Coral Rhedd

In the U.S. and many developed nations, people who are accused of crimes are viewed as innocent until proven guilty. I contend that while this is good courtroom procedure to assure that the innocent are not wrongly convicted, the general public has no such moral obligation. The power to judge and censure is an important social control. We should use it more often when outrageous behavior shreds the fabric of our communities.

I am wondering how people view pedophiles and child sexual abusers. Do you think they are insane? Do you think they are repeating a cycle of abuse? Could pedophilia simply be another sexual preference? Here is a link I found that is quite educational: http://www.darkness2light.org/faq/faqs_2.asp However, please understand that many of these people don't actually think they are doing something wrong. Some believe they are liberating children to express their sexual feelings. I think they are exploiting children. Because we do not know how to truly treat them, I think they should be identified early and isolated from the general population. This would mean a form of incarceration for offenders that are relatively young. What are your thoughts on who these people are and how we can identify and help them while protecting children?

Hellbender, they simply test skills and personality. Here is a site that explains and has some sample questions. http://www.shldirect.com/phasei/practicesection-phaseII/Practice-8.asp?login=482997&PWD=0641780E9F47

Just for fun -- and to break the tension a bit in this rather grim thread -- I thought you might enjoy seeing what a forensic artist thinks Michael Jackson would look like had he never had his surgeries. Nothing like he looks now! http://www.forartist.com/forensic/modification/mj/jackson.htm

No. And as a woman who tested something like 99% in spatial reasoning , I would certainly have had no objections to such a test when I was young, strong, and spry. If spatial reasoning can be shown to be a legitimate requirement for the job -- no problem. But the test must not be designed to eliminate women for instance. They cannot require you be able to dead lift 100 pounds if that is not truly a likely job task. If you only need to lift 50 pounds then 50 pounds it is. Absolutely. It not only can be taken into account; it should be. The requirements of the job obviously eliminate the blind person and the hypothetical Coral would have no case if she sued. I do get your gist. In fact, I recently worked with a client who revealed his epilepsy just as he was about to be promoted. His company instituted a drug test policy. He took the test without telling the tester that he was taking medication. Bad move. By law, legal medications are not supposed to be revealed to employers. But because he is so mistrustful of people and systems, he didn't mention his seizure medication. This meant that when his test results were reported, he looked like a druggie. Naturally his employer demanded some answers. He then revealed the epilepsy. Because his job required operating heavy equipment, he was put on a desk job -- but not the one he wanted. Like an A$$, he chose to make waves over some things. Bad feelings between him and his employer meant he was eventually eased out. Instead of the promotion he had hoped for and had a good chance of getting, he has now been without a job for five years. At the age of 50, his prospects are dim. Losing his job meant he spiraled downward into major depression, bankruptcy, and suicidal feelings. Now I am not suggesting he should have ever been operating heavy equipment in the first place. But had he gotten the promotion, he need never have operated heavy equipment again. Obviously, the thing that makes things work in the first place is finding a good job match. This is where testing and vocational counseling can really fill a positive need. This approach benefits employers and employees alike. However, to some extent, the hiring process will always be a bit of a game. For instance, if I say your resume should reflect only your strengths, this is good advice. The interviewer will probe for inconsistencies and weaknesses. This only makes sense. The employee wants the best possible employment package and the employer generally wants to exact the most work for the least amount of expenditure. The competing interests are built into the system. That said, if anyone asks me to take a test, I will want to know what it measures and why. It is my job to protect my interests.

Klanger, thank you for informing me. I had no idea of the costs in the UK. One of the great things about forums is that people from different countries and cultures can exchange viewpoints and facts about each other. The more we understand, the more likely we are to find solutions and, I hope, someday create a peaceful world where there is no want.

You misunderstand. The question about stealing is a tripwire. If you say you have never stolen, you call into question your veracity on the rest of the test. I am not saying these tests do not have their uses. However, employment should not depend upon the results of these tests alone. (Neither do I think drug tests should be administered for jobs in which sobriety is not a particular need -- like truck driver or medical doctor. But you won't find drug tests being performed upon medical doctors, will you? ) These psychometric tests are mostly useful when they are voluntary, their results are well explained to the test taker, and they are directly related to the prospective employment. Have a gander at the DSM. Most of us are crazy. I, for instance, am a wild-eyed civil libertarian.

Thanks Lance. It must.

Smoke once? Could just be someone smoking a cigarette. Smoke twice? There's fire. Guess he's lucky I'm not on the jury.

Hi klanger, I knew a woman on welfare who had schizophrenia and, because of hearing voices, she was unable to work. The had three teenaged sons, two of whom also had schizophrenia. She received $120 a month in food stamps to feed the four of them. One of the boys started stealing food from the grocery store. He wasn't trying to hide the fact that he was stealing; he would just walk in a pick up a loaf of bread. There was a method to his madness (no pun necessary) because when he got arrested they took him to jail and he got fed. But they never gave him his meds in jail so he would decomp and then they would have to send him to the mental hospital, which cost the state a ton of money. He would stabilize, they would let him out, and the whole cycle would start all over again. Just curious. Does anyone know what $120 is in pounds?

I don't think employers should be allowed to use these. They are invasive. Even in the Vocational Rehab field they can be used to deny people reasonable benefits. Some of these tests have trick questions to test your truthfulness. I always wondered how the person who never really did steal anything would be preceived.

Careful Red Alert. Have look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers The phrase "Chinese whispers" is likely no more racist than if I said that "the U.S. government's manipulation of intelligence sources and the CIA in order to build a case for the invasion of Iraq was not kosher" would be antisemitic. It is when we go too far that the idea of political correctness actually becomes silly.

Sugar is just a form of carbohydrate which foods both "good" and "bad" contain. Sugar is in orange juice, which is healthier eaten as the whole fruit rather than the juice. It is also in carrots which actually don't have such a high glycemic index. Beans are a form of carbohydate with some protein. Despite their rather obvious drawback, they are high in antioxidants. Fat carries flavor to the palate. Nuts are high in antioxidants but also high in calories. Extremely low fat diets have the problem of not being very palatable. That's why people often don't stick to them. I know a bit about fat. I am fat. But I have lost 35 pounds in the last year. I rarely eat out, I never go near fast food anymore. Probably one of the most evil things one can eat is a french fry. It has a high glycemic index. It is full of transfats. It does have potassium, but one can get that from better sources. Red Alert is right about this: It is expensive to eat nutritiously, consuming the whole foods and high quality oils that make a good diet. Add organic to the mix and prices are out of sight. It is time consuming to monitor what goes into your mouth and time consuming to research to find good information. There are lots of apparently conflicting advice and studies. The poor cannot afford to eat well. And they are generally not educated enough to make good choices. I should know. I live on the edge of poverty. My budget is strained to the max every month trying to eat in a way that is optimal for my health.

Thanks. I'll take ten bucks apiece.

Fast food will kill you. I was once job coaching at a MacDonald's and was expected to eat the food. Their salads are yucky. That left burgers. I gained 15 pounds in three weeks. If people are going to eat there they should toss the bun, the sauce and the ketchup. That leaves a burger with mystery ingredients (despite what they say), an anemic slice of tomato, and a limp piece of lettuce. I say you can eat cheaper, as healthily, and more conveniently at home. Simply toss some salad with some meat or soy, some other veggies, and a nice oil (olive or macadamia nut oil preferrably) and vinegar. Need a snack: Celery and a little peanut butter or lite cream cheese. IMO, people are fatter because they are eating foods that trigger their appetites. Doughnuts should be banned.