News on robert hare

[Approaching Infinity]

I apologize for the rant, but I will post anyway. I think the concerns about the PCL-R are serious and well supported by science. The criminal justice system normalizes the PCL-R as a test for psychopathy, potentially abusing the innocent and excluding the successful psychopaths who probably support blurring as many lines as possible, when it comes to defining psychopathy.

I don't think you're seeing the full picture here. The PCL-R isn't used as some kind of "thought crime" test where potential criminals are identified and locked up. It's conducted on arrested criminals. The reason successful psychopaths get away with things is simply because they're successful. There are no procedures in effect to actually DO the tests on them. I think the potential for abuse would apply to any test, no matter how accurate it is. You just get some idiot or psycho to say, "Yeah, this guy scores a full 40", when he actually doesn't. But all the research I've read says that yes, the PCL-R has construct validity, interrater reliability, etc. I think that's why Hare was reluctant to let it into the courtrooms in the first place. As a research tool it's great, but it can easily be abused by unscrupulous individuals.

The PCL-R inhibits research into the nature of psychopathy as the criminal justice system and the PCL-R advocates insist criminality is a fundamental factor defining psychopathy. We must ask what you mean by criminal, when there are thousands of criminal statutes on the books, including smoking cigarettes as a minor.

I think this is based on a misunderstanding of how the PCL-R is administered. It's not like there is a criterion for "criminality" that is just left blank, to be filled in with anything from parking tickets to smoking as a teenager. There's a full training course, videos, examples, in depth criteria for every item on the checklist.

 

[Beau]

Factor 2
Socially deviant lifestyle

1. Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
2. Parasitic lifestyle
3. Poor behavioral control
4. Promiscuous sexual behavior
5. Lack of realistic, long-term goals
6. Impulsiveness
7. Irresponsibility
8. Juvenile delinquency
9. Early behavioral problems
10. Revocation of conditional release

Hi Bud,

I have a wonderful daughter who was charged with possession of cigarettes and possession of beer as a minor. Was she a juvenile delinquent? Was she irresponsible? Was she bored with high school? Was she impulsive? Did she have long range goals? The socially deviant lifestyle factors for psychopathy are absurd. This irresponsible test would label my daughter a psychopath. How many young people and poor people have socially deviant lifestyles?

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Your daughter's actions could hardly be called a lifestyle if she was only in trouble once or twice. If their are multiple instances of anti-social behavior, that's when you start to look at personality disorders as causative factors in decision-making. I don't think their is anyone out there who would conflate a few instances of teenage troublemaking with psychopathy. The problem is when such actions continue to occur once the individual has reached adulthood. That's when the above checklist becomes more useful in determining deviant lifestyles IMO.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Your daughter's actions could hardly be called a lifestyle if she was only in trouble once or twice. If their are multiple instances of anti-social behavior, that's when you start to look at personality disorders as causative factors in decision-making. I don't think their is anyone out there who would conflate a few instances of teenage troublemaking with psychopathy. The problem is when such actions continue to occur once the individual has reached adulthood. That's when the above checklist becomes more useful in determining deviant lifestyles IMO.

Yeah. And many psychopaths DO have ADHD, but researchers tend to be able to tell the difference. They know that psychopaths may tend to be impulsive, but not everyone with impulse-control problems is a psychopath (and some psychopaths may seem to have pretty good impulse control). Same with all the traits. Showing a couple instances of one or several does NOT mean a person will be diagnosed with psychopathy.

 

[Buddy]

Heimdallr and AI, I really, really appreciate ya'll's input to this thread and at this point I just have one question:

...many psychopaths DO have ADHD...

If this is true then it would explain some things that have been bugging me since I've been reading about both issues. I would appreciate it very much if you (or anyone) can point me to a link or two where this has been established in the orthodox literature? Thanks in advance.

 

[Mr. Premise]

I agree with Approaching Infinity here, especially after hearing Saturday's NPR piece on the test on Ira Glass's "This American Life." They started with a serious piece on the test, interviewed Hare and others then ended with a more humorous piece where they had someone administer the test to Ira Glass and his staff. They were a little apprehensive then they all voted on who they thought would score highest. A couple of the staff had juvenile delinquent pasts. It turned out that they all got zeros! Even though many had youthful transgressions of different kinds. What the psychologist administering the test explained is they look at how a person feels about their past behavior and psychopaths feel no remorse unlike normal people who gave their parents and teachers a hard time.

