- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by furedy
- Sep 01, 2004, 08:36 PMOn "forensic psychophysiology", the MA program, Bill Yankee, and the advisory committee: Some recollections to add to Drew Ricahardson's and others' comments
John Furedy
When Drew was a student at DODPI, apparently at his institation, Bill Yankee invited me to give a talk (my usual anti-CQT) one that was videotaped (I still have the video copy, although apparently DODPI destroyed its original), and also consulted with me on how to mount an academically resepctable master's program. During this period, I suggested the term "forensic psychophysiology" to best describe what DODPI was doing.
However, I argued that forensic psychophysiology (FP) actually had to components, detection of guilt (best done by GKT-type methods) and interrogation (for which the CQT-type polygraph was a useful prop). I suggested that the MA program consist of two strands, i.e., the science of detection and the art of interrogation. Perhaps because most of even the scientific North American community don't accept this distinction (between the GKT and the CQT), my suggestion of this distinction was not accepted, but the FP term obviously was.
A little later Bill formed the advisory committee, whose main function was to suggest how the research profile at DODPI could be raised, through the publivcation of papers in high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific jouirnals. I and most others on the committee agreed that even if the CQT was employed in the field, research focussed on the GKT should be carried out. This advice also was not very much followed, after which we were all fired by the new director who wished to change the DODI direction, which he did.
A final recollection, the date of which I'm not certain. Id beenappearing in court since 1982 against the polygraph, of which DODPI was aware. However, there was a court martial in New Mexico involving the accusation of rape during desert storm (I think the case is Martinez) at which I specifically criticized a DODPI method of delivering the CQT, and got the polygraph-related evidence thrown out. Soon after I learned that there was another meeting of the advisory commitee, to which, however, I had not been invited. When the other members of the committee said that they would not come unless I also came, I was invited, and attended what I think was the last or second-last meeting of the committee before it was dismissed.
John Furedy
When Drew was a student at DODPI, apparently at his institation, Bill Yankee invited me to give a talk (my usual anti-CQT) one that was videotaped (I still have the video copy, although apparently DODPI destroyed its original), and also consulted with me on how to mount an academically resepctable master's program. During this period, I suggested the term "forensic psychophysiology" to best describe what DODPI was doing.
However, I argued that forensic psychophysiology (FP) actually had to components, detection of guilt (best done by GKT-type methods) and interrogation (for which the CQT-type polygraph was a useful prop). I suggested that the MA program consist of two strands, i.e., the science of detection and the art of interrogation. Perhaps because most of even the scientific North American community don't accept this distinction (between the GKT and the CQT), my suggestion of this distinction was not accepted, but the FP term obviously was.
A little later Bill formed the advisory committee, whose main function was to suggest how the research profile at DODPI could be raised, through the publivcation of papers in high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific jouirnals. I and most others on the committee agreed that even if the CQT was employed in the field, research focussed on the GKT should be carried out. This advice also was not very much followed, after which we were all fired by the new director who wished to change the DODI direction, which he did.
A final recollection, the date of which I'm not certain. Id beenappearing in court since 1982 against the polygraph, of which DODPI was aware. However, there was a court martial in New Mexico involving the accusation of rape during desert storm (I think the case is Martinez) at which I specifically criticized a DODPI method of delivering the CQT, and got the polygraph-related evidence thrown out. Soon after I learned that there was another meeting of the advisory commitee, to which, however, I had not been invited. When the other members of the committee said that they would not come unless I also came, I was invited, and attended what I think was the last or second-last meeting of the committee before it was dismissed.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 13, 2002, 05:07 PMYankeedog,
If the master's program you refer to is one in the area of psychophysiology, then I believe serious undergraduate preparation in the areas of psychology and physiology should be mandatory. Quite likely coursework related to the general conduct of research and basic statistical methods should be included as well in this list of pre-matriculation requirements. If the master's degree were to be offered in criminal justice (or something else), then the requirements would obviously be different.
Although I question the validity of control question testing in both specific issue testing and (particularly in) screening applications, I probably would not strongly disagree with your stated uses. If examinees are protected through the investigative process with the former use and through subsequent focused background investigations with the latter use, I would be much less concerned than I am with the use of polygraph screening as a sole determinant of suitability for employment or continued employment (the focus of this site). I should point out though, that I believe it is certainly possible that instead of an examinee being protected from the consequences of a false positive result through further investigation, that the examinee might well be the victim of a false positive polygraph result stemming from the bias (passed from investigating/case agent to polygrapher) of a wrong (but prevailing) investigative theory at the time of the exam. Regards,
If the master's program you refer to is one in the area of psychophysiology, then I believe serious undergraduate preparation in the areas of psychology and physiology should be mandatory. Quite likely coursework related to the general conduct of research and basic statistical methods should be included as well in this list of pre-matriculation requirements. If the master's degree were to be offered in criminal justice (or something else), then the requirements would obviously be different.
