Psychologist: psychological tests can't predict rogue pilots...

[ezkl2230]

What is this doing on a firearms forum?

In the aftermath of the GermanWings crash, the reliability of psychological testing is downplayed. Said Dr. Erin Bowen, a behavioral psychologist, in an interview conducted for the Today Show,

"The idea nowadays that a full psychological workup would somehow clue you in to which pilots are going to do things like this, it's fiction."

Yet the Brady and Bloomberg anti-firearms groups continue to insist that psychological evaluations are the magic bullet (forgive the pun) that should determine who should or should not own a firearm. If they can't predict which lawfully-licensed pilots are going to take down an aircraft, then they certainly can't predict which firearms owners are likely to commit crimes with lawfully-owned firearms.

Pilot?s last pleas to Lubitz heard on voice recorder - Video on TODAY.com

Thank you, Dr. Bowen, for stating what so many of us have known for so long.

 

[NavyLCDR]

What is this doing on a firearms forum?

In the aftermath of the GermanWings crash, the reliability of psychological testing is downplayed. Said Dr. Erin Bowen, a behavioral psychologist, in an interview conducted for the Today Show,




Yet the Brady and Bloomberg anti-firearms groups continue to insist that psychological evaluations are the magic bullet (forgive the pun) that should determine who should or should not own a firearm. If they can't predict which lawfully-licensed pilots are going to take down an aircraft, then they certainly can't predict which firearms owners are likely to commit crimes with lawfully-owned firearms.

Pilot?s last pleas to Lubitz heard on voice recorder - Video on TODAY.com

Thank you, Dr. Bowen, for stating what so many of us have known for so long.

And what do you think the Brady Bunch and Bloomberg are going to say about that? That's why we need to take firearms away from everyone, except for law enforcement/government and their private body guards, of course.

 

[nogods]

However, if a person appears to be a danger to himself or others because of his mental state, do you think it would be irrational to prohibit him from flying a plane or possessing a firearm?

What if he tells his boss he was late for work because his dog told him to stop by the porn shop to get a dvd of a particular porn movie? And he claims his dog tells him lots of things?

Is that enough to conclude he is suffering from some sort of mental delusions that require action?

Now spell dog backwards and then try to make a rationale distinction between the two.

 

[fuhr52]

What is this doing on a firearms forum?

In the aftermath of the GermanWings crash, the reliability of psychological testing is downplayed. Said Dr. Erin Bowen, a behavioral psychologist, in an interview conducted for the Today Show,




Yet the Brady and Bloomberg anti-firearms groups continue to insist that psychological evaluations are the magic bullet (forgive the pun) that should determine who should or should not own a firearm. If they can't predict which lawfully-licensed pilots are going to take down an aircraft, then they certainly can't predict which firearms owners are likely to commit crimes with lawfully-owned firearms.

Pilot?s last pleas to Lubitz heard on voice recorder - Video on TODAY.com

Thank you, Dr. Bowen, for stating what so many of us have known for so long.

If this is the case why does law enforcement need to go through these evaluations. I know people in law enforcement as well as some connected to NSA through private contractors that are put through these evaluation. Now we are told these are a waste of time unless you want to own a gun. What a screwed up world.

 

[daledoty]

Though it is true that psychological tests cannot identify all individuals with violent intentions, they do detect some disturbed people.

As a society, we have decided to allow individuals the freedom to seek professional help, with the assurance that their confidentiality will be protected. Without this protection, very few would get help. Who knows how many thousands of suicides and murders have been prevented. We only have information about the few that were not detected.

The best prevention of mass murder is for society to accept their responsibility to "if you see something, say something." After nearly every mass murder, people begin to speak up about their concerns about the individual that went off the rails. Often, many saw the warning signs, but did not speak up early enough to possibly prevent disaster.

Dale Doty, Ph.D.

 

[BC1]

Though it is true that psychological tests cannot identify all individuals with violent intentions, they do detect some disturbed people.

As a society, we have decided to allow individuals the freedom to seek professional help, with the assurance that their confidentiality will be protected. Without this protection, very few would get help. Who knows how many thousands of suicides and murders have been prevented. We only have information about the few that were not detected.

The best prevention of mass murder is for society to accept their responsibility to "if you see something, say something." After nearly every mass murder, people begin to speak up about their concerns about the individual that went off the rails. Often, many saw the warning signs, but did not speak up early enough to possibly prevent disaster.

Dale Doty, Ph.D.

Some states require reporting by doctors and psychologists. And if they're wrong they may ruin their patient's life. I'm all for the mandated reporting under one condition... when a psychologists pronounces someone healthy and fit to re-enter society, and that person commits another crime upon release, the psychologist must surrender his/her license. We lost a child to a pedophile many years ago. After less than three years the state psychiatrist pronounced him sane and fit to re-enter society. He did it again. he then served about 11 years and was again released. Who do I see about this? Who does the amily of the second victim see about their kids? An again he walks free? That's the liberal thug-hugging world of psychology. You guys DO NOT have the answers.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Though it is true that psychological tests cannot identify all individuals with violent intentions, they do detect some disturbed people.

