CLPEX Chat Board

Hello, just my point of view.

I disagree with Guest's generalisation of subjectivity v objectivity, because I believe that the sister-in-law has made an objective assessment of the fingerprints. She has compared the two prints, and unable to process the information in the same way as an expert, has said that she is unable to do so. She has recognised her own limitations and disclosed them. She was not pressured into making a decision based on external influences such as the time restraint or any body language you may have provided.

I also do not perceive the "gap" in the definitions of objectivity and subjectivity that Gerard alludes to.

"If directly caused by external stimuli, it's not subjective. If it's perceived but subject to interpretation, it's not objective."

I agree with this, and I don't see that there is a gap. I have a feeling that this may be a problem with semantics surrounding the word "interpretation" (yes, yet another definition needed!)

A scientist's meaning of the noun "interpretation" is an analysis or evaluation, whereas it also means definition or simplification, or portrayal.

Given this definition, and an example of finding an artifact in the fingerprint, I could argue that:

The artifact is directly caused by external stimuli, and as it is part of the data set upon which you are basing your conclusions (ie, you have not recognised that it is an artifact), the process of the comparison is still objective. If you percieve that it is an artefact, then you have to be careful about the way in which you portray that information because this could render your evaluation of the data subjective.

I think it is unfortunate that the term "interpretation" was used in the definition of objectivity, since in scientific terms, I believe that interpretation (or analysis, evaluation) itself could be either subjective or objective.

Please do not hesitate to ask if my explanation is not clear.

Kind regards,
Shaheen

Finally- some good entertainment on this site!

Consider the following statments and address the conflicts presented:

Deliberation defined:

Careful consideration; discussion of all sides of a question; the trait of thoughtfulness in action or decision; a discussion and consideration by a group of persons of the reasons for or against a measure.


When doctors deliberate over the diagnosis and treatment of a patient, it is called good medicine.

When juries deliberate over the evidence and testimony presented at trial it is called justice.

When legislatures deliberate over issues affecting the electorate, it is called democracy.

When fingerprint examiners deliberate factors leading to an individualization, it is called bias.

To deliberate to save your life is good. To deliberate to save your liberty is good. To deliberate to save your pursuit of happiness is good.

But, to deliberate to save your life, your liberty and your pursuit of happiness is bias.

Dogma (formerly Guest) wrote: When doctors deliberate over the diagnosis and treatment of a patient, it is called good medicine.

A wise patient who wants a true second opinion, however, will ask the second doctor to re-test as much as insurance allows, blind to the result and conclusions reached by the prior doctor. There's a difference between, in effect, a verification by a second opinion and a consultation leading to a diagnosis.

When juries deliberate over the evidence and testimony presented at trial it is called justice.

Juries are carefully isolated from a vast amount of biasing information. There are limits on admissible testimony and evidence. The defendant's prior record, for example, is generally inadmissible to prevent juries from concluding that just because he's a career bad guy he's guilty in this case too. Witnesses aren't normally allowed to vouch for each other, or opine that another witness is lying or truthful. (Tho that can be the import of conflicting or confirming testimony.)

If a jury gets the prohibited information, and it is deemed harmful, the result can be reversed and sent to a new jury which is carefully screened from direct knowledge that there was a prior case and prior result.

When fingerprint examiners deliberate factors leading to an individualization, it is called bias.

There's a potential for bias, just as there is in the jury room if one juror dominates the proceedings or in the doctor's consultation if one doctor's views dominate, based on personality or reputation not strength of the argument.

The question of confirmation bias is primarily based around the examiner getting information extrinsic to the question of whether a latent and exemplar match (like the exemplar's owner's prior record, of that DNA has already matched him to other evidence, or that a co-offender has confessed) before the examiner has come to a conclusion about whether a match exists. The issue of blind verification has the same issue -- is this a consulation or deliberation or a true independent analysis of the facts of the evidence untainted by any knoweldge of the personalities involved.

Lisa,

I think you hit the nail of the head, blind verification and consultation are different. Perhaps they both have some pros and cons.

Blind verification tests whether or not the results are reproducible but we should recognize that it may not insure accuracy. Blind verification is limited by not looking at how the results were reached. Blind verification does eliminate confirmation bias.

