Experience with a particular type of problem set will no doubt increase efficiency in solving that type of problem whether on a practical or formal problem-solving level. Part of this efficiency is a general increase the speed at which problems can be solved. Professional athletes provide a simple example of this. Of all athletes in a particular sport, only a small fraction will be able to go professional. Their skill level is not only well above average, it is also consistently well above average. Their problem set, is their particular game in all its aspects. Each play within each game is unique, yet the cumulative practice on similar problem sets have a provided them with the skills and experience to quickly, accurately, and consistently solve the problem at hand. It does not mean that someone with lesser skill could not have done so, nor does it mean that there might be player with even better skills that could have been more accurate, faster, and more consistent. Yet in this example, the problem was sufficiently solved. Minimum sufficiency may be found everywhere, but the idea is to be better than that.
In a recent baseball game, Milwaukee vs Houston the pitcher intercepted a ground ball and while on the run intended to throw the ball to first. The problem set was to take the fielded ball and transfer it to the first baseman before the runner could advance to the base. A pitcher does a lot of ball throwing from a standing position, but this pitcher was on the run. His solution to maintain an accurate throw in time, was to reevaluate his potential accuracy within the time allowed, abort his overhand throw and convert to a more controllable underhand toss thus, successfully solving the problem. It seemed the pitcher did not trust his overhand throw accuracy while on the run this particular time. There were infinite solutions to this unique problem, and it was successfully solved. Yes, the problem was unique, as we have never had this exact arrangement of information before. It is very similar to tens of thousands of other scenarios in baseball, yet unique none-the-less. The difference is the professional is well practiced, accurate, and consistent problem solver of these types of problems. Other people, say proficient at automotive repair, may have missed the ground ball in the first place. If they did accomplish the problem set, it would be with a different efficiency and accuracy levels. Probabilistically speaking, their effort would unlikely be up to a professional level. Now try to get that ball pitcher to fix your car, and you will be walking to first!
Experience, including practice and continuing education allows us to learn the micro details that may be encountered in any given profession. Forensic latent fingerprint examiners use extensive experience to learn and understand their forensic comparison process. Each problem set is very similar to many others, yet in themselves unique. The application of their solution will also be unique as outlined in the principle of non-specificity where holistic information utilized in problem solving will be unique even though it may be familiar in general. The solution to the problem, is their hypotheses which often arrives as a moment of positive recognition (MPR) or ah ha epiphany. Yet this phase transition is just the tipping point. The problem is generally solved with minimum sufficiency or just what is needed to solve the problem. The examiner can continue with the recursive process gathering additional supporting information, essentially, formally transitioning to a professional level of research. The formal approach is to slow down for a methodical, objective, and critical approach of the process and its variability within a reasonably standardized format to increase accuracy overall. This format is a learned experience-based process that takes into consideration specific types of variability and influential noise. The goal is of course, accuracy and consistency well above the level of minimum sufficiency. If it took an automotive mechanic two months to solve the issue of each car, it could be said that he met the rule of minimum sufficiency yet would be out of business in just two months. A latent fingerprint examiner must also find a professional level of competency that is consistently well above minimum sufficiency yet allow for case completion on a timely and acceptable level.
The main issue is the phase transition from practical to formal problem solving. The forensic ACE-V methodology (Scientific Method) allows for a scientific level of detailed analysis, comparison, cross-comparisons, evaluation, and reevaluation combined with the ability to iterate the procedure until all differences have been eliminated or until some failure criterion is exceeded.(1) It also allows us to factor out known psychological phenomena thus minimizing its negative impacts. You can’t do that on the run.
Fundamentally it is not such a big leap to go from practical on the fly problem solving to detailed formal problem solving. Depending on the time constraints in solving a problem, one may have the option of trying multiple solutions based on past experience, inference, deduction, recursion, etc.… within the practical problem set. However, in some cases, the ability to made adjustments and correction “on the fly” may be extremely limited. This is where a high level of practice and a wide knowledge base prove very beneficial at improving the probability of finding a correct solution to a particular problem. One can imagine driving a car as a cascading set of problems, where all the smaller problem sets are a subset of the goal of moving the vehicle from point A to point B. Many of the subset problems phase from one challenge to the next. Thus, the next problem is directly related to the current problem, whereas the current micro problem’s outcome in linked with the next problem, etc... Our cognitive attention needed to solve this cascade of problem sets is highly variable. Some linked issues require only occasional minor adjusts to the vehicles steering wheel with no adjustments needed to brake or accelerate. Here you have cruise control with additional time to solve the problem of slowly drifting out of your lane. Now you are in very steep tight windy road…on the snow and ice at night with a heavy fog. Now, you have to focus most all your attention to the cascade of problems as gravity tries to accelerate you down the icy hill. Stress is high, and as the fog thickens, you lose your main reference point, the road! Vertigo is your brain’s answer to your failure to maintain minimum information input relevant the problem set. Problem solving needs a feed of information to be evaluated.
How does this chronological cascade of inter-related problem set parallel with friction skin comparison? Consider one of our most basic fingerprint comparison scenarios, an “ink exemplar print to ink print” comparison. The overarching problem set is to compare the two impressions and render a conclusion. Did they originate from one in the same source, or not? Within that set are inter-related sub-sets of problems to solve invariably linked, that consisting of small challenges of comparing the one ink impression, a bit smudged at the core, to the second which is an older 300ppi live-scan that was obviously printed when the inkjet printer was out of calibration! Analyze, compare, evaluate, re-evaluate, compare, re-compare, evaluate, re-evaluate, each a different subset, yet with an eye to the whole and in context of our knowledge base and applied skill. Is this process recursive like? Perhaps not in a strict mathematical sense, yet the repetition of process is a fundamental aspect found to different degrees at all cognitive levels. Recursive as defined by Marriam-Webster: “of, relating to, or constituting a procedure that can repeat itself indefinitely.” In the real world there would be practical limits even within the realm of infinity such as with infinite possibilities in holistic processes even if the final end state is death and taxes or of course, Individualization, Exclusion, or Inconclusive hypotheses. The word recursive is often used within the forensic sciences to describe the formal process of ACE-V. The word recursive, with a somewhat looser nonmathematical usage, is in common use and this should allow us to port it over to our forensic comparison, and we need it. Recursiveness smoothly bridges the gap between practical and formal cognitive problem sets. Our question should then be, how does the formal process differ, and what can we do to better understand it and fine tune it?
It is important that we improve our understanding of our cognitive process as applied to formal problem sets such as forensic comparisons. It should also help to understand the formal process in its relationship with more practical cognitive processes. In addition, it may help expose our process weaknesses where we tend to skim over information that truly warrants more analysis, comparison and re-comparison. Distortion is a prime example.
Craig A. Coppock
20111212
Reference:
1. A. Newell outlined this approach in his 1969 publication “Progress in operations research.” Referencing Means-End Analysis. / Hofstadter, Douglas (2000) Analogy as the Core of Cognition, The Best American Science Writing 2000, Ecco Press, New York.
Further related information can be found in the CLPE.com posts for “Circular reasoning vs Circular Process.”
No comments:
Post a Comment