On Marie Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:08:00 -0800, Helweg-Larsen wrote: >But what leads you to the conclusion that Professor Smith's letter of >recommendation of Ted Bundy was not based on personal observation of his actual >behavior? It sounds like it might have been a quite accurate description of >what the professor observed in the context of teaching Ted Bundy. How do we >know this was inaccurate or over confident? > >|"Mr.Bundy is undoubtedly one of the top undergraduate student's in our >|department. ... He is exceedingly bright. personable. highly motivated. >|and conscientious.... He has the capacity for hard work and because of >|his intellectual curiosity is a pleasure to interact with.... I >|recommend him to you without qualification:'
A few points: (1) In the original context of Keppel's presentation, I believe that Keppel's point was that Bundy was so good at impression management and lying that he could effectively develop a facade of being a "normal guy", so much so that even someone who is supposed to be good at evaluating human nature, a psychologist (I know, a faulty assumption at best) could be fooled. Even if Smith's descriptions were accurate, they only described the lies and misdirection that Bundy fed to him. NOTE: I would not be surprised if other professor(s) might have thought Bundy had something wrong with him or had something not right with him but we have no access to them. (2) I had specifically said the following: >>I have no doubt that Prof. Smith above >>thought he knew who and what Ted Bundy was but this is just another >>example of unjustified over-confidence in our judgment. Which, of course, >>Ted Bundy relied upon in order to get away with his murderous activities. I was not referring to Smith's description of Bundy's behavior but who he thought of Bundy as being which was dependent upon what Bundy would allow him to see. In other words, the illusion that Smith had of who Bundy was. Indeed, Bundy was probably very well behaved with his professors and classmates (except for the ones he hunted down). That Smith's failure to see the sadism, the murder lust, and necrophilia in Bundy's mind/heart can be ascribed to either Bundy's success at impression management or Smith's lack of critical ability to see who Bundy was. Knowing what is truly in a person's heart is hard and the truth sometimes comes too late. (3) Given what I know about the literature on decision-making and the writing of letters of reference, it would be shocking if the writer of a letter was not highly confident or over-confident in thinking that they are providing an accurate description of a person (in either positive or negative letters). In the parts of Smith's letter that we have, Smith does not hedge his statements. He does not say "I believe he is exceedingly bright. personable. highly motivated and conscientious" which would suggest that this statement of belief open to doubt instead of the direct assertion "He is exceedingly bright. personable. highly motivated. and conscientious" which can be read as being factual when it actually is an interpretation of Bundy's actions. Indeed, hedging in a letter of reference may indicate that the writer is harboring some doubts but is unwilling to express them directly. However, I concede the possibility that maybe Smith was not overconfident in his recommendation of Bundy. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=22019 or send a blank email to leave-22019-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
