Does it mean objective analysis?  Or does it mean objective appraiser?

This is the main difference between the Traditional Appraisal Process (TAP) and Evidence Based Valuation (EBV)^©. The TAP is well defined in both USPAP (Appraisal Foundation) and in the Appraisal of Real Estate (Appraisal Institute):

[themify_quote]An appraiser must act competently and in a manner that is independent, impartial, and objective.  (2018-2019 USPAP, in the preamble and as the definition of “appraiser)[/themify_quote]

The Appraisal of Real Estate first references the above USPAP concept, then uses the word “objective” or “objectively” numerous times in the same meaning – the objectivity of the appraiser, not the work. The appraiser is to produce believable, credible results.  The appraiser is defined as being objective.  This sets up a key difference for EBV (Evidence Based Valuation)^©.

EBV^© is based on modern principles of data science.  The work methodology itself is objective.  There are well-accepted principles of data science methodology.  This is the science of data – rather than the belief of the appraiser.

An appraiser may have personal bias.  An appraisal may have modeling bias.  These are different.  The opinion of personal credibility is different from a test of measurable reliability!

EBV (Evidence Based Valuation)^© is based on the analysis itself, not the person.  EBV^© is built on the foundation of the science of data.  An objective analysis results in measurable reliability.  The goal is measurably objective results, rather than a subjectively believable opinion.

Objective results always lead to believability.  Believable credibility does not necessarily lead to objective results.  Consider these contrasting ways:

(TAP)      Here I am, trust me; or

(EBV^©)     Here are the facts and the logic.

TAP explains “credible” with the comment: “results require support, by relevant evidence and logic…”  The opinion comes first – then support with facts and logic.  This wording abets brain bias.  It sways the appraiser to the clients’ expectations, rather than objective analysis.

EBV^© puts analysis first:  here are the facts and logic, with this result.

The essence of data science is to put the analysis first.  “Let the data speak.”  When the goal of objective analysis is confused with the objectives and expectations of the client, we have a problem.

As I read the USPAP test of acceptability for work scope, it requires me, an appraiser, to do what the client expects, and do what everybody else does.  It doesn’t matter if it’s wrong.

Is this yet another case of “groupthink”?  Is this groupthink supported by our various standards?  Why is possible groupthink a problem for our country, the appraiser, and our professional organizations?  The U.S. Army CAC (Combined Arms Center) provides help.  The core of that curriculum “is based on applied critical thinking, fostering cultural empathy, self-awareness and reflection, and groupthink mitigation.

The premise of the program at the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies (UFMCS) is that people and organizations court failure in predictable ways, that they do so by degrees, almost imperceptibly, and that they do so according to their mindsets, biases, and experience, which are formed in large part by their own culture and context. The sources of these failures are simple, observable, and lamentably, often repeated. They are also preventable …

Is our objective to repeat the past, or learn from it?