CLPEX Chat Board

Ha! Like we don't already have more than enough omniscient contributors.

Just thought I would pass on some further thoughts on the ‘divine guidance’ theme as we have one of our most respected legal authorities urging our courts to take biblical teachings into account when administering justice.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home ... -1.1048316

While I believe that one’s religion or lack of it should be immaterial to the scientist’s task and everyone should be respected in their faith we cannot avoid the reality that faith is one of the cognitive influences referred to by Itiel Dror in his research into the information processing involved in perception, judgment and decision making.

‘In 1880, William James famously defined attention as taking possession by the mind of one out of several simultaneously possible objects or train of thoughts. The modern study of attention continues to work within this broad definition. It is generally accepted that an individual is only aware of a small fraction of the information provided to the brain by the sensory systems.

Attention is the name given to the process which governs which material enters awareness and which does not. The present article focuses on how cognitive factors—goals and expectations of an observer—influence visual attention.

Whether a given stimulus is attended depends both on its inherent salience and the state of the observer.’
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~lupyan/lupyan ... ention.pdf

While we should perhaps not worry too much about the need for divine or any other form of guidance in identifying fingerprints we surely should accept that faith or lack of it (not necessarily religious) of some description is a moving force in all our lives and as such must come into play when we are processing information.

First, I agree, bad idea, another knee jerk decision and putting the cart before the horse. There is no numeric model to follow at this point so why put it in to any requirements. Secondly, this now shows up after all the half truths / unsupported stuff from the different anti-fingerprint folks have put forth talking of “systems” to make a comparison conclusion more scientific / DNA like. (Be sure not to point out the recent work done by the New Scientist DNA Fingerprinting Techniques’ Can Sometimes Give Wrong Results’) I showed that to one of our DNA people and I thought the top of their head was going to come off. But let’s get back to one of the real issues.

OK, since we are talking numbers, the procedure to vote is fundamentally flawed and here is why.

7000 + Members belong to the IAI

About 900 Attendees (not necessarily members) were able or willing to go to the IAI Spokane, WA meeting.

About 300 Attendees voting IAI members were able or willing, to go attend the business meeting. (Not all 300 voted for the
change but I used 300 anyway)

Less than 4.28 % Of the IAI membership made the decision for 7000 + Members that are now required to follow the vote / decision(s).

Does anyone or everyone else see a problem with current voting system?

Solution: Hold a vote on all issues, post them all on the IAI site before any meetings using the individual member numbers to validate each vote and tally them up. To further secure the voting process, provide an additional number or password so others can not use the member numbers without the individual being involved. Stop the minority making a decision for the majority, which has been going on long enough. The decisions affect all members so why not provide for all or at least the majority; to have the ability to vote on issues.

I agree with Mr. Grieve posting on Monday August 2, 2010 he brings up what a lot of us have been thinking for a long time.

Respectively submitted

Yes, the voting process is definitely flawed. A good example is the business meeting at the 2009 IAI conference in Tampa, Florida. As I remember it, Mark Beck presented a topic in regards to the resolution about 10 print examiners and ACE-V. When a vote was taken, I believe to many of us present that the NAY's may have been in the majority or at least close enough to require an actual count. But it was ruled that the AY's were in the majority and the resolution passed. The meeting was quickly moved along with myself and others sitting in disbelief that the resolution passed and continued to heated discussion afterwards. The resolutions and other issues requiring a vote of the membership should be put out on the IAI website giving the membership who are not fortunate enough to attend the conference an opportunity to vote. Budgets are tight. Agencies not supportive of professional development. Provide us the monetary support to attend a conference, or provide the opportunity to vote thru a delegate from each region based on the membership having a chance to view each issue prior to the meeting and issuing their vote, or provide an online voting method. Represent the entire membership, not just the elite special interest members.

Greg Eilers