Psychologist who tested Mateen for security job did same for another killer

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So, we are left with a couple of options here.

Either she's grossly, criminally incompetent, or......

she was told to pass them.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So, we are left with a couple of options here.

Either she's grossly, criminally incompetent, or......

she was told to pass them.

.

Pondering that . . .

I don't know that it's necessarily THAT binary.

Maybe she was grossly incompetent without any criminal intent or awareness of any criminal implications. Criminal implies some awareness of the criminality and a decision to go forward toward that anyway.

I think she was more likely . . . clueless to the point of incompetence.

Even many well trained psychologists are deluded into thinking that their tests are testing something almost tangible and "REAL" . . . when actually, it is all probabilities and inferences.

And the testing norms have been derived from--if done well--from a representative sample of the general population. So, supposedly, the norms were arrived at via a solid sampling done well, with well designed procedures etc.

And, supposedly, the norms for criteria indicating a potential for violence were derived from folks who were demonstrably violent and took the same test the general population took. Then the norms for the violent group were compared with the norms for the general population group.

And WHEN a given individual's scores are SIGNIFICANTLY into the pattern of the norms for the violent group--THEN there is a rational, logical expectation that THAT person also has a potential for violence likely to be somewhat similar to those in the group of violent people who took the same test.

The trouble is:

NO PAPER AND PENCIL TEST IS 100% FOOL PROOF in terms of BEING UNfoolable. That is, bright psychopaths may easily psych out the test and answer it as a mild mannered Sonday School teacher with gardening pansies as a hobby.

AND

Even when a bright but violent person is not wholesale psyching the test outl--perhaps he's just answering it such that his scores are borderline in the direction of the violent pattern of answers.

What does the shrink do then? Typically, they will give the individual the benefit of the doubt. Particularly unless there are other extenuating circumstances or supportive other data alerting about the violence potential.

In this case, it SOUNDS LIKE the shrink did NOT do a thorough enough history. Part of that problem may be that most such histories are taken exclusively from the individual concerned. IN the case of guards etc., I do not think that is adequate.

It seems to me that some of that history needs to be derived from co-workers, teachers, classmates etc. i.e. a fairly thorough background check. THAT would have arrested this joker's efforts to work as a guard with guns.

Personally, I still would prefer to err on the side of extremely limited gun control. I think that the consequence of doing otherwise would be a lot worse than even a lot of horrendous incidents like Orlando. But that's not the topic of this thread.

I think that sensitizing family and friends to the hazards of a volatile personality potential is a better route to go than government straight jackets put on most citizens.

I think also that the psychological profession could do something similar to what my classmates did with barbers and hair dressers. They trained them in basic counseling techniques and screening skills to use in judging when to refer someone to professional counseling.

Bar tenders could be similarly trained. And, they could be trained in key signals in the eyes, facial expressions and other body language that are common precursors to anger expressions and violence.

I also think that bouncers at various places need to be better trained in watching for such Jihadi's and dealing with them decisively and successfully early on--REGARDLESS.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Certainly it is possible that she was told to pass them. I consider that the least likely but it is still plenty likely in this crazy era.

If she was an independent shrink, she would not have a boss to so order her. If she was at a counseling center and not the top shrink, she might have. However, that would have likely sent off huge alarms for someone in the helping profession and unless she was herself a dyed-in-the-wool globalist, I'm skeptical she'd have complied the 2nd time.

Some shrinks are pretty . . . conforming to the professional propaganda, PC etc. etc. etc. However, a lot are quite fiercely independent. Maybe she was a conformer. Maybe she didn't want to make waves. Maybe she was blind to a list of signs and signals in the test results. Maybe the test results were borderline and she choose to ignore the hazardous signs. Hard to say without more info.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The other option would be that the 'test' is one of these papers that just have to be filled out.

Much like the immigrations questionnaire à la:


- Do you plan to commit a crime (y/n)?
- Do you have more than 10'000 in cash on you?
- Have you ever been affiliated with a terrorist organisation?

Everyone with half a brain knows the answers they want to hear.


Would be interesting to know, what testing method they used.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So, we are left with a couple of options here.

Either she's grossly, criminally incompetent, or......

she was told to pass them.

.

Pondering that . . .

I don't know that it's necessarily THAT binary.

Maybe she was grossly incompetent without any criminal intent or awareness of any criminal implications. Criminal implies some awareness of the criminality and a decision to go forward toward that anyway.

I think she was more likely . . . clueless to the point of incompetence.