Although I question the validity of control question testing in both specific issue testing and (particularly in) screening applications, I probably would not strongly disagree with your stated uses. If examinees are protected through the investigative process with the former use and through subsequent focused background investigations with the latter use, I would be much less concerned than I am with the use of polygraph screening as a sole determinant of suitability for employment or continued employment (the focus of this site). I should point out though, that I believe it is certainly possible that instead of an examinee being protected from the consequences of a false positive result through further investigation, that the examinee might well be the victim of a false positive polygraph result stemming from the bias (passed from investigating/case agent to polygrapher) of a wrong (but prevailing) investigative theory at the time of the exam. Regards,
Posted by yankeedog
- Aug 13, 2002, 04:51 PMDrew,
What do you think the background should be for the students to be taught at the Masters level at DoDPI. I have to tell you Drew, I've had alot of success with the polygraph when I use it ONLY as an investigative tool, and not as a means to determine guilty or not guilty. And when used for pre-employment, it all depends on how the test results are used. If the test results are used as the sole reason to disqualify, that is trying to do more than it can do.
What do you think the background should be for the students to be taught at the Masters level at DoDPI. I have to tell you Drew, I've had alot of success with the polygraph when I use it ONLY as an investigative tool, and not as a means to determine guilty or not guilty. And when used for pre-employment, it all depends on how the test results are used. If the test results are used as the sole reason to disqualify, that is trying to do more than it can do.
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 13, 2002, 02:51 PMPDD-Fed,
In the early 1990s (at the time Dr. Sheila Reed was teaching psychology and physiology to polygraph students at DoDPI) she (in particular) and DoDPI would have had more than sufficient credentials to teach these disciplines at a master's level. The problem was that the students did not have the background to be taught at this level. Until such time as matriculation requirements change, this will most assuredly remain the case...
You write:
We are apparently in complete agreement on this topic. I don't believe that this serious mistake of the post Bill Yankee era is one lacking a remedy. Although a distinguished group comprised of individuals such as these will no doubt be appropriately leery of any similar future involvement, because they are all serious professionals as well as academics and because many of the same challenges (some augmented) exist today as did a decade ago, I suspect that they might be successfully prevailed upon to reassemble their advisory group. Perhaps you might explore the possibility...
As you may recall, the aforementioned advisory group strongly opposed the use of polygraph screening in the early 90s. I suspect if this group had remained a viable body, the polygraph excesses we have witnessed since might never have occured and the need for this site and message board discussion might never have existed. Regards,
Drew Richardson
In the early 1990s (at the time Dr. Sheila Reed was teaching psychology and physiology to polygraph students at DoDPI) she (in particular) and DoDPI would have had more than sufficient credentials to teach these disciplines at a master's level. The problem was that the students did not have the background to be taught at this level. Until such time as matriculation requirements change, this will most assuredly remain the case...
You write:
Quote...On the next topic, you are right about the dismissal of the academic review committee. That was the decision of the regime that followed Dr. Yankee's and I personally believe it to be have been an extraordinarily bad decision for a variety of reasons. After all, if you are trying to make new friends, you don't kick people out of your house...
We are apparently in complete agreement on this topic. I don't believe that this serious mistake of the post Bill Yankee era is one lacking a remedy. Although a distinguished group comprised of individuals such as these will no doubt be appropriately leery of any similar future involvement, because they are all serious professionals as well as academics and because many of the same challenges (some augmented) exist today as did a decade ago, I suspect that they might be successfully prevailed upon to reassemble their advisory group. Perhaps you might explore the possibility...
As you may recall, the aforementioned advisory group strongly opposed the use of polygraph screening in the early 90s. I suspect if this group had remained a viable body, the polygraph excesses we have witnessed since might never have occured and the need for this site and message board discussion might never have existed. Regards,
Drew Richardson
Posted by PDD-Fed
- Aug 13, 2002, 02:11 PMQuote from: Drew Richardson on Aug 13, 2002, 11:31 AM
PDD-Fed,
I believe I asked you in a previous post if matriculation requirements had changed for basic examiner training at DoDPI since that time. I don't believe I've seen a reply. At that time, federal agency employment, criminal investigative experience, and an undergraduate degree in anything were sufficient for entry. Since that time has formalized prior academic involvement with psychology and physiology been mandated?
