The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

MLeake · July 9, 2013, 11:54 AM

Glenn, sorry, but you do seem to have an anti-Zimmerman bias in this thread. It's fine to say you are trained at analysis; you should not think you are the only one, even if you may be the only PhD in psychology. Others here (LEO, military, etc) may have you trumped in fields such as threat identification, hand to hand fighting, etc, and we may be able to analyze factors you may not take into account.

Additionally, you have commented several times on Zimmerman's honesty, or lack thereof, and personality issues. Considering that you have never interviewed Zimmerman, that seems a bit of a reach... but if you have objective facts to back your opinions and claims, you might offer those, rather than saying you have lost respect for those such as dakota.potts who dare to disagree with you.

Since you are a PhD in psychology, and since you do have a lot of background in analyzing court proceedings, perhaps you'd like to comment on the following areas:

1) The reliability of eyewitness testimony, as compared to forensic evidence. (Last I studied this area, eyewitnesses are very unreliable at identifying perpetrators, unless they know the people they are looking at; they also tend to miss details most of us would find obvious, from our armchairs.)

2) The reliability of any victim of a traumatic incident to have 100% accurate recall of major details, let alone minor details; related to:
a) the tendency of the brain to provide "details" the eye misses, in real time (see "blind spot" and other physiological factors that affect, among other professions, pilots - we have to study aviation physiology for myriad reasons, including blind spots);
b) the tendency of the brain to fill in blank spots in memory of traumatic events.

3) The tendency of ANY accused, or for that matter of most people engaged in any debate, to shade arguments in their favor, consciously or unconsciously.

You are the PhD, Glenn, so you of all people should not expect perfect, 100% accurate or honest testimony of anybody in the real world, nor expect it to be the yardstick by which all are judged.

If that were the yardstick, we'd all be doomed.

July 9, 2013, 11:54 AM	#144
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Glenn, sorry, but you do seem to have an anti-Zimmerman bias in this thread. It's fine to say you are trained at analysis; you should not think you are the only one, even if you may be the only PhD in psychology. Others here (LEO, military, etc) may have you trumped in fields such as threat identification, hand to hand fighting, etc, and we may be able to analyze factors you may not take into account. Additionally, you have commented several times on Zimmerman's honesty, or lack thereof, and personality issues. Considering that you have never interviewed Zimmerman, that seems a bit of a reach... but if you have objective facts to back your opinions and claims, you might offer those, rather than saying you have lost respect for those such as dakota.potts who dare to disagree with you. Since you are a PhD in psychology, and since you do have a lot of background in analyzing court proceedings, perhaps you'd like to comment on the following areas: 1) The reliability of eyewitness testimony, as compared to forensic evidence. (Last I studied this area, eyewitnesses are very unreliable at identifying perpetrators, unless they know the people they are looking at; they also tend to miss details most of us would find obvious, from our armchairs.) 2) The reliability of any victim of a traumatic incident to have 100% accurate recall of major details, let alone minor details; related to: a) the tendency of the brain to provide "details" the eye misses, in real time (see "blind spot" and other physiological factors that affect, among other professions, pilots - we have to study aviation physiology for myriad reasons, including blind spots); b) the tendency of the brain to fill in blank spots in memory of traumatic events. 3) The tendency of ANY accused, or for that matter of most people engaged in any debate, to shade arguments in their favor, consciously or unconsciously. You are the PhD, Glenn, so you of all people should not expect perfect, 100% accurate or honest testimony of anybody in the real world, nor expect it to be the yardstick by which all are judged. If that were the yardstick, we'd all be doomed.