As a society, we have decided to allow individuals the freedom to seek professional help, with the assurance that their confidentiality will be protected. Without this protection, very few would get help. Who knows how many thousands of suicides and murders have been prevented. We only have information about the few that were not detected.

The best prevention of mass murder is for society to accept their responsibility to "if you see something, say something." After nearly every mass murder, people begin to speak up about their concerns about the individual that went off the rails. Often, many saw the warning signs, but did not speak up early enough to possibly prevent disaster.

Dale Doty, Ph.D.

Where do we draw the line, though? Do you want a law like this one proposed (similar to what is in effect in California):
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House Bills/1857-S.pdf

An ex-wife or ex-husband can claim before a judge that their ex-spouse is dangerous and the judge must act the same or next day to either confiscate the subject's firearms or deny the order without the subject even having a chance to appear in court or be notified of the request ?

 

[nogods]

Where do we draw the line, though? Do you want a law like this one proposed (similar to what is in effect in California):
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House Bills/1857-S.pdf

An ex-wife or ex-husband can claim before a judge that their ex-spouse is dangerous and the judge must act the same or next day to either confiscate the subject's firearms or deny the order without the subject even having a chance to appear in court or be notified of the request ?

line drawing is never perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't draw lines as best we can.

Every year people are wrongfully convicted. Some have spent more than 2 decades in jail before being found innocent and freed, and some die in jail. Does that mean we should stop convicting people of crimes because we make mistakes?

I think not. It does mean we have to try harder to avoid mistakes, and do our best to compensate the victims when we make a mistake.

All line drawing requires balancing the best interest of society as a whole against the best interest of individuals.

I believe we should err on the side of protecting the best interest of the individual, so we should only act when a person's observable behavior leads a reasonable person to conclude there may be a mental health issue, or a qualified professional puts their professional credentials (and their house and bank account) on the line.

But even then, we need to afford the alleged mentally ill due process, either in the form of pre-action opportunity to be heard, or immediate post-action opportunity to be heard. Depriving a person for weeks or months of individual rights without n opportunity to be heard is objectionable. We need to provide hearings withing 24 to 48 hours at most, and we need to hold those who are found to have made false or inaccurate accusations criminally and civilly liable.

All of it requires drawing lines, but so does almost everything else in life.

 

[BluesStringer]

line drawing is never perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't draw lines as best we can.

Every year people are wrongfully convicted. Some have spent more than 2 decades in jail before being found innocent and freed, and some die in jail. Does that mean we should stop convicting people of crimes because we make mistakes?

I think not. It does mean we have to try harder to avoid mistakes, and do our best to compensate the victims when we make a mistake.

All line drawing requires balancing the best interest of society as a whole against the best interest of individuals.

I believe we should err on the side of protecting the best interest of the individual, so we should only act when a person's observable behavior leads a reasonable person to conclude there may be a mental health issue, or a qualified professional puts their professional credentials (and their house and bank account) on the line.

But even then, we need to afford the alleged mentally ill due process, either in the form of pre-action opportunity to be heard, or immediate post-action opportunity to be heard. Depriving a person for weeks or months of individual rights without n opportunity to be heard is objectionable. We need to provide hearings withing 24 to 48 hours at most, and we need to hold those who are found to have made false or inaccurate accusations criminally and civilly liable.

All of it requires drawing lines, but so does almost everything else in life.

Spoken like a professional line-drawer.

 

[rifleshooter474]

I have read that there is a movement to get psychologists,involved with people wanting to buy firearms.
IMHO I think it's the so called psychologists,looking to make a quick buck is behind it.
But you know the anti-firearm bunch also thinks it's a great idea.
Anything to cause someone wanting to buy a firearm, more problems and cost them extra money.

 

[S&W645]

How about a commonly quoted statistic, they are wrong in their diagnosis 75% of the time. That is worse than statistics say it should be as it should be closer to 50-50 with just a WAG.

 

[vernsimpson]

How about a commonly quoted statistic, they are wrong in their diagnosis 75% of the time. That is worse than statistics say it should be as it should be closer to 50-50 with just a WAG.

If they tested everyone in the USA, which MAY be around the corner, how full do you think the camps would be????

 

[S&W645]

If they tested everyone in the USA, which MAY be around the corner, how full do you think the camps would be????

Don't think they could build them fast enough for what those "doctors" say need put there. But then there would also be combat on the streets because many would not go willingly. Years ago there was a joke about a sanity test for being President of the US. The gist of it was, if you really wanted the job, you had to be insane or on an ego trip. Either one would get you locked up by a doc as a mental case.