Even many well trained psychologists are deluded into thinking that their tests are testing something almost tangible and "REAL" . . . when actually, it is all probabilities and inferences. /quote]

True enough. IN many cases, some actually seem to believe that they can know things from tests that only offer possibilities.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
And the testing norms have been derived from--if done well--from a representative sample of the general population. So, supposedly, the norms were arrived at via a solid sampling done well, with well designed procedures etc.

And, supposedly, the norms for criteria indicating a potential for violence were derived from folks who were demonstrably violent and took the same test the general population took. Then the norms for the violent group were compared with the norms for the general population group.

And WHEN a given individual's scores are SIGNIFICANTLY into the pattern of the norms for the violent group--THEN there is a rational, logical expectation that THAT person also has a potential for violence likely to be somewhat similar to those in the group of violent people who took the same test.

Averages......so many times, professionals assume that an average means a norm, when that isn't the case at all!

originally posted by: BO XIAN
NO PAPER AND PENCIL TEST IS 100% FOOL PROOF in terms of BEING UNfoolable. That is, bright psychopaths may easily psych out the test and answer it as a mild mannered Sonday School teacher with gardening pansies as a hobby.

AND

Even when a bright but violent person is not wholesale psyching the test outl--perhaps he's just answering it such that his scores are borderline in the direction of the violent pattern of answers.

What does the shrink do then? Typically, they will give the individual the benefit of the doubt. Particularly unless there are other extenuating circumstances or supportive other data alerting about the violence potential.

In this case, it SOUNDS LIKE the shrink did NOT do a thorough enough history. Part of that problem may be that most such histories are taken exclusively from the individual concerned. IN the case of guards etc., I do not think that is adequate.

It seems to me that some of that history needs to be derived from co-workers, teachers, classmates etc. i.e. a fairly thorough background check. THAT would have arrested this joker's efforts to work as a guard with guns.

A real background check should always include talking to someone other than the person applying!! I hope that's not all this company did, considering all of the government contracts. Then, of course, we have the known fact that the government will make excuses for preferred groups.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Yes, it is, but you have to wonder. With all of the investigations and all of his behavior, including when he was in school, you'd think she could have picked up on something.

Plus, he's reported as being hostile to women, and this female shrink didn't even notice that?

originally posted by: svetlana84
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The other option would be that the 'test' is one of these papers that just have to be filled out.

Much like the immigrations questionnaire à la:


- Do you plan to commit a crime (y/n)?
- Do you have more than 10'000 in cash on you?
- Have you ever been affiliated with a terrorist organisation?

Everyone with half a brain knows the answers they want to hear.


Would be interesting to know, what testing method they used.

Well, that's certainly possible! Even someone who wasn't sure could be coached, and told what to say and not say.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: BO XIAN

Yes, it is, but you have to wonder. With all of the investigations and all of his behavior, including when he was in school, you'd think she could have picked up on something.

Plus, he's reported as being hostile to women, and this female shrink didn't even notice that?

Those are certainly worthy points.

She really sounds asleep at the switch or seriously incompetent, alright. She is at least a huge embarrassment to the profession. I was just trying to give the utter benefit of the doubt and put the best possible excuses out for her. LOL.

But personally, I think she really does need to have all her evaluations for such things thoroughly reviewed and checked closely by a team of colleagues--both men and women.

Her intuition, for one, is greatly lacking--not to mention her professional assessment skills if she didn't pick up his hostility to women--no matter how much he succeeded in masking it, imho.

Good point.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


That's one of the great hazards of the profession.

Things are complex. People are complex.

And some very bright psychopaths can snow even pretty good shrinks for quite a while. But a thorough enough background check; a thorough enough interview or series of interviews; plus a battery of suitable tests . . . WOULD HIGHLY LIKELY turn up at least some red flags on a character like this.

e.g. the MMPI is fairly hard to snow. There are a few others that do not work in predictable ways and are hard to snow--such as the George Kelly construct grid/role rep test. But I don't know where one could get it scored now that the U of Calgary has shut down their GRID 5 program.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I've just discovered that the George Kelly Construct Grid software that used to be at the U of Calgary is now available again though with another university.

I'd be willing to help the first 3-5 people fill out and score their own grids

AS AN ILLUSTRATION AND QUASI ENTERTAINMENT EXERCISE IF THEY WILL AFFIRM IT AS SUCH AND AT THEIR OWN RISK AS WELL AS AFFIRMING THAT THEY HAVE A LOCAL COUNSELOR THEY CAN TALK TO IF NEEDED.

I believe it COULD be a powerful tool to ferret out violence as a potential problem in a person though I am not aware of any research documenting that as a fact.

