary to ensure the examination works or amounts to anything useful (that art thing again). To me it takes a good cop, with good interview skills, and above average intelligence (with good comprehension of the basic psychology/physiology involved) to run an effective exam. But it does not take a PhD, MD, JD, PsyD, or even a psychophysiologist. And as you know a scientist does not necessarily make a good cop, examiner, or supervisory special agent.
Which brings me to another question... (Do not construe this as a personal attack, as I think I have made it clear that I do not question your credentials or abilities.) How does a person with a chemistry background end up in the polygraph field? Why did the FBI hire you as a scientist, but place you in the field as a special agent first? Few labs require you to be an agent before you work as a forensic chemist. What type of work did you do with the bureau before going into the lab and poly? I ask, because it would seem odd to me to send you to work as an examiner if you had little experience (or success) with suspect/subject interviews. And, I have seen persons who are not good interviewers, question the validity of the exam because they are not successful at validating their results with admissions/confessions. I'm not saying that is the case with you. I don't even know how many, what type, or what results came of, the exams you ran. I'm also not saying its bad for a good investigator to not be a highly skilled in interview techniques. Each agent brings his or her own talents to the table. Most who become examiners and question the test for the mentioned reason, do so because they were so good at investigation as a whole and could not understand any shortcomings in successful interviewing at this level (the DI ones are the ones that lied to other cops).
Again just a few thoughts that came up in reading your post.
Thanks once again for enduring my long-windedness.
Public Servant