Sunday e-mail 10th November: How do I qualify as a criminal psychologist? How much does a criminal psychologist earn?

Plus a plot to kill a King

Academics too often bump up against life’s realities. Here is an example:

Perhaps you’ve hard of answerthepublic.com. I must admit, I hadn’t until just the other week, but I’m often the last one to hear about anything (usually because I’m making coffee at the time). If you too have a Substack and, like everyone else here, you’re trying to ‘build your audience’, perhaps you’d find it interesting to look at. Here’s what it does: it ‘listens into autocomplete data from search engines like Google then quickly cranks out every useful phrase and question people are asking around your keyword. It’s a goldmine of consumer insight you can use to create fresh, ultra-useful content, products and services. The kind your customers really want.’ What a good idea.

As an important service to my subscribers (that’s you!) I typed in the phrase ‘criminal psychology’. I wanted to see what questions people were asking, so I could write a few newsletters to answer them. I was curious to find out the results: Would people wonder how far we can trust eyewitnesses’ memory for colours, perhaps? Or what happens during a police interview? Might they be asking whether it’s sensible to intervene if they see a violent crime in progress or how to get away with a bank robbery?

The answers were no, no, no, and no. Here’s what people wanted to know: How much does a criminal psychologist earn? How do I become a criminal psychologist? And how hard is criminal psychology?

Was it really true that more people wanted to be criminal psychologists than actually wanted to learn criminal psychology? That’s what Google searches seemed to be telling me. (In retrospect, I realise I should have used more specific terms, like ‘police interview techniques’ or ‘bystander intervention’). I could write a newsletter, I suppose, on how to become a criminal psychologist or what a criminal psychologist can expect to earn…but I don’t feel it’s a very inspiring topic for a newsletter, not when there are so many other, fascinating ones to deal with. I mean, I’ve got newsletters on LSD and Batman lined up. Don’t they sound more interesting?

By no coincidence at all, this brings us to the subject-matter of this week’s newsletter. We’ll be looking at the extent to which criminal psychologists’ findings tell us about the concrete world out there – the world of real investigations into real crimes, culminating in real trials in real courts, in which real people’s actions have real, tangible consequences. Do we really know much about the real world, or are our findings limited to the laboratory, the library, the ivory tower? And how do we know we know?

What do I mean by this? After all, the questions may read like airy speculations. Well, imagine a psychologist is asked (as I once was) to comment on a police investigation in which one of the witnesses is convinced that she knows the identity of the culprit, because, although she did not see his face, she recognised his body shape. How far can the police trust this witness? Are people very good at recognising body shapes? Are body shapes really all that distinctive? And, if we do trust the witness, how likely is the defence attorney to tear her evidence to shreds?

The psychologist may be able to find a certain amount of relevant research, to be sure. But what if the investigating officers point out, as well they might, that all of it was done in laboratories in Psychology departments, using undergraduate students as participants? How confident can the psychologist be that the research really bears on the real-life case? And what could the psychologist do to overcome the difficulties?

All this and more on Wednesday, Crime & Psychology fan, when we go deep into the subject known as…Ecological Validity! Be there. All the cool kids will be.

Wednesday feels a long way off, I know. It’s a terrible challenge. Never fear – you can make the time pass more quickly simply by banging the blue buttons below!

It’s time for the bullet list! Well, you may know that 5^th November was a big day – unforgettable events occurred. I’m referring, of course, to the great British tradition of Bonfire Night. What do you need to know?

·       Attempting to kill King James I, Guido Fawkes, now known as Guy, tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605. He failed, but in the process became known as the last man to enter the Houses of Parliament with honest intentions. He, and his fellow plotters, intended to start an uprising but instead started a tradition that involves toffee apples and baked potatoes. He also managed to get his name associated in perpetuity with plots against the government.

·       The lead character in Alan Moore’s graphic novel, V for Vendetta, wears a mask fashioned to look like Guy Fawkes. He was fighting back against a totalitarian society, which Moore placed in 1990s Britain (about thirty years too early, some would say). It was used in the film of the book, too. ‘Who was he?’ one character asks Natalie Portman. ‘He was all of us,’ she replies.

·       V’s Guy Fawkes mask has since become a symbol of revolution. This is a clear case of life imitating – or even copying – art. The hacktivist group Anonymous wear the mask, for instance,  and so did lots of people who took part in the Occupy Wall Street movement.

·       Guido Fawkes was a pseudonym adopted by the blogger, Paul Staines. He was soon to be named one of the Most Influential Men in Britain (2011). His site, Guido Fawkes – Parliamentary Plots, News, Gossip and Tittle Tattle (order-order.com), is well known for publishing political information that many politicians would rather keep quiet.

·       Riots in Dundee, Scotland, on 5^th November 2022 led to the devolved assembly giving local councils powers to designate FCZs. And what are they? You may well be asking. The answer is – Firework Control Zones. Edinburgh City Council seem to be the only one to have implemented such Zones so far. Another tiny scrap of joy cordoned off by the bureaucrats. A quantity of fireworks and two cans of petrol were seized on Halloween. I know it sounds bad, but I bet the petrol was for lighting a bonfire.