# Is criminal profiling basically cold reading? (with a special call out to Ianzin) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2011, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670 "2011-03-06T08:08:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/181 "2011-03-09T18:00:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As I mentioned before, it’s not possible to solve a crime using profiling. Profiling is an investigative tool that narrows down the pool of suspects in some way. > > For this reason, I asked you to define, precisely, what you meant by “solving.” > > If you mean that profiling identified a single suspect and produced the evidence to convict, then I agree with you: profiling never solved a single crime. > > But when I say “Profiling helps to solve crimes,” I mean that the use of the technique helpfully narrows the pool of suspects in some way. Then show us the best case of profiling you’ve got that does this. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/182 "2011-03-09T18:04:45Z")
> [@Airport Security Checks](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airport-security-checks/4442/25): > > Profiling is an investigative tool that narrows down the pool of suspects in some way. Cite that it ever actually does this in a statistically reliable way? > [@](#): > > If you mean that profiling identified a single suspect and produced the evidence to convict, then I agree with you: profiling never solved a single crime. Ok. > [@](#): > > But when I say “Profiling helps to solve crimes,” I mean that the use of the technique helpfully narrows the pool of suspects in some way. There is no scientific basis for this assumption, and no data to show that this works reliably. At best, you have some confirmation bias from time to time, but since profiling can’t truly rule anything out, it’s has no investigative utility. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/183 "2011-03-09T18:05:18Z")
> [@Quoted by Hentor](#): > > A review of the development of criminal profiling demonstrates that profiling has never been a scientific process. It is essentially based on a compendium of common sense intuitions and faulty theoretical assumptions, and in practice appears to consist of little more than educated guesses and wishful thinking. While it is very difficult to find cases where profiling made a critical contribution to an investigation, there exist a number of cases where a profile, combined with investigative and prosecutorial enthusiasm, derailed the investigation and even contributed to serious miscarriages of justice. As a result, police agencies should carefully consider whether the development of in-house profiling capability, or use of external consultants to provide such services, is justified. This is a good summary. I believe there ARE cases in which profiling made a contribution to the investigation, but I suppose one may differ about the criticality of that contribution. And I agree that there have been cases in which profiling led the investigation astray. But that can be said of any investigative technique. I mentioned earlier the usual practice of interviewing sex offenders in an area following a sex crime. Obviously this does not produce results 100% of the time. But is it a valid technique? Does it help more than it hurts? Those are the questions that profiling must answer. I think it’s… ill-advised… to claim it never works. Claiming that it works well enough to be relied on is a more uncertain claim. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/184 "2011-03-09T18:05:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What do you mean by “solve?” Be specific. Instrumental in bringing a conviction in a criminal case. If you can’t manage that simple feat, just present a profile, _period._ ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/185 "2011-03-09T18:07:45Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There is no scientific basis for this assumption, and no data to show that this works reliably. At best, you have some confirmation bias from time to time, but since profiling can’t truly rule anything out, it’s has no investigative utility. When a murder is discovered, one technique police would use is to ask about any enemies the victim had. This cannot truly rule anything out, but it’s still a valid investigative technique. It has “investigative utility.” True? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/186 "2011-03-09T18:07:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What do you mean by “solve?” Be specific. How about a case where profiling narrowed the pool enough to lead to a viable suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/187 "2011-03-09T18:08:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Instrumental in bringing a conviction in a criminal case. I agree that profiling alone has never been instrumental in bringing a conviction in a criminal case. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/188 "2011-03-09T18:09:45Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > How about a case where profiling narrowed the pool enough to lead to a viable suspect. A single viable suspect? No, I agree profiling has never done that. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/189 "2011-03-09T18:11:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When a murder is discovered, one technique police would use is to ask about any enemies the victim had. > > This cannot truly rule anything out, but it’s still a valid investigative technique. It has “investigative utility.” > > True? Is this an attempt to broaden the definition of “criminal profiling” to encompass standard police procedure? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/190 "2011-03-09T18:11:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When a murder is discovered, one technique police would use is to ask about any enemies the victim had. > > This cannot truly rule anything out, but it’s still a valid investigative technique. It has “investigative utility.” > > True? Not really since the technique doesn’t _seek_ to rule anything out but to rule something _in_. Profiling is supposed to narrow the pool. Asking about enemies is not an attempt to narrow the pool, but to examine the pool that already exists. This isn’t really analogous to profiling anyway, since profiling doesn’t even rise that level of investigative utility. It doesn’t highlight any suspects. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/191 "2011-03-09T18:16:23Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is this an attempt to broaden the definition of “criminal profiling” to encompass standard police procedure? Criminal profiling is _part_ of standard police procedure. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/192 "2011-03-09T18:18:59Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Not really since the technique doesn’t _seek_ to rule anything out but to rule something _in_. Profiling is supposed to narrow the pool. Asking about enemies is not an attempt to narrow the pool, but to examine the pool that already exists. > > This isn’t really analogous to profiling anyway, since profiling doesn’t even rise that level of investigative utility. It doesn’t highlight any suspects. I see you didn’t answer my question directly. YOU: Since profiling can’t truly rule anything out, it’s has no investigative utility. ME: Asking about enemies can’t rule anything out either. But it has investigative utility. YOU: Profiling doesn’t even highlight suspects. My questions: Does asking about enemies have any investigative utility? Yes or no? Does asking about enemies truly rule anything out? Yes or no? ---
**Author:** ![Skara\_Brae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f0a364/32.png) [@Skara\_Brae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skara_Brae)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/193 "2011-03-09T18:21:53Z")
Is victimology the same as criminal profiling? I hate to interject here, but I have a question. I was watching a special about the Atlanta Child Murders a few days ago, and I remember the case mentioned in Douglas’s book as well. There was huge fear that the murders were being committed by a white supremacist group. Douglas claimed he knew, based on the victims (adolescent black boys) that it was a black man doing the killings. Is that profiling? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/194 "2011-03-09T18:32:37Z")
For those who don’t know, have forgotten, or are trying to ignore, the specific “profiling” being discussed in this thread can be found in posts #1 and #5. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/195 "2011-03-09T19:00:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I see you didn’t answer my question directly. > > YOU: Since profiling can’t truly rule anything out, it’s has no investigative utility. > ME: Asking about enemies can’t rule anything out either. But it has investigative utility. > YOU: Profiling doesn’t even highlight suspects. > > My questions: > > Does asking about enemies have any investigative utility? Yes or no? > Does asking about enemies truly rule anything out? Yes or no? These are not analogous. If I say that a knife without a blade has no utility it is not a rebuttal to say that a fork also has no blade. We are talking about two different kinds of tools. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/196 "2011-03-09T19:01:54Z")
> [@Skara\_Brae](#): > > Is victimology the same as criminal profiling? > > I hate to interject here, but I have a question. I was watching a special about the Atlanta Child Murders a few days ago, and I remember the case mentioned in Douglas’s book as well. > > There was huge fear that the murders were being committed by a white supremacist group. Douglas claimed he knew, based on the victims (adolescent black boys) that it was a black man doing the killings. Is that profiling? Yes. Victimology is part of profiling. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/197 "2011-03-09T19:38:16Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > These are not analogous. If I say that a knife without a blade has no utility it is not a rebuttal to say that a fork also has no blade. We are talking about two different kinds of tools. Still didn’t answer the questions. Does asking about enemies have any investigative utility? Yes or no? Does asking about enemies truly rule anything out? Yes or no? Why are those questions relevant? Because you said, “Since profiling can’t truly rule anything out, it has no investigative utility.” This is a syllogism, or more accurately the contrapositive of a syllogism: If NOT B, THEN NOT A. Since profiling can’t rule anything out, it has no investigative utility. I can test this statement by exploring whether ruling something out is the key to investigative utility. In your example, it would be _IF_ a knife has no blade, it has no utility. That’s not the same as SINCE a knife has no blade, it has no utility. Again: Does asking about enemies have any investigative utility? Yes or no? Does asking about enemies truly rule anything out? Yes or no? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/198 "2011-03-09T19:43:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Still didn’t answer the questions. I’ve answered them twice now. > [@](#): > > Does asking about enemies have any investigative utility? Yes or no? Not especially, no. > [@](#): > > Does asking about enemies truly rule anything out? Yes or no? No, but it isn’t supposed to. That’s not the purpose of the tool. > [@](#): > > Why are those questions relevant? Because you said, “Since profiling can’t truly rule anything out, it has no investigative utility.” But that’s the only function profiling is supposed to have. If it’s not effectiove at the one function it’s supposed to have, then it has no utility. As I said, you are comparing knives with forks. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/199 "2011-03-09T19:44:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does asking about enemies have any investigative utility? Yes or no? Sometimes. Too vague to answer. > [@Bricker](#): > > Does asking about enemies truly rule anything out? Yes or no? Sometimes. Too vague to answer. Care to talk about whether the specific profiling that is described in posts #1 and #5 work? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670/200 "2011-03-09T19:45:28Z")
OK, good. I think we’ve reached a pretty clear demarcation of what each of us means by “investigative utility.” You claim that homicide investigators asking about a murder victim’s enemies has no particular investigative utility. I say it has a self-evident utility. I’m content to let the reading audience draw their conclusions from here, and agree to disagree. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-criminal-profiling-basically-cold-reading-with-a-special-call-out-to-ianzin/573670.md?page=11)