...in the intervening years, this academic review committee (amazingly containing three past presidents of the Society for Psychophysiological Research) was dismissed largely leaving DoDPI without serious outside academic review and oversight of any kind.
Drew,
The matriculation requirements are the same. However, it is my understanding that DoDPI just underwent a major inspection by a regional accrediting body (with the goal to eventually award its own degree and not having to rely on an association with another school.) This body allegedly reviewed the coursework of the Psychology and Physiology courses and approved them both for graduate level credit leading towards a Masters in Forensic Psychophysiology.
On the next topic, you are right about the dismissal of the academic review committee. That was the decision of the regime that followed Dr. Yankee's and I personally believe it to be have been an extrordinarily bad decision for a variety of reasons. After all, if you are trying to make new friends, you don't kick people out of your house...
PDD-Fed
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 13, 2002, 11:31 AMPDD-Fed,
You are quite right about Bill Yankee. It was his keen desire to see polygraphy rise from its status quo and polygraph education rise from trade school education it had largely been for decades. I know because I sat in his office in the early 1990s, discussed his desires extensively with him and offered contact information relative to the American Academy of Forensic Science, a group that he at the time was unfamiliar with. It was his desire to see the entry level qualifications (academic background and experience) of examiners change with these changes being reflected in a change in the manner and nature of how they would (could) be taught followed by, and I repeat followed by, various academic associations and interactions. It would not have been his desire to see sham associations and degree awards that sought merely to artificially inflate credentials in the absence of substantive change. I am not convinced that his vision has in any way become reality, but it still could...
I believe I asked you in a previous post if matriculation requirements had changed for basic examiner training at DoDPI since that time. I don't believe I've seen a reply. At that time, federal agency employment, criminal investigative experience, and an undergraduate degree in anything were sufficient for entry. Since that time has formalized prior academic involvement with psychology and physiology been mandated? Until such time as this is done, there exists no real possibility of serious graduate level education in the discipline of psychophysiology.
With regard to the academic review committee you referred to, again I am quite familiar with that topic because of personal involvement. Although a polygraph student myself at the time, because of my prior research and other academic contact with John Furedy, my shared research interests with Steve Porges (a member of my doctoral dissertation defense committee) and general contact with Bill Iacono (largely persona non grata with the polygraph community at that time as a result of being David Lykken's student), I made initial contacts with and referred these gentlemen to Bill Yankee for their potential involvement. The other two gentlemen who participated, Ed Katkin (Sheila Reed's former doctoral committee advisor) and Chris Patrick (formerly a graduate student of Bill Iacono) were suggested by Sheila Reed and others. What you neglect to mention in your previous post is that in the intervening years, this academic review committee (amazingly containing three past presidents of the Society for Psychophysiological Research) was dismissed largely leaving DoDPI without serious outside academic review and oversight of any kind.
You are quite right about Bill Yankee. It was his keen desire to see polygraphy rise from its status quo and polygraph education rise from trade school education it had largely been for decades. I know because I sat in his office in the early 1990s, discussed his desires extensively with him and offered contact information relative to the American Academy of Forensic Science, a group that he at the time was unfamiliar with. It was his desire to see the entry level qualifications (academic background and experience) of examiners change with these changes being reflected in a change in the manner and nature of how they would (could) be taught followed by, and I repeat followed by, various academic associations and interactions. It would not have been his desire to see sham associations and degree awards that sought merely to artificially inflate credentials in the absence of substantive change. I am not convinced that his vision has in any way become reality, but it still could...
I believe I asked you in a previous post if matriculation requirements had changed for basic examiner training at DoDPI since that time. I don't believe I've seen a reply. At that time, federal agency employment, criminal investigative experience, and an undergraduate degree in anything were sufficient for entry. Since that time has formalized prior academic involvement with psychology and physiology been mandated? Until such time as this is done, there exists no real possibility of serious graduate level education in the discipline of psychophysiology.
With regard to the academic review committee you referred to, again I am quite familiar with that topic because of personal involvement. Although a polygraph student myself at the time, because of my prior research and other academic contact with John Furedy, my shared research interests with Steve Porges (a member of my doctoral dissertation defense committee) and general contact with Bill Iacono (largely persona non grata with the polygraph community at that time as a result of being David Lykken's student), I made initial contacts with and referred these gentlemen to Bill Yankee for their potential involvement. The other two gentlemen who participated, Ed Katkin (Sheila Reed's former doctoral committee advisor) and Chris Patrick (formerly a graduate student of Bill Iacono) were suggested by Sheila Reed and others. What you neglect to mention in your previous post is that in the intervening years, this academic review committee (amazingly containing three past presidents of the Society for Psychophysiological Research) was dismissed largely leaving DoDPI without serious outside academic review and oversight of any kind.
