It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

More details of the standard tests they -allegedly- did:




Mateen in 2007, as part of the G4S hiring screening process, underwent a standard psychological exam — named the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory — and a background check, its representatives said


source

do you know the said test?


BTW the same article says that a sheriff said the FBI tried to lure him into 'some kind of act'.
I openend another thread on it.


Starting to think, that we are currently in a psychological test, to find out how much crap we'd accept before we go completely haywire..




posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
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.


Reviewing all of her cases is an excellent idea! If he slipped through, who else did? In a profession where judgment is vital, she seemed to lack that. Perhaps it was just a written test, and he faked it. Either way, that system isn't working!!



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
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.


Sounds like you know more about the tests that I do. Yes, some can do a very good job of fooling people. Seem some shady types for whom it was hard to know just what was wrong. There was something, though, and it always came out. A job like that, a person needs some solid discernment. Do we know what sort of testing this group used?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
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...



Looks interesting. Not sure I have ever seen a test of that sort. Heck, not even sure I could imagine how one would try and fool that, or what it would show.



new topics

top topics
 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join