For centuries, many professionals within the industry of Psychological Research have examined ways of furthering the field. Knowledge within psychology is plentiful; however, the desire to expand in the science has gone to none. Millennials of the time have made it a priority to fulfill an education further than their ascendants have. Therefore, graduating with a degree in mathematics, specifically actuarial mathematics, has emphasized the desire to expand the science of psychology. This paper will discuss how actuarial mathematics is applied in the field of human psychology. Though it is rare in psychological treatment, eliminating the Human Judge bias of professionals will lead to better results. When assessing this decision-making analysis, patients are sent to the right doctors and are given the correct care. When doing so, the companies involved with thrive and patients are able to feel contentment from expert care. The purity of mathematics will allow psychology to ditch the biases from the “human judge”, expand profit within medicinal industries, and allow patients to feel healthy and free in society.

            Clinical psychology has been a crucial aspect of society’s function for decades. In previous cases of history, many hierarchy examined low-class individuals and placed sentencing on innocent, yet mentally ill civilians. Through research and conscious, people came to the surface and introduced psychology as a science. In 1879, famous psychologist William Wundt proclaimed his studies through physical interaction and diagnosis (Meehl 1). Today, those who understand a reality of misunderstanding can now make sense of their world with the help of psychology’s trained professionals. Through medication and therapy, patients can live in a world where they feel free from the chemical imbalance in their brains. Of course, bliss is temporary in American society, and drugs are always abused. People are being diagnosed and prescribed for imbalances they claim are an actuality in their brain’s function. Worse enough, the “human judge” is the one to unknowingly prescribe regardless. “Today, patients often receive psychotropic medications without being evaluated by a mental health professional, according to a study last year by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)” (Smith 1). Being simply inexcusable, scientists have introduced their mathematics in a way that psychology only benefits. Using decision making statistics for probable causes of events discourages the extent of the human judgmental bias from multiple professionals in the field. 

            The idea of the “human judge” exemplifies psychologists in their entirety. The field of psychiatry judges its patients and resorts to a conclusion based on what this psychological observer has examined as humane opinions. This becomes a problem, of course, when multiple biases are formed strictly on their social judgement. Therefore, psychology today does not focus on the problem; the science reinforces its overdeveloped possibilities. Because there isn’t much numbers of science involved with humane interactions, results are plentiful but they are scattered. A simple solution says to keep psychiatric decision making simple (Meehl 1). Reinforcing mathematical probability in psychiatric evaluation will introduce to doctors the likelihood of a true imbalance: a patient’s biology. To keep matters simple: numbers will eliminate the Human Judge false bias, allowing patients to seek the right doctors strictly for the right causes. Although this method of assessment seems much more technical, it will allow help for those who actually need it and justice for those who just belong in the cells of society (the same people that use psychiatric imbalances as an excuse for their crimes). However, once the actuaries are done doing their calculating, they can relay the patients to the doctors of psychology who specialize in the research they’ve theorized. “Virtually any type of data is amenable to actuarial interpretation. For example, interview observations can be coded quantitatively (patient appears withdrawn: [1] yes [2] no)” (Dawes, 1989). If a patient has been misdiagnosed due to bias, they can’t be treated properly. By assessing them to a number of conditions psychology is aware of, doctors can then get patients the help they need and even discover more in the science realm of psycho-analytics.

            Performing decision-making analysis presents the likelihood of an event occurring. For psychological terms, picture a hospital. The ninth floor imprisons the mentally ill. On this floor, however, people come in all different shapes and sizes. Actuaries, therefore, examine patient characteristics with equations. Depending upon a patient’s history, weight, age, gender, encrypted social misfeasance like theft charge, etcetera, actuaries are able to predict whether or not a patient is actually mentally ill or not. “Actuarial assessments were always 17% more accurate than the multiple biases of clinicians” (Beck 1). Using a sample of a focus group (people relating in crimes committed) as an experiment, it was analyzed how actuarial assessment is used in real terms when determining a psychopathic patient’s future within society. The idea of recidivism, or a criminal repeating their crime, is the reason for the experimentation done. Whether or not psychopathic patients will commit a crime and end up back in jail is their area of focus, and their findings involved much connection between actuarial methods and strong correlations amongst certain individuals and groups with commonalities (L. K. Knoth 1). If there is high likelihood after performing such tests, the actuary can then send them to a specialist for their results. This will eventually lead to a positive split: patients in care and criminals in jail (without the excuse of a psychopathic disease). Getting treated by the right doctors will allow for the right medication to be prescribed. The drug issue in this realm of society will also soon slow because of these appropriately prescribed prescriptions. Companies can then charge much more for a psychologist’s services due to the accuracy of their findings. This idea of assessing actuarial mathematics is so insurance companies partnered with psychiatric services will invest. Investing in psychiatric services will expand the field as graduates pour into their careers long-term. Further, patients will be treated fairly with medical insurance due to medicinal practices not being abused. Medical insurance will be enforced this way exponentially in the right places, and because the field would be growing, it would then result in more money for brokers. Following the numbers moves society down a road of likely success in both drug related crime/issues, and patient happiness overall, while bringing money in its circulation.

