Dave
I'm not trying to be facetious here, and I acknowledge that you didn't sign the petition, but would you think that the 171 people who did are also prone to bias, particularly when there is so much emotional preamble and clear direction on the "correct" way to approach the marks?
All of this wouldn't matter but for Zeelenbergs involvement.
Was the petition research for Dror's study or is he, and all of those who signed it guilty of the very thing you now accuse Peter Swann of?
Endless postings about the McKie case...
-
adroitcaledonian
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:55 pm
- Location: The land of the father of fingerprinting
-
charlton97
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:51 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Science
Adroit,
first, I am not accusing anyone. Merely stating a scientific fact that we are all prone to bias and external influence, no question about it, me, you, Mr Swann, the Prime Minister!!. As for your assertions about those who signed the petition, there you are quite right, they too would have been subject to exactly the same pressures of group dynamics and other peer pressures. Absolutely.
Dr Dror has never considered the petition as a matter of direct research as far as I know, but there is plenty of literature out there.
Psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a famous set of experiments involving a seemingly simple question asked to a group of participants. However, there was only a single actual test subject with the remainder of the group consisting of “confederates” who were instructed to give the wrong answer.
The group was arranged so that the subject gave their answer next-to-last so that they could hear the confederates’ incorrect answers first. The majority of subjects (37 out of 50) conformed to the incorrect majority at least once. Asch later said this about the results: “That we have found the tendency to conformity in our society so strong…is a matter of concern. It raises questions about…the values that guide our conduct.” (Asch 1955)
Adroit, Daktari, others out there, let us look to the future and conduct some studies. I welcome your academic challenges and hope that we might work together in the future to see what we might discover about the decision making processes of fingerprint and other forensic expertise. I welcome your continued input and please do not feel that I am going to take defence at the first sign of a debate. This is what we all should have been doing many moons ago...agreed?
first, I am not accusing anyone. Merely stating a scientific fact that we are all prone to bias and external influence, no question about it, me, you, Mr Swann, the Prime Minister!!. As for your assertions about those who signed the petition, there you are quite right, they too would have been subject to exactly the same pressures of group dynamics and other peer pressures. Absolutely.
Dr Dror has never considered the petition as a matter of direct research as far as I know, but there is plenty of literature out there.
Psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a famous set of experiments involving a seemingly simple question asked to a group of participants. However, there was only a single actual test subject with the remainder of the group consisting of “confederates” who were instructed to give the wrong answer.
The group was arranged so that the subject gave their answer next-to-last so that they could hear the confederates’ incorrect answers first. The majority of subjects (37 out of 50) conformed to the incorrect majority at least once. Asch later said this about the results: “That we have found the tendency to conformity in our society so strong…is a matter of concern. It raises questions about…the values that guide our conduct.” (Asch 1955)
Adroit, Daktari, others out there, let us look to the future and conduct some studies. I welcome your academic challenges and hope that we might work together in the future to see what we might discover about the decision making processes of fingerprint and other forensic expertise. I welcome your continued input and please do not feel that I am going to take defence at the first sign of a debate. This is what we all should have been doing many moons ago...agreed?