Anyway--FWIW, here's an example of a list of elements that could be sorted in such an exercise:
.
On the above one, you can actually run a grid. If you want to try it, I can tell you some good elements to sort--e.g.

1. IDEAL SELF
2. SPOUSE ON AVERAGE
3. CO-WORKER ON AVERAGE
4. BOSS AT WORST
5. MOTHER ON AVERAGE
6. CLOSEST SIBLING ON AVERAGE
7. MOST VIOLENT PERSON YOU KNOW OF WELL
8. BOSS AT BEST
9. SELF ON AVERAGE
10. BOSS ON AVERAGE
11. MOTHER AT BEST
12. CO-WORKER AT WORST
13. WORST CO-WORKER OR ASSOCIATE OR RELATIVE ON AVERAGE
14. BOSS AT BEST
15. SPOUSE AT BEST
16. MOTHER AT WORST
17. FAVORITE MOVIE CHARACTER OR HISTORIC FIGURE ON AVERAGE
18. DAD AT WORST
19. SPOUSE AT WORST
20. BEST HUMAN EXAMPLE FROM HISTORY OR PRESENT
21. LEAST VIOLENT PERSON YOU KNOW OF
22. DAD AT BEST

You could run it with those or suitable substitutes and related habits or traits to score each of those on. I prefer a range scoring of 1-7 as scoring high on each of the traits or habits for each person.

I could then give you a fairly robust evaluation of the resulting cluster chart or map.

I'm so thrilled to see that the software is available again.

Here's the website:

webgrid.uvic.ca...

Since Mateen was rather low level security: gatekeeper at the BP site was one of his jobs, the last job he had was in a retirement home. Both normally unarmed positions (maybe a pepperspray). I guess the tests are not that in depth.

I know several people working in similar fields, they told me the standard check is:

- police file on the guy (which has to be provided by the job candidate)
- phone call to his last employer

If this was the case here, the psychologist would not have had info from the ex wife nor the school, both did not press charges, so no police file.

originally posted by: svetlana84
Since Mateen was rather low level security: gatekeeper at the BP site was one of his jobs, the last job he had was in a retirement home. Both normally unarmed positions (maybe a pepperspray). I guess the tests are not that in depth.

I know several people working in similar fields, they told me the standard check is:

- police file on the guy (which has to be provided by the job candidate)
- phone call to his last employer

If this was the case here, the psychologist would not have had info from the ex wife nor the school, both did not press charges, so no police file.

That sounds very reasonable and reality based, to me.

Sounds like a rather shallow check, as well.

I wonder if that will change after this incident.

Thanks.

According to this link at the Daily Mail the Doctor said she did not do Mateens Evaluation, has never met him, and wasn't even living in Florida at the time. Clerical Error lists wrong Doctor

a reply to: misfit312

Wellllllllllllllll harumph.

THAT was a LOT of wasted speculations and conjecture!

Glad that was the case. I was not doing well with a colleague botching that so much twice.

a reply to: misfit312

WoW!

Now that s a plot twist!

That case gets stranger and more suspicious by the day..

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: misfit312

Wellllllllllllllll harumph.

THAT was a LOT of wasted speculations and conjecture!

Glad that was the case. I was not doing well with a colleague botching that so much twice.

Is it really possible for this to be clerical error.. for a doctor who left 2 years before this evaluation!? I was wondering would a signature be required on this? If hers was forged, well, I feel very sorry for her and what she is being dragged into...

a reply to: svetlana84

That's definitely what I've been thinking!

a reply to: misfit312

People are very complex.

Life is very complex.

People are very flawed.

ALLLLL KINDS of things are POSSIBLE. God only knows.

It seems like a topic ripe for some serious investigative detective work and reporting, to me.

originally posted by: misfit312
According to this link at the Daily Mail the Doctor said she did not do Mateens Evaluation, has never met him, and wasn't even living in Florida at the time. Clerical Error lists wrong Doctor

From the original source, Miami herald,

The company on Friday called the discrepancy a “clerical error” and said that Mateen was indeed evaluated, but by a different psychologist.

The global security firm — which does work in more than 100 countries — is locally based in Jupiter. Its operations have come under scrutiny a number of times over the years.

In the mid-2000s, G4S was accused of overbilling Miami-Dade County taxpayers of at least $3 million for security services that were not actually provided at Metrorail stations. But a criminal case against company employees fizzled in 2012, with charges being dropped against two high-level executives.

Source
G4S needs o be investigated. Oh, good luck with that. The fact that many people's tax dollars went into funding their the claimed "clerical errors" let alone the BS(link to killers).

There is a another thread now on the subject

G4S admits mental evaluation of Orlando killer listed wrong doctor and never took place