Consultation or deliberation is a way to insure appropriate information was considered and no information or clues were overlooked, but again it doesn’t insure accurate results. A problem with consultation may be that it doesn’t eliminate confirmation bias.

Both may be valid techniques and we as practitioners need to know which technique should be applied and when. It may not be a matter of using one or the other but also if either is needed or perhaps both.

Does this seem reasonable?

I realize that this leads back to the question of “how can we insure accurate results?” I think standardized procedures, a good quality assurance program, and adequate proficiency tests are essential. I’m not implying these weren’t in place in any of the past erroneous identifications but as professionals, agencies, and an industry we are continually striving to advance and set better standards. There are several groups continually working on this. It’s unfortunate that these erroneous identifications happened but hopefully we are all learning a great deal from them.

Michele
michele.triplett@metrokc.gov

Shaheen wrote: I disagree with Guest's generalisation of subjectivity v objectivity....

Shaheen,

Do you agree or disagree with the following concept of ACE-V:

The analysis and comparison phases should be almost entirely objective, yet the evaluation phase will have a significant level of subjectivity?

Or how about the belief that one's ability to consistently come to the correct conclusion following a fingerprint comparison is subject to one having experience comparing fingerprint images.

Dear Guest:

A few points I would like to post.

"The analysis and comparison phases should be almost entirely objective"

Would that kind of be like 1 + almost 1 = 2 I do not think so.

"yet the evaluation phase will have a significant level of subjectivity?"
How can you have a methodology that parts of it are mostly objective, yet the another part of it is subjective. Should not a sound methodology be one or the other? Are we going to tell a defense attorney when asked if ACE-V is objective or subjective we are going to answer with "Well parts of it are mostly objective but the final conclusion is subjective". I don't think so.


"how about the belief that one's ability to consistently come to the correct conclusion......is subject to one having experience"

Well yes, coming to the correct conclusion about anything is subject to having experience. Doctors, Mechanics, Airplane pilots come to correct conclusions due to their experience and training. When you put someone in that mix that does not have the training and experience they are not going to perform well. HOWEVER, experience and training are not prerequesites for OBJECTIVITY.

I think when you compared someone with no training in fingerprints with someone with training and then tried to connect it to objectivity and subjectivity, that was the problem. Kinda like comparing an apple with a banana.

Thank You for you time.

Charles has elucidated the answer to this very well.

Whether a fingerprint comparison is subjective or objective has nothing to do with the ACE-V method, or your level of training. I believe your sister-in-law came to the correct conclusion (this is outside my area of expertise and so I can't tell) and she has no level of training.

You can be objective or subjective during the analysis, comparison, or evaluation steps. And just because you have experience doesn't mean that you will consistently come to the correct conclusion. That is why we have a verification step for even the most senior practitioners.

In direct relation to your question, I believe that by using the ACE-V model, the rules associated with the analysis and comparison phases are so clear-cut that it's not as easy for subjectivity to creep in there, or for it to go un-policed. In the evaluation step, the rules are not as clear and therefore it is easier for a practitioner to get carried away and allow subjectivity in. It is also not as easy to police.

HOWEVER, it is up to the individual practitioner to ensure objectivity in each step. So an entirely objective conclusion is not only possible but should be the result each time.

Cheers,
Shaheen

In direct relation to your question, I believe that by using the ACE-V model, the rules associated with the analysis and comparison phases are so clear-cut that it's not as easy for subjectivity to creep in there, or for it to go un-policed.

Shaheen,

Respectfully (as I have agreed with your last 99/100 posts, exaggeration I know) I strongly disagree with this statement. As a researcher, CLPE, trainer, course instructor, and avid student of this profession, I have been amazed at the variation that exists during ACE-V application. Variation in itself, does not imply subjectivity, but the existence of subjectivity may certainly produce variation. No I definitely cannot see how the ACE-V application is spelled out clearly.