Posted by PDD-Fed
- Aug 13, 2002, 10:47 AMQuote from: Batman on Aug 11, 2002, 07:08 PM
Gents,
...Forensic Psychophysiologist and Psychophysiological Detection of Deception are an emabarrasment....The "fancy" terms were created by the "leadership" of DoDPI (Bill Yankee & Mike Capps) in their feable attempt to become more accepted within the scientific community....
Actually Batman, these terms were initially pursued by Bill Yankee, PhD. Mike Capps was in no way involved (He wasn't even employed at DoDPI at the time). Dr. Yankee was the DoDPI director in the early 1990's and had dedicated his professional life to working more closely with the Psychophysiological community. He opened the doors of DoDPI to academics from many disciplines, to include the likes of John Furedy and Bill Iaconno. He invited open discourse and oversite and was instrumental in the development of DoDPI as a graduate level academic institution. He believed the term, Psychophysiological Detection of Deception provided a more accurate description of what the people in this community actually do. Ditto for "Forensic Psychophysiologist." Dr. Yankee felt that since we conduct Psychophysiological testing in a forensic setting, these terms were appropriate. After all, is a Cardiologist a "Stethoscope Examiner?"
It is true that most federal Polygraph Examiners and program managers were not comfortable with the new terminology and have slowly drifted back to terms they are more comfortable with. However, I would in no way classify the work of a great man like Dr. Bill Yankee as a "feeble attempt."
We should all be guilty of such "feeble attempts." Maybe sites like this would have no reason to exist...
PDD-Fed
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 12, 2002, 08:17 PMBatman,
In view of the truly significant problems which do exist in the world of polygraphy (e.g., polygraph screening), a resolution which allows for the use of either polygraph examiner or forensic psychophysiologist (thank God—right, PDD-Fed?? —very clever of the polygraph community to have unleashed such a bold initiative and yet allow you not to have to change your business cards
) as a job description/title is hardly a worthy end goal for the caped crusader. I do believe though that we have stumbled upon a suitable candidate for next year's awards in that "pimple on a giant's butt" category you unveiled recently...cheers
In view of the truly significant problems which do exist in the world of polygraphy (e.g., polygraph screening), a resolution which allows for the use of either polygraph examiner or forensic psychophysiologist (thank God—right, PDD-Fed?? —very clever of the polygraph community to have unleashed such a bold initiative and yet allow you not to have to change your business cards
) as a job description/title is hardly a worthy end goal for the caped crusader. I do believe though that we have stumbled upon a suitable candidate for next year's awards in that "pimple on a giant's butt" category you unveiled recently...cheersPosted by Batman (Guest)
- Aug 12, 2002, 07:40 PMMr. Drew,
I think most federal examiners understand the nonsense you mention, however not all are in positions that allow them to be so bold as to openly speak out in forums such as this. Some may even be chastised for contributing in any way to such a forum. However, rest assured there are some, maybe even ones who wear capes, who do speak out in what is considered more appropriate settings. On ocassion their voices are not only heard, they are heeded. I have been advised that recently federal examiners were given the choice to use either Polygraph Examiner, or Forensic Psychophysiologist as a "title'; and the phrase Psychophysiological Detection of Deception is being phased out and the more simplistic "Polygraph" is back in vogue. Sometimes the mere refusal to "go along" with the "nonsense" pays off.
Batman
I think most federal examiners understand the nonsense you mention, however not all are in positions that allow them to be so bold as to openly speak out in forums such as this. Some may even be chastised for contributing in any way to such a forum. However, rest assured there are some, maybe even ones who wear capes, who do speak out in what is considered more appropriate settings. On ocassion their voices are not only heard, they are heeded. I have been advised that recently federal examiners were given the choice to use either Polygraph Examiner, or Forensic Psychophysiologist as a "title'; and the phrase Psychophysiological Detection of Deception is being phased out and the more simplistic "Polygraph" is back in vogue. Sometimes the mere refusal to "go along" with the "nonsense" pays off.
Batman
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 12, 2002, 12:48 PMBatman,
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.
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.
Posted by Batman (Guest)
- Aug 11, 2002, 07:08 PMGents,
I think if you polled most Federal polygraph examiners you would find they agree that the termonology, Forensic Psychophysiologist and Psychophysiological Detection of Deception are an emabarrasment. Most examiners simply consider themselves criminal investigators/polygraph examiners. The "fancy" terms were created by the "leadership" of DoDPI (Bill Yankee & Mike Capps) in their feable attempt to become more accepted within the scientific community. Most examiners simply consider themselves to be investigators with a certain training that enhances their abilities to resolve investigative issues. Of course this looks at polygraph from the investigative/specific issue side of the house. Screening is a whole different issue and animal.