 

[go2]

AI, thank you for taking the time to address my questions and concerns regarding the PCL-R. Concerns regarding administration of the PCL-R are well addressed, however response to the more fundamental critique of the tautological construct of the PCL-R remain unsatisfying.

Psychopaths differ dramatically from nonpsychopaths in their performance of a variety of cognitive and affective tasks. Compared with normal individuals, for example, psychopaths are less able to process or use the deep semantic meanings of language and to appreciate the emotional significance of events or experiences. . . . It is worth noting that it is the interpersonal and affective components of psychopathy (as measured by PCL-R, Factor 1) that are most discriminating in these experiments. In sharp contrast, those with a diagnosis of ASPD [antisocial personality disorder] (in which interpersonal and affective traits play little role) differ little from those without ASPD in their processing of linguistic and emotional material. (Hare, 1996b, ¶

Experience indicates that the second problem researchers must avoid is a tautological construct validation process for psychopathy. To date, much of the research on psychopathy has focused on the predictive utility of the PCL measures for violent and other criminal behavior. This research represents a tautology rather than a validation scheme. It is tautological to argue that “the four-factor model has incremental utility over the three-factor model in predicting important external correlates of psychopathy” (Hare &Neumann, 2005, p. 59) when those external correlates (patient aggression, community violence, and instrumental violence) lie within the same domain as the criminal behavior the authors use to define the disorder.

Cervone and Shoda (1999) explained the tautology of inferring traits from behavior and then using traits to explain behavior. A trait cannot both embody the observed tendency and explain it (people commit crime because of their psychopathy, which includes criminal behavior): “A basic principle of scientific explanation is that a property . . . will not refer to other things with that very same property; the possession and functioning of that property is what is to be explained” (Cervone & Shoda, 1999, p. 31). Ellard (1998) made the point starkly: “Why has this man done these terrible things? Because he is a psychopath. And how do you know that he is a psychopath? Because he has done these terrible things” (p. 387).

The validation of a construct is never complete. Validation is important for reasons of theory and for reasons of practice. The field is in danger of falling into the trap of operationalism: conflating a fallible measure of psychopathy (PCL–R) with the construct of psychopathy. Psychopathy and criminal behaviour are distinct constructs. If we are to understand their relationships and, critically, whether they have a functional relationship, it is essential that these constructs are measured separately. This is particularly critical within the context of the DSPD project, where individuals are detained because of the assumption of a functional link between their personality disorder and the risk that they pose.

Now, I noticed the authoritarian reaction of Dr Robert Hare to academic criticism and I wish to include a few quotes concerning the dispute, which give context to evaluating the man and the work which he vigorously defends. Perhaps, more vigorously than called for by the academic circumstance.

Hare now says he is "upset colleagues are suggesting he squelched academic debate," Science writer John Tavris reports, as his "lawsuit threat was meant only to get the 'attention' of APA, Skeem, and Cooke and force changes to the article."

Actually, I think he's annoyed that more people are publicly pointing out that his PCL-R measures criminality. not psychopathy. Some of us have known that for a long time. He'd rather people didn't noptice that.

And of course Hare is someone who has never reacted well to criticism throughout his career. Indeed, he's found it difficult to tolerate any reaction from the rest of the mental health field with the exception of praise and idolatry.

It's sad, really, because the man did some good work, especially earlier in his career. The PCL-R is his great failure, in my opinion, and he is going to go to his grave denying that.

The letter from Hare’s lawyers apparently claimed that the he would:

“have no choice but to seek financial damages from your publication and from the authors of the article, as well as a public retraction of the article” if it was published. The letter claimed that Skeem and Cooke’s paper was “fraught with misrepresentations and other problems and a completely inaccurate summary of what amounts to [Hare's] life’s work” and “deliberately fabricated or altered quotes of Dr. Hare, and substantially altered the sense of what Dr. Hare said in his previous publications.”

It’s probably worth noting that the PCL-R is big business. At current prices, each assessor who uses the checklist needs their own copy of the manual ($123) and the rating booklet ($68.50) and each individual assessment requires an interview guide at $5 each and a scoring form at about $3 each.
However, to use the assessment, each person needs to attend a training workshop at about $350 per person and workshops can easily involve 100 people at a time. Additionally, there is a follow-up correspondence course, price unspecified.

It seems to me Dr. Robert Hare’s response to legitimate criticism calls into question his personality. Perhaps, his attempt to use the authority of legal process to silence academic criticism of his insertion of criminality into the definition of psychopathy indicates reason for critical scrutiny of the PCL-R. This deflection of psychopathy from a wider understanding of the psychopathic personality constructs surrounding low anxiety, lack of emotional affect, inability to love or form long term relationships etc. to inclusion of anti-social behavior factors in his measure of psychopathy has the effect of insulating successful psychopaths from scrutiny, as the criminal justice system, main stream media and academy focus their attention on criminal subset of psychopaths.

The focus on this criminal subset of psychopaths has captured public attention, and avoids the enormity of the problem of psychopathy. The PCL-R dogma effectively limits exploration and understanding of the wider implications of psychopathic personality disorder. I recall the C’s gave a very high number for the incidence of psychopathy. This hint is a factor in my agreement with those who are critical of the limited focus of the PCL-R. I think public understanding of psychopathy would be better served by a wider construct than the one defined by the PCL-R which has captured the attention of the public and government.

Certain theories have weightier real-world implications than others. When a capital case defendant is labeled a "psychopath" in court, it can literally mean the difference between life and death. Similarly, the pejorative label has serious consequences for someone

facing lifelong civil detention as a sexual predator. Thus, critical analysis of the reliability and validity of the underlying theory is essential. Researchers whose work lends itself to partisan forensic application should expect scrutiny.

Dr. Robert Hare’s rebuttal…..

… Poythress and Petrila and Hart failed to give an impartial and complete account of the situation. Their actions resulted in publication and circulation of a seriously biased account of events, and a commentary in the June 11 issue of Science, which noted that there are several sides to every issue…. I have no arguments with their thoughtful and commendable views about the nature of scientific debate and peer review, and about the potential fallout from threats of litigation…. I would welcome a formal investigation of the entire matter by an appropriately impartial body. I also would be willing to engage in open debate with the parties involved…. Contrary to the characterizations of others, I made extensive efforts to use the academic system in this case, but [the Skeem and Cooke] article went beyond the boundary of fair academic debate and criticism. The nature of the issue and the authors' refusal to correct their egregious statements gave me no reasonable alternative….

Would I do it again, given similar circumstances? Perhaps not, for like a whistle-blower the focus soon turns to the person who made the complaint and not on the issues and events that led to the complaint. Further, many in the scientific community believe that there are no grounds for litigation concerning academic works, no matter what the circumstances. I’ve learned from this experience that not all academics and scientists play by the accepted rules of science, and that legal redress for those claiming injustice is frowned upon by many as rocking the academic/scientific boat, however leaky it may be; a professional Catch-22 that serves to deny academics the legal rights enjoyed by the rest of the population.


Psychopathy brouhaha: It's a wrap (I hope!)
By Karen Franklin, Ph.D.
June 18, 2010

Today's Scientific American has more on the censorship controversy I've featured here in recent weeks. As regular readers know, the flap centers around allegations that psychopathy researcher Robert Hare tried to silence critics by threatening to sue. The controversial article was finally published this month in the American Psychological Association publication Psychological Assessment, but the fallout continues.

[…]

"I find this action to be completely inconsistent with the man I had [great] respect and affection for," says Stephen Hart of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, a collaborator and former student of Hare's. "People I speak with automatically think, 'Well, what's in that article that makes him so upset? What's he so afraid of?'

After reading all of the publicly available materials on the controversy, as well as numerous email posts on professional listservs, here's how I boil things down to the essence:

• The Skeem and Cooke article is an important scientific analysis of the theoretical construct of psychopathy, which is increasingly being used as a weapon in court with grave consequences for those it is deployed against.
• Not surprisingly, Robert Hare disagrees with Skeem and Cooke. Specifically, he does not agree with their claim that his Psychopathy Checklist or the underlying psychopathy construct centralizes criminality.
• Hare claims that Skeem and Cooke distorted his work. In a written response, he gives three examples of alleged distortions. Presumably, since he was preparing his response for publication, he picked the best examples he could find to illustrate his complaint. Yet, these are nowhere near as egregious as I had imagined they would be, given his threat to sue.
• Hare accuses two well respected psychology-law leaders, Norm Poythress and John Petrila, of being biased and misinformed. But nothing in his response supports this. Poythress and Petrila, in their article in the International Journal of Forensic Mental Health that set this whole ball in motion, were careful not to take sides in the underlying scientific debate over psychopathy. Rather, they focused on the threat to academic freedom and science posed by threats to sue: "Academic freedom rests on the premise that advances in science can only occur if scholars are permitted to pursue free competition among ideas. This assumes that scholars have the liberty to do their work free from limitations imposed by political or religious pressure or by economic reprisals."
• Hare has claimed elsewhere that his "lawsuit threat was meant only to get the 'attention' of APA, Skeem, and Cooke and force changes to the article." In his essay, he expresses bafflement at the ensuing, lengthy delay in the article's publication. To claim that his threat to sue did not contribute to the lengthy delay is either disingenuous or naïve. Especially in the wake of other controversies, such as the Rind debacle in which the U.S. Congress blasted the APA's publication and peer review process, the Association is undoubtedly very gun-shy and reactive over lawsuit threats.
The bottom line:

After analyzing all sides of the issue, I find that the Skeem and Cooke article is an important and timely contribution to the field, and that threats to sue over such publications set a dangerous precedent. As Poythress and Petrila point out in their commentary, potential negative effects of defamation threats against scientific researchers include -- among other things -- that:
1. researchers avoid critical research out of fear of lawsuits,
2. academics avoid volunteering as peer reviewers, and
3. journal editors self-censor on controversial topics

Anyway, I am not an expert and appreciate all efforts to advance our understanding of psychopathy and its damage to human society. I have observed two diagnosed psychopaths over a multi year period in a Twelve Step Recovery Group. This limited observation hints at the necessity to understand psychopathy divorced from a criminal context. One of these individuals has a criminal history and the other does not, however there is the striking correlation of their lack of emotional response, self centered focus, and inability to grasp abstract or metaphoric language. They seem the prototype artificial intelligence. The self-other relationship capacity of our emotional centers is absent.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Heimdallr and AI, I really, really appreciate ya'll's input to this thread and at this point I just have one question:

...many psychopaths DO have ADHD...

If this is true then it would explain some things that have been bugging me since I've been reading about both issues. I would appreciate it very much if you (or anyone) can point me to a link or two where this has been established in the orthodox literature? Thanks in advance.

In his book, James Blair gives the following references:

Babinsky et al. 1999 ("Childhood conduct problems, hyperactivity-impulsivity, and inattention as predictors of adult criminal activity")
Barry et al. 2000 ("The importance of callous-unemotional traits for extending the concept of psychopathy to children")
Colledge and Blair 2001 ("Relationship between attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder and psychopathic tendencies in children")
Lynam 1996 ("Early identification of chronic offenders: who is the fledging psychopath?")

Looks like they all deal with psychopathy in youth, though. Not sure if there's anything else. Blair writes: "in our own work we find that over 75 percent of children with psychopathic tendencies also meet criteria for ADHD". He notes that amygdala dysfunction isn't found in "pure ADHD", but it is in psychopathy. He also thinks that it's the hyperactivity that psychopaths have, not so much the inattention.

 

[Buddy]

@A.I. Thank you very much.

Sounds similar to what Hartmann might have meant when he said:

[quote author=http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=21759.msg232922#msg232922]
The Executive Functions model tends to focus on post base-line variation in human response to environmental stimulation while ignoring important differences in how such stimulation may initially be experienced by the individual. We agree that after controlling for base-line differences between Hunters and Farmers, there may be important executive function differences among Hunters and among Farmers. Additionally, these "executive function" differences may turn out to be one among the many variables which help determine whether ADHD will produce an entrepreneurial success or a chronic criminal.[/quote]

 

[Renaissance]

AI, thank you for taking the time to address my questions and concerns regarding the PCL-R. Concerns regarding administration of the PCL-R are well addressed, however response to the more fundamental critique of the tautological construct of the PCL-R remain unsatisfying.

I think these criticisms are an oversimplification of the problem. It's not circular logic to identify some monkey of a species based on certain behavior and physical characteristics, and then develop a more in-depth knowledge of the animal based on previous studies of the species. I get the sense that it's those who are launching the criticisms about the PCL-R are the ones who might be missing the full picture about psychopathy, which would be ironic.

Now, I noticed the authoritarian reaction of Dr Robert Hare to academic criticism

There are people's opinions of how he's responded, but I didn't see anything that shows an authoritarian reaction. Given the general response of the so called 'scientific' community to his work, I could understand if he's annoyed.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Experience indicates that the second problem researchers must avoid is a tautological construct validation process for psychopathy. To date, much of the research on psychopathy has focused on the predictive utility of the PCL measures for violent and other criminal behavior. This research represents a tautology rather than a validation scheme. It is tautological to argue that “the four-factor model has incremental utility over the three-factor model in predicting important external correlates of psychopathy” (Hare &Neumann, 2005, p. 59) when those external correlates (patient aggression, community violence, and instrumental violence) lie within the same domain as the criminal behavior the authors use to define the disorder.

To be honest, I don't know enough about validity tests to comment. I think they probably do have a point here, though. I'd just add that only one item on the PCL-R specifically addresses criminality, and even then not specifically aggression or violence. Violence is highly CORRELATED with the diagnosis, particularly the factor 2 traits, but not directly measured, as far as I know. That said, I think that Skeem and Cooke (or others) should put their money where their mouth is and develop a test that is better than Hare's. That would settle the issue. ;) As it is, I still think that from what I've read the PCL-R does a good job separating out violent psychopaths from violent non-psychopaths. If any other test ends up outdoing the PCL-R, and is able to accurately assess psychopathy inside and outside of prisons, I'll be as happy to see the PCL-R go as anyone.

The validation of a construct is never complete. Validation is important for reasons of theory and for reasons of practice. The field is in danger of falling into the trap of operationalism: conflating a fallible measure of psychopathy (PCL–R) with the construct of psychopathy. Psychopathy and criminal behaviour are distinct constructs. If we are to understand their relationships and, critically, whether they have a functional relationship, it is essential that these constructs are measured separately. This is particularly critical within the context of the DSPD project, where individuals are detained because of the assumption of a functional link between their personality disorder and the risk that they pose.

I do agree with these points. There is definitely a danger of conflating the measure with the construct, or the PCL-R with psychopathy. But I don't think Hare and a lot of other researchers do this.

I also think Hare's response to the paper was too much, from my point of view. What I can't reconcile with the criticisms of him, however, is that he has been one of the very few psychopathy researchers to really try to get across the idea of successful psychopathy. Most other psychopathy researchers tend to ignore it or even suggest that it doesn't exist. They're too busy in their little research-bubble-world. But Hare's been instrumental (no pun intended) in developing measures besides the PCL-R to test for it, e.g. the PPI, PCL-SV and the B-scan. Actually, I just skimmed over the Salekin/Trobst/Krioukova paper on construct validity of psychopathy. Using a variety of measures (one of which Hare developed), they found 5% of their university (i.e. non-criminal) sample to be psychopathic.

As for the Cs' comment, at this point I think they were probably giving percentages according to Lobaczewski's definition of psychopathy, which includes various types (skirtoid, schizoid, essential, anankastic, asthenic, etc.). I could be wrong, but here's my reasoning. First of all, these were the figures Lobaczewski gave for his time and place:

6% total pathologicals (psycho- and characteropaths)
0.6% essential psychopaths (1/10 of all pathologicals)
0.7% schizoids (but up to 3% among Jews)
1.2 to 1.8% other psychopathies
2.9 to 3.5% characteropathies

He also wrote: "The quantitative and qualitative composition of this biopsychologically deficient fraction of the population certainly varies in time and space on our planet. This may be represented by a single-digit percentage in some nations, in the teens in others."

If the 20% figure for the States is just for essential psychopaths, that's super scary. Assuming the same proportions makes for an impossible figure of total psychopaths (0.6% is to 3% as 20% is to 100%). So either the proportions are different (which is totally possible), or the figure applies to all psychopathies combined. Unfortunately, without accurate tests for all of them, and widespread studies, it'll be hard to verify any figures. There's also this interesting bit from Ponerology to consider: "Kretschmer was of the opinion that this anomaly was a biodynamic phenomenon caused by the crossing of two widely separated ethnic groups, which is frequent in that area of Europe. If that were the case, North America should be full of skirtoids, a hypothesis that deserves observation."

But if 20% is actually the figure for essential psychopaths, it's high time I removed my rose-tinted glasses! With 20-25% RWAs in the States, plus all the characteropathis and other psychopathies, that makes for a staggering figure. That's at least 50% of the US population fully supporting a full-blown pathocracy (compared to Lobaczewski's 18% in Poland)! Who knows, maybe the States really IS that crazy??

Anyway, I am not an expert and appreciate all efforts to advance our understanding of psychopathy and its damage to human society. I have observed two diagnosed psychopaths over a multi year period in a Twelve Step Recovery Group. This limited observation hints at the necessity to understand psychopathy divorced from a criminal context. One of these individuals has a criminal history and the other does not, however there is the striking correlation of their lack of emotional response, self centered focus, and inability to grasp abstract or metaphoric language. They seem the prototype artificial intelligence. The self-other relationship capacity of our emotional centers is absent.

Any idea what measure the non-criminal one was diagnosed with?

 

[go2]

Anyway, I am not an expert and appreciate all efforts to advance our understanding of psychopathy and its damage to human society. I have observed two diagnosed psychopaths over a multi year period in a Twelve Step Recovery Group. This limited observation hints at the necessity to understand psychopathy divorced from a criminal context. One of these individuals has a criminal history and the other does not, however there is the striking correlation of their lack of emotional response, self centered focus, and inability to grasp abstract or metaphoric language. They seem the prototype artificial intelligence. The self-other relationship capacity of our emotional centers is absent.

Any idea what measure the non-criminal one was diagnosed with?

Thank you again for discussing these questions on the validity and use of the PCL-R, Approaching Infinity. I asked the individual if he had ever been seen by a psychologist or a psychiatrist and what was their diagnosis. He informed he had and the psychologist told him he was a psychopath. That is the limit of my knowledge on his medical history and it is possible this individual has a criminal history prior to showing up here five years ago. It is interesting and indicative that both of the individuals show no concern about this devastating diagnosis, but seemed to be proud of the fact that they are psychopaths. They view this information as a badge of elite status in the world of pathology.

These types are a real problem for a recovery group that practices "love and tolerance" as its code. They seem to delight in creating drama and have an almost sexual arousal when involved in conflict. This makes them very destructive of group dynamics, even when they have become isolated by the more mature members. I personally think they should be banned by group conscious from attending. Some local groups have banned their presence, but other groups continue to tolerate these pathologicals until the group itself is abandoned by responsible people. It is an issue of concern at the higher levels of service in that community, but all proposed solutions are controversial as most new comers are often quite pathological and it takes a period of time(several years) to discover if new comers respond to recovery methods.

Mr. Premise, I just listened to NPR's This American Life portrait of Robert Dixon and found it very informative. Dr. Robert Hare does have long standing reservations about the use of the PCL-R beyond research. The Robert Dixon story, with his early life of delinquency and poverty is exactly the sort of error I fear is possible with one's antisocial history factored into the diagnosis of psychopathy. The PCL-R is being administered by untrained individuals in the prison industry, resulting in a wide range of scores, as the PCL-R is a subjective measure of psychopathy. I think the tests measuring lack of response to emotional content etc. are a more likely area of research than anti social history. The PCL-R is an excellent measure of criminal recidivism, but I remain unconvinced that it measures psychopathy.

Edit: FWIW-I find it difficult to imagine a normal human being with a little self knowledge and a general awareness of psychopathy would be deceived for long by a psychopath. I notice that it is those who are most psychologically damaged who are prey to these psychopaths. They seem blind to the obvious(to me) emotional defects of these individuals, at least within my limited experience. However, it is easy to project our own emotional life onto the individual who has none, if we do not closely observe our own and others behavior.

 

[Mr. Premise]

I agree with you go2, especially about the Robert Dixon story. Also the data an how the test is used by prosecutors is disturbing. So, like AI said, a lot depends on the skill and understanding of the person giving the test, which should be considered a flaw in the test design.

 

[Buddy]

I agree with you go2, especially about the Robert Dixon story. Also the data an how the test is used by prosecutors is disturbing. So, like AI said, a lot depends on the skill and understanding of the person giving the test, which should be considered a flaw in the test design.

I agree as well, and these general concerns are implicit in my own posts. Until go2 spelled out things a bit more clearly, I had little clue as to how to explain what was bothering me about all this. All I could seem to manage at the time was "well, Hare won't be around forever...", but at least I understand the subject much better since the dialog on this thread has reached this point. I want to expressly thank go2 for bringing that side of things out in the open. Much to think carefully about.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

FYI, Hare has a new paper up on his website dealing with a lot of these issues: http://hare.org/references/HareandNeumannARCP2008.pdf