Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > General Chat

General Chat This forum is for discussing anything that doesn't fit into another forum, or for discussing things that are off topic, or just for general venting.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-17-2013, 08:11 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad2bandm View Post
Interesting?

Maybe if one finds totally biased, hack writing to be interesting. Lol.
You have a point though. As we saw in the Jodi Arias case and with the "domestic violence" expert called by defense ("Alyce LaViolette") we can possibly see the underlying motivators why these "hacks" write what they write, say what they say and project all blame on a single gender. They profit quite significantly from their "research" and "work".

Jodi Arias Domestic Violence Expert Accused Of Cashing In On Murder By Abuse Victims | Radar Online

Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Domestic violence expert Alyce LaViolette, who is reportedly being paid $300 an hour to testify, is using the high-profile case to promote her book, It Could Happen To Anyone: Why Battered Women Stay, which not-so coincidentally is being republished in its third edition on April 23 — just in time to profit from the publicity of the trial.
The "domestic violence industry" is a very lucrative industry. You can sell books to emotionally distraught people that have "information" that is often void of any supporting research or evidence based medicine and because it is sold on Amazon.ca it must be true.

When people then go about applying the "theory" from these books is when it becomes dangerous.

I have personally seen affidavits before the court that have cut-and-pasted materials from the poorly researched (often not researched) books and other on-line materials. Total 100% plagiarism sold as "truth" as sworn to an affidavit. They don't even cite the material they just cut and paste it as their own words which is even more concerning.

The challenge the courts face is that they have to sort through all this nonsense being sold as "the truth".

I have even seen an affidavit where the person copied one of these author's examples from one of their "clients" and used it as "evidence". Suffice to say, when it was identified the justice was not impressed.

Scan to PDF, OCR and run it through a plagiarism checker to determine authenticity of the writing... Our universities and colleges do this and expel students... Why are our courts not caught up with this technology and expelling litigants from court rooms for doing this?

Good Luck!
Tayken
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-17-2013, 09:33 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

I've had to look into the background of "experts" who publish pages like that, and whom are often called as expert witnesses at trials. If I cite something it must be scholarly and peer reviewed and I have to be able to show that.

I can't speak for the author of that article, but clues I look for in the ones I research: They are published by "foundation" that they set up themselves; the foundation pays them a salary to be the head; they are paid as well for their papers; their papers cherry-pick and misrepresent data, don't consider any contridicary evidence, and draw sweeping generalized conclusions from limited examples. The foundations, of course, rely on charitable donations from special interests.

I see this pattern over and over, to the point it seems like there must be an instructional guide out there somewhere explaining how to set yourself up as a professional "expert."

In saying this, I am not denying that the actual issues exist. Of course there is abuse out there, assault, rape, trafficking, etc. What stands out is that there are people profiting from really bad research, who claim conclusions that can't possibly be supported by their numbers, and who end up cited over and over by other groups with a political objective, or called to the stand as expert witnesses at trial. Sometimes judges see through this, or they are taken apart by a good cross examination, but not often enough.
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-17-2013, 10:51 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
I've had to look into the background of "experts" who publish pages like that, and whom are often called as expert witnesses at trials. If I cite something it must be scholarly and peer reviewed and I have to be able to show that.
Excellent advice... But, what do you consider appropriate considerations for defining "peers"? It is easy with a paper published by a registered clinician (psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, ....) as their "peers" are easy to identify. How would one balance the writings of self acclaimed "experts" against their peers. (I know I may be nit-picking on the definition of "peers" but, it does cause complexity when cross examining "experts" at times.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
I can't speak for the author of that article, but clues I look for in the ones I research: They are published by "foundation" that they set up themselves; the foundation pays them a salary to be the head; they are paid as well for their papers; their papers cherry-pick and misrepresent data, don't consider any contridicary evidence, and draw sweeping generalized conclusions from limited examples. The foundations, of course, rely on charitable donations from special interests.
Really like this perspective. Never put how I review materials into such a formula. I take a similar approach but, fundamentally I apply the concept of "evidence based medicine" to the content of the publication. I consider the scope of the publishing organization but, will be integrating this approach to bring more clarity into my perspectives.

Evidence-based medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
I see this pattern over and over, to the point it seems like there must be an instructional guide out there somewhere explaining how to set yourself up as a professional "expert."
Well, we should ask "PAS Expert" I guess. I wonder the same. I think that the pattern does exist and people do exploit it for their own personal gain. It almost feels like they set themselves up as a MLM (Multi Layer Marketing) company at times. If you have enough people who "believe" your "product" is good and "the best" then, it must be true and everyone should buy your product.

I have been studying how these "experts" books are being distributed in different channels (e.g. shelters) and provided by other non-clinical "counsellors". There is a concerning trend that these non-clinical support staff are providing this information to people as "factual" and "proven" methodologies... Rather than recommending a referral to a qualified clinician in mental health.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
In saying this, I am not denying that the actual issues exist. Of course there is abuse out there, assault, rape, trafficking, etc. What stands out is that there are people profiting from really bad research, who claim conclusions that can't possibly be supported by their numbers, and who end up cited over and over by other groups with a political objective, or called to the stand as expert witnesses at trial. Sometimes judges see through this, or they are taken apart by a good cross examination, but not often enough.
I agree. This is very much the case of OCL "experts" and custody and access assessment "experts". That is why I appreciate the contributions made in jurisprudence by litigants (especially those that work very hard ) to do this and take that risk. Often, people are "afraid" of experts and to challenge them.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kids Activities GoDiegoGo Parenting Issues 18 03-09-2013 11:23 AM
Kids Sleeping elsewhere FB_ Parenting Issues 15 01-10-2013 07:12 PM
wanting to move kids mr.mom Divorce & Family Law 5 01-01-2013 01:48 PM
Slapping Kids in the Face Teddie Parenting Issues 25 11-22-2012 04:19 PM
Where Do I Go From Here? lorlaman Common Law Issues 9 08-08-2011 10:46 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:46 AM.