This was a failure of what we'll call emotional forensics: the process of determining whether someone's reaction to a crisis is genuine.Emotional Forensics!? It's good this guy could come up with a scientific sounding term for people pretending that they're psychic, which is all this is. There may be some people who claim they can do things like that, and maybe they have some accuracy. But the fact is there is no scientific basis for this. I mean obviously there are people who are bad actors, but when you try to "tell" if people are behaving "as expected" during a traumatic event all you're really doing is comparing their reactions to stuff you've seen in movies, since that's mostly the only reference we could have.
It's not just an academic question. As The New Yorker's David Grann recounted in his recent examination of Cameron Todd Willingham, the man executed in Texas for an arson he almost certainly didn't commit, Willingham's reaction at the scene of the fire was alternately presented as evidence for and against him.It's kind of surprising that he would bring up Cameron Todd Willingham, since that's one of the most obvious failures of this kind of thinking. But he's actually using to advocate a fake "field" that's as bogus as the arson forensics used in the case, if not more-so.
« Older Jig Dolls... | Health Care debate summarized ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mjg123 at 6:48 PM on November 2, 2009 [1 favorite]