Everything needed is attached please follow instructions and use the Milestone Example to write the paper, thank you. I attached Milestone 6 from PSY 622 to use to build off that paper to create PSY 626 paper. InstructionsFor this assignment, look back at the work you have done so far on your milestones. For each point where you used scientific evidence to validate and support a comment, argument, or decision you made, evaluate it to be sure it meets the criteria for FRE 702.This milestone addresses Part VIII of the final project, as follows:Analyze the extent to which the information you are providing the court meets FRE 702. In other words, how can the court be sure your testimony is based on sufficient facts or data and is derived from reliable principles or methods? Be sure to justify your claims with specific research.For additional details, please refer to the Milestone Four Guidelines and Rubric document.Milestone FourMilestone Four is due by Sunday (midnight). For this assignment, look back at the work you have done so far on your milestones. For each point where you used scientific evidence to validate and support a comment, argument, or decision you made, evaluate it to be sure it meets the criteria for FRE 702. Be sure to model each section after the rubric, to ensure that you include each required content area.Discuss qualifications needed to testify (be sure to reference FRE 702 and Daubert standard in this section). This includes education, experience, and other relevant information (such as publications, presentations on a specific topic, certifications, etc.) needed to provide expert testimony in a court setting. This section does NOT include your “current” (fictitious) qualifications, as students are not qualified to provide expert testimony. You will discuss “personal” qualifications in the affidavit assignment.For testimony, you can expand on the following: what makes an expert witness an expert and what distinguishes expert witnesses from fact witnesses? Discuss the role of evidence-based science presented by experts, rather than presenting junk science, pseudoscience, or opinion when providing testimony. Then, make it personalized about how your (fictitious) credentials meet the standards. Cornell Law School and other resources are sufficient to cite, but also be sure to cite relevant credible (peer-reviewed) sources in addition to websites. Remember, peer-reviewed sources include published journal articles and/or edited textbooks.In the testimony section, be sure to discuss how the interventions chosen for this case meet FRE 702 standards (for example: batterer intervention programs, cognitive behavioral therapy, etc.) in addition to the proven efficacy of actuarial instruments and other tests used in your case (such as the CAPI and the TSCYC, which provide objective, empirical, and juridical value that probability theory has provided to both forensic practitioners in the field and the triers of fact they are seeking to help). Feel free to choose any theory that applies to testimony or your case, such as FRE 702 and the Cumulative Risk Model in addition to theories that pertain to the treatment recommendations (such as attachment theory, regulation theory, etc.).Remember, until now, your theories have been specific to risk assessment and psychological assessment, not to recommendations (interventions) or testimony. This is the space to provide that information. In your final paper, you will simply include a theories section and have relevant subheaders to identify each type of theories (risk, psychodiagnostic, interventions, and testimony). Be sure to use headers/subheaders in bold font to properly organize and identify each section of your paper.Federal Rules of Evidence APA CitationIn-text citation: (Fed. R. Evid. 702)Reference: Unif. Rules of Evidence (1974) § 702 note 24, 13E U.L.A. 114 (2011)As always, I enjoy hearing from my students and I appreciate the ability to help you if you have any questions or concerns – so feel free to reach out!Yours in Learning, Dr. HoltgraveAmicus briefs are legal documents filed in appellate court cases by non-litigants with a strong interest in the subject matter. The briefs advise the court of relevant, additional information or arguments that the court might wish to consider. Amicus briefs may argue in a particular direction of an outcome in a case or present guidance to the court on findings that may assist in making an informed decision. As a forensic consultant, you may be asked to present an argument and detail your evidence so that you are meeting Federal Rules of Evidence 702 (FRE 702) and making a clear and concise argument.In Phillipos v. United States (2017), the issue brought before the court is the admissibility of expert testimony on existing research addressing risk factors associated with false confessions. According to the American Psychological Association amicus brief (filed May 2017), the following facts are known: “On Oct. 28, 2014, Robel Phillipos was convicted on two counts of making false statements to federal authorities in the weeks following the Boston Marathon bombing. The bombing occurred on April 15, 2013. The statements related to Phillipos's possible participation, three days later, in the removal and disposal of a backpack thought to contain evidence related to the attack from the college dormitory room of one of the bombing suspects and a friend of the defendant's at college. Phillipos was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. Phillipos appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The appeal covered a number of asserted mistakes by the trial court, including the ruling that peremptorily denied the proffered expert testimony. The three-judge Court of Appeals panel affirmed the lower court ruling, specifically citing the language regarding ‘faux science’ to preclude admission of the expert testimony on false confession. Mr. Phillipos has now petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing including on the issue of exclusion of this testimony” (para. 3).This week, we will examine areas of psychology where the science is not settled, but where you (as a forensic consultant) may be asked to provide an opinion. It is not uncommon for courts to be asked to make decisions about topics where the science cannot provide a clear guide (“unsettled science”). Being a forensic consultant, you may be called on to a case that is controversial. These cases call for special attention when giving information or acting as an expert witness. One area in particular is that of polygraph testing (Borgida & Fiske, 2008). A polygraph test is a test used primarily in police investigations to determine if an individual is telling the truth about a question or not (Borgida & Fiske, 2008). It was originally created by Marston in 1917 and it “monitored the changes in blood pressure arising when a suspect denied wrongdoing” (Borgida & Fiske, 2008, p. 220).These tests are used frequently and people depend on them in many ways. But, there is little to no research that says that a polygraph test is valid. The controversy surrounding this type of test has gone back and forth for many years. If hired to provide testimony there are a few things that should happen prior to going on the stand. For example, in 1923, Frye v. United States utilized a polygraph test and subsequently determined that the information provided was not valid (Borgida & Fiske, 2008). From here, many people who administered tests had to adhere by the Frye standard to ensure that scientific evidence is in-fact…scientific. The similar arguments are made about the Daubert standard. To counter argue this claim, I would explain that no research conducted has actually considered a polygraph test to be invalid. A study conducted by the NRC had found that there was little research on the topic and that it may not be scientific, but they did not consider it invalid (Borgida & Fiske, 2008). FRE 702 requires that evidence used shows that the expert is competent, methods surrounding methods used to conclude are reliable, and that he testimony helps the person it is intended to help (Bassett, Leppert, & McCullers, 2016). The best way to abide by these specific rules set out by the FRE 702 standard is to explain how previous research has shown the test to be reliable for the purpose it is being used.References:American Psychological Association. (2017). Phillipos v. United States. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/phillipos.aspxBassett, R., Leppert, V., & McCullers, S. A. (2016). Evidence. Mercer Law review, 67(4), 907-928.Borgida, E., & Fiske, S. T. (2008). Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Conduct a poll of at least five people by asking the following questions. Evaluate each answer and decide whether you would consider it as hedonic or eudaimonic, and record it in the table. Finally, answer the question below the table in 200-350 words. What makes you happy?Would you say you are living “the good life?” Why or why not?If you could make any changes you wished that would make you happier, what would those be?