Choosing the path numbers recommend, authors analyze bias from Paul Meehl, the actuarial psychologist whom brought the Human Judge, or the clinical psychologist bias into perspective. The bias, Meehl states, is portrayed through human judge minds to view patients as “unique” rather than part of a “class” in which actuarial assessments predict. The authors stand by their point of actuarial decision analysis being “underused in psychology.” In a perfect world, accredited authors with years in the field of psychology and mathematics will come together to formulate a view. This view, centralized by their bias of actuarial assessment efficiency, will introduce and explain what the human judge is and why society need not to rely so heavily on their findings. The false human judgment is eliminated when taking their ideas of actuarial methods into consideration for patient testing. Making decisions such as hospitalization, parole, or antipsychotic medication come with ease using risk assessment. Conclusions for such events therefore rest solely on “empirically established relations between the data and their conditions/events of interest”, and human judge biases can’t result in unreliable and inaccurate findings. However, due to the difference between clinical judgement and pure mathematics, there have been many critics arguing to keep actuarial assessment out of the humane judgement aspect of treatment. In other words, why bring math into the equation when psychotherapists do well assessing patient themselves? The point is, their practice is old and unreliable. Sympathizing with traditional methods of psychology will diminish desirable outcomes these assessments create for people who are passionate for actuarial experimentation and societal growth. Aside from “patients” abusing their practice and releasing it into the world, patients whom genuinely seek help aren’t treated fairly in today’s society and this needs change. Our society has expanded its knowledge enough to consider psychology as a science. Taking this into perspective, when the human judge bias is eliminated, the field expands, then allowing companies to thrive. More importantly, actuarial assessment relieves patients of their misery while allowing a clearer understanding of their everyday lives.

By using mathematical prediction, doctors can understand the probability of many reoccurring issues in the clinical field of medicine. It is predicted that the field will get a more efficient outcome with risk assessment in medicinal management (Hamilton). Allowing change will lead to a more efficient outcome in many realms of our world, but patient contentedness is highly likely. Actuarial assessment is proven to establish greater accuracy and reliance in the psychopathic realm of society. Obtaining to the Human Judge, relying on humane judgement alone does negatively impact the field of psychology and society as a whole. Authors throughout can foreshadow what the future could be like for the psychiatric field and society as a whole if things were changed within the practice. Following mathematical procedure, in mix with scientific methodology of clinical practioners, the field of psychology will be more efficient and patients will get the most out of their treatment if taking mathematical risk assessment is taken into action. Through assessment, it is possible to predict criminals and their likeliness of recidivism depending upon their attributes. Also, by establishing a position, a patient’s future in society can be well off through proper treatment. Decisions as to how long criminals may serve in jail, the intensity of a dose of psychopathic prescription on a patient, or the fairest outcome of hospitalization can all be determined using actuarial assessment. The “human judge,” therefore, exemplifies the reason for the field slowing, as it isn’t as efficient as following the results of the calculations. Establishing an efficient outcome may also lead to society’s betterment when certain individuals are treated for longer, if that is what the calculations entail.To present this information is beneficial for many reasons. For one, it allows the millennial generation to thrive in the field of psychology if they so desired all while still being able to pay off their indebtedness due to education expenditures. Secondly, it opens the door for new research within the field (something believed is needed to reassure treatment’s success). Lastly, and most importantly, society will be much safer and efficient in all aspects if certain individuals are analyzed not only by clinical professionals, but also by the numbers in which the universe determines each one’s destiny. When taking actuarial analysis into the equation of Psychological Research, the human judge bias is eliminated in assessing mental illness. When the human judge bias is eliminated, patients receive attentive care from the right specialists. Not only will patients live happily, but companies will thrive indefinitely. Relying on actuarial predictions will lead psychology’s feet in a better direction for future societal growth.  
