Steve Connor of "The Independent" asks the question of whether psychology research is fake:
"Psychology has long been the butt of jokes about its deep insight into the human mind – especially from the “hard” sciences such as physics – and now a study has revealed that much of its published research really is psycho-babble.
More than half of the findings from 100 different studies published in leading, peer-reviewed psychology journals cannot be reproduced by other researchers who followed the same methodological protocol.
A study by more than 270 researchers from around the world has found that just 39 per cent of the claims made in psychology papers published in three prominent journals could be reproduced unambiguously – and even then they were found to be less significant statistically than the original findings.
The non-reproducible research includes studies into what factors influence men's and women's choice of romantic partners, whether peoples’ ability to identify an object is slowed down if it is wrongly labelled, and whether people show any racial bias when asked to identify different kinds of weapons..."
READ MORE:
Psychology is not anything close to a science and is regularly a fall back study for those who lack the intellect to study a hard science. It's more akin to astrology or sorcerers who try to make predictions while looking into their crystal ball or whatever. Real science contributes to knowledge within mathematical certainties by proving hypotheses with methods of study that are reproduceable. Don't trust "forensic pyschs" as a part of your family case! Fair warning to all who enter the family courts. You'll be forever sorry. These people make decisions about lives based upon bias. No science to it and the decisions are unpredictable. Good to go with I guess if you're a gambler.
ReplyDeleteAs a lawyer, I've always been amazed that judges admit "expert" testimony by mental health professionals. I've never seen any situation where any such testimony withstood independent validation. In fact, the "professionals" who offer this stuff up are counting on the fact that no one will challenge anything they say.
ReplyDeleteIt has been my experience that the Court system does everything within its power to prevent al litigant from actually holding a mental health professional accountable via deposition or any other such method. I agree with you. The Courts will block subpoenas, shut you up when you attempt to question, any number of illegal approaches to obstructing challenges to a mental health experts testimony.
DeleteIn family matters, judges don't really appoint mental health professionals for insight on mental health issues. Instead, they ask for custody evaluations and similar reports to get a narrative understanding of the situation. Typically, one or both sides are either pro se or represented by awful lawyers. The judges cannot determine what is really going on. They don't like having to make decisions with little information, and they need to have somebody to blame if they make the wrong call. So they appoint a mental health professional to write a custody study or provide testimony. The judges know the mental health professionals who work in the family law area are of very low quality. However, the judges aren't really interested in the purported mental health conclusions of the report. In fact, any such conclusions are always very wishy washy. I've never seen a family matter decided on the basis of a diagnosis or test result. Instead, the judges just want a narrative of the larger situation. It's an expensive way of allowing the judges investigate the matter themselves and use a lot of what would otherwise be hearsay and other inadmissible evidence to reach a conclusion and have someone to blame for what turn out to be bad results.
ReplyDeleteIf lawyers challenged the admissibility of psych evals, any fair court would refuse to admit them. Under the US Supreme Court's Daubert decision and the related provisions of the rules of evidence (whether the Connecticut rules or the federal rules upon which they are based), "expert" testimony is only admissible if it is the product of reliable principles and methods and is based on sufficient data. That simply isn't true of family law psych evals. In fact, if you read the contracts proffered by the evaluators, they nearly always state something to the effect that: "there are no accepted standards for psych evals; I've picked some methods I think are useful; a different evaluator could select different methods," etc. In fact, the standards selected by two different evaluators may be completely different. Moreover, there is no evidence that any of the personality tests, IQ tests, and other questions used in any of the psych evals typically used in family law matters accurately predicts anything. There is no evidence of validation. In fact, when you read the psychology literature, you will find there is lots of evidence that even each component of a psych eval is completely flawed. So why are they so common? Because they are profitable to the providers and because judges like them.
ReplyDeleteI also think it is important to ask what do any of the factors that custody evaluators test for and use in their reports have to do with parenting in any way whatsoever? If there is some connection to parenting skills, are those connections evidence based or just the result of cultural assumptions or prejudices and convenient biases of the evaluators. Shifting topic somewhat, it is my view that if any of these evaluators was deposed by a good lawyer with the assistance of another mental health professional, these custody evaluators would be running for their lives. However, it is a standard that litigants are told to respect the results of these reports uncritically as fact, and they are strongly discouraged from challenging them in any way, in fact that are often told they are not allowed to, or as I have heard from many folks, they are told they can't even see the report.
DeleteI would agree with the statement that "any fair court would refuse to admit [psych evals]" under Daubert. And we all need to come to terms with the fact that family courts are NOT fair, and are a far cry from any justice system. Family courts are an INDUSTRY plain and simple. Rules of evidence don't apply. Many industry insiders call the court room the "Wild Wild West" for a reason. Decisions are based upon what biased psych evaluators or GALs testify to after "talking to people" (hearsay) while ignoring every piece of tangible evidence available. Any trial attorney with any experience will tell you that witness testimony is unreliable unless corroborated by physical or tangible evidence. In a decade of witnessing what goes on in family court, it's become clear that the courts will ignore physical and tangible evidence as a matter of course and rely upon bias and hearsay. Further, industry attorneys will NOT challenge this system. Not that all family law attorneys are bad, but let's face the fact that family law attorneys are a part of the industry. Rather than advocate for you, they steer clear of pissing off the evaluators, the GALs or the judge so as to keep the industry churning for the insiders. They are looking to protect their own interests where they make their living. Bench trials are an ingredient in this recipe for continued corruption in the family courts. Don't go into family courts looking for justice. You won't find it. Lady justice stopped crying out there long ago. She's become breathless after years of her words going up empty.
DeleteAll of the facts surrounding custody studies and psych evals used in family courts in Connecticut demonstrate that they are in fact useless. As a practical matter, it takes six to twelve months to get a psych eval. Once you have it, you are unlikely to get into court to use it at a hearing in less than another six to twelve months. Yet the caselaw indicates that the results of a psych eval are only valid for six to twelve months. Thus, by the time you get into court to use it, the opposing lawyer will argue that the eval is "stale" and not legally valid anyway. All of this nonsense raises a bigger question: if the results of psych evals are only "valid" for six to twelve months, why are they being used to make PERMANENT custody decisions?! This is why some families have been forced to pay for multiple psych evals or custody studies. The process provides no useful scientific information or expert opinion. Instead, it provides an endless stream of cash payments from parents to the evaluators and some protection to judges.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to point out that in the Kathi Sorrentino case, the custody evaluator took three weeks during the Christmas holiday seasons. Based on his two page report, Kathi had her son taken away from her and now has zero access to her child. What nonsense is this?
Delete