Whether or not to call a feature a minutia, how much weight to place on it (all features equal? or some have more weight due to rarity), how clear is clear enough?, how much weight to place on a distorted region, how much TOLERANCE do we give, how much clarity is necessary to reliably use 3rd level features, etc. These are all subjective decisions made. These decisions are rarely documented (and in instances, not measurable), nor do we document the basis for reaching these A&C conclusions, that ultimately lead to E.

Subjectivity does not have to be a "dirty word". To me it simply means that some sort of decision will be based on criteria that are not standardized and uniform for EVERY examiner during the application. Clearly experience and training will be a part of this process. I am OK with this. This is an aspect of science. However, without documenting some of these decisions and the basis for this, I do not see how it can "be policed" (obviously we are talking about 'transparency' during the examination process). And this issue of thorough documentation, as Michelle has raised umpteem times (i.e. "show your work, not just your final answer"), seems to lead to various heated debates.

Just my thoughts on this. Otherwise: good discussion.

g.

Charles Parker wrote:
Would that kind of be like 1 + almost 1 = 2 I do not think so.

Brilliant

Dear g: I agree whole heartedly that Subjective is not a “dirty word”. There is so much involved that is based upon values in latent print analysis as you have pointed out.

Since college days I have always been stuck with the idea that if you have a premise that is subjective and a premise that is objective then the whole argument is subjective. This was reinforced last night in reading one of my books titled “Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric” 8th Edition that basically states that any conclusion that is itself part of a value judgment is by itself a value judgment (subjective). Since parts of Latent Print Analysis are based upon value judgments, then the whole process is a value judgment. This is the point I was trying to make in an earlier post.

However in reading further the authors of this book make a compelling argument (at least for me) on how the process could be totally objective. The following is quoted from the book, Chapter 8, page 178.

“It’s true, of course, that lots of philosophers would argue against the idea that value judgments are by their nature subjective. Some would say, for example, that beauty is in the object, not just in the eyes of the beholder, so that a person who doesn’t see the beauty in beautiful objects is like someone who is color-blind.”

So how does this relate to Latent Print Analysis? Well if an identification is made the analysis is there for anyone to see. If someone does not see the identification then that can be attributed to their level of knowledge training, and ability (color blind).

Let me put it a different way:

1. If you consider in latent print analysis the factors of knowledge, training, and ability then the process is objective.

2. If you do not consider knowledge, training, and ability as factors in latent print
analysis but the analysis and resultant conclusion should be viewed by anyone
with the same result then the process is subjective.

I do not believe the methodology can be part subjective and part objective. It needs to be one or the other. (How can you have an objective conclusion that is based upon facts when part of the premise or how you got there is value based [subjective] ).

I believe that is the crux of the argument on this posting. Some believe that knowledge, training and ability should be factors to be considered and some believe that they should not, but that the analysis should stand by itself.

Now the question is what factors do you consider to be part of the Analysis of Latent Prints?

I am still working this in to my world views, as the argument listed above is contrary to what I believed yesterday.

Your comments and rebuttal are welcome.

Charles,

Yes it does become murkier when "philosophy of science" is applied. And though I can see the point, especially the logic to "if you have subjective decisions along the way...ultimately it must lead to a subjective conclusion overall...", I will add something else simply to think about.

What about a ridge count? I would classify this (if the ridges are visible and no distortion) as an objective measurement during analysis. It of course is subject to measurement error, but seems objective to me. Determination of pattern type too, when all focal points for definition are present. Hmmm. To me it seems that it simply is a mix of objective measurements and interpreted data leading to a subjective opinion.

And yes, you hit that on the head. "Is training and experience" subjective? I would have to say yes (In my opinion).

Lastly, though RARELY discussed, I am beginning to see in some of the research and my own projects, that personality of the examiner may be a huge factor. I have seen, what I would (subjectively) determine to be nearly identical experts look at the same set of prints, see ALL the same features, but b/c one is a little more agressive and confident, the other more conservative in nature, reach respectively, conclusions of ident and inconclusive. Yet same training, experience, background, etc. And of couse they agreed objectively that "here is a feature", yet one would say "and that is enough to tell me it's a point" the other, not so sure.

Interesting. I don't think personality is discussed enough. But this in itself would make a fascinating study if you combined a "behavior psych profile test" compared to experts' results...

