Mr. Ligenfelter,

You raise an interesting point. Note that the bachelor's degree required for admittance to DoDPI needn't be in the field of psychophysiology: it could be in any field. I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of the polygraphers in federal employ can make no legitimate claim to being psychophysiologists in a general sense such that they might then be further qualified as "forensic" psychophysiologists.

And "forensic psychophysiology" seems to be unique among the forensic sciences in that it is the only one whose standardized techniques and procedures are an official secret (albeit an unclassified secret).

The use of buzzwords such as "forensic psychophysiology" and the invocation of secrecy regarding just what it is that "forensic psychophysiologists" actually do help to illustrate that what is actually going on here is a massive fraud whose survival depends on an uninformed (or misinformed) public.

Anonymous,

It appears that even a high school diploma is not a formal requirement for membership in the American Polygraph Association. See Section 5 of the APA bylaws. (You'll need to scroll down.)

Hey George,

  I echo the previous post by Anonymous; you are providing an excellent service here for victims of false positive polygraph testing.

  Please continue your quest, crusade and mission. I think you are on the right track. Keep up the good work! It is obvious that this website seriously “pisses off” the polygraphers out there; I think it is absolutely hilarious. This site has exposed them for what they are, as well as the tarot card reading tactics common with polygraph testing. They should simply just flip a coin.? 

  I would like to extend my sincere appreciation for what this website represents.   

CONGRATULATIONS, AND JOB WELL DONE!

G-Man

 

Mr._Ligenfelter wrote on Aug 8^th, 2002 at 9:51am:


Actually, Mr. Ligenfelter, that depends.  There are certain fields of scientific pursuit in which the Ph.d is the terminal degree.  In others, the Master's is the final degree.  In the field of Forensic Psychophysiology, as practiced in the federal government, the M.S. in Forensic Psychophysiology, is the terminal degree.  It is awarded by DoDPI in conjunction with a fully accredited, nationally recognized university, and comes after a demanding 14 week course of study (several hundred hours), all on the graduate level.  After graduation from DoDPI, the intern examiner continues with a few final courses at his local university, which are then transferred back and ultimately a fully accredited M.S. is awarded in Forensic Psychophysiology.  This earns the man or woman the right to be addressed by his or her proper title...

PDD-Fed...


 

George,

You said...

Quote:


George, you probably know more about academia than I do, but let's say the Master's was in Forensic Handwriting analysis (another Forensic "art") instead of PDD, and you were the head of a crime lab interviewing two applicants.  One has a M.S., the other an M.A.  Would the M.A. mean that much less to you than the M.S., if both were certified and equally qualified?  Better be careful here, I personally know several people in crime labs who have M.A.'s.  Some of them are lab directors.  If you don't believe me, please read the membership directory of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS)... 

PDD-Fed...

By the way, there any hundreds (maybe thousands) of AAFS full members who hold nothing more than a B.S./B.A.  Are they not suitably trained for their jobs?

PDD-Fed,

The problem with the federal polygraph training that I witnessed years ago was not trying to determine whether graduates should be awarded a M.A. or M.S. degree but that this training had no meaningful prerequisite academic requirements in either psychology or physiology (presumably a basis for graduate level study in psychophysiology and the awarding of a graduate degree in this discipline).  This led to teaching which was designed to meet the needs of the lowest common denominator, leading to physiology being taught beginning at the level of eighth grade health science, e.g., ".... this is a drop of blood and this is how it travels through the body...." etc. etc.  The coursework I saw taught was, of necessity, little more than a survey course for non-majors.  

Although this may have been useful for some in attendance, it was hardly graduate level training in psychophysiology.  As long as federal agency employment, criminal investigative experience and an undergraduate degree in criminal justice or political science is a sufficient basis for matriculation, I'm afraid this will continue to be the case.  Perhaps you can tell me if the matriculation requirements for basic polygraph examiner training have changed in the last decade.  Again, I'm not necessarily criticizing the awarding of a degree, just the field of award.  If a participating institution would care to award a masters degree in lie detection, I would have no problem with that.  Although I might question the value of such a degree, I would not question the basis for the degree having been awarded.

And no, an award in forensic psychophysiology is no more appropriate.  My lack of training in astrophysics is not a basis for my being awarded a degree in forensic astrophysics.  Such an award of degree and specialty designation would not only be meaningless and silly, but offensive to both those involved in the study and application of forensic science and astrophysics alike.  Such is likewise presently true for forensic psychophysiology.  It would be possible though, for those with legitimate academic qualifications in psychophysiology to pursue a relevant and meaningful sub-specialty discipline.  This latter logical and evolutionary progression of academic specialty should in no way be confused with the status quo degree masquerade we now see in the world of polygraphy.

Batman,

I am glad to see that which is contained in your last post and would like to believe that federal polygraph examiners understand the nonsense connected with make believe academic affiliations, pseudo-professional nomenclature, and any connection with polygraph screening.  Unfortunately though, it is not enough to hide behind the cape of the mythical caped crusader and leak this information out.  Those of like mind need to come forward and publicly express such opinions and even outrage with the continuation of these problem areas.  I know from personal experience that one can express minority opinions at odds with prevailing practice and survive within a bureaucracy.  I would like to think that a strong united voice coming from the ranks of many in the federal polygraph community would not only survive the ordeal, but also thrive and bring needed change.  The criminal investigative work they are involved with and care about will then be allowed to proceed, perhaps flourish with new insights unfettered with the aforementioned issues on the industry periphery that have been found to be either comical or worse--offensive and damaging to so many.