The Psychology of Judging. Answering a question from a Harvard Researcher.

Yes, it has all the details of human development, big history, and the threshold of human life, and all DSM, forensic psychology of behavior, and then the parts of Dark Triads, as it is a Dark Triad profession, plus it is a scientific job. Meant as a science of truth, and thus judging. It is a human, with a job. so, there is the science of the human in that job, and the science of that job and both have the science psychology, like management uses psychology research too, on how to manage best. So, there is the psychology of judging, how to do that best.

This can go broadly, MD/Psychologist/ Judge, able to understand the causes of crimes by physical illness, and mental illness, and understanding our ethics, so we do not decide for the patient, but we do solve the illness when we can, and are allowed to, which is patient-central when the patient wants to, and according to the human rights. One could then solve physical illness, and thus the crimes, and make better decisions on the real “punishment”, next steps so the patient is never a criminal again. Same for psychology without MD understanding, but then on mental health. But aware, when one is a psychologist/ judge it misses the MD/ psychology, to stop false diagnoses, so it needs all three to be more truthful. Psychology is a theory and misses absolute truths.

Also, in court, we are not allowed to share such personal information, but the knowledge would help us understand how people get into crimes, and how to really solve them.

We need to study on this, how people could use this precisely and in the best ways, so we have no more crimes and DSM in society, and thus a drop in the crime rate.

Until that moment one inspiration:

The Human Rights, and good example already creates such a low crime rate. They can do even more, even higher literate, like the USA K-12 system 90% population that high gymnasium level with an average GPA of 3, which also makes the crime rate drop. And the use of Honor Codes. Plus anyone can always improve, imagine if we have the software we need now in the courts, and have the entire system correct, and all jobs A-Z clean from crime. Plus, imagine if the jobs keep evolving, like an MD/ Psychologist/ Judge, etc, to really solve crimes and DSM.

So, we will keep going up. But just these two things already do this…


Stark, J. (24th of March, 2017) The humane prison system of Norway presented to staff at Attica Prison. Youtube. Retrieved from

We need to study this and it is a puzzle.

We can come to the answer, as it is just science, we must do the science.

And keep in mind:

  • Theories can not be laws, as they are no laws, no absolutes
  • Absolutes can be laws, but we are human, thus we always leave the option open for new truth, and the laws are proven, and everyone can do the same and will get the exact same answer
  • We must cite, always
  • Laws, we make together, with science. (We need software to know the truth, and it must be A-Z correct, leaving all theories open as own choices of “religion”, leaving the scientific laws with math formula as everyone studies and we can reproduce this, a jail is like a learning place to not be brainwashed, not human rights skipped, but to learn these lessons, as a society already had to bring that to you, and has the fault you went wrong because it was unsuccessful bringing these lessons normally to you. We leave open the chance you will with a better law, as science has inventions and is not knowing everything, always yet, although with laws we suggest we do. And actually must do ever rule something for someone, as we are not allowed to rule. Thus we need all the science precisely on when we punish and jail people, and why and how. This must be collected in software with the absolute truth and predicted outcome, which must be evidence-based too. And we must have the database to back this up, also must be checked on faults in science, and frauds, etc. All must have access to this knowledge. And this restricts us in any decision making. As the truth is told there in the studies. We do need lessons to search for absolutes, and without forced schooling, but for the ones willing to work and working. So, they understand how to search for better questions in science, so we keep finding the truth better. More precise.

Keep also in mind: Every new person on earth goes through the same questions, to life or to die?

And why should we be pro-life or sometimes pro-death, this is a person thinking, but we need the science of it, to really think and address the mind correctly. Evidence-based, scientific laws, always leaving options open for further study although the scientific laws are found as DNA could surprise us, so we have some space left.

With the understanding, we can puzzle out.

  • If one ever did, thus the Homo Sapiens can, somehow, some of them, or all of them.
  • And has the possibility to come to that. Some are kept from development. And development must be done without force. Free will is key to human rights and the true development of self.

Thus it is about capability.

  • It is math, do we have such a person? Can we have more of that? When does that happen? How often? Why?
  • We also, know people live within themselves, guessing, we need computers to overcome bias, every sense has a bias, we only detect with computers.


So, we depend on software to make the right decisions.

Our consciousness remains guessing and with inverse problems, living within ourselves and depending on the right input.

So, study this puzzle, and you find out the next step, of what type of software?

And how to protect from hackers. And how to then do the administrative role of the judge.

Also, because of human rights, there is never one judge deciding, we all do. Same as science.

We create (scientific) laws, and with that scientific process.

So, a judge only tells all citing sources. And needs to know the best sources it cites from, like all Ph.D.

It is a scientific, with scientific laws, math formulas, or else no answer of truth. It needs proof and truly the dept of finding the truth, and must show the evidence, correctly scientific, evidence-based, citing to the sources, as no-mind is God, nor knows all.

  • Humans can only compare to each other, and learn as much as they can. And need to cite sources, as all are taught and learned together.
  • A judge is a homo sapiens, with speech, art, handling of the same specie, with inverse problems, and thus bias, and a memory selective.
  • Plus a judge has all the same moments to an illness, and like anyone can have any illness, all illnesses, like any sportsman, can suddenly be injured. So, we need the human development sciences and understand the human inside a judge, it is no God.
  • Plus use of a criminal judge, does not make it legal, it remains a crime scene, and simply shows more users and criminals, and a network of crime, same as a fraud in a school, and fraud in science, does not make it legal.


Schauer, Frederick. “Is there a Psychology of Judging?” KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP07–049, October 2007.




Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

Situational Adaptability

Research Paper: A Statistical Analyses of differences in RoSelf-Esteem score between countries and…

Is Psychology REALLY a Science?


노쇠와 인지기능

Piece of Mind #1  : The Neuroscience of Habits

In terms of sales, what are the three most important things to know about psychology? #Q&A

The 2011 Study Behind the 2021 Coup

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Jiska Hachmer

Jiska Hachmer

More from Medium

To combat the sixth mass extinction,  we must rethink fundraising

Revenge Capitalism

Introducing LaDierdre Johnson, an LSC Emerging Leader

Hey, San Francisco, 20 years, today.