Something to consider for the Charlton's, Drors, Buseys, that are out there.

Have a Happy Turkey Day all (for the Americans actually, sorry for my Ameri-centrism).

g.

(glenn langenburg)

Charles Parker wrote: I believe that is the crux of the argument on this posting. Some believe that knowledge, training and ability should be factors to be considered and some believe that they should not, but that the analysis should stand by itself.

Charles Parker wrote: I think when you compared someone with no training in fingerprints with someone with training and then tried to connect it to objectivity and subjectivity, that was the problem. Kinda like comparing an apple with a banana.

Charles,

Will you please rectify the inconsistencies between these two statements.

I simply meant that someone with knowledge training and experience will have the ability to take data which is mostly objective (even this is not absolute) and come to a conclusion that is mostly reliable yet has a degree of subjectivity.

Someone who lacks that experience can take an objective look at the data and make no reliable conclusion.

The only way you can say that "it is all about the data" is to also ingnore what experience brings to the evaluation stage of ACE-V. I believe ingnoring this intrinsic aspect of our science is hypocracy.

When an agreed upon standard is applied to achieve a result, the conclusion can be said to be objective because the examiner is not using his own set of rules and guides to achieve his conclusion.

When an examiner comes to a result based upon aquired knowledge and experience, the conclusion can be catagorized as subjective since the experience and training (or the learning process and knowledge retention and interpretation) are unique to the individual.

When an examiner uses both aspects of evaluation, it can be said to be subojective (pronounced: soo bo jek tiv): a subjective conclusion based on objective criteria.

(okay, I made that last part up!)

The question then is: who sets the standard(s) by which an objective analysis can be made?

Sorry to jump in late again, I've been locked in the lab with no access to the outside world for 2 days!

Going back to Glenn's reply to my last post, I would like to further explain my meaning by first recounting my understanding of the steps involved in ACE (please correct me if I am mistaken here) as I think that some of our disagreement is actually a disagreement of what is involved in the "analysis" as opposed to "evaluation" stages of the model (thanks Charles for pointing that out).

ANALYSIS: Your inital appraisal of the fingerprint, detailing all the factors that are influencing the fingerprint. Deciding whether to continue on to the comparison*.

*I realise that this is a subjective action but it does not affect the comparison itself.

COMPARISON: Looking at the correlation of characteristics between the two fingerprints in a systematic way.

EVALUATION: Deciding the significance of each piece of information and formulating a conclusion.

Based on this definition, the analysis and comparison steps are universal - either it is distorted or it is not, either that is a bifurcation, or it is not. And in my opinion, it is easy enough to police that because it is straight forward. And yes, it is easier to police if you have taken notes.

Off the topic here, I should note that I am pro "showing your work", but I believe that there needs to be an easier method of doing that developed. This was nearly going to be the subject for my postdoctoral thesis, but the "standard fingerprint" project was identified as being more urgent. Maybe someone wants to fund some post-doctoral studies when I'm done here? I like to tackle the hard ones!

Okay, back to the topic. In the evaluation step, however, it is not as clear-cut and this is why it has been the subject of so much debate.

I agree that "subjective" is not a dirty word, and it can count for a lot in certain situations. I just don't believe that fingerprint comparisons have to have a subjective element to it.

If you can explain what you based your conclusions on, then it is easily going to be an objective assessment. But that is not to say that two practitioners with opposite conclusions didn't both base their results on an objective assessment.

If we can take an example of an area of distortion and whether or not to count a minutia point as corresponding
Practitioner 1: "there was too much distortion in this area of the fingerprint for me to count this as a point of minutia"
Practitioner 2: "there was distortion in this area of the fingerprint, but the availability of continuous ridge flow and absence of artefacts in this area allow me to conclude that the minutia point corresponds to the inked print"

To me, both are objective assessments. It's not subjective just because two people can have a different idea about what the data tells them. The problem arises when neither can say what it was about the data that led them to that conclusion, or they say "ask my credentials".

I think Glenn is probably right and this is more to do with conservativism.

I just don't think it's about objectivity (at this stage - maybe you can convince me?)

Cheers,
Shaheen