Batman
I think if you polled most Federal polygraph examiners you would find they agree that the termonology, Forensic Psychophysiologist and Psychophysiological Detection of Deception are an emabarrasment. Most examiners simply consider themselves criminal investigators/polygraph examiners. The "fancy" terms were created by the "leadership" of DoDPI (Bill Yankee & Mike Capps) in their feable attempt to become more accepted within the scientific community. Most examiners simply consider themselves to be investigators with a certain training that enhances their abilities to resolve investigative issues. Of course this looks at polygraph from the investigative/specific issue side of the house. Screening is a whole different issue and animal.
Batman
Posted by Drew Richardson
- Aug 10, 2002, 01:48 PMPDD-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.
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.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 10, 2002, 01:33 PMPDD-Fed,
I know little about forensic handwriting analysis, but it does seem to be an art, not a science, and if a degree were to be awarded in that discipline, it would be appropriate, I think that it be an arts (and not a science) degree.
But "forensic psychophysiology," or "psychophysiological detection of deception" (buzzwords for "polygraphy"), purports to be a science.
Yet with few exceptions, those who claim to be "forensic psychophysiologists" have no legitmate claim to the title of "psychophysiologist," let alone to be further qualified as "forensic" psychophysiologists.
That said, I don't think any academic degree is required to "be all you can be" as a polygrapher. A highschool dropout could potentially be successful in the field. I appreciate that the job does require intelligence, attention to detail, as well as technical and interpersonal skills. But "forensic psychophysiology" is no science.
On a final note, you compared polygraphy to handwriting analysis. I believe that the standardized methods and techniques of this discipline are well-documented and available for public review. Why should not the standardized methods and techniques of "forensic psychophysiology" similarly be made public?
I know little about forensic handwriting analysis, but it does seem to be an art, not a science, and if a degree were to be awarded in that discipline, it would be appropriate, I think that it be an arts (and not a science) degree.
But "forensic psychophysiology," or "psychophysiological detection of deception" (buzzwords for "polygraphy"), purports to be a science.
Yet with few exceptions, those who claim to be "forensic psychophysiologists" have no legitmate claim to the title of "psychophysiologist," let alone to be further qualified as "forensic" psychophysiologists.
That said, I don't think any academic degree is required to "be all you can be" as a polygrapher. A highschool dropout could potentially be successful in the field. I appreciate that the job does require intelligence, attention to detail, as well as technical and interpersonal skills. But "forensic psychophysiology" is no science.
On a final note, you compared polygraphy to handwriting analysis. I believe that the standardized methods and techniques of this discipline are well-documented and available for public review. Why should not the standardized methods and techniques of "forensic psychophysiology" similarly be made public?
Posted by PDD-Fed
- Aug 10, 2002, 12:44 PMGeorge,
You said...
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?
You said...
Quote from: George W. Maschke on Aug 10, 2002, 06:32 AM
PDD-Fed,
You are mistaken. The degree offered is a Master of Arts, and not a Master of Science, degree!
The "Master of Arts in Forensic Psychology, Forensic Psychophysiology track" is offered through DoDPI by an arrangement with a for-profit outfit called Argosy University.
The science whose "terminal degree" (as you put it) is a Master of Arts is indeed a weird one.
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?
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 10, 2002, 06:32 AMPDD-Fed,
You are mistaken. The degree offered is a Master of Arts, and not a Master of Science, degree!
The "Master of Arts in Forensic Psychology, Forensic Psychophysiology track" is offered through DoDPI by an arrangement with a for-profit outfit called Argosy University.
The science whose "terminal degree" (as you put it) is a Master of Arts is indeed a weird one.
The term "forensic psychophysiology," bandied about by DoDPI and others in the polygraph community, is an empty buzzword meant to bedazzle a public that is increasingly becoming aware that polygraph "testing" is a fraud.
You are mistaken. The degree offered is a Master of Arts, and not a Master of Science, degree!
The "Master of Arts in Forensic Psychology, Forensic Psychophysiology track" is offered through DoDPI by an arrangement with a for-profit outfit called Argosy University.
The science whose "terminal degree" (as you put it) is a Master of Arts is indeed a weird one.
The term "forensic psychophysiology," bandied about by DoDPI and others in the polygraph community, is an empty buzzword meant to bedazzle a public that is increasingly becoming aware that polygraph "testing" is a fraud.