After 30 years of development, the view that violence, sexual or criminal risk can be predicted in most cases is not evidence-based

It sometimes feels as if the complexity of the world triggers two different responses. One group of people respond in awe and humility to the magnificent and threatening complexity of the world and its systems and then try and muddle through with the best that heuristics, logic and the scientific method can yield to them. This is disappointing because it involves frequent errors and failures. It has the advantage that it usually works out in the long run.

Others respond to the same complexity with the ancient Greek theatrical device - deus ex machina. An incomprehensible complexity is viewed as a problem to be solved. The fact that we do not understand the complexity is a mere goad to creating a plausible abstraction of reality. Having abstracted reality, we then passionately commit to that plausible explanation, stubbornly ignoring that it is indeed a mere abstraction and that its plausibility gives no inherent reason for it being true.

Managing the global climate, understanding the human mind, optimizing the economy - all are examples of the hubris inherent in those deterministic thinkers who abstract a deus ex machina solution to a complex system they do not understand and then are astonished when reality smacks them in the face. The advantage for the deus ex machina crowd is that they can feel comfortable in their conviction all the way up to the point when the whole edifice comes crashing down.

Brought to mind by The Theory of Mind Myth by Robert Burton.

Perhaps I’m dead wrong and my theoretical objections don’t do ToM justice. Maybe there is compelling daily life evidence for ToM’s central claim that we can know the beliefs, desires and intentions of another.

Let’s start with the easiest way to study ToM experimentally – lie detection. If we are good at mind-reading, surely we should be superb lie detectors. But a 2006 review in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology showed that volunteer subjects were barely better than chance at detecting when an actor was lying or telling the truth (54 per cent). A decade later, despite various efforts to improve lie-detection performance, the Monitor on Psychology reported that ‘people’s ability to detect lies is no more accurate than chance, or flipping a coin. This finding holds across all types of people – students, psychologists, judges, job interviewers and law-enforcement personnel.’

If we’re not so good at lie detection, perhaps we can do better at predicting violent behaviour. In 1984, The American Journal of Psychiatry reported that psychiatrists and psychologists were vastly overrated as predictors of violence. Even in the best of circumstances – with lengthy multidisciplinary evaluations of persons who had already manifested their violent proclivities on several occasions – psychiatrists and psychologists seemed to be wrong at least twice as often as they were right when they predicted violence. Nevertheless, the article suggested that new methodologies might improve prediction rates.

No such luck. Thirty years later, a review article in The British Medical Journal concluded that: ‘Even after 30 years of development, the view that violence, sexual or criminal risk can be predicted in most cases is not evidence-based.’ Despite being the co-developer of a widely used evaluation tool for violence risk-assessment, the psychologist Stephen D Hart at Simon Fraser University in Canada is equally pessimistic. ‘There is no instrument that is specifically useful or validated for identifying potential school shooters or mass murderers. There are many things in life where we have an inadequate evidence base, and this is one of them.’

Suicide prediction? Same story. According to two recent meta-analyses: ‘There has been no improvement in the accuracy of suicide risk-assessment over the last 40 years.’ The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has advised that ‘assessment tools and scales designed to give a crude indication of the level of risk of suicide’ should not be used.

All good theories are predictive. Sooner or later, they need supporting evidence. If experts cannot tell us who will be violent, or commit suicide, or is lying, isn’t it time for us to reconsider whether there are real and practical limits to our belief in ToM?

Burton doesn't have fixed answers but he has a lot of interesting questions, perspectives, experiences, and evidence which cuts both ways. If you want a deus ex machina utopian solution, he's not your man. If you want to enjoy the mystery of a complex world, you'll enjoy the read.