If you ever had to endure Psychology classes in college, those could drive you over the edge unless you were left of center in your thinking, way left of center.

 

[the dark]

Unfortunately there are widespread misconceptions about what psychology/psychologists can and cannot do, how well we can predict specific behaviors in specific individuals. There are lots of data out there on risk factors for violent behavior, but they are typically at a group level and within specific groups. Even when it is found, the prediction is not perfect. Applying such findings to individuals is tenuous at best and it would be foolish and a great over-extension of what is known and can be known, to somehow put psychologists in center of the process of making such decisions. Not to mention most are not only anti-gun but gun phobic; I had a colleague tell me a couple of days ago that even holding one once scared him. Most would say that wanting a firearm would disqualify one from having it. Most (at least those in academia/science) live in a bubble with a Utopian vision of life.

The most reliable predictor of future behavior is past behavior - I suppose that is the logic behind background checks. Of course, that is of very little comfort, to say that only after a person has committed violence can we predict he will do so again. Our problem as a society is that we often reason backward to things - often because those are the only data we have access to. What I mean is that we isolate violent cases, whether Newtown, Aurora, Columbine or whatever, and then look at their history to try to identify predictors of their behavior. However, the kind of data we need to predict such behavior goes the other way - we need to know how to predict the probability that a person with certain characteristics will commit violence. Those data are almost impossible to get at a population level because they involve assessing large groups of people over long periods of time to predict extremely rare events.

Bottom line is that psychology is not a panacea for the problem of violence and giving over control of the process to psychology would be a mistake.

And, yes, I am a psychologist.

 

[DavidWhite]

All humans are capable of great evil. We excel at it as a species, but, how do you know just who is going to be violent, before they become violent?

Like Lt. Kenda once said,

"There are some among us who do not deserve to be among us".

 

[S&W645]

Unfortunately there are widespread misconceptions about what psychology/psychologists can and cannot do, how well we can predict specific behaviors in specific individuals. There are lots of data out there on risk factors for violent behavior, but they are typically at a group level and within specific groups. Even when it is found, the prediction is not perfect. Applying such findings to individuals is tenuous at best and it would be foolish and a great over-extension of what is known and can be known, to somehow put psychologists in center of the process of making such decisions. Not to mention most are not only anti-gun but gun phobic; I had a colleague tell me a couple of days ago that even holding one once scared him. Most would say that wanting a firearm would disqualify one from having it. Most (at least those in academia/science) live in a bubble with a Utopian vision of life.

The most reliable predictor of future behavior is past behavior - I suppose that is the logic behind background checks. Of course, that is of very little comfort, to say that only after a person has committed violence can we predict he will do so again. Our problem as a society is that we often reason backward to things - often because those are the only data we have access to. What I mean is that we isolate violent cases, whether Newtown, Aurora, Columbine or whatever, and then look at their history to try to identify predictors of their behavior. However, the kind of data we need to predict such behavior goes the other way - we need to know how to predict the probability that a person with certain characteristics will commit violence. Those data are almost impossible to get at a population level because they involve assessing large groups of people over long periods of time to predict extremely rare events.

Bottom line is that psychology is not a panacea for the problem of violence and giving over control of the process to psychology would be a mistake.

And, yes, I am a psychologist.

Agree. It is best used when looking at past actions but has problems predicting anything unless there is something from the past. At one point, I believe, there were 6 or 7 different schools of thought on testing that were used at the same time. Even ones who were nuts only could be found that way by all of them in about 20 to 30% of the cases. It is a bit like back pains in that only the patient really knows for sure where the problem lies. The doctors have to make educated guesses.

 

[topgun47]

Something that the "mainstream" media is refusing to mention is that the killer was a recent muslim convert.

This alone would be more telling then any psycho test.

 

[the dark]

Agree. It is best used when looking at past actions but has problems predicting anything unless there is something from the past. At one point, I believe, there were 6 or 7 different schools of thought on testing that were used at the same time. Even ones who were nuts only could be found that way by all of them in about 20 to 30% of the cases. It is a bit like back pains in that only the patient really knows for sure where the problem lies. The doctors have to make educated guesses.

The problem is backward logic: A good example is what we call the gateway theory of drug use - that marijuana, leads to harder drugs and on to heroin addiction. The data that support this come from looking at heroin addicts and findings that a great preponderance of them started their drug use careers with marijuana. However, that does not tell us about marijuana use - it tells us about those who end up using heroin. The vast majority of marijuana users do not go on to heroin dependence.

Same logic is often applied to predicting violence. For instance, research shows that incarcerated violent felons as a group have higher testosterone levels than the general population. Hence, testosterone causes violence - problem is so do trial lawyers.