Article archive / October 1, 2015
Originally published: . Volume 6, No. 10. Source pages: 2.
Why Not Use Psychological Science Instead? by J. Nelson
From a group dynamics viewpoint, the continuing problems at the LSBEP show that somewhere over the last years, the group problem-solving functioning began to falter, and we see the results across several performance indicators. People are even complaining that they didn’t receive their licenses. I got two instead of one.
I’m a little sad that Greg Gormanous won’t be taking a crack at helping us, but I view his decision to pass on this challenge as a wise move for him. Disappointment about Greg leaving is replaced by my optimism about Ms. Jaime Monic returning, proof positive that there is a god.
Watching “hide the thimble” at the last board meeting was fascinating. I had gone there to cover what I thought was going to be a hearing, or part of one. Instead I got lots of group dynamics, including multiple executive sessions (secret talks), the atypical appearance of senior council, a Complaints Coordinator who did not appear altogether pleased, and a surprised defense team.
I’ve reported what happened the best I can, given the difficulty in describing a shell game. But the bottom line appears to be full of irony. In prosecuting others for their mistakes, the board may have made a mistake of its own. And, they seem to be trying to hide it. What are we to think?
The system problems are also clear in the overzealous investigations group, which looks like it exhibited motivated reasoning in regard to time limits and other things. While I went looking for the bad stuff (one will always find it in that condition) I was a little chilled to hear about intimidation, secrecy, isolation, and what seemed a little more similar to Zimbardo’s prison guard experiment, than a thoughtful, respectfully applied evaluation process with checks and balances.
Apparently the investigations process is having trouble in more places than just the psychology board. The medical board is in an overhaul mode. The issue may be symptomatic and more widespread. If so, applied psychology can help find the real problems and craft real solutions. I’m deeply concerned about what I see and hear that seems to be a lack of psychological insight and skills in the processes at the board.
We need to start fresh designing our own problem-solving processes with psychological science and its values. At a minimum, for complaints, we need more psychologists, not more criminal prosecutors. We need to separate the goals and methods of law enforcement, from those of remedial education, from those of customer service, and then match people by their temperament to the task. Validity evidence would be nice––some even believe it is essential.
Why not use psychological science to solve our problems?
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.