Article archive / January 2017
Originally published: . Volume 8, No. 1. Source pages: 2.
How Do You Know She’s a Witch? by Times publisher, J. Nelson
The recent news that the LSBEP prosecuting attorney, Mr. Raines, submitted invoices for $52,000 in December is a bit startling. He submitted charges for $66,597 in February. When he was hired, in late 2014, his contract was for $15,000 a year.
One hypothesis for these escalating legal fees at the board is that psychologists are out of control and it takes layers upon layers of attorneys to counteract the dark side of the psychology community.
But an alternative hypothesis is: It’s the LSBEP attorneys who are out of control.
The complaints and investigation group, the subcommittee Mr. Raines is in, works without direct supervision of the board. As far as I can tell, they conduct no validity research on their outcomes. There is some data available, however.
First, we know that we have a low base rate. Over seven years the total “disciplinary actions” is 9 people, for an average of 1.3 per year. In a population of around 750 psychologists, this is a rate of .001 to .002.
So, pick any psychologist at random and the chance is 99% that he or she is reasonably ethical––not likely to be disciplined.
Over these seven years the board conducted 136 “investigations,” or 19.4 per year. With this we have 1.3 “true” positives or test “hits,” and 18.1 false positives, or test “misses,” with the investigations screening method. For any psychologist being investigated, the chance is 93% that he/she is innocent of the misdemeanor violation that the board is screening for.
In Monty Python’s clip, “She’s a witch,” (uTube–not to be missed) we have the motivated villagers––“Burn her, she’s a witch! Burn her!”
“How do you know she’s a witch?” asks the King. “Because she looks like one,” the villagers shout. “They dressed me up as a witch,” the woman says. What other evidence do you have? “She turned me into a newt!” Eventually, the king and the villagers prove that yes, the woman is a witch, if witches burn, and wood burns, then wood floats and so does a duck. So, if she weighs the same as a duck, she’s a witch. (You’ve got to see it.)
The comedic view of motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, base rate neglect, and so on, isn’t so funny for someone going through this very human, and more common than we like to admit, process of motivated group-think.
If the LSBEP were conducting a witch-hunt, they are also looking for the very rare, almost non-existent single person out of 700 or so psychologists. They accept evidence from villagers, who are motivated. The investigators must somehow discriminate between possible witches and the non-witches, both who look the same, both who proclaim their innocence.
How do the investigators judge? ––They follow the APA ethics code (sacred writings), they follow policies and procedures (consult secret texts), they discuss matters in executive session (hold secret meetings). They are paid for all of this, of course.
If it were a witch-hunt, once the “investigators” believe they have rooted out a true witch, they try and convince that person to sign a document from the king (Consent Order) where she agrees to be punished. Even if the person is not guilty, this has some strong appeal, because the person can escape the vigor of the prosecutors and stop paying legal defense fees, which can be as much as $10,000 or $20,000 by this point.
But, there is a catch. By signing a Consent Order one gives up the rights to any further review.
A few poor souls decide to keep fighting––proclaiming their innocence. This can cost them well over $25,000 or even over $50,000, and also their mental health, since the stress is so profound. And if they lose, they are burned at the stake. And based on probabilities, maybe even innocent.
Gerd Gigerenzer, in his special issue of Psychological Science in the Public Interest, warns that screening procedures have two errors, false negatives and false positives. Both cause harm and both have costs and should be considered very, very carefully.
At the LSBEP, we have created conditions ripe for problems, and Mr. Raines’ fees are a symptom of a failing program.
Any program that hinges, not on scientific validity and sound, transparent methodology, but instead on the presence or absence of wisdom, knowledge, and integrity––in those applying that program, is very bad.
It’s time to get the attorneys out of the middle of everything, and get qualified psychologists to design a valid, evidence-based screening process that is cost-effective and that protects the public as well as the rights of licensees.
We are psychologists, this is what we do. It is our duty to apply our science so that programs do the most good and cause the least amount of harm.
Screen shot from Monty Python, on uTube, “She’s a witch!”
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.