You won't believe this!!

[Mr._Ligenfelter]

I was searching the net and found the following site

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/dod-2000.html

It turns out that the DOD's official title for a polygrapher is, are you ready for this:

Da, da, da, da:

FORENSIC PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGIST

it explains the DOD requirements for polygrapher.  One is that they must have a BA/BS.

Hey, aren't physiologists suppose to have a PH'd?

What a joke!!

[George W. Maschke]

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]

I've heard that even in relatively recent years you could be an American Polygraph Association member with a high school degree being your highest level of formal education.  Is this true? Does anyone know if it is still true?  

[George W. Maschke]

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.)

[Anonymous]

George,

Going to the material you pointed out on the APA site revealed an additional interesting fact.  At approximately 11:50 am EDT this morning, their site visitation counter indicated 34,262 hits since January 1998 (56 months).  At roughly the same time Antipolygraph.org's counter indicated 160, 240 hits since October 1, 2001 (22 months).  That would indicate on average that since antipolygraph.org's inception roughly 12 times as many people view it (antipolygraph.org) at any given time as the American Polygraph Association's own site is viewed.  This is quite a testimony to the work that you and Gino have done.  The American public and all those who have been victimized by polygraph screening are deeply indebted to you.  I suspect that even the polygraph community finds it necessary to find current information on your site.  CONGRATULATIONS AND JOB WELL DONE!

[Anonymous II]

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

 

[G Scalabr]

Mr._Ligenfelter,

Very good point. I agree with Dr. Drew Richardson's take on the foolish title of "forensic psychophysiologist."

Before one can be a specialist in a particular field of study, one must first be a generalist. He points out that with the minimal training they receive, polygraphers have no business calling themselves psychophysiologists, let alone specialists in the forensic aspect of psychophysiology.

Anonymous II,

Thanks for your kind words. The incensed tirades from polygraphers give us tremendous pleasure. They are simply angry at the fact that the secrets behind their lucrative little scam are being exposed on this website.

[PDD-Fed]

I was searching the net and found the following site

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/dod-2000.html

It turns out that the DOD's official title for a polygrapher is, are you ready for this:

Da, da, da, da:

FORENSIC PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGIST

it explains the DOD requirements for polygrapher.  One is that they must have a BA/BS.

Hey, aren't physiologists suppose to have a PH'd?

What a joke!!

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 W. Maschke]

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.

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.

[PDD-Fed]

George,

You said...

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?

[George W. Maschke]

PDD-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?

[Drew Richardson]

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 (Guest)]

Gents,

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    

[Drew Richardson]

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.

[Batman (Guest